Tolkien Forums

Coffee up, Lady Laurelin,

Until then here is one example mode of this thread that struck me, in light of the upcoming Hobbit movie (and by the way this thread is geared to be an open discussion and no one is bound to provide all the answers to their speculations but all are welcome to add their conclusions, thoughts or findings):

Was Beorn just simply a "Skin Changer" or Were-Bear? Some have speculated that he just WAS. Like an anomalous device thrown in to add a little whimsy and mysticism to the affair. Others have said that he might have some talisman that gives him his animal ability.

But what if in fact Beorn's line was cursed from the days of Thangorodrim? Were not Beren and his men tortured and slaughtered in the pit of his Host Morgoth Bauglir by werewolves? What tribe of the three Originating Edain does he hail from? Beor, Haleth or Hador?

Perhaps Beorn's bloodline could be directly linked to the thrall's of Morgoth. When Thangorodrim was over thrown many creatures escaped into the wild and without a master to control them they were free to exercise free will over their ability to change forms. Some must have grown accustomed to their animal side and remained so ever after, while others assimilated into tribes of their own or chose to forgo their animal sides, while others still utilized their ability for survival and but favored their humanity? Either way this would explain Beorn fiery nature and Gandalf's warnings to Thorin and Co.

-- Edited by Jaidoprism7 on Monday 14th of October 2013 06:29:07 PM

"Was Beorn just simply a "Skin Changer" or Were-Bear? Some have speculated that he just WAS. Like an anomalous device thrown in to add a little whimsy and mysticism to the affair."

This had always been my assumption. I never really questioned his existence in that ME is an altogether "magical" world. But, what I have often wondered is who did Beorn marry? Was there a "she"-Beorn wandering around. Gloin mentioned Grimbeorn when telling Frodo news in the Many Meetings chapter and says that the Beornings have kept the pass from Dale to Rivendell open. Were they all shape-shifters? Gloin doesn't say so, but can one infer that they are since how else could defeat the orcs in that area so "easily"?

It is a pity that Tolkien himself elaborates very little on Beorn. In a letter that is numbered 144 (in the book of published letters) it is plainly said (in reply to questions asked by a proof-reader, Naomi Mitchison) that "Beorn is dead... He appeared in The Hobbit. It was then the year Third Age 2940... We are now [meaning LOTR] in the years 3018-19. Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man." Nothing on sources of his magic! Could it indeed be from Morgoth? Who knows... But Beorn wasn't evil or ugly, while Morgoth's 'creations' were actually corruptions. Maybe his corruption once went awry and the result became, by accident, good?

 

-- Edited by Lorelline on Thursday 26th of June 2014 06:26:34 PM

An interesting question is how those swords left Gondolin. Maybe indeed it could have been a dragon that took them. Why would he need them though? For gems - they have 'jewelled hilts'? And the silly question is how Scatha or another Worm would carry, not even one, but a collection of swords? In his teeth? Or, would he make somebody carry them for him?

As for Dragons absconding with hoards of treasure, it is a well known case that Dragon's love treasure; Gold, rubies, gems, artifacts anything shiny and of worth. Smaug used it as a bed (most likely a metaphor for greed and covetous nature) because what other use would Dragon have for such trinkets? They must love the feel of it on their hides.

As for you discussion of the Hidden Kings, I'll have to dust off some reference material to throw my hat in to the topic in earnest but I like what your saying....

An opinion is forming.....look out!

BTW, there is a whole thread on Beorn on this very site,
tolkienforums.activeboard.com/t6220965/beorn/
It elaborates mostly on the external origin of Beorn, but also on the internal one as we were trying to come up with here. Quite interesting. Well beyond my primary interest though or hopefully I would have noticed it earlier.

The Arkenstone/Silmaril thing is mentioned even on this site too, but just in passing, which is a pity because it really calls for speculation.

-- Edited by Lorelline on Friday 18th of October 2013 05:54:01 AM

That is a very interesting take on the Arkenstone Lorelline.

A couple of questions rise: I know that Diamonds are made from Molten Rock meets with sand or Particular soils (as have been discovered in shafts left behind by volcanic eruption). Can a Gem or Diamond such as the Arkenstone also be reduced by Lava? In other words would the Gem survive a journey by lava?

Perhaps a Silmaril would make the journey, given its very unique composition. The Silmaril could have been reconstituted "By Molten-rock" and re-encrusted to become larger in the lava flows beneath the Earth....

That is quite a way, however, from Beleriand to the Lonely Mountain.

