Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigûr
Are you talking about the "queer look" that Gandalf gives Bilbo in Chapter 5? I think that this may be a revision, but it doesn't change the fact that the material in Chapters 13 to 17 dealing with the Arkenstone does not appear to have been revised, which would show that Professor Tolkien wrote Bilbo's actions that way before he conceived of the Ring as being an evil influence. Maybe in hindsight the Ring could be hypothesised to have had a role, albeit one never stated as such by Professor Tolkien, but there was definitely a time in the published history of the text when it did not.
My point is that the Ring probably didn't influence Bilbo to treachery, or at least Professor Tolkien probably didn't mean it that way, because when he came up with that narrative he had not yet conceived of the Ring as a corruptive object which influenced people to do evil things.
Maybe if you treat the narrative as a consistent whole it could be considered, but I'm merely saying that from a certain point of view, external to the narrative, it doesn't seem like we're meant to think that the Ring influenced Bilbo in this way. If you were to read The Hobbit in isolation, for instance, the Ring's influence would not be evident.
EDIT: I was once able to find a page which systematically listed all of the revisions made between the first and later editions of The Hobbit but at present I can't find it...
EDIT 2: It's this page, but it only lists the revisions made to "Riddles in the Dark", which was after all the most substantial place where changes were made. There were other changes as well, but I'm fairly certain the idea of Bilbo giving the Arkenstone to Bard was present from the beginning. I believe the revisions outside of "Riddles in the Dark" were fairly minor. |
No.
“For Isildur would not surrender it to Elrond and Círdan who stood by. They counselled him to cast it into the fire of Orodruin night at hand... But Isildur refused this counsel, saying: 'This I will have as weregild for my father's death, and my brother's. Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?' And the Ring that he held seemed to him exceedingly fair to look on; and he would not suffer it to be destroyed.” I don't need to quote citation, I hope.
So - spelling it out, Isildur succumbing immediately. But of course, I can already hear the objection "the Ring was still near Orodruin and recently on Master's hand, and more powerful..." yada yada.
So, then Sméagol's "...birthday present..." and two Holbytlan battling to the death after Deagol finds the Ring.
And, I won't patronise the reader by digging out the quotes from Gandalf, warning that The Ring exerts its influence, immediately upon the user. The Shadow of the Past leaves its imprint. (And no, there's no real indication that the Ring was to be an artefact of lesser perversion because the Hobbit "was published first". Come off it. Prof John had Sauron's big vengeance plan ready to rock for aeons). Nor the dire warning Gandalf implied, when Bilbo spared Gollum, and the comments about "...pity..." staying Bilbo's hand, which perhaps explained the slower perversion of Bilbo.
Then there was that Bilbo wore the thing for a very long time in Thranduil's halls.
Is that not enough, yet for you Zigur? Or have I somehow missed something in the mythology?