Oaths & Oathbreaking
 

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.

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...

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
but Pippin won't accept:
An oath is a two way agreement, & cannot be broken by one party. Aragorn accepts this, telling Pippin at their parting:
Another example arises at the same time - Treebeard informing Gandalf that he has let Saruman go free:

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

I vow to thee, my country ...
 

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.

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.

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?

To thine own self....
 

With the overall themes of the stories he was laying down, I wonder if the author was driving at (at least to me) is the essence of oathtaking and the valour of upholding oaths: the most precious oath is is the one you give to yourself.

Davem wrote:
I'm not so sure about this. Yes, from a certain point of view Merry is fulfilling his oath, or at least the spirit of it. But Theoden does not release him from service, and Theoden commands him to stay at Edoras. Merry violates that command. When you swear fealty to a lord, you are swearing to do as that lord commands - not to do whatever you think would be of the most use to him.

And Eowyn's similar oath-breaking is interesting, for good comes of it. The Witch-king is killed. So here is an example of an oath-breaker doing well. But of course she did not willingly vow to stay behind.

But Theoden does release him from his service - I had to check this because It surprised me in the light of this thread:

So Merry from that point is no longer in Theoden's service - from Theoden's point of view, but as I said, we're talking about a 'covenant', which cannot be broken unilaterally.

I think its a case of the oath still being binding on Merry, so in a way he has taken charge of it, & continues on with fulfilling it. Theoden, by 'releasing' Merry has kind of 'opted' out of having a say. But the oath, not being in Theoden's command any longer is still in action, & therefore must be seen through. Theoden, by unillaterally declaring it void, has broken faith with Merry, but Merry keeps faith with him.

What strikes me most strongly is the way ones who recieve the oaths - Theoden, Denethor & Frodo are the ones who attempt to annul them unilaterally. Theoden leaves Merry, Denethor sends Pippin away, Frodo attempts to leave Sam at Parth Galen. The ones who offer service are prepared to keep it, even if it means their death, the ones who recieve the service seem to hold it at less value. And we can't bring in the excuse that it was done out of love or concern, because an oath is 'for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness & in health, till death us do part'. Its more than friendship, & the ones who offer service seem to know that, while the ones who recieve it don't. Admittedly, the oath Pippin swears to Denethor contains the condition: 'Till my Lord release me or death take me', but this brings in another question - does Pippin understand that - if Pippin has sworn, in his own mind undying service is that the 'oath' he is actually serving, & the one he's held by. Aragorn clearly doesn't accept Denethor's annulment of the oath, as he considers Pippin still to be a knight of Gondor. I would tend to understand that part of the oath of service to Gondor to actually mean 'Till my Lord release me (at my request)'.

Incidentally, isn't Frodo an oath breaker - he breaks his oath to the council when he offers the Ring to Galadriel?

Finally, what does it say about Aragorn that he swears an oath of service to Frodo : ' I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn; & if by life or death I can save you, I will' when he's only just met him?

Aragorn may have just met Frodo, but he had known of Frodo and his quest long before he met him. Gandalf had told Aragorn that Frodo would be coming that way with the Ring. Aragorn also knew the importance of Frodo's quest and the Nazgûl, and knew the dangers that Frodo faced better than Frodo himself. Aragorn knew that the Ring had to get to Rivendell - that the Nazgûl could not get it - or else it would be the utter ruin of the free peoples of Middle-earth. Aragorn understood that by protecting Frodo, he was in turn protecting the Ring from Sauron, and so he was ready to die to accomplish that. I don't think he needed to say it out loud, and that he would protect Frodo anyway, but he said it to reassure Frodo somewhat.

Interesting how he says "if I can save you, I will." At Parth Galen, Aragorn understands that he cannot help Frodo any longer. He could no longer do anything, and so is released from his oath.

But this is the difference between an act of goodwill - even one driven by necessity - & an oath. An oath is a 'public' declaration. You're right, Aragorn had every reason to help Frodo get the Ring to Rivendell, but he had no reason to swear an oath of protection to him. The oath is specific - 'if by life or death I can save you, I will' - note, not 'if by life or death I can keep the Ring from Sauron, I will' - which would have been all that was required. He swears to lay down his life to protect Frodo - which would have put him in an awkward position of it had come to a choice like one Nazgul grabbing the Ring & the other grabbing Frodo!