The distance between Beleriand and The Western Middle-earth that comes into the tales of The Hobbit and LOTR is one of the only reasons I kind of backed off the Nienor/Goldberry theory I had. Although, Nienor could have survived the plunge and been saved or spirited away by Uinen and delivered to the River-woman. Certainly Osse would have knowledge of Ulmo's purpose in flooding Beleriand and would also know The River Woman. Uinen has always taken pity on man and is said to have rule over the lesser waters of the world and could feasibly brought Nienor to the Withywindle.

Nienor was already loopy from all the strain of Glaurung's curse and her grief broke her mind, that is the only reason I felt that Nienor could've been Goldberry because she seems pretty flighty in LOTR when she meets Frodo and the boys for the first time...like she snapped out of some reverie....

What if Uinen was the River-woman and she spared Nienor so that she can get the child support from Osse!! Ah speculation!! LOL

I'm wondering where the Pukel men came from. I mean, Illuvtar was responsible for Elves and men; Yavanna for ents; Aule for Dwarves;and Morgoth for all the bad guys. Where do Pukel men come from?

Love the child support idea. But, can you picture Osse as a deadbeat?

The only argument I can offer against the Sil/arkenstone things is that only Thorin/Dwarves seemed to really lust after it. The sils were, to my mind, more like the Ring. Everyone wanted a Sil.

 

As to the Silmaril, it of course would survive a journey inside a current of liquid rock. Diamonds, however radiant, have no inner light.

I guess I will go ahead and summarize the criticism given to this hypothesis in that other thread, and will try to address each point.

'Smaug would not have been able to lie on a Silmaril without suffering torment - he certainly would not have been sleeping when Bilbo Baggins first came to call.'

Well at worst he wouldn't be able to lie on it directly but if it is covered with a thick layer of gold then why not? Morgoth was burned by the Silmarils when he handled them but not after he set them in his iron crown. It was heavy that's it.

'It is thought that the Silmaril of Maedhros will only be recovered when the Valar break Middle-earth at the End.'

'It is thought' - sounds like no more than a hypothesis. Not everything could have been foreseen even by the Valar. And finally it goes back underground.

'If a Silmaril were to show up at Erebor, ...every elf ... would be drawn to it, not to mention Sauron, and the whole of the White Council. Such a powerful and legendary artifact from the First Age of the World, over which countless battles were fought over and lives lost, would never escape notice for long.'
'...if the Arkenstone was a silmaril the elves wouldn't have allowed it to be owned by dwarves who slew an elf king for a silmaril. '

That's an interesting thought. Even the sons of Feanor were drawn to the Silmarils mostly by their oath. Seems that only they tried to get the Silmarils from others (not counting Beren who only needed it as a ransom). And how widely did the Dwarves advertise that they had such a gem whatever it was?

'It is certain from the physical descriptions, and the difference in the light emission of the Arkenstone and the Silmarils that they are not the same'.

On the contrary, by the description they are very much alike:

The Arkenstone: "The great jewel shone before his feet of its own inner light, and yet... it took all light that fell upon it and changed it into ten thousand sparks of white radiance shot with glints of the rainbow."

The Silmarils: "Of their own radiance they shone, even in the dark of the deepest treasury; yet all lights that fell upon them, however faint, they received and returned again in marvellous hues to which their own inner fire gave a surpassing loveliness".

' "...cut and fashioned by the dwarves, who had dug it from the heart of the mountain long ago..." '

'Cut and fashioned' may mean simply that it was inside the surrounding rock and had to be cut out of there, and cleaned somehow.

There is also some discussion on the etymology of the word 'Arkenstone'; it presents no counter-argument at all - the meaning appears to be 'a holy stone' in some archaic language - and the Silmarils were referred to as the holy jewels too.

So far this is not any serious speculation. Looking closer at the the description of the Arkenstone, I could see perhaps something that is not as easily addressable within this hypothesis though... without more involved speculation that is.

Three points you made in the last two posts stood out to me the most:

1. 'Smaug would not have been able to lie on a Silmaril without suffering torment' Yet Bilbo and the Dwarves handled the Arkenstone without harm to their flesh! Would it hurt the Dragon because He was Evil?

2. They say that the Arkenstone was carved by the Dwarves to have many facets... Making me believe that it was rough when discovered....but any normal stone no matter how beautiful would not have a radiance of its own...

