Bilbo´s treachery

[Inziladun]

On the face of it, I can see the source of your outrage. However, I disagree.

Bard's legal claim to a share of the treasure seems solid, as items from Dale were mixed in with Erebor's, the only question being the size of it. A moral share would also appear honest, as 1.The dwarves had awakened Smaug, who destroyed Lake-town; 2. Lake-town had befriended the dwarves and had given them food and other provisions, and 3. Bard was the descendant of Girion, the lord of Dale, and the slayer of Smaug.
No, Thranduil had no stake in the hoard, and it might have been better if the elven-host had stayed out of sight when Bard parleyed with Thorin, but Thranduil was there out of friendship with Esgaroth, and pity for them in their time of need.

Bilbo's dealing with the Arkenstone was borne from a hobbit-like wish to avoid conflict, especially one over gold. The rightness of at least Bilbo's intent in taking the Arkenstone and handing it to Bard would seem to be proven in Gandalf's reaction: "Well done! Mr. Baggins!"

Bilbo's stated preference to die defending Thranduil might stem from the mere "oddity" (as a hobbit) he displayed in his affinity for Elves in general.

As for Bilbo giving Thranduil the necklace, Bilbo himself said he did it to pay for the food he'd eaten in the elven-halls. He wasn't necessarily ungrateful. We don't see him giving away the mithril coat, after all.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It's also worth pointing out that even the hyperlegalistic Dwarves would have been forced to admit that Thorin's post-contractual (and post-possessory) parol claim to the Arkenstone could not be taken as a valid reformation of or amendment to the signed contract executed at Bag-End, under which Bilbo was entitled to 1/14 of the (net) whole without specificity, nor did the contract direct that Thorin or any other particular person had exclusive authority to allocate that share, nor preclude Bilbo making his own selection from the Hoard.

Besides, from the moment Bard showed up at the gate Thorin was behaving like an ***.

[Mithadan]

Someone has studied law.

The precise terms offered were "cash on delivery, up to and not exceeding one fourteenth of total profits (if any)".

The modification of the contract, which as William comments" does not exclude the Arkenstone nor specifically include it, is found after Bilbo returns from his meeting with Smaug, and Thorin, who states "as to your share, Mr. Baggins, I assure you we are more than grateful and you shall choose your own fourteenth, as soon as we have anything to divide."

So if this modification was valid, Bilbo certainly had the right to select the Arkenstone as part of his share. From his perspective, he had not broken any covenant and had chosen some of his share. I am not troubled by this as any breach of faith.

Now let's play at law (cannot resist). One could question whether, at the time he took the stone, there was anything to divide yet, since Smaug's death was not known. One could also debate the enforceability of the modification which was not supported clearly by consideration (Bilbo had not done anything or agreed to do anything he had not already agreed to do, so Thorin did not receive anything in exchange for the promise). Peppercorns anyone?

[Inziladun]

Sigh. Always the lawyers!

The legal-minded Bilbo, member of a race which required seven signatures in red ink of witnesses to a will, surely had not forgotten the terms of the contract, and was likely well aware of its lack of detail in some points. Good think the Dwarves didn't think to have Messrs Grubb, Grubb, and Burrowes draw it up. Then again, maybe Gandalf planned it that way.

At any rate, my thought is the Judge, Gandalf, delivered his opinion of it, favorable to Mr. Baggins. Thorin may appeal to the 10th Appeals Court of Orthanc.

[Alfirin]

Another point that might come into confict is thry to define by what standard the 1/14th would be defined; by value, weight,volume etc. By volume or weight of course, Bilbo is perfectly fine. But if by value, which a lot of people would consider the "obvios" defintion especially given terms like "cash on demand"+-9 , then it is possible Thorin would possibly still be on decent legal ground (on the grounds that the Arkenstone was prized so greatly by the Dwarves that they would probably value it higher than the rest of the hoard put together).
Actually, the very terms of that contract sound a little sketchy anyway. You notice Thorin says from the beginning ("1/14 of the profits (if any) not "1/14 of the hoard". Nice an legal, but it actually does give Thorin a sneaky opening. In once sense it works to Bilbo's advantage, since it techically means he is entitled to 1/4 of the Troll hoard as well. But by defining it as "total profits" Thorin actually has ample opportunity, if he feels so inclined to cut Bilbo out entierly. He can claim that the hoard is communal property of the Dwaven kingdom of Erebor, and as such does not actually belong to any of the party personally, so no party profit actually ensued (i.e. bilbo is entiteld to 1/14 of nothing, and always was). Or he could deduct from the shares such expenses as accrued from the trip. For the dwarves these retroactive expenses are largely meaningless, as they are being paid from them to them (so it's really just being re-paid) but Bilbo, who is NOT a member of the Dwaven Kingdom, could easily find his 1/14 eaten up with "expenses". Or at best, Thorin could combine the two and say that the "profits" were the Troll hoard (since that actually WAS property claimed by the party), so Bilbo can have 1/14 of that, (actually since Thorin is probably planning to be busy setting up his kingdom for a while, he might have simply ceded ALL of the Troll hoard to Bilbo as his share (it can't be worth much compared to the whole of Erebor. Plus it is along Bilbo's way back home) and save himself having to send dwarves back to retrieve it.
Actually Thorin could actually claim Bard and Esgaroth owed THEM money, or that the debt was squared. Since Smaug's belly was largely plated with gold and gems from the hoard stuck to it, it could be argued that, when Smaug left the cave he took part of the Dwarves property with him, and that by deciding to shoot Smaug while he was over water (like Bard had a choice!) Bard deprived the Dwarves of a portion of thier property that might otherwise have been retrievalbe (If Smaug had died over land, presumably his body could have been dug up and the gems and gold retrieved) and that any question of remuniration could not be redressed until that portion was retrieved so the whole of the Hoard could be asseses (actually since at that point, Thorin did not know that Bilbo had the Arkenstone, it's a little odd he isn't brooding on that fact. Knowing that it should be there, and that he has not found it. the thought might enter into his mind that it was PART of the stuff stuck to Smaug's belly, and is now simply sitting at the bottom of Lake Esgaroth waiting to be retrieved. From that POV it's a wonder Thorin is calling in friends from the Iron hills with pumps to come and negotiating to drain the lake!

