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

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

The interesting thing about Merry's 'oathbreaking' here is that Merry is actually trying to fulfil his oath:

' I have a sword,' said Merry, climbing from his seat, & drawing from its black sheath his small bright blade. Filled suddenly with love for this old man, he knelt on one knee, & took his hand & kissed it. 'May I lay the sword of Meriadoc of the Shire on your lap, Theoden King?' he cried. 'Recieve my service, if you will!'

'Gladly will I take it,' said the King; & laying his long old hands upon the brown hair of the hobbit, he blessed him. 'Rise now, Meriadoc, esquire of Rohan of the household of Meduseld!' he said. Take your sword & bear it to good fortune!'

'As a father you shall be to me.' said Merry.

'For a little while,' said Theoden
'

The Passing of the Grey Company

Later, when Theoden tells Merrry he will not be allowed to ride into battle , Merry is shocked:

The King turned to Merry. 'I am going to war, Master Meriadoc,' he said. In a little while I sahll take the road. i release you from my service, but not from my friendship. You shall abaide here, & if you will, you shall serve the lady Eowyn, who will govern the folk in my stead.'

'But, but, lord,' Merry stammered. 'I offered you my sword. I do not want to be parted from you like this, Theoden King. And as all my friends have gone to the battle, I should be ashamed to stay behind.'

The Muster of Rohan

Finally, Theoden's words are almost an admission of his own fault:

Merry could not speak, but wept anew. 'Forgive me lord,' he said at last, 'if I broke your command, & yet have done no more in your service than to weep at our parting.'

The old King smiled. 'Grieve not! It is forgiven. Great heart will not be denied'.

The Battle of the Pelennor Fields

It seems that Merry has taken his oath of service to Theoden far more seroiusly than Theoden himself! Its also another example of how binding an oath actually is. Merry swore service to Theoden (he's even told Theoden he will follow him on the Paths of the Dead, if he is asked to), Theoden will put aside the oath, but Merry will not, & because of that the oath still binds Merry, & works itself out on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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".

If anyone is interested, there is a 'reconstruction, of this event, with menu, speeches, account of Tolkien's journey & his feelings, & photographs of the actual event in the Proceedings of the JRR Tolkien Centenary Conference volume.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This highly interesting discussion on oaths and oath-breaking is worth its own thread! Though the examples are interesting and enlightening, we don't want to get too far ahead of the current chapter discussion or too far off-tangent in the Legendarium. Who would like to begin a new thread about it on the Books main forum?

[alatar]

Excellent thread! Who'd have thunk it that a fungal shortcut would have led down such an intellectual path. Anyway...

What always got me in this and the previous chapter, after multiple readings, was the lack of success that the Nazgul have in (1) finding Frodo and the Ring and (2) finding any information about the same. The Witch-King, who later will ride through the Gate at Minas Tirith, who will face Gandalf and live , fails. These same creatures are put off by the Gaffer and Farmer Maggot. Sure, there's a power in the Shire, and methinks that it's food related (note how unwraith-like the hobbits are in their girth), but really, could Maggot and hounds hold back even the least of the Nine?

That got me to thinking. Why doesn't Sauron have his minions ride roughshod over the Shirefolk, having them do all kinds of nasty things to get information instead of just promising gold and spurring a horse? What's to fear, that an inhabitant of the Shire will rise up and slay the Witch-King?

Something else was going on. Part of the restraint is for the story, as noted, to keep up the suspense. We get to see hints and glimpses of what these Black Riders are or may be. If the Black Rider slew the Gaffer, then there would be no doubt, and the story would change - I like when I am practically begging the characters for information, not when it's all spelled out on the first page ala Brian Herbert of the newer Dune series fame.

But another reason may be assumed: Did Sauron command his servants to be as discrete and, dare I say, circumspect, as possible as not to tip off Saruman? The fallen Wizard sought the Ring as well; this Sauron must have known or at least assumed. Saruman already had dealings in the Shire and so had agents about - or as least as close as the Rangers would permit. Did Sauron, judging all others by his own lust and fear, think that with the Nazgul making a stir that they would provide Saruman with information that would make *his* finding of the Ring more possible?


And, on another note, just how big were Farmer Maggot's dogs? Were they hobbit or human scale?