3. I've never heard all these accounts of Pukel "magic" "Stone Golems" and Surviving Numenor. I always thought they were a branch of Haladin's tribe who stayed behind or didn't wish to travel into the West with the other tribes. I don't have the Silmarillion but I remember something about certain men departing the rest along the Anduin in the old days.

Holy Crap!   If you just heard a small explosion in the distance, that would be my mind being blown!!!! 

I Never even caught that little gem of info....She was Pregnant?!?!?!

What if Nienor WAS the River Woman after all and Goldberry her child. Nah. Even for speculation that is a stretch...
Nienor was Mortal and Human. Unless Ulmo, Uinen or Osse could grant such gifts as long life?

-- Edited by Jaidoprism7 on Wednesday 23rd of October 2013 05:53:51 AM

Although this is a speculation thread, maybe it will not hurt to add here this excerpt from the note #5 to the Druedain chapter in the Unfinished Tales: 'To the unfriendly who, not knowing them well, declared that Morgoth must have bred Orcs from such a stock, Eldar answered: "Doubtless Morgoth, who can make no living thing, bred Orcs from various kinds of Men, but the Druedain must have escaped his Shadow; for their laughter and the laughter of Orcs are as different as is the light of Aman from the darkness of Angband". But some thought, nonetheless, that there had been a remote kinship, which accounted for their special enmity. Orcs and Drugs each regarded the other as renegades'.
So Druedain are uncorrupted men, children of Eru just like other Edain.

I don't know. I was hoping you could tell me. :)

And about the Orc from Men situation...it seems that Tolkien used the Edain as his whipping boys (so to speak). It is said that Orcs come from Men, Hobbits are of Men, Nazgul are of Men, Uruk-Hai as well. I mean...C'mahn!
In this, it seems like he intended to keep the other races of middle-earth of a more pure essence. Elves are to remain Infallible and incorruptible, The Dwarves; uncontrollable and unmoved by the plights of other creatures. And Men are just leaves in the wind....I guess that is pretty ingenious if you want a lot of magic and mysticism crammed in a book. Otherwise would it be so sad if the Elves left and the Dwarves dwindled?

What does that say about what Tolkien felt about Men in general. Anyone who's read the letters knows that Tolkien didn't have all that much faith in mankind and rightfully so but I guess he really pointed out the frailty in Men.

Plus I believe the Nazgul were indeed Tolkien's version of Liches from D&D fame. Magical, Flesh and Bone but very susceptible to blunt or blade attacks. Thus Eowyn and Merry were able to vanquish one...

That's about right...or so the speculation has led so far, with one exception.

Laurelin wrote: "hooked up with the River Man," That was the one exception. If Nienor was the River-woman that Tom Bombadil describes, then she was already "Pre-hooked up". She was pregnant with Turin's child and Osse delivered Nienor safely to the Withywindle where she gave birth to Goldberry and then Tom Bombadil found them.

Very simple and accurate in all manner of speaking and should be in the appendices of LOTR and sanctioned by the Tolkien estate immediately......before we start thinking again!

LOL. I should have been clearer in my "hooked up." I meant it in the non-physical sense. I guess that's my age showing

Lorelline, since you have History of ME and Unfinished Tales, do neither of these mention the Arkenstone's history?

In The History of The Hobbit 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. But also writes: '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' however, because the Sketch and the 1930 Qenta are still relatively close in date to the writing of The Hobbit. JDR continues:

'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. Okay, 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.

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 [who in my opinion sometimes seems to be trying to suggest the Arkenstone 'might' actually be a Silmaril], notes than any similarities here do not prove that the Arkenstone was intended as a Silmaril.

 

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 [not that anyone said it did], no more than it makes 'the Elven-king' of The Hobbit 'Thingol' or an earlier incarnation. 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.

For myself, I think it's a stretch to interpret '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.' to mean releasing an already finished [and wondrous] gem from the earth, from something stuck to it, or around it.

 

Anyway 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). I think there is 'literary borrowing' here; and I also find an elegance to the 'end' of the Silmarils in Sky, Sea, and Earth, and am not sure that bringing one back to end up on Thorin's grave would be an improvement...

... as far as my opinion goes, anyway.

-- Edited by Galin on Thursday 24th of October 2013 07:41:32 PM

'The interpretation of 'cut and fashioned' could be a stretch, but not a fatal one given so little detail on how it was done.'

 

I think Tolkien has provided, if briefly, enough information here for the reader to arrive at a natural conclusion: to me cut and fashioned clearly refers to the making of a gem stone, and the skill of the Dwarves is made evident to the reader here.

