LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 04 – A Short Cut to Mushrooms

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bombadil

On-topic, was Sam really just following his oath? Was there more to it?

I don't think Sam was 'just following his oath' in the sense of simply doing what he did because he'd said he would & didn't want to look bad. If you take the marriage vow, as Bethberry points out, 'For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness & in health'. That's a vow, & (hopefully) the couples who swear it don't subsequently stick together because they see it as simply a 'legal' contract. They swear it in the first place as an acknowledgement of their love & commitment to each other. Sam 'binds' himself to Frodo in service, & Frodo accepts, & a 'covenant' is made - I don't use the word 'covenant' lightly in this context, because the anglo-saxons understood God's covenant with the Israelites in terms of an oath sworn by a theign to his Lord. When the Israelites broke the covenant, they were oathbreakers, one of the most terrible offences imaginable, & punishable by death.

I think there was more to it for Sam, he did feel he had some task to do, involving Frodo's task, but in a sense this is why he swears the oath, just as marriage partners swear their vow because they feel that they should be 'one flesh'. The fact that Sam swears his 'oath of fealty' is confirmation that, for him, there was 'more to it'.

It is difficcult for many of us today to understand the nature of oath taking - we tend to see it as simply a legally binding contract, as BB says. It wasn't. It ws a commitment to a Lord, or cause, until death, made because the individual felt that that cause was worth dying for.

The theme of oaths & oath breaking runs right through the Legendarium, as you point out. All the hobbits swear an oath - Sam first, to Frodo, Merry to Theoden, Pippin to Denethor, Frodo to the Council. Sam's oath taking can be missed, because it takes place in a conversation over breakfast, but its as sacred & binding as the oaths sworn by the other three. Gollum also swears his oath - & that's perhaps the most interesting example, as, first, he won't simply break it, & second, it binds him, & brings his death when he tries to stick to the letter of it but avoid the spirit of it.

When Aragorn confronts the oath breakers it interesting that he doesn't simply 'forgive' them, he calls on them to fulfil the oath they swore. I don't think that we're simply dealing with the necessity of war here, Aragorn needing allies. My interpretation is that once sworn, the oath must be fulfilled before they can be freed. It can't simply be discarded, by them or by the heir of Isildur. In this context its interesting that Elrond tries to disuade the Fellowship from swearing a binding oath:

'Faithless is he that says farewell when the raod darkens,' said Gimli.

Maybe,' said Elrond, 'but let him not vow to walk in the dark who has not seen the nightfall.'

'Yet sworn word may strengthen the quaking heart,' said Gimli.

'Or break it,' said Elrond.

As we see with Sam's terrible dilemma outside Shelob's lair, breaking an oath can break the heart. Does he take the Ring & save everyone & everything he loves - we think, yes, if Frodo's dead, of course he must. But he's sworn an oath never to leave Frodo. If he leaves him, even if he is dead, then Sam becomes an oath breaker, lowest of the low, as bad as someone who murders a family member in cold blood.

Eowyn is an oath breaker, & she nearly dies as a consequence, but she survives, probably because she was backed into a corner, & didn't swear the oath freely. Yet a sworn oath cannot be ignored, & has consequences - even Gollum knows that. I can't help wondering if part of the reason for her desire for death was bound up with this sense of having broken her oath to her Lord & people, & also whether her subsequent loss of hope & despair (till cured by Faramir) is down to her sense of betrayal. She goes to war as 'Dernhelm' & will die in battle as Dernhelm, if it comes to that - not as Eowyn.

The oath sworn by Feanor's sons is of the same kind - they may not have trully wanted to swear it, but once sworn, it binds them. Even at the end, the last two will kill & die in attempting to fulfill it, when they'd rather forget all about it. I suspect Elrond's attempt to disuade the members of the Fellowship from swearing an oath of service may be due to his personal experience - he, more than most in Middle earth, knows the power of oaths.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

This discussion of Sam's 'oath' brings out yet another echo that exists between the Nazgul and the hobbits: the Ringwraiths are bound to their Lord in a manner that would seem to be the perversion of the ideal embodied by the bond of Sam and Frodo. The Nazgul are bound to their Lord by the strongest of all 'oaths' -- the power of the Ring. In this respect I would argue that Sam's ability to break his oath to Frodo sets him apart from the Nazgul insofar as their 'oath' is not freely given at all (so far as we know -- either that or it was freely given but they subsequently lost the ability to forswear).