But then Aragorn does tend to be rather free with his oath taking, the only thing that makes it acceptable being that he manages to fulfil them all. He seems to go through Middle Earth commiting himself to aid all those in need - to be expected in a King perhaps.

What I percieve more & more strongly is the necessity of oaths, vows, promises in Middle earth. Victory depends on the fulfilling of oaths, & the greatest chance of defeat arises out of the breaking of oaths. Perhaps, as Bethberry pointed out in the chapter by chapter thread which started this off, in a world before lawyers, & contracts, order was dependent on people making promises which they kept - or died trying. The alternative was chaos. The weight of an oath, its necessity in keeping civilisation in existence, runs right through the Legendarium.

Davem wrote:
Ah - I'd quite forgotten that quote.

But Frodo had not accepted Sam's oath, as I recall. Sam made that oath to Gandalf, not to Frodo (i.e. not to lose Frodo). That's quite a different scenario from the reciprocated covenants between Merry and Theoden or Pippin and Denethor. Or am I again forgetting a relevant passage from the book?

A good point. For that matter, he breaks the oath again at Mount Doom.

It's interesting that of the oaths taken in LotR most have happy outcomes, broken or unbroken. Only Gollum's and Theoden's lead them to their deaths. Merry and Pippin not only come off relatively unscathed by their oaths; they also do quite a lot of good as a result of having taken their oaths - the Witch-king is defeated partially as a result of Merry's and Faramir is saved as a result of Pippin's. Even Eowyn's apparently broken oath leads to a good result. Aragorn does save the Hobbits and goes on to become king just as he wanted. Sam survives the trip to Mordor and wins great renown thereby, as well as playing a critical part in the success of the quest.

Compare this with the Silmarillion. Take the oaths in "Beren and Luthien" as examples. Gorlim breaks his oath and earns death and disgrace. Thingol swears an oath (not to slay Beren) but breaks it in spirit by sending him to get a Silmaril; the result is the eventual ruin of Doriath. Finrod's oath to aid the folk of Barahir leads him to his death in Tol-in-Gaurhoth and political trouble in Nargothrond. Only Beren's oath has a happy ending - and that only for him and for Luthien; for Finrod and his companions, and for Huan, his oath leads to death. And then of course there's the oath of Feanor.

I'm not sure what the whole significance of this difference is. Perhaps it just reflects the very different tones of the two works. But it is striking.

I assume you meant Thingol? ;)

Its matter of interpretation, I suppose. This is what sparked the whole discussion off on the Chapter thread. I'll give some of my post there:
As to the rest of your points, I can only agree that there is certainly a more 'negative' view of oaths in the Sil. I must look more deeply into the whole thing.

Legally, it might be said that Denethor was not of sound mind, and so his annulment of the oath was ineffective. :p ;)


Does Aragorn pledge his service to Frodo as an individual or to Frodo as Ringbearer? If the latter, then his duty is to prevent the Ring falling into Sauron's clutches. However, I take your point, davem, that he pledges to save Frodo and not the Ring.

If his pledge is to Frodo personally, then arguably he breaks it at Parth Galen when he lets Frodo go without following him. On the other hand, if his duty is to the Quest, then he might be said to be discharging his duty if he concludes that Frodo and Sam have a greater chance of succeeding on their own.

This raises another issue (and ties in with my earlier point about Merry and Pippin acting in the interests of the realm to which they have sworn fealty by disobeying the individuals to whom they pledged their service). What scope does an oath-taker have to use their discretion to discharge their duty? If, for example, a character pledges themselves to a particular cause and takes a course of action which they think will further it but which in fact is detrimental to it, can they be said to have broken their pledge? I would say not if they genuinely (albeit mistakenly) believe that what they are doing was in furtherance of their oath.

What I find interesting is that even Tom Bombadil has taken an "oath" (if oath you can call it) which results in the saving of the hobbits from Old Man Willow.

I know this is more a custom than an actual oath, but still, if Tom wouldn't have made this promise/oath/custom to get water-lilies for his fair Goldberry he wouldn't have been there to save the hobbits and their quest would have ended quite short.

I think the number of oaths Aragorn swears is very significant, in that he is binding himself to so many tasks its arguable that his life isn't his own. Also, once he becomes King he will recieve many oaths, all of which he will have to uphold. Someone who swears an oath to a lord has only that oath to stick to, whereas a Lord may recieve thousands of oaths of service & have to uphold all of them. Must take a very sharp mind (or a lot of advisors) to keep track & make sure none of those oaths conflict with each other.