I would think the notability would be in the finding of such a thing, an already 'cut and fashioned' jool waiting in the earth!?!

To my mind, Shirley the reader is meant to think, detailed description or not, that this jool is made by Dwarves and prized by Dwarves. Granted 'fatal' is subjective, but in my opinion this is a rather notable hoop to jump through.

 

 

And it is not simply said [not that anyone said otherwise] that the three Silmarils found their 'long homes' but that the joy of the victory of the War of Wrath was diminished '... for they returned without the Silmarils from Morgoth's crown, and they knew that those jewels could not be found or brought together again unless the world be broken and remade.'

Of course one can always 'question the internal characters' or scribes [as in something like: 'hey, what did the Vanyar know anyway'], but for me the finality here is desired by the author. And again for me, even if a Silmaril had somehow ended up on Celebrimbor's breast [himself at least a Feanorean], it still would have undermined the elegance to some degree.

Celebrimbor is rather connected to the next great 'making', the Rings of Power. For me the Silmarils 'reappearing' [well, obviously with Earendil in mind in any case] await the future within the legends of Men regarding the End Times.

 

In short: their future [as different from finding their long homes as a/in the: Star/Sky, Sea, Earth] is legendary, major stuff.

 

No offense to Thorin and Company 

-- Edited by Galin on Saturday 26th of October 2013 04:36:00 PM

"...this jool [I wonder if this is a newly invented word or an existing colloquial one] is made by Dwarves and prized by Dwarves." You don't really mean that the gem with this inner light was made by the Dwarves, right? Cut and fashioned yes, but the gem was already shining from inside. I don't think we are told that it was an artificial Dwarf-made one... no one would try to equate it with a Silmaril then."

 

I mean cut and fashioned is still 'making' the gem, and especially in an ultimate sense [the finished 'product' let's say]. Or put it this way perhaps, considering the ultimate properties of the Arkenstone, as the reader encounters it along with Bilbo, the Arkenstone is Dwarf-found and Dwarf-made. 

How it shines with an inner light is not told, but as far as reflected light the skill of the Dwarves accounts for this, which, in my opinion would not have been necessary if we had a Silmaril. If I recall correctly it's also not told how the Elendilmir [the one lost by Isildur] seems to shine of its own accord, or how certain blades glow blue in the presence of orcs -- although here one naturally assumes by some artistic power of the Elves.

In any case, the 'Gem of Girion' [as literary precursor to the Arkenstone] shone with its own light too -- in this earlier conception Girion had given the Gem in payment for the arming of his sons: 'It was a great white gem, that shone of its own inner light within, and yet cut and fashioned by the Dwarves to whom Girion had given it, it caught and splintered all light that it received...' While The Dragon's Away, The History of The Hobbit part II, JDR

 

Also according to JD Rateliff, the Gem was: 'Initially invented to serve as a portable one-fouteenth share of the hoard to give the lie to Smaug's insinuation that the Dwarves knew all along that Bilbo could never carry away his fair share, its value and allure were greatly increased with each iteration, until instead of Bilbo's designated portion it became the one item from the hoard Thorin most wanted to reclaim and, in an ironic reversal, the one item he would have forbidden Bilbo to take.'

I doubt Tolkien intended at the outset that Bilbo's share be an actual Silmaril. Granted he could have later imagined an actual Silmaril here, but again I note that the Gem of Girion shone with its own inner light -- when it was still a Mannish payment to the Dwarves -- who cut and fashion it in order that it reflect the light as described.

 

For anyone wondering, the spelling 'jool' is used in the books by a visitor from Michel Delving for example, and repeated by the Gaffer.

 

-- Edited by Galin on Monday 28th of October 2013 11:41:38 AM

In my opinion then we have more hoops to jump through, as the substance of the Silmarils was described as: 'more strong than adamant, so that no violence could mar it or break it within the Kingdom of Arda.'

Within the Kingdom of Arda is notable, and in any case Tolkien would later characterize the breaking of the Three Jools as part of a Mannish Myth. 

I realize this thread is about speculation; and again it's going to be subjective what a 'contradiction' is, but for me the Arkenstone as Silmaril case [encountered on various Tolkien forums] is strained in general.

As for my earlier post, I don't know if the stone necessarily needed cutting, or more cutting maybe, when it was a Mannish gift, but that it was cut in any case, and its reflected light qualities thus connected to the work of the Dwarves.

And [again for me the very natural and 'clear' interpretation is] it was still cut and fashioned by the Dwarves in the ultimate scenario, whatever shape it had when found.