Yes, but KeithB, he’s not out for treasure; he just wants vengeance against Esgaroth for giving aid and comfort to his adversaries, Bilbo and the dwarves.
(Wow…it’s looking more and more like current events!)
Back to the matter of the bridges…Smaug can fly over, of course, but he may be reluctant to do so. The lake is dangerous to him (“The lake was greater than he…”), so if he should somehow be forced down, he wants a long runway and a route back to dry land. Smaug was angry, but he was still cautious.
On Thorin’s sanity: It may be that the ring’s influence drove his father and grandfather towards madness, but Thorin didn’t have the ring. It was taken by the Necromancer. Thorin’s exposure to it would have been indirect and far in the past. There’s also the sticky question of defining insanity–is the definition the same for dwarves? Judging by descriptions of their craftsmanship, and their dedication to their arts, many of them might be prone to behavior that would be considered obsessive in humans. Thorin, lacking the artistic outlets normal for his race (mining coal and doing basic ironwork don’t allow for much creativity), may have simply redirected that focus to another goal.
Maybe not treasure, but notice that I also said “Eat People”, it has to take a lot of protien to fill up after a 100 year sleep.
Well put, B. This is more or less how I have always interpreted Thorin’s actions. Dwarves definitely tend toward obsessiveness, at least by modern human standards. They also are notorious for never forgetting a wrong. For Thorin, re-taking Erebor became his singular goal due to his lack of other outlets, and his dwarvish desire to revenge a wrong done to his family.
Here, of course, we see the dwarves, and especially Thorin, reach the nadir of honor. Asked for little more than some cash to help rebuild the Lake-Town, Thorin reacts with belligerance.
How many times does Tolkien describe Bard as “grim?” Count them! Read these last few chapters aloud and make it a drinking game with your friends! You’ll all get drunk.
Well, never ask a dwarf for money.
However, what if they would have asked for labour and supplies to rebuild the town? Would Thorin & Co. been more amenable?
Thorin is also called “grim” in the second to the last paragraph of the chapter. The word is clearly intended as a compliment when applied to Bard, yet has negative connotations when applied to Thorin.
I just cannot help reading with current events in mind. Look at how the natural allies bicker among themselves–Thorin is insulted by the assumption of the elves and men that they will be recompensed only by force. The elves and men are probably not wrong to make this assumption, but showing up with an army does not help negotiations. It is right to set aside “principles” (such as giving nothing to people who have so little faith in you as to “ask” for “charity” while armed) and to be willing to give up much for peace with reasonable people. Backing down from principles with orcs, however, and treating them as worthy of negotiations, is a very bad idea. I will say it again: the world would be a much simpler place if our enemies were all orcs, not humans. The situation also reminds me of the reparations claims we have heard recently from Nazi victims and the descendants of slaves. Men and elves were victimized by Smaug who killed and consolidated treasure indiscriminately. There is now no way to “justly” divide the treasure because there is no way to “track” it and people are dead and records lost. Any reparations must be made on an ad hoc basis: maybe there should be reparations, but no one will get exactly what the niggling laws of inheritance and property would ordinarily demand because an extra-legal force (Smaug) has swept legalities aside. The only possible response is likewise extra-legal.
Must it be extra-legal, Humble Servant? Don’t you think the law firm of Grubb, Grubb & Burrowes could sort things out?
Maybe, but the resulting document would be couched in the proper (to the hobbit way of thinking) formal language and niceties, and no one would ever be able to read it. Even the Ents would get bored and give up on it before they figured out who was to get what.
Of course, if hobbits were to handle the apportioning, none of it would matter, anyway, since most of the treasure would get so passed around as mathoms and birthday presents that nobody would be able to keep track of who really owned what.
Do we have a sample of a hobbit or other legal document in any of the collateral works? I’m trying to remember the stuff from the Red Book and the other “sources” Tolkien used. One would think that such a document, properly reproduced and framed, could be a big seller. I know I’d like one.
Well! Sorry it’s been so long since we continued this, but I’ve had a few distractions. Let’s see if we can’t knock this out soon.
Poor old Bombur never rose above the level of oafish comic relief in this book, did he? He’s one of very few among the thirteen dwarves who got a distinct persona, and unfortunately it’s almost all negative.
Always described as fat and lazy, it’s Bombur who fell into the Enchanted River and became a burden to the rest of the Company; it’s Bombur who was too fat to climb up to the Doorstep and had to be hauled up on ropes when Smaug attacked.
And in this chapter, it’s Bombur is talked into leaving his watch, allowing Bilbo to commit his “treachery.”
I’ve noticed it’s part of a larger pattern in Tolkien of picking on fat people. Look at Fredegar Bolger in Fellowship of the Ring, for example. It’s troubling.
But on to the meat of the chapter, of course this is where Bilbo truly becomes a hero, by turning over the Arkenstone. He betrays Thorin but serves the greater good, including Thorin in the long run. The potential for this sort of behavior is, I believe, the real reason Gandalf recruited Bilbo for this adventure.
It may be Bilbo’s plucky Took side that saw him through to this point, but I daresay it’s his steadfast Baggins side that leads him to this choice.
Let’s tot up Bilbo’s criminal/immoral acts:
-
Stole 1 Arkenstone.
-
Lied to Bombur.
-
Took advantage of Bombur’s weaker will.
-
High Treason.
Well at least he’s an honest burglar.