So, apparently, blindly following an oath, or making one that cannot be broken (like the Nazgul) is problematic at best, evil at worst.

Interestingly, among the Anglo-Saxons, a Lord would give richly carved armbands of gold in return for oaths of fealty. This is why the vassal would refer to his lord as his "ring-giver", since these 'rings' would stand as a sign of both the pledge made by the vassal and the recognition and protection by the lord. Sauron is an evil ring-giver* because he does so to enslave; Sam is a good ring-acceptor because he does so for the love of his lord, even though it is in contravention of his oath (as he interprets that oath).

* In at least one dictionary of Anglo-Saxon idiom, I have seen a generous lord referred to as "ringas-theoden" (ringas=rings, theoden=prince/king) which was subsequently translated as "lord of the rings"!!!!!

[davem]

I do wonder about the significance of finger rings, as opposed to arm rings. There is, perhaps, some 'marriage' symbolism - making the two 'one flesh', binding them forever. In the British Coronation service the Monarch is given a ring, symbolic of his/her 'marriage' to the people. Perhaps there's something of the same going on with the Rings of power. Could we think in terms of Galadriel being 'wedded' to her realm & people, Elrond in a similar position - & Gandalf? (yet Gandalf, as he tells Denethor, is a 'steward').

If the wedding ring symbolises the union of two people into one flesh, do the Rings Sauron gives symbolise the same thing, bind his servants to him in the same way? But then, what is the significance of his making & bestowing the One on himself? Marriage to himself, producing a sort of incestuous, sterile union with himself - self love pushed to the ultimate extreme? All the other rings are given out, bestowed on others, even the elven rings - Celebrimbor gives them to Gil galad, Galadriel & Cirdan, but Sauron makes the one for himself & keeps it, in a sense binding himself to himself, closing himself off from external contact. Perhaps this is why the One obsesses any who take it up, & turns them in on themselves. So, Gandalf warns Frodo never to put it on.

Wild thought - the Ring turns its wearer invisible - symbolising their own self obsession, their (final) inability to be aware of anyone but themself.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Fordim, davem, what a fascinating train of thought! Thanks for your insights on the significance of oaths as found in this passage (and elsewhere) - I hadn't thought of Sam's committment as an oath! The connection to AS 'ringas-theoden' is intriguing, and the idea of the One Ring as a symbol of self-love is definitely worth pondering! There's more to be found in this chapter than one thinks at first reading, isn't there?!

[Sharkû]

I've posted some ring 'n rule stuff inspired by this thread's latest posts here: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...751#post336751

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

Eowyn is an oath breaker, & she nearly dies as a consequence, but she survives, probably because she was backed into a corner, & didn't swear the oath freely.

Indeed, things would probably have turned out far worse had she not broken it - the slaying of the Witch-king was one of the critical points in the battle. And Merry broke the same oath she did, did he not? He did swear fealty to Theoden and then disobey Theoden's command. I'm not sure what that says about oaths and oath-breakers, but it can't be ignored.

It's certainly true that oaths are a major theme within the Legendarium as a whole; Feanor's oath motivates most of the Silmarillion. Tolkien's other great oath-story, I've always thought, is Beren and Luthien. The obvious oath there is Beren's to Thingol. For a passage with a great deal of bearing on the whole matter of oaths, see the debate of Beren with Luthien in the Lay of Leithien in HoMe III, where Luthien urges Beren to forget his oath and he refuses. There are other oaths here as well - Gorlim's to Barahir (which is broken), Thingol's to Luthien (which is nominally kept but twisted in spirit), and Finrod's to Beren (which is fulfilled, resulting in the death of Finrod). This probably isn't the place to enter into a discussion of those oaths, but it's an interesting story to consider in connection with the oaths of LotR.

Fordim wrote:

The Nazgul are bound to their Lord by the strongest of all 'oaths' -- the power of the Ring. In this respect I would argue that Sam's ability to break his oath to Frodo sets him apart from the Nazgul insofar as their 'oath' is not freely given at all

I wonder whether this is true. We could ask the same questions concerning the Nine Rings as we have concerning the One - is their power external or internal? Do they impose Sauron's will on the Nazgul, or do they amplify the evil tendencies of the Nazgul but leave their free will essentially intact?