I think this would depend on how specific the terms of the oath were. Some oaths seem to have been very precisely worded - as in Pippin's case, some more general, as with Merry's, & some you could argue about whether they consituted an 'oath' at all - like Sam's. Obviously, the more precisely worded, the easier to break. In the context of whether an 'oath' is an oath, I can only quote again something from the 'chapter' thread, regarding Gandalf's promise to Frodo:

This 'promise' is such that Gandalf shouldn't have to apologise for not keeping it, especially given the circumstances, but he obviously feels that not only does his 'failure' to keep it require an apology to Frodo, but that the apology should be made in public. Gandalf's honour is in question, as far as he is concerned. In short, its down as much to what the oathtaker understands the oath to be. I suppose you only truly break an oath if you go against its spirit - the opposite of what Gollum does, in keeping to the letter of his oath to Frodo while sticking to the letter of it. But I suppose we'd also have to take into account what the person who recieved the oath understood by it. I wonder if there's an example in Tolkien of both parties to an oath having different understandings of its meaning?

Earendilyon wrote:
I should hope so! Seems that I was typing a trifle too hurriedly. Thanks.

Davem:
With regard to Frodo and Sam - I don't deny that Sam swore an oath, certainly. But he did not swear it to Frodo. First he accepted Gandalf's charge to accompany Frodo. Then he accepted the Elves' charge not to leave him. In neither case did Frodo officially accept Sam's oath, as Denethor did Pippin's and Theoden Merry's. A person cannot be bound by an oath that he or she has not made - therefore Frodo cannot be bound by Sam's oath. This is in contrast to Denethor or Theoden who have accepted the service of their respective Hobbits. That's my line of reasoning, anyway.

My feeling is that when Frodo says to Sam, in response to Sam's account of his conversation with the Elves:
he is officially accepting Sam's oath. From that point Sam becomes 'servant', Frodo 'master'. I believe its an oathtaking - Sam offers his service to Frodo & Frodo acknowledges it.

But, I accept your point, that this question turns on the individual reader's interpretation of the episode. Clearly, though, given that we are dealing with hobbits who have known each other all their lives, I can't see that any 'oath' could be expressed any more formally. The master/servant relationship (referred to by the scribe in 'Of the Rings of Power', where it speaks of Frodo going into Mordor 'alone with his servant') implies a more formal relationship than simple friendship.

Going back to Aragorn's oath to Frodo, you could possibly say that he hadn't broken it in that he rode out to the Morannon outnumbered, to help Frodo. Granted, other motivations were included in this, but certainally Frodo's well-being was one of them. I don't see that letting Frodo go off on his own neccessarily means that he has broken an oath. He didn't afterall, swear to stick to him like Sam.

If I can intrude with a question about termination of oaths in Middle-earth, is it possible to negate an oath by appealing to the oath's witness(es)?
How about the intriguing discussion of Maglor and Maedhros?

""Then Maglor desired indeed to submit, for his heart was sorrowful.....But Maedhros answered that if they returned to Aman but the favour of the Valar were withheld from them, then their oath would still remain, but its fulfillment beyond all hope.....Yet Maglor held back, saying: 'If Manwe and Varda themselves deny the fulfillment of an oath to which we named them as witness, is it not made void?' And Maedhros answered: 'But how shall our voices reach Iluvatar beyond the Circles of the World? And by Iluvatar we swore in our madness, and called the Everlasting Darkness upon us, if we kept not our word. Who shall release us?'
''If none can release us,' said Maglor, 'then indeed the Everlasting Darkness shall be our lot, whether we keep our oath or break it; but less evil shall we do in the breaking.' "

Tuor of Gondolin wrote:
My understanding is that if you swear an oath to someone or by someone, that person can release you from it.

Davem wrote:
Yes, I can see that. It's a matter of interpretation I suppose. Frodo, at any rate, seemed to have no compunction about leaving Sam behind - but then neither did Theoden or Denethor about releasing Merry or Pippin from service.

It seems to me that in Middle earth once an oath is sworn it will work through. Problem then arises if you swear to do something which is logically or physically impossible. Effectively feanor & his sons swore (without realising it) an oath which bound them to do something which they could not possibly do.

Could the witnesses - including the 'ultimate' witness - Illuvatar - release them? Its almost as if a 'force of nature' is invoked at the oath taking, which will work through willy-nilly.

