New evidence for the Arkenstone-Silmaril case

[FlimFlamSam]

Mellon spoke: [But perhaps I just really want them to be one and the same.....it makes the whole adventure more magical somehow!]
An excellent and the best written essay I have seen on this topic can be found in The History of the Hobbit: Part 2 Return to Bag-End pgs. 603-609.

Needless to say, also reading the development of The Hobbit itself.
If you get a chance to ever pick up these two books (Part 1 entitled Mr. Baggins) it is a worthy purchase.

As an aside, it is also one of the few places where the original text of Riddles in the Dark pre-Lord of the Rings can be found as there were apparently only about 17,000 copies made collectively in the UK and US before it was revised to conform with the Lord of the Rings; along with essays on Gollum himself, the riddles, the Ring, and historic influences regarding magical invisibility in this chapter. The books have essays on relevant topics for each chapter, including the aforementioned Arkenstone/Silmaril/Gem-necklace of Girion/Nauglamir essay.

[Galin]

Rateliff does write a good article on this, but I don't think he uncovered any text or marginal note, for example, that shows Tolkien even questioning whether the Arkenstone might be a Silmaril (not that anyone said he did in the first place, or that Tolkien necessarily needed to note it on paper). John Rateliff notes the sense of finality (that the Silmarils were lost) in the 1926 Sketch of the Mythology and various versions of the 1930 Quenta Noldorinwa...

'Despite the sense of finality in the passages just quoted, Tolkien had in fact changed his mind four times in the previous fifteen years about the holy jewel's fate...' J. Rateliff

I think that's a rather notable 'despite,' because the Sketch and the 1930 Qenta are still relatively close in date to the writing of The Hobbit.

'Just as the sword of Turgon King of Gondolin had somehow survived... it is thus more than possible that Tolkien was playing in The Hobbit with the idea of having one of Feanor's wondrous jewels reappear,...' J. Rateliff

But 'more than possible' isn't saying much in my opinion. No doubt Tolkien changed his mind enough times, so the implication here seems to be that Tolkien might change his mind about this finality once again. OK, possible, but is there textual evidence to show that he did for his new story? Another implication appears to be that since an item like Turgon's sword survived, maybe one of the Silmarils might too. Well again, that only goes so far I think.

A further element of the evidence appears to be the word arkenstone -- but as Rateliff himself notes, this word fits for 'precious or holy jewel', and is found in Beowulf and The Christ, for examples in Old English. Tolkien's use of the term is fitting in both cases, but this 'connection' is nothing new at this point, as the Old English snippets of the Silmarillion writings were published some time ago now in The History of Middle-Earth series.

With respect to possibly new information gleaned from drafts for The Hobbit, Rateliff notes that the Arkenstone evolved out of the Gem of Girion, which was a gem given by Girion of Dale to the Dwarves (although it is not told how Girion got this gem in any case). And as for the compared descriptions (how both jewels looked, or dealt with light), even Rateliff notes than any similarities here do not prove that the Arkenstone was intended as a Silmaril.

I realize Rateliff's commentary, however one takes it, hinges on a combination of things, and to be fair, it should be read in full, but here we have jools that an author wished to set apart as particularly notable and beautiful, so to my mind even a measure of borrowing of description would not be unexpected.

Some measure of 'literary borrowing' (or a better term that I can't think of at the moment) does not necessarily make the arkenstone a Silmaril, and I think we are still wanting textual evidence -- at least something direct I mean -- that Tolkien was actually playing with the notion of making this gem a Silmaril specifically, as there doesn't seem to be any confirming text or note in the draft stages of The Hobbit (which would be new to the case, so to speak).

[Formendacil]

For what it's worth, the peerless quality of the Arkenstone could be precisely because the Dwarves cut it. When Bilbo recognises that there could not be two such stones in the whole world, he might be noticing the flawless gem-cutting craftsmanship of the Dwarves as well as the enormous size of the flawless jewel. This would be congruent with Tolkien's general presentation of Middle-earth as beset with the "long decline" from original greatness into later imitation. It would be entirely consistent for the Dwarves to never again be capable of cutting so well another Arkenstone--even if one ever turned up again to be cut. The Dwarves of Thorin and Dáin's day were no longer the Dwarves who had lived in Moria (as they would have been in Thráin I's day) or even those of pre-Smaug Erebor. The Kingdom Under the Mountain would flourish again... but it would not be the Golden Age.

Also, as a somewhat impish aside, the comment that there could not be two such things in the world need not indicate at all that the Arkenstone is the greatest or most beautiful gem in the world... though it is clear from the text that the Arkenstone wasn't the ugliest gem in the world...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galin

Some measure of 'literary borrowing' (or a better term that I can't think of at the moment) does not necessarily make the arkenstone a Silmaril, and I think we are still wanting textual evidence -- at least something direct I mean -- that Tolkien was actually playing with the notion of making this gem a Silmaril specifically, as there doesn't seem to be any confirming text or note in the draft stages of The Hobbit (which would be new to the case, so to speak).

Okay, that was just a speculation– and of course even direct evidence wouldn't make the Arkenstone itself a Silmaril.