Celebrian's Misfortunes

[narfforc]

She was in fact raped, for I was the offspring of that unholy union. When I was born they called me Narfforc, because I was one. Sorry to end the speculation this way.

[Nukapei]

I've just done a search at both CoE and The Encyclopedia of Arda, and neither mention a "Narfforc" under any category. Where'd you get this information, Narfforc?

[The Barrow-Wight]

narfforc is obviously not being truthful, for he is a troll, not an orc.

Let's stay on topic, please. No need to digress any further into silliness.

[Nukapei]

I know, I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

This has always been an intriguing, if disturbing, aspect of the Legendarium to me. I find it interesting that Tolkien so carefully uses the word "torment" to describe what Celebrian went through -- this is an ambiguous word which means simply 'suffering or agony of some kind'. Tolkien could have used the more specific word "torture" to indicate physical assault of a more direct kind (that is, probably not rape), but he did not. Both in the Appendix and in the brief mention of the incident in the tale, he uses the word "torment".

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes. One can be tormented by oneself (psychological torment), by others physically or emotionally, by an idea, by a weapon, even by God (there are any number of uses in the OED from the Middle Ages in which God "tormentid" both the ungodly and those faithful whom he was testing).

So Tolkien has given us a clear indication that something agonising, painful and which does lasting harm, has happened to Celebrian, but because of the word he uses, he gives us no indication of what form that torment did, or did not, take. So it comes back to one of Tolkien's greatest strengths as a writer, insofar as it would appear that the reader is being given a certain amount of freedom. The question becomes not "what happened to Celebrian" (because all we know is that she was tormented) but "what kind of torment do I think orcs would inflict on Celebrian"?

For my money, I think that there is no form of torment to which an orc would be adverse -- and given their violence, their attitudes toward nature and other peoples, I find it hard to think that they would pass up the chance to rape a beautiful and noble Elf woman. It's one of the sadder ideas I've ever encountered in Tolkien, and I don't like to think of it much, but there it is. Middle-earth is, as we have so often noted elsewhere, a complete world both in its good and in its evil. If we are to have the healthy and productive sexual relationship of Rosie and Sam, there must logically exist the opposite of that somewhere. . .

EDIT

In the Appendix account we read that Celebrian was "seized and carried off" by the orcs. For what it's worth, that phrase is a Victorian euphemism for rape. And at the council of Elrond, we hear that Celebrian suffered torment in the "dens" of the orcs -- again, Victorian connotations around the word "den" are interesting insofas as it is used to refer to vice and sensuality ("dens of iniquity" and so on).

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

This has always been an intriguing, if disturbing, aspect of the Legendarium to me. I find it interesting that Tolkien so carefully uses the word "torment" to describe what Celebrian went through -- this is an ambiguous word which means simply 'suffering or agony of some kind'. Tolkien could have used the more specific word "torture" to indicate physical assault of a more direct kind (that is, probably not rape), but he did not. Both in the Appendix and in the brief mention of the incident in the tale, he uses the word "torment".

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes. One can be tormented by oneself (psychological torment), by others physically or emotionally, by an idea, by a weapon, even by God (there are any number of uses in the OED from the Middle Ages in which God "tormentid" both the ungodly and those faithful whom he was testing).

So Tolkien has given us a clear indication that something agonising, painful and which does lasting harm, has happened to Celebrian, but because of the word he uses, he gives us no indication of what form that torment did, or did not, take. So it comes back to one of Tolkien's greatest strengths as a writer, insofar as it would appear that the reader is being given a certain amount of freedom. The question becomes not "what happened to Celebrian" (because all we know is that she was tormented) but "what kind of torment do I think orcs would inflict on Celebrian"?

For my money, I think that there is no form of torment to which an orc would be adverse -- and given their violence, their attitudes toward nature and other peoples, I find it hard to think that they would pass up the chance to rape a beautiful and noble Elf woman. It's one of the sadder ideas I've ever encountered in Tolkien, and I don't like to think of it much, but there it is. Middle-earth is, as we have so often noted elsewhere, a complete world both in its good and in its evil. If we are to have the healthy and productive sexual relationship of Rosie and Sam, there must logically exist the opposite of that somewhere. . .

EDIT

In the Appendix account we read that Celebrian was "seized and carried off" by the orcs. For what it's worth, that phrase is a Victorian euphemism for rape. And at the council of Elrond, we hear that Celebrian suffered torment in the "dens" of the orcs -- again, Victorian connotations around the word "den" are interesting insofas as it is used to refer to vice and sensuality ("dens of iniquity" and so on).

I suppose I'll have to throw my two cents in now.

You make a good argument, but I think if such a crime really was commited against Celebrian then Tolkien would say so less cryptically. In the Narn I hin Hurin , there is an incident in which an outlaw pursues a girl through the forest, and gets himself slain by Turin. The meaning of the pursuit is fairly easy to guess from the comments of the other outlaws.

I also wonder if the orcs would be capable of such an act, as they seem to be quite asexual, nothing being said about female orcs or anything else, only that they spawned.

