Bilbo´s treachery

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't think that Bilbo's deed was honest, in respect to the Dwarves. He does not think so either. But he knew it was necessary, which is why he did it, and why Gandalf approved.

I think the taking of the Arkenstone was really a betrayal of Thorin as an individual rather than the whole company, as Bilbo would see it.

It was Thorin who had given the order to all the others that he alone had the rights to the jewel, and it seems it was mainly fear of Thorin's wrath that bothered Bilbo about keeping it secret.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I think the taking of the Arkenstone was really a betrayal of Thorin as an individual rather than the whole company, as Bilbo would see it.

It was Thorin who had given the order to all the others that he alone had the rights to the jewel, and it seems it was mainly fear of Thorin's wrath that bothered Bilbo about keeping it secret.

Ye-es. I agree that it was mainly Thorin that was problematic, but at the same time you can't call Bilbo's deed completely honest in respect to the other Dwarves. It's true that the others wouldn't mind Bilbo taking the Arkenstone as much, and they wouldn't see his act as such a betrayal. But the nature of Bilbo's act groups the Dwarves into one group, like it or not. One rotten apple spoils the bunch?

So yes, I agree that he's mostly going behind Thorin's back, but he's acting behind all of the Dwarves' backs. He may not be as much of a jerk to the others, but it's still hardly honest.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55;702826[...

But the nature of Bilbo's act groups the Dwarves into one group, like it or not. One rotten apple spoils the bunch?

Well, in this case, yes. This particular apple is the proclaimed and recognized leader of their company and the bunch doesn't do anything to stop him. I know that a few of them are disagreeing with Thorin, but they remain idle, while the rest of the bunch is supporting his course.

Thorin's course of action might easily lead to their death, either trough starvation and illness (due to the siege), or due to a battle, even though there isn't a real necessity or profit, at the time. Thorin and company are willingly gambling their own well-being for a surplus of a few percent. I think that justifies Bilbo (or any of the dwarves) to act against said course of action. Being 'dishonest' is a reasonable price to pay in this situation.

[Zigûr]

I think the situation is a good example of how in The Hobbit Professor Tolkien juxtaposes the "modern" and "heroic" modes, with Bilbo being, or at least trying to present himself as, a businesslike character with an arguably "pragmatic" approach while the Dwarves exist in a heroic/romantic framework, caring about their treasure and driven by fairly unswerving loyalty to their king, even when his decisions seem irrational or potentially dishonorable.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I think the situation is a good example of how in The Hobbit Professor Tolkien juxtaposes the "modern" and "heroic" modes, with Bilbo being, or at least trying to present himself as, a businesslike character with an arguably "pragmatic" approach while the Dwarves exist in a heroic/romantic framework, caring about their treasure and driven by fairly unswerving loyalty to their king, even when his decisions seem irrational or potentially dishonorable.

We never find out what measure of Bilbo's treachery was motivated by the then hold the ring exerted over Bilbo

We don't know whether or not he would have conceived the plot to place the dwarves on the back foot had there been no ring

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

We never find out what measure of Bilbo's treachery was motivated by the then hold the ring exerted over Bilbo

We don't know whether or not he would have conceived the plot to place the dwarves on the back foot had there been no ring

I don't see how that changes the issue. The Ring certainly helped Bilbo execute his plot, and maybe he wouldn't have dared to do such a radical thing without invisibility, but the fact remains that he wasn't going to take Thorin's attitude lying down. As for the Ring's hold over Bilbo - what does that have to do with anything?

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't see how that changes the issue. The Ring certainly helped Bilbo execute his plot, and maybe he wouldn't have dared to do such a radical thing without invisibility, but the fact remains that he wasn't going to take Thorin's attitude lying down. As for the Ring's hold over Bilbo - what does that have to do with anything?

What does anything have to do with anything, really, except as a discussion point or random expression of curiosity.

[Zigûr]

Yes given that the Ring was not conceived of as an evil object at the time, and as I'm fairly sure Professor Tolkien did not revise those parts of the text after he did conceive of it that way, the role of the Ring does not seem especially relevant to me.