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

Actually, the very terms of that contract sound a little sketchy anyway. You notice Thorin says from the beginning ("1/14 of the profits (if any) not "1/14 of the hoard". Nice an legal, but it actually does give Thorin a sneaky opening. In once sense it works to Bilbo's advantage, since it techically means he is entitled to 1/4 of the Troll hoard as well. But by defining it as "total profits" Thorin actually has ample opportunity, if he feels so inclined to cut Bilbo out entierly. He can claim that the hoard is communal property of the Dwaven kingdom of Erebor, and as such does not actually belong to any of the party personally, so no party profit actually ensued (i.e. bilbo is entiteld to 1/14 of nothing, and always was). Or he could deduct from the shares such expenses as accrued from the trip. For the dwarves these retroactive expenses are largely meaningless, as they are being paid from them to them (so it's really just being re-paid) but Bilbo, who is NOT a member of the Dwaven Kingdom, could easily find his 1/14 eaten up with "expenses".

Well that is what "of profits" means.

We have to remember though, Bilbo took but two small chets which was actually a fraction of his total share. Meanin they probably went with "value" to measure the shares, would the arkenstone outweighed the entirety of the horde I doubt it. I always felt while probably worth a fortune it was probably more of a sentimental thing.

However, to the intial point I thought Bilbo took the arkenstone to make it a bargaining chip to avoid battle. It seems to me though it backfired just angering Thorin further.

What is probably the strangest part of The Hobbit is that in the end the goblins saved the day. Do we think Gandalf could have stopped The Elves, Dwarves, and Lakemen from tearing each other apart?

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Well that is what "of profits" means.

of course that's what "of profits means". The point I was trying to make was that, by some legal hairsplitting, Thorin could have interpreted the contract so that, regardless of the actual outcome of the quest, he did not have to, or plan to, give Bilbo one red farthing, that should his avarice get the better of him, he could simply send Bilbo away with empty pockets and not technically have reneged on the terms of the contract. Or in the second case it would translate out to "yes you did your job , but I am taking your whole share to pay me back for having to take you in the first place (sort of a variation of the "your uncle has died and left you a million dollars, however with the taxes and fees you now owe us five million."

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

We have to remember though, Bilbo took but two small chets which was actually a fraction of his total share. Meanin they probably went with "value" to measure the shares, would the arkenstone outweighed the entirety of the horde I doubt it. I always felt while probably worth a fortune it was probably more of a sentimental thing.

Ah, but remember it would probably be the dwarves who would be the ones assesing the value of the treasure and the shares, so the arkenstone is "worth" whatever THEY say it is. It's a bit like trying to define the value of the crown jewels of England as based soley on their bullion content and per carat gem value. As for the two small chests, yes, it is far less than what Bilbo's share actually was as per contract, but the question is is it less, equal to or more than what Bilbo would have actually gotten had Thorin still been alive. Bilbo is riding away with those chests in a world where Dain is now King under the Mountain, who has gotten through a terrible battle, has nearly had his whole kingdom wiped out as soon as it was reclaimed and has just SEEN what the consequences of excessive greed ultimately got his cousin. Would Thorin have come to the same conclusion had he lived through the battle, or more to the point, had the battle not actually ocurred or been so devatstating to the Dwarves?

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

On the face of it, I can see the source of your outrage. However, I disagree.