Finally, I believe Tolkien wrote that Celebrian's reason for leaving was "A poisoned wound" not any psychological damage.

[the phantom]

the passage you cite was actually revised out of a later version of the essay and changed to "...seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them."

Yes it was. But the "seldom..." statement of manuscript B directly interferes only with this part of manuscript A-> "there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force".

Manuscript B ignores the most pertinent part of the manuscript A quote-> "one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos". Nothing in B goes against this statement.

[Mister Underhill]

Except that its very removal in revision implies that the professor had second thoughts on this idea.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

This has always been an intriguing, if disturbing, aspect of the Legendarium to me. I find it interesting that Tolkien so carefully uses the word "torment" to describe what Celebrian went through -- this is an ambiguous word which means simply 'suffering or agony of some kind'. Tolkien could have used the more specific word "torture" to indicate physical assault of a more direct kind (that is, probably not rape), but he did not. Both in the Appendix and in the brief mention of the incident in the tale, he uses the word "torment".

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes. One can be tormented by oneself (psychological torment), by others physically or emotionally, by an idea, by a weapon, even by God (there are any number of uses in the OED from the Middle Ages in which God "tormentid" both the ungodly and those faithful whom he was testing).

So Tolkien has given us a clear indication that something agonising, painful and which does lasting harm, has happened to Celebrian, but because of the word he uses, he gives us no indication of what form that torment did, or did not, take. So it comes back to one of Tolkien's greatest strengths as a writer, insofar as it would appear that the reader is being given a certain amount of freedom. The question becomes not "what happened to Celebrian" (because all we know is that she was tormented) but "what kind of torment do I think orcs would inflict on Celebrian"?

For my money, I think that there is no form of torment to which an orc would be adverse -- and given their violence, their attitudes toward nature and other peoples, I find it hard to think that they would pass up the chance to rape a beautiful and noble Elf woman. It's one of the sadder ideas I've ever encountered in Tolkien, and I don't like to think of it much, but there it is. Middle-earth is, as we have so often noted elsewhere, a complete world both in its good and in its evil. If we are to have the healthy and productive sexual relationship of Rosie and Sam, there must logically exist the opposite of that somewhere. . .

EDIT

In the Appendix account we read that Celebrian was "seized and carried off" by the orcs. For what it's worth, that phrase is a Victorian euphemism for rape. And at the council of Elrond, we hear that Celebrian suffered torment in the "dens" of the orcs -- again, Victorian connotations around the word "den" are interesting insofas as it is used to refer to vice and sensuality ("dens of iniquity" and so on).

Alas, my fears have been realized. Although Tolkien never directly confirms it, it seems that this really was the direction they were headed. The quote about the Elves taking other spouses doesn't really suffice against this. Celebrian was of a royal lineage, & the spouse of Elrond, Lord of Rivendelle. I doubt that they'd just easily slay her for that, & what greater way to torment a noble elven-woman than to defile her body against her will. A poisoned wound doesn't only need to be within the confines of the physical aspect. What a victim of rape feels during the aftermath is "poisoned-wound" enough, just like Frodo's mental anguish after the whole ordeal of his mission.

[radagastly]

Because of his word choice, Tolkien opens the door to all manner of speculation. And the more you look into the meanings and uses of the word, the more vague it becomes.

How much more horrible her torment becomes when we are forced to install our own particular ideas of horror into her story, instead of having Tolkien detail them for us (which, as a gentleman, he most certainly would not do.)

In the Appendix account we read that Celebrian was "seized and carried off" by the orcs. For what it's worth, that phrase is a Victorian euphemism for rape. And at the council of Elrond, we hear that Celebrian suffered torment in the "dens" of the orcs -- again, Victorian connotations around the word "den" are interesting insofas as it is used to refer to vice and sensuality ("dens of iniquity" and so on).

I don't think I needed these (only slightly veiled) euphemisms to understand what happened to her, at least when I read about it.

Phantom:

However, it's very likely she was tickled mercilessly

I doubt even orcs would be that cruel.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel

Alas, my fears have been realized. Although Tolkien never directly confirms it, it seems that this really was the direction they were headed. The quote about the Elves taking other spouses doesn't really suffice against this. Celebrian was of a royal lineage, & the spouse of Elrond, Lord of Rivendelle. I doubt that they'd just easily slay her for that, & what greater way than to torment a noble elven-woman than to defile her body against her will. A poisoned wound doesn't only need to be within the confines of the physical aspect. What a victim of rape feels during the aftermath is "poisoned-wound" enough, just like Frodo's mental anguish after the whole ordeal of his mission.

I can see where this is heading........

If Tolkien wanted to imply that Celebrian was assaulted in such a way I'm sure he would not have resorted to such a circurtious and cryptic circumlocution to say so.

And I think we've all dwelt on this long enough now.