Davem wrote:

Now, maybe (Holmes doesn't offer this possibility) that's down to fear of the precious (Precious will be angry), but we have to consider that even Smeagol will not go so far as oath breaking (though he's definitely working his way through Wulfstan's list of sins!). Support fo this would be his sticking to the rules of the Riddle Game.

I think it's in between. It's certainly not simply fear of the precious - at least I don't think so. But I don't think that Gollum would have thought twice about breaking most other oaths. I think the important point is that he swore by the Ring. That was the only kind of oath that had any power over him, and certainly the only kind of oath from him that Frodo would trust. For Tolkien, the person or thing by which you swear an oath is of critical importance. Remember that Feanor's oath was sworn in the name of Iluvatar.

On a far lighter note, I was flipping through Letters the other day and remembered an anecdote of Tolkien's with some connection to this chapter. In 1958 he attended a "Hobbit Dinner" in Holland, held by a Dutch bookseller. One of the items on the menu was a mushroom soup. Apparently, by way of alluding to the book and as they did not know "all the names of the English vermins", they called it "Maggot Soup".

Not profound, I know, but it does make me wonder whether any squeamish hobbits preferred not to eat the mushrooms from our good farmer's fields.

[Fingolfin II]

Aiwendil wrote:

For Tolkien, the person or thing by which you swear an oath is of critical importance. Remember that Feanor's oath was sworn in the name of Iluvatar.

That is very true. In all the cases of when an oath is sworn in Middle-Earth, the effect has been that either the oath-swearer has fulfilled their oath (i.e. Beren, Finrod, Sam, etc.) or have died trying- for example, the sons of Feanor.

In the case that an oath has been broken, there has usually been retribution for the oath-breaker; the examples I can think of are Gollum falling into Mount Doom, the sons of Ulfang being slain after their treachery in the Battle of Unnumbered Tears and the Dead Men of Dunharrow becoming like that because they didn't fulfill their oath to fight for Isildur.

Fordim wrote:

So, apparently, blindly following an oath, or making one that cannot be broken (like the Nazgul) is problematic at best, evil at worst.

When we think of oaths in this way, it must be taken into consideration why the oath was made in the first place- was it made for a good reason or a bad one? Certainly Sam's 'oath' was made in good faith and for the right reasons, but Feanor's oath was made not to protect and help others, but to regain what was stolen for him and also to avenge his father, to an extent. However, Sam's oath to follow Frodo wherever he went turned out in the end, to have been a key part of the story- without that oath, Sam probably would have left Frodo and the Quest would have failed. Note that out of the Fellowship, he was the only one who swore to follow Frodo wherever he went. Hence his torment in Cirith Ungol is not only because he thinks is master is dead, but now that he is gone, Sam is at a loss for what to do.

'Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,' said Gimli.

Maybe,' said Elrond, 'but let him not vow to walk in the dark who has not seen the nightfall.'

'Yet sworn word may strengthen the quaking heart,' said Gimli.

'Or break it,' said Elrond.

That's a great quote davem and it shows how your idea that breaking an oath is very costly- in your example, Eowyn is used to illustrate this. I think that this reinforces my idea that making oaths for the 'right' reasons is usually beneficial - as it was in Beren and Finrod's case - and doesn't torment the oath-maker or the people he/she loves as much as those that are made for the 'wrong' reasons: i.e. Feanor swearing by Illuvatar and causing the woes of the Noldor afterwards by trying to fulfill it.

However, I concede that oaths made for the 'right' reasons can still lead to a bad end- consider Gorlim's betrayal of Barahir and his band. In every case of oath-breaking we see that it is always out of the desire for something- in Gorlim's case it is his desire to see his wife, for Gollum it is lust for the Ring and for the Easterlings who betrayed Caranthir it is a desire for power.

We have seen that an oath-maker must either fulfill their oath, die trying to fulfill it, or break it and suffer the torment. Frodo has sworn to destroy the Ring and he must do that or else die trying. So while oaths may be a good thing, following them blindly (as Fordim said), does lead to problems and certainly in Feanor's case, estrangement and evil.