Skip to main content

the lord of the rings - If the Arkenstone isn't a Silmaril, then what is it?


It is discussed at great length, whether or not the Arkenstone is one of the Silmarils1, and the most accepted answer is that it is not2.



The Arkenstone however, has undeniable 'powers' or properties which make it very special3.


So in light of this, what is the Arkenstone?


Has Tolkien ever written anything about it? Is there something I've missed from the books?


Edit:
There seems to be some new info stating that the Arkenstone is not a Silmaril.



Answer



The Arkenstone is definitely not a Silmaril for the following reasons (not an exhaustive list):



  • The Hobbit explicitly states that there was only one Arkenstone but there were three Silmarils.

  • The Silmarils glow with mingled gold/silver light, the Arkenstone glows with white light.


  • The Silmarils are in their permanent homes (sky/earth/water) until the end of the world, the Arkenstone was found before the end of the world.

  • The Silmarils will burn mortal flesh, the Arkenstone doesn't.

  • The Arkenstone was "cut and fashioned by the Dwarves", the Silmarils were effectively indestructible: "like the crystal of diamonds it appeared, and yet was more strong than adamant, so that no violence could mar it or break it within the Kingdom of Arda".


Ultimately, while it can be argued that Tolkien did derive inspiration from the Silmarils when inventing the Arkenstone (in particular see his use of Eorclanstanas to describe the Silmarils in the Old English versions of texts given in HoME4), inspiration is all that it was and the evidence is just too strong against it being one.


Everything that Tolkien ever wrote about the Arkenstone (aside from incidental mentions) is collected in the text of the Hobbit, so it's worth quoting all of the descriptive passages.



But fairest of all was the great white gem, which the dwarves had found beneath the roots of the Mountain, the Heart of the Mountain, the Arkenstone of Thrain. "The Arkenstone! The Arkenstone!" murmured Thorin in the dark, half dreaming with his chin upon his knees. "It was like a globe with a thousand facets; it shone like silver in the firelight, like water in the sun, like snow under the stars, like rain upon the Moon!"



This is just a descriptive passage and offers no clues to it's nature beyond it being a "great white gem".




It was the Arkenstone, the Heart of the Mountain. So Bilbo guessed from Thorin’s description; but indeed there could not be two such gems, even in so marvellous a hoard, even in all the world. Ever as he climbed, the same white gleam had shone before him and drawn his feet towards it. Slowly it grew to a little globe of pallid light. Now as he came near, it was tinged with a flickering sparkle of many colours at the surface, reflected and splintered from the wavering light of his torch. At last he looked down upon it, and he caught his breath. The great jewel shone before his feet of its own inner light, and yet, cut and fashioned by the dwarves, who had dug it from the heart of the mountain long ago, it took all light that fell upon it and changed it into ten thousand sparks of white radiance shot with glints of the rainbow.



This is the main passage that is probably responsible for much of the "Arkenstone = Silmaril" speculation, yet it fails on many of the points I list above.



The Elvenking himself, whose eyes were used to things of wonder and beauty, stood up in amazement. Even Bard gazed marvelling at it in silence. It was as if a globe had been filled with moonlight and hung before them in a net woven of the glint of frosty stars.



And this is a relatively minor passage that offers nothing much new.


In the end that's all we have to work with. There's nothing else in any of the books, nothing in his Letters.


If it's unsatisfactory to say "it's just a white gem" there is still one candidate left over. In the Silmarillion we learn about the Noldors' discovery of gems, and in particular Feanor's making of artificial gems:




...he it was who, first of the Noldor, discovered how gems greater and brighter than those of the earth might be made with skill. The first gems that Feanor made were white and colourless, but being set under starlight they would blaze with blue and silver fires brighter than Helluin...



If we really must seek an explanation for what the Arkenstone is in Tolkien's writings, then such a gem may provide this explanation, and it need not even be one made by Feanor or any of the Noldor: a gem "made with skill" that is "greater and brighter than those of the earth" could just as well have been made by the Dwarves (see "cut and fashioned by the Dwarves"), the children of Aule.


Update - 10th March 2015


In History of Middle-earth 11, commentary to the Grey Annals paragraph 22, Christopher Tolkien notes the following from a earlier version of the text ("GA 1" is the earlier version, "them"/"they" is the Dwarves, "Lorien" is the region in Valinor, not Middle-earth, and "Enfeng" is an earlier name for the Longbeards):



The conclusion of this paragraph is wholly different in GA 1:



For Melian taught them much wisdom (which also they were eager to get), and she gave to them also the great jewel which alone she had brought out of Valinor, work of Feanor, [struck out but then ticked as if to stand: for he gave many such to the folk of Lorien.] A white gem it was that gathered the starlight and sent it forth in blue fires; and the Enfeng prized it above a mountain of wealth.





Christopher Tolkien then goes on to note that this idea was subsequently rejected owing to chronological problems: Melian had left Valinor more than 100 Valian Years before Feanor was born, and so could not have taken one of his jewels out of Valinor. In the following version it was substituted for the story of the pearl Nimphelos.


However the choice of words here is hardly accidental, and this, then, is a candidate for the Arkenstone (accepting the difference in the colour of the light).


Christopher Tolkien does not touch on this possibility in his commentary, however.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...