Oaths & Oathbreaking

[davem]

Ok, I don't know how many of you have been following our discussion of Chapter 3 of LotR in the Chapter by Chapter section, starting at post 43.
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...8&page=2&pp=43
but I seem to have started something that's sent some of us off at a tangent! Esty has suggested that we might want to take the whole thing outside where there's less chance of us doing any damage

My feeling, since being awakened to it by an essay by John R Holmes: Oaths & Oath Breaking: Analogues of Old English Comitatus in Tolkien's Myth, is that oath taking & oath breaking is a central theme, running right through the Legendarium. Feanor's oath has a terrible binding power on all those caught up in it, & as that includes virtually all the High Elves in Middle Earth, right down to the end of the Third Age, & many, if not most, of those who come into contact with them. I'm sure even a casual reader can come up with numerous examples of oath takings & oath breakings, & the more you look the more you find.

I think it may be interesting to try & look at how Tolkien uses the idea of the oath, & how he explores the effects & consequences of taking, holding & breaking them. I've thrown in some ideas on the original thread, so I don't want to repeat myself here, & I'd be interested in getting some new input before I pursue the idea any further.

[Kransha]

Hmmm, a most interesting topic.

Now, I have not been following as avidly as most the origin thread, so forgive me if ideas I put forth are old hat, but I'll go off anyway. If one is more lenient with the term 'oath' one can get much more out of of it. For example, one might consider the Ban of the Valar an 'oath' taken by the Numenoreans, though they never really took any oath to speak of, it was an oath in the common sense, or lexicon. Therein, the consequences of breaking said oath were most dire. If Ar-Pharazon, the proverbial oath-breaker, had not broken the Ban...well, you know. One of the more cosmic oaths, that one, but of crucial importance, at least in Numenor.

Otherwise, some lesser oaths, and breaking of which, might have also been a revolving theme. Perhaps the theme was more evident in the Silmarillion, but there were other things that could be considered. A great many sections of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, moreso in the second, and most in the final book revolve around swearing oaths of fealty, or changes of allegiance. Again, I refer to being lenient with the term oath. Perhaps an oath of comradery is not the correct oath, but still one. Pippin becoming swearing technical fealty to Denethor is an oath again, and a most interesting one, as it remained unbroken, for Pippin inadvertantly served Denethor even after his dismissal. That is just one simple example, hopefully one that augments your own views. For other, even more conjectural oaths:

One could also call the allegiance of others an oath. For example, the oath-breaking during the Battles of Belerian by the Dwarves, or the oath-keeping of Theoden of Rohan, mustering his Rohirrim and those of his nation to seek out Minas Tirith and defend it from the armies of Mordor. Those are, in some ways, equally important oaths, definately more important in the cosmic sense than individual oaths of fealty, but smaller, more compact oaths are more developing, more enlightening, and hold more importance, character-wise, in my most humble opinion...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kransha

If one is more lenient with the term 'oath' one can get much more out of of it.

I think this is the right approach. Oaths, vows, promises run right through the Legendarium. I've already discussed Merry's oath of service to Theoden in the Chapter by Chapter thread. Merry seems to put a higher value on his oath than Theoden. Theoden attempts to release Merry from his obligation of service, but Merry will not accept this - an oath is a 'covenant', & cannot be simply set aside by one or other party. Merry, technically doesn't disobey Theoden by going into battle - Theoden has set the oath aside, & from that point Merry is a free agent, free to go into battle if he will. Merry, on the other hand, is in a strange position - if he considers himself still bound by his oath he should obey Theoden & remain behind. But his oath was an oath of service to his lord to fight with him if it came to it - why offer his sword to Theoden otherwise. Merry is attempting to fulfil the oath he swore.

Pippin is in a similar position. He swears an oath to Denethor. Denethor at the end releases him

'Farewell!' he said. 'Farewell, Peregrin son of Paladin! Your service has been short, & noww it os drawing to an end. I release you from the little that remains. Go now & die in what way seems best to you'

but Pippin won't accept:

..from my word & your service I do not wish to be released while you live. And if they come at last to the Citadel, I hope to be here & stand beside you & earn perhaps the arms that you have given me'.