This perhaps brings in the 'power of words' - I'm, thinking of Finrod's contest with Sauron, which is a n incident really of words shaping reality - Finrod attempts to shape 'reality', or Sauron's perception of it, by his song. But Sauron's words are more powerful, & Finrod's attempt at reality manipulation fails. Arda comes into being at Eru's word - 'Ea!' 'Let these things be'. Could it be the case that an oath is something that works in a similar way, the oath taker is saying they will change the world, make it different, & so, invoke this 'force'.

Probably none of that makes any sense. I'm fumbling to make sense of the nature of oaths in Middle earth, because the more I think about them the stranger they seem. They seem 'magical', involving this 'power' which doesn't have its source in the individuals who swear them. That power seems to give strength to the oath takers, help them achieve their goal, but if they forswear the oath it turns on them, & they suffer till they do what they swore to do, or die trying. And the Sons of Feanor simply put themselves in a situation they couldn't get out of. Could Eru have set the oath aside? I don't know - He was called as a witness to it - it wasn't sworn to Him, & he didn't recieve the oath.

Of course, He was never asked to set it aside, so we can never know whether he would have done so.

One thing occurs in the light of the recently revived 'Curses!' thread - is a curse the same thing as an oath, does it work differently? Both are down to the power of words, or rather both are a case of words calling up a 'power', & both are attempts to shape reality, make it different.

While there are instances which seem to indicate oaths and curses can't be recalled, there is an interesting passage in The Silmarillion in "Of The Flight of The Noldor" which seems to hint that it could.

"...all heard the curse that was uttered upon those that would not stay nor seek the doom and pardon of the Valar ."

And
"Feanor hardened his heart and said: 'We have sworn, and not lightly. This oath we will keep."

These seem to suggest the possibility of having an oath invalidated.

I would think it depends on TO whom and BY WHOSE NAME(S) the oath is sworn.

In Feanor’s case the oath was sworn to themselves, nobody really wanted or expected them to do what they promised. So in case the oath givers \ takers settled the matter among themselves, the Valar (as witnesses to it and the Supreme Court in one) would decide whether they had the right to do it, as well as to start the whole affair.

But wouldn't this deny the autonomy of the oathtakers - why should anyone - even the Valar - have the right to decide whether an oath should count? Surely the Valar in that case would be treating the oath takers as children who didn't know what they were doing. It seems that once sworn, an oath must be binding, unless both parties declare it null & void. And it seems both parties understand this full well - Gollum knows, as do the oath breakers, & the Noldor, that they must see through the oath they have sworn. In the latter case the Valar are called as witnesses, because effectively the Noldor have sworn the oath to themselves - so it could be argued that they could agree with themselves that they would put the oath aside, but I feel its actually more subtle. An oath seems to call into being its own driving force, which will see it carried through. Elrond's warning against swearing aan oath seems to imply this at least - once sworn it may 'break the heart' of the swearer if he does not manage to carry iit through - or die in the attempt.

Of course one could argue that from Tolkien's perspective - the anglo saxon perspective - an oath is an oath, & if sworn there should be no thought of not carrying it through - one's freedom lies only in whether one takes it in the first place - if one swears an oath with some condition in mind - a kind of 'pre-oath' agreement, offering a get out clause, one is playing with the oath taking ideal. An oath is a sacred vow, more important than life itself in a way. Its a commitment to something greater - for good or ill, not something to play at in order to seem 'honourable'. The whole response of Tolkien & his characters seems to be if you swear an oath you lose some of your personal freedom, & are bound to the cause you've commited yourself to. The worst sin is to break the oath, & it seems that oathbreakers 'deserve all they get - no-one feels sorry for the Oathbreakers at Dunharrow, despite the millenia of terrible suffering they've been through - they swore an oath & so its their own fault, & they have no-one to blame but themselves. This may strike us as cruel, yet on some level even we moderns, with our 'clever' lawyers who can twist even the most binding agreements to find 'escape clauses', feel that oaths should bind those who take them, & feel that that is 'right'.

Exactly this is what I am thinking.

Besides by their oath the Feanorians were caught between two outcomes equally unpleasant for them. If they kept it, they would envoke the rage of the Valar. If they broke their oath, thus they would be estranged from the Valar and Iluvatar by whose names they swore (like when you swear by your life, it's supposed you lose it if you break the oath --just a cliché nowadays, what a pity :( )