Bard's legal claim to a share of the treasure seems solid, as items from Dale were mixed in with Erebor's, the only question being the size of it. A moral share would also appear honest, as 1.The dwarves had awakened Smaug, who destroyed Lake-town; 2. Lake-town had befriended the dwarves and had given them food and other provisions, and 3. Bard was the descendant of Girion, the lord of Dale, and the slayer of Smaug.
No, Thranduil had no stake in the hoard, and it might have been better if the elven-host had stayed out of sight when Bard parleyed with Thorin, but Thranduil was there out of friendship with Esgaroth, and pity for them in their time of need.

Bilbo's dealing with the Arkenstone was borne from a hobbit-like wish to avoid conflict, especially one over gold. The rightness of at least Bilbo's intent in taking the Arkenstone and handing it to Bard would seem to be proven in Gandalf's reaction: "Well done! Mr. Baggins!"

Bilbo's stated preference to die defending Thranduil might stem from the mere "oddity" (as a hobbit) he displayed in his affinity for Elves in general.

As for Bilbo giving Thranduil the necklace, Bilbo himself said he did it to pay for the food he'd eaten in the elven-halls. He wasn't necessarily ungrateful. We don't see him giving away the mithril coat, after all.

I hear ya. I'm sooo with you about Bilbo. He was quite a little bit weird. The whole 'invisibility' thing I remember reading it, enthralled the first time I read it, in the Spring sunshine, of 1981, in the backyard of my home, transported so very far away from Earth into this wondrous land.

Even then though, I recall a sense of a haunt about Bilbo. The Ring was just wrong, but I never thought too much about it. And it was really very strange, wasn't it, to steal the Arkenstone.

I 'get' that it was an attempt to force the Dwarves into parlay, but really, the invading Yrch, and Warg did plenty and beyond to unify the whole idiotic xenophobic, greedy-otic lotta them!

Humans, Dwarves, Elves and Orcs! All Begone! Nuisances the lotta them

[Faramir Jones]

Ivriniel, Bilbo didn't steal the Arkenstone; it was part of the agreed fourteenth share of the profits he was promised in his contract with the dwarves. Thorin also changed the contract to say that he could pick and choose his own fourteenth share; so Bilbo was within his rights to take the Arkenstone; and as it was his personal property, he was entitled to give it away if he wanted.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

Ivriniel, Bilbo didn't steal the Arkenstone; it was part of the agreed fourteenth share of the profits he was promised in his contract with the dwarves. Thorin also changed the contract to say that he could pick and choose his own fourteenth share; so Bilbo was within his rights to take the Arkenstone; and as it was his personal property, he was entitled to give it away if he wanted.

I'd not interpreted it that way. But to ride with how you put it, it's still awkward at best, or impolite scheming in any case. A Hobbit, brought up in Hobbiton, with such refineries in Hobbiton on The Hill, in a wealthy Hobbit Hole, with Sackville Bagginses 'spoon stealing' , Bilbo would have been quite aware that he was transgressing. "You don't bite the hand that feeds you", or "leave the core Dwarvish relic to the Dwarves when choosing my wealth--don't be rude, Bilbo"

I remember thinking that Bilbo seemed to be minimising as a Hobbit with a guilty conscience. Rationalised what he knew was going to make enraged Dwarves.

I also wondered if Bilbo was quite a little bit 'over' the Dwarf-Elf antagonism, and more than just a little bit annoyed at the 13 of them, after months of being underdog, underling, subordinated, mistreated, and then winning the 14 of them. So over them all, that he 'Arkenstoned' himself to exile, a-purpose.

[Faramir Jones]

You suggested, Ivriniel, that Bilbo ''Arkenstoned' himself to exile, a-purpose'. My view is that Bilbo, after handing over the Arkenstone, didn't have to go back to the dwarves. He had carried out the terms of his contract, including taking his reward; so he had no further legal obligations towards them and Thorin. However, he wanted to return to those he regarded as his friends.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

You suggested, Ivriniel, that Bilbo ''Arkenstoned' himself to exile, a-purpose'. My view is that Bilbo, after handing over the Arkenstone, didn't have to go back to the dwarves. He had carried out the terms of his contract, including taking his reward; so he had no further legal obligations towards them and Thorin. However, he wanted to return to those he regarded as his friends.

I suppose some legal-ese can be applied to the analysis, and that was somewhat of it in the book. I recall Tolkien was a little tongue in cheek about the contract. Bilbo signed something at the Unexpected Party.

I'm not sure the Arkenstone was "one fourteenth" of the treasure. How Dwarves reckon it and the cultural emphasis on valuation of the wealth would matter, I suspect.

I don't seem to remember Gandalf being overly upset about the 'theft' of the Stone, and so, Bilbo declaring the theft was somewhat washed clean of the grime of the manipulation.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I don't seem to remember Gandalf being overly upset about the 'theft' of the Stone, and so, Bilbo declaring the theft was somewhat washed clean of the grime of the manipulation.

Gandalf's comment on the matter to Bilbo was "Well done!" If that wasn't an absolution for Bilbo, what else could one possibly ask for?