An oath is a two way agreement, & cannot be broken by one party. Aragorn accepts this, telling Pippin at their parting:

'For do not forget, Peregrin Took, that you are a knight of Gondor, & I do not release you from your service. You are going on leave, but I may recall you'

Another example arises at the same time - Treebeard informing Gandalf that he has let Saruman go free:

'Now do not tell me, Gandalf, that I promised to keep him safe; for I know it. But things have changed since then. And I kept him till he was safe, safe from doing any more harm. You should know that above all i hate the caging of wild things.

And it gets interesting with Faramir's words to Frodo concerning the Ring:

'Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even were I such a man as to desire this thing, & even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, & be held by them'

Faramir considers the words he spoke to be a vow - yet he didn't speak them as a vow! He's making himself into an oath taker after the fact. He takes his words so seriously that, apparently, anything he says he considers to be a vow. 'We are truth speakers, we men of Gondor' - ie our words are 'vows'.

But Tolkien doesn't seem to have a simplistic view of vows. He explores every aspect of oath taking & breaking. Some vows are right to take, some are wrong, but all oaths will work through, & cannot be escaped. Its almost as if, in Middle earth, once an oath is sworn (or a promise made), some 'force' is activated which will see it is held to - even Gollum knows that his oath of service, sworn on the Ring cannot simply be set aside, so he must tie himself up in mental knots in order to find a way to stick to the letter of it, while escaping the spirit. He must realise that once sworn an oath is a 'fact of life'.

[The Saucepan Man]

I wonder if there is any merit on distinguishing between oaths sworn to individuals and oaths sworn to office-holders. It might be said, for example, that Merry and Pippin both took vows to serve Theoden and Denethor as representatives of their respective realms, rather than as individuals. Aragorn certainly seems to be suggesting this when he says that Pippin's oath of allegiance is not discharged, evn though Denethor is dead and the House of Stewards no longer rule Gondor.

If so, then it might be said that they are entitled to disobey the orders of the office-holder if their actions are in fact in the best interests of the realm to which they have pledged their allegiance. Merry and Pippin both effectively disobey those to whom they have sworn an oath, namely Theoden and Denethor, and yet their actions turn out to be in the better interests of Rohan and Gondor. Aren't they therefore, in effect, fulfilling their oath rather than breaking it? The same might be said of Beregond.

Sam, on the other hand, pledged himself to Frodo as an individual, rather than to the "office" of Ringbearer. His duty, therefore, was to Frodo rather than to Frodo's quest. Hence his dilemma at the pass of Cirith Ungol.

[Earendilyon]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I wonder if there is any merit on distinguishing between oaths sworn to individuals and oaths sworn to office-holders. It might be said, for example, that Merry and Pippin both took vows to serve Theoden and Denethor as representatives of their respective realms, rather than as individuals. Aragorn certainly seems to be suggesting this when he says that Pippin's oath of allegiance is not discharged, evn though Denethor is dead and the House of Stewards no longer rule Gondor.

If so, then it might be said that they are entitled to disobey the orders of the office-holder if their actions are in fact in the best interests of the realm to which they have pledged their allegiance. Merry and Pippin both effectively disobey those to whom they have sworn an oath, namely Theoden and Denethor, and yet their actions turn out to be in the better interests of Rohan and Gondor. Aren't they therefore, in effect, fulfilling their oath rather than breaking it? The same might be said of Beregond.

I think the oaths of Merry and Pippin can be considered as oaths to the office (trough an oath to the respective office-holders), rather than to the representative of the realms. In these mediaeval-style times the ruler was the realm, not just a representative of it.
So, when Theoden and Denethor released Merry and Pippin from their oaths, they were released by the office-holder, but still tied by the oath to the office itself. I agree with you that they were fulfilling their oath.

[davem]

SpM This is what intrigues me - different kinds of oaths, what they mean, & how they affect those who make & accept them.

If we take the oath sworn by the Dead Men of Dunharrow, Isildur curses them for their oathbreaking, but his curse is not that they should have no rest as a punishment, it is that they should have no rest till they fulfil their oath. When its fulfilled they can rest. I find this interesting, because it shows that a little thing like dying isn't going to get you out of an oath! Their oath binds them, living or dead, & only the fulfilling of it can give them peace. This is not a case of 'till death do us part' - only fulfilling the oath will allow them to die. Its like the swearing of an oath is powerful enough to override the 'gift of Illuvatar'. The oath breakers can only die & leave the circles of the world once their oath is fulfilled. It doesn't simply pursue them to death, but beyond it.

What 'force' or power is upholding the oath, & ensuring it is worked thorugh?