What's up with Celeborn?

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Legate

A little off-topic question: Which comment? I probably did not find it the funniest in LotR, because I don't remember it at all...

I think he means this:

Originally Posted by Farewell to Lórien

"Then I need say no more," said Celeborn. "But do not despise the lore that has come down from distant years; for oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know."

Originally Posted by Legate

I am not opposing the last part of the sentence, but I must oppose the first conclusion. He could have referred to Galadriel, and speaking of "treasure", I would say that you are unnecessarily interpretating it the worst possible way. Surely when someone calls another "treasure", the primary meaning is not that he would claim ownership over the other. And I doubt this was meant like this. I must say, what you said kind of shocked me, because I regarded this (thinking, as I posted above, that he is indeed referring to Arwen, resp. Galadriel here) as "oh look how much he values Galadriel, comparing her to a treasure" - and now you downplay it by interpretating it in this nasty way. Be ashamed of yourself! It was surely not "may the one you own remain with you till the end" but "may the one who is most important to you remain with you till the end"!

Well, well, well, you're certainly making me laugh. (Not because your point would be ridiculous or anything like that, more because of the tone of your argument.)
I do not mean that I would assume that anyone calling someone a treasure would claim ownership over her/him, but I think there is a certain possesive edge to the word and if you call someone a treasure, it looks like you're kind of taking a higher status compared to him/her, which I can't see Celeborn doing with Galadriel. I do not seek to "incriminate" the word or emphasise these subtle minor tones in it, I just don't think it would have occurred to Celeborn to use that word of Galadriel, or that if he meant to imply something like what you say he implied, some other word would have occured to him first, because of the quality* of his and Galadriel's relationship.

*quality meaning "sort" or "type" here, not in the sense as in "good quality product"

Originally Posted by Legate

Haha, and you know what? Here you say "He would still have Galadriel". Now who is using wrong semantics here

But I didn't mean it that way and it really isn't in contradiction with what I talked about being possesive earlier - I think "have" is a far more equal term than "treasure", because you usually think people can "have" each other, while the one who possesses a treasure owns it, but the the treasure doesn't own the person. (Okay, in a way, it might - but that is philosophy and unrelated to the original topic! )

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I do not mean that I would assume that anyone calling someone a treasure would claim ownership over her/him, but I think there is a certain possesive edge to the word and if you call someone a treasure, it looks like you're kind of taking a higher status compared to him/her, which I can't see Celeborn doing with Galadriel. I do not seek to "incriminate" the word or emphasise these subtle minor tones in it, I just don't think it would have occurred to Celeborn to use that word of Galadriel, or that if he meant to imply something like what you say he implied, some other word would have occured to him first, because of the quality* of his and Galadriel's relationship.

Well, I can't say definitely, because personally I don't think that I have ever called anyone "treasure" and it is probably not a word that would occur to me to use, but simply evaluating it I don't see anything bad about it. Yes, it is about how both the one who uses it and also the recipient interpretate it (and had not C&G known each other for thousands of years, it may have been possible that if this were used about Galadriel, and she would interpretate it in the worse way, as soon as the Company left she could have turned to Celeborn: "How dare you-!"), but I think it is not necessary that Celeborn could not have used it. Maybe he would simply belong to the cathegory of people who don't see anything wrong on the word. If we were not to speak about Celeborn but about let's say Thranduil, then I daresay a metaphore of treasure would be indeed quite a compliment (Although now maybe I'd start to worry whether in his case it wouldn't be too simple, and maybe in referring to people specifically he would move into a higher cathegory from the "material" one.)

But I didn't mean it that way and it really isn't in contradiction with what I talked about being possesive earlier - I think "have" is a far more equal term than "treasure", because you usually think people can "have" each other, while the one who possesses a treasure owns it, but the the treasure doesn't own the person. (Okay, in a way, it might - but that is philosophy and unrelated to the original topic! )

Hm, I would actually say "have" is worse than "treasure", but that's also a matter of opinion (I only had in mind the fact that in most cases, "have" is used in the meaning "own"). And not sure if it isn't a little cultural/language determined. But in any case, the main point was: if you thought the use of the term "treasure" in the sentence quoted, if it were to be about Galadriel, would be inappropriate, then I say: the usage of "have" you posed could be interpretated in a similar way.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Is it possible that the "treasure" to which Celeborn referred is his realm? It was known that if the quest to destroy the Ring succeeded, Lothlorien would fade, diminish, and, as we know, ultimately be no more. Celeborn's "doom" may have been to return to his realm to oversee it until finally, its population would dwindle and depart, leaving him to depart as well (which we know he did, even if we don't know for certain where he went). His "treasure," the realm he had worked long and hard to build and guard from the ravages of the world, would be lost. Aragorn, on the other hand, was fated to return to his realm, which was growing. Hopefully, it would continue to grow and flourish, so that by the time the Doom of Men came to him at the end of his days, he would leave not an empty realm, but one full of hope and promise for a greater future -- his "treasure" remaining with him to the end.

No canonical support for this, of course, but perhaps it is a suitable interpretation.