Why exactly can we forgive Bilbo so easily? Are we mere pragmatists who like the end result? Are the “technicalities” (his right to a 14th share) enough to get him off the hook? Does his willingness to go back and face the consequences make it a kind of civil disobedience? Talk about shades of gray!
I would challenge your assertion Bilbo’s done anything that calls for forgiveness. He’s seen that Thorin has crossed some sort of a line, and is trying to set things to rights.
He knows and is friends with the dwarves. He has seen the charity and hospitality of both the Elves and the Men, and he understands this is a disagreement among Good Peoples that should not descend into war.
He’s doing what needs to be done. “WWGD” may even have gone through his mind.
I’m such a lawyer sometimes–technicalities make my heart beat faster.
I’m sorry I was disingenuous in my prior post–I think that the “technicalities” and Bilbo’s “civil disobedience” are the reasons I “forgive” him so readily (by “forgive” I mean continue to have sympathy for him, not “absolve him from sin”).
Morally, I reject relativism and “the end justifies the means.” If treachery is wrong in some cases (for instance if Bilbo had betrayed Thorin to orcs), it is wrong in all similar cases. The different ends are not what makes the treachery in favor of Bard et al acceptable but treachery in favor of the orcs wrong; IMHO, the difference is in the technicalities.
First, Bilbo’s duties to Thorin and Co. arise principally from friendship. Technically, there is no oath of loyalty to a king or quasi-political leader here. So my charge of treason is a straw man. Bilbo acts in a way that he believes to be in his friends’ ultimate best interests. “Tough love” if you wish.
Next, Bilbo has rights under a contract with the dwarves. What does “a 1/14 share of the treasure” actually entitle Bilbo to? Since the contract is vague and open to interpretation, the charge of theft also is shaky (Bilbo as he well should be is uneasy on this point), but standing on his strict legal rights in a questionable case is enough to remit legal liability here, throwing us back to the obligations of friendship only, as discussed above.
The hardest charge I think is the one you raised initially, Fiver, Bilbo’s lies to the poor dumb fool Bombur. Could he and would he have been justified in telling Thorin the same bald-faced lie? Could he have gotten down without implicating Bombur in things? Wasn’t he a bit proud of being able to get past the elves’ sentries? I think this is something I appreciate Bilbo less for–not a crime, but a moral fraility. (Which is NOT a bad thing–as I said before, I have little empathy with people who are perfect.)
All the technicalities are of course just technicalities from Thorin’s perspective–Thorin doesn’t appreciate that he has crossed a line and that Bilbo’s actions are out of ultimate friendship. Nonetheless, Bilbo’s willingness to admit what he has done, to face Thorin and to protect Bombur demonstrates to Thorin the depth of Bilbo’s belief that Thorin is not acting properly and forces Thorin to look inward (the goal of civil disobedience).
Well, I now feel like a total geek for writing a legal analysis of Bilbo’s actions.[sheepish grinnie here]
Help me out, here. Does “WWGD”=What would Gandalf do? Funny!
Heh, it’s about time this thread came up again :).
If you ask me, Bilbo’s actions were perfectly justified. Since he’s offered a “fourteenth share”, I think it’s reasonable to assume that each of the dwarves were to receive that same proportion. Either the Arkenstone is worth less that a fourteenth of all the treasure, in which case he’s voluntarily short-changing himself by letting it stand for his entire share (well, that and his mithril-shirt), or it’s worth more than a fourteenth, in which case whoever got it (even Thorin) would have been cheating the others, in a sense. The fact that he feels guilty about it anyway just says that much more about Bilbo’s character.
I can also see some parallels with a similar event in Lord of the Rings. Thorin tells Bilbo to take his pick of his share of the treasure-- and he does. Later, Theoden tells Gandalf to take his pick of the horses of Rohan-- and he does. If you mean to exclude something, say so. If you let someone have their pick, don’t be upset when they pick the best.
Originally posted by Chronos:
Actually, I think Thorin specifically mantions that the Arkenstone should be considered his.
(From the beginning of Chapter 16, “A Thief in the Night”)
Bilbo already has it when Thorin says this, but he knows that Thorin doesn’t, and presumably never did, consider the Arkenstone up for grabs. Also, even before Thorin says this, Bilbo knows from Thorin’s previous descriptions that the Arkenstone is important to him.
I don’t really have much to add to this other than I bought The Hobbit for my son a few weeks ago, and he loved it. (He’s 10.) It’s the longest book he’s read so far. He finished it, so I bought him the trilogy. He’s on Fellowship of the Ring now.
It’ll be interesting to see how the LotR movie compares with his view of Middle Earth when it comes out in December.
Even with Thorin’s claims to the Arkenstone, I still say that Bilbo was in the right. If we look at his contractual obligations, then he has a right to his own pick of his share of the treasure. The dwarves agreed to that before Thorin specifically claimed the Arkenstone, so Bilbo’s prior claim would take precedence. Thorin’s (and the other dwarves’) previous discussions of the Arkenstone didn’t (so far as we know) lay any specific claims, so they also don’t matter, contractually speaking.
On the other hand, we might look at Bilbo’s obligations as a friend. In this case, not only does he not have an obligation to not take the stone, but he has a positive obligation to take it. Him taking the Arkenstone was no more a theft than a friend taking a drunkard’s car keys. Thorin and company were almost literally drunk on their newly-recovered wealth, and were verging on self-destruction, so Bilbo did what was necessary to prevent that.