What's up with Celeborn?

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Yes, given the text and the time in which this was said, I tend to agree with Ibrin's assessment as well. It was sort of a closing observation, and a sincere wish for the restored kingdom and Aragorn's future, contrasted with his own.

Besides, I can't imagine Celeborn bringing up his own deeply personal life at such a parting, no matter how well the different interpretations refering to it might fit the situation. It would be a highly unsuitable way to part with Aragorn, and I just don't believe that Celeborn would be that self indulgent. What good would it do to depress the young pup, after all?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

As to Arwen's burial- it's always been my impression (w/o actual evidence) that very few of the Silvan natives of Lorien or Mirkwood were disposed to leave or seek the west- they just dwindled to a "little folk of dell and cave." Legolas was (a) a Sindarin prince and (b) one who had seen the Sea and heard the gulls (obviously a turning-point in his life)

I agree with Lommy that Celeborn's treasure is Arwen, his granddaughter who lived with him for ages.

[Galin]

Hammond and Scull note regarding these words: 'He is expressing the hope that Arwen will never leave Aragorn, as he knows that Galadriel will soon be leaving him, to return to Valinor across the Sea.' (RC)

And I note from Sauron Defeated...

'Elanor was silent for some time before she spoke again. 'I did not undestand at first what Celeborn meant when he said goodbye to the King,' she said. 'But I think I do now. He knew that Lady Arwen would stay, but that Galadriel would leave him. I think it was very sad for him. And for you, dear Sam-dad'. Her hand felt for his, and his brown hand clasped her slender fingers. 'For your treasure went too. I am glad Frodo of the Ring saw me, but I wish I could remember seeing him.'

JRRT, Epilogue second version

[Thinlómien]

Great, Galin, one more enigma solved then... that is, if we can trust on Tolkien making Elanor solve the riddle for us, which I think we can.

Originally Posted by Legate

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

Even if we assume he valued material treasure greatly, it does not remove the possesive tone to the word.

Originally Posted by Legate

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.

Yes, I agree that it probably is a matter of opinion. (Now I'm swaying off-topic, but we don't even have a verb like "have" in Finnish, we simply use our "be" verb and certain cases to imply possession... now shouldn't I then regard the verb "to have" as stronger than as would someone in whose native language it appears? Clearly interesting...)

Originally Posted by Gwath

Actually, there IS a reference somewhere to Arwen's "green grave" being in Cerin Amroth, so someone had to have been there to bury her. Of course, since we know it wasn't Celeborn, it's not really relevant to this thread.

Yes, there is, it's in the passage I quoted and I'm well aware of it. However, I think the word "grave" could be interpreted less literally, that it could just mean the place where her remains were, I don't think it has to mean a literal grave.

Originally Posted by Gwath

The question is not "would it occur to Celeborn to use 'treasure' to refer to his wife?", but "would it occur to Tolkien to use the word in that way?" - to which I think the answer is probably 'yes'.

Now that is a very good point, I think. Although, it might have been a little careless of Tolkien...

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

I agree with Lommy that Celeborn's treasure is Arwen, his granddaughter who lived with him for ages.

Now why is everybody saying I said that? As far as I know, I didn't...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Yes, I agree that it probably is a matter of opinion. (Now I'm swaying off-topic, but we don't even have a verb like "have" in Finnish, we simply use our "be" verb and certain cases to imply possession... now shouldn't I then regard the verb "to have" as stronger than as would someone in whose native language it appears? Clearly interesting...)

Maybe then it's because you are not used to it, so it has no special tone for you...

Yes, there is, it's in the passage I quoted and I'm well aware of it. However, I think the word "grave" could be interpreted less literally, that it could just mean the place where her remains were, I don't think it has to mean a literal grave.

But then, if it were not literal grave, why to say that it was "green"... I mean, usually you don't give that concrete adjectives to unexistant things...

[The Might]

Good job, Galin!

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But then, if it were not literal grave, why to say that it was "green"... I mean, usually you don't give that concrete adjectives to unexistant things...

But surely it would exist even if it was not grave in the literal sense? I mean, there would be still be a place where what was left of Arwen would exactly be, the bones etc wouldn't vanish anywhere. Maybe her remains were just covered by leaves and mould naturally when time passed and thus she was "buried" and she would have a "grave", that would probably be green when grass started to grow on it. That's how I see it, at least.

[Gwathagor]

A rather grim picture...