# Curses and Blessings: Words, their origins, meanings and effect



## Eledhwen (Jan 17, 2005)

It is clear from reading Tolkien's works that, in Middle-earth, if a blessing is spoken over someone, then it has a real effect. On the other hand, if a curse is laid on someone, that also will take effect if the conditions are met. Gollum is specifically and conditionally cursed by Frodo and Faramir, and the result of breaking the conditions of the curse was him falling into the fire. Frodo was blessed when he set out, and despite many hardships his quest prevailed. But do blessings and curses work today, in our own world?

It's actually quite difficult to find an example of a blessing, deliberately invoked, with enough publicity to ascertain its effectiveness (examples welcomed) but I have an example of a curse that seems to be pretty effective.

Look at any Border Reivers website, and you will read of a lawless group of clans who terrorised the Scottish borders until the 18th century. Words like 'kidnap', and 'blackmail' come directly to us from their activities. 

In the 16th century, this group were subjected to a vicious curse (see link below) by a local Bishop, but continued their rampaging for another couple of centuries.

At the Millennium, in what looks like an attempt to cash in on the Reivers heritage, Carlisle, a city on the English side of the Scottish border, had the curse carved onto a stone and put it on display in the city.

Since then, Carlisle has been disaster prone. Although not the source of the recent Foot and Mouth outbreak, it was the area worst hit. And this month, Carlisle was under water for several days and three people drowned. The stone was exorcised by an Archbishop, but being still on display, and carved in such a way that folk walk anticlockwise around it while reading the curse (often out loud), its curse is regularly reinvoked.


 It seems the original curse had little documented effect, as the Reivers continued their way of life for another couple of hundred years.
 This is the first time the curse has been displayed in stone, in a place where it can be continually spoken out.
 Does the reinvoking of the curse affect Reiver descendants today? The Reiver surnames are: ARCHBOLD ARMSTRONG BEATTIE BELL BURNS CARLETON CARLISLE CARNABY CARRS CARRUTHERS CHAMBERLAIN CHARLTON COLLINGWOOD CRISP CROZIER CUTHBERT DACRE DAVISON DIXON DODD DOUGLAS DUNNE ELLIOT FENWICK FORSTER GRAHAM GRAY HALL HEDLEY HENDERSON HERON HETHERINGTON HUME IRVINE IRVING JOHNSTONE KERR LAIDLAW LITTLE LOWTHER MAXWELL MILBURN MUSGROVE NIXON NOBLE OGLE OLIVER POTTS PRINGLE RADCLIFFE READE RIDLEY ROBSON ROUTLEDGE RUTHERFORD SALKELD SCOTT SELBY SHAFTOE STOREY SIMPSON TAIT TAYLOR TROTTER TURNBULL WAKE WATSON WILSON WOODRINGTON YOUNG. Is your surname among them? Maybe you know better than I.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 17, 2005)

*Re: Curses and Blessings*



Eledhwen said:


> But do blessings and curses work today, in our own world?



Woo-hoo! You are treading into deep (but not totally uncharted) waters! This implies touching on religion and on magic. 

Supposedly there have been cases of remote cures being implemented by groups sending blessings to unknown recipients. Magic and other forms of voodoo have been around for ages, which seem to work when all parties concerned _believe_ they will. 

I was in New Orleans years ago, and got to know people who were both the victims and the practicioners of voodoo — scary stuff! There seems to be a large psychologico/hypnotic factor in it, but it works! The power of suggestion is very powerful indeed. (I remember a party one time in San Francisco when simply by suggesting it I got a young man's hands locked together, and he simply couldn't get out of it until I released him — this occurring in a roomful of people in full party regalia.)

I think you have broached a subject that is like religion: if you believe it, that's one thing, if you don't, that's something else. However, there is also the possibility of so-called paranormal abilities, which is a huge grey area.

Personally I believe that we all have dormant abilities that would turn the laws of physics around 180 degrees if we could but tap into them and systematiclly be trained in their use. Such powers regularly used would quite transform human culture. I think that will be a long time coming, because it has _already_ been a long time, and we are not much further toward it than we ever were.

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 18, 2005)

*Re: Curses and Blessings*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> I think you have broached a subject that is like religion: if you believe it, that's one thing, if you don't, that's something else. However, there is also the possibility of so-called paranormal abilities, which is a huge grey area.
> 
> Barley


I will monitor this thread myself and will edit out any attempts to proselytise people or direct them to sites promoting the occult or other religious practises. If there is no interest in the subject, I will delete the thread rather than leave it unmonitored.

I am interested in learning of events which seem to follow the command of a spoken word. Cause or Coincidence? In Tolkien's work, there is definitely a connection. 



Barley said:


> There seems to be a large psychologico/hypnotic factor in it, but it works! The power of suggestion is very powerful indeed.


Hypnotism (which I abhor) is different in that the subject's actions are directly controlled by the word of another. I am looking for the effect of a spoken word that happens _to_ the subject(s), not one commited by the subject.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 19, 2005)

*Re: Curses and Blessings*



Eledhwen said:


> ...Hypnotism (which I abhor) is different in that the subject's actions are directly controlled by the word of another. I am looking for the effect of a spoken word that happens _to_ the subject(s), not one commited by the subject.



I myself stopped using (clinical) hypnosis in doing therapy because I thought it