[Bêthberry]

Well, much as I would like to quote Fordim's excellent post, I see several have already beat me to the idea, so I will limit my comments.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

. . . because of the word he uses, he gives us no indication of what form that torment did, or did not, take. So it comes back to one of Tolkien's greatest strengths as a writer, insofar as it would appear that the reader is being given a certain amount of freedom. The question becomes not "what happened to Celebrian" (because all we know is that she was tormented) but "what kind of torment do I think orcs would inflict on Celebrian"?

EDIT

In the Appendix account we read that Celebrian was "seized and carried off" by the orcs. For what it's worth, that phrase is a Victorian euphemism for rape. And at the council of Elrond, we hear that Celebrian suffered torment in the "dens" of the orcs -- again, Victorian connotations around the word "den" are interesting insofas as it is used to refer to vice and sensuality ("dens of iniquity" and so on).

I like very much this very philological approach to the historical meaning of workds and phrases. It suits Tolkien very well indeed. I think and provides us with rsonances for torment which are far more ominous than, as you suggest, "torture" or even a more blunt statement of the particular nature of the assault..

But my main question takes us slightly off topic, and in some manner is speculative.

Fordim. why do you think Tolkien chose to be this indirect? Your comment here suggests your believe he was leaving open an aspect of the mythology for readers to develop. We know he wanted people to take up the mythology and run with it, so to speak. Do you think he worked this into his narrative, specifically creating "narrative spaces" or "gaps" for readers to fill in?

Or was there some other purpose served? Once several years ago I was discussing the nature of good and evil in LotR with someone who shared Tolkien's religous beliefs and for her this matter of indirection was a moral directive. To speak of evil openly and directly would be, according to her, tantamount to promulagating the evil. "Speak no evil", quite literally. If this is the case, then quite sadly, the silence works against its purpose by inspiring readers with curiousity about the event.

I'm not sure how to make a definite determination here, but I think the writerly question is interesting: where, when and how to "withhold information" in order to stimulate in readers that ole "RPG" or fanfiction urge to ponder more aspects of Middle earth.

[the phantom]

Not that anyone would write a fan-fic or start an RPG about the specific information gap in question.

(at least I'd hope not)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Fordim. why do you think Tolkien chose to be this indirect? Your comment here suggests your believe he was leaving open an aspect of the mythology for readers to develop. We know he wanted people to take up the mythology and run with it, so to speak. Do you think he worked this into his narrative, specifically creating "narrative spaces" or "gaps" for readers to fill in?

I'm not really sure that Tolkien was being as "indirect" as all that. The euphemistic language he uses in these passages is not perhaps explicit, but I think that it is pretty clear, given the context of his writing. The word "rape" was simply never used in any kind of formal writing until the 1970s and 80s. Even the euphemism which is still a staple in all journalistic writing today, "sexual assault", was not invented until the 1960s. Before then, the only ways to refer to rape that were publishable in any form were euphemisms like the ones used by Tolkien. It worked, because while the writer did not explicitly say "she was raped" everyone knew what was meant when told "she was taken against her will."

But this does not really address your question: why did Tolkien write it this way? Well, I don't know, cause I can't see inside his head (woe is me!) but my suspicion is that Tolkien did keep it relatively 'gentle' due to his own reservations with directly representing something so ugly, in part as it would do injury to his own sensibilities, and as it might give offense to his readers. Just look at the passionate reaction some people have to the mere suggestion that Celebrian's "torment" might have been sexual!

But to finally address your question: yes, I do think that he would have valued the ambiguity of this moment insofar as it allows readers some room to imagine the incident in such a way as to make it 'fit' their own version of Middle-earth. For those to whom such an act would destroy the enchantment, they can easily read that moment as being one of 'mere' physical torment. For others whose sense of the enchantment can withstand such an ugly episode, we are free to interpret it that way too.

This might sound odd, but I find that my sense of wonderment and enchantment with the text is actually, and extremely ironically, buttressed by the idea that Celebrian was raped. Ugly, I know, but hear me out: one of the ways in which Middle-earth can sometimes seem unbelievable to me is in the things that do NOT happen, or that are not allowed to happen. Things that are clearly a part of the human world, but not a part of Middle-earth. Homosexuality is a good example (can of worms, can of worms, can of worms); sex and rape are others. The less like our world it is, the less I am able to be immersed by it.

Think of it this way: if it were to state somewhere, unequivocally, that orcs did not rape, I would find that hard to believe. They are monstrously evil, depraved beings that reflect the very worst of humanity. They destroy without thought, kill without conscience or reason, defile nature -- to turn around and say that despite this they are too delicate to rape a prisoner. . .well, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

One more thing that I find interesting about Tolkien's depiction of this episode is what we do NOT find in it. If he had wanted to make sure that no-one could come along afterward and wonder "did the orcs rape Celebrian?" he could so easily have included a single sentence like, "some among the orcs desired to commit foul outrages upon her body, but they were unable to approach her for the wonder of her nobility and grace. They knew that to defile her was to ensure their own destruction." Obviously, the Professor could have done a much better job than I, but I think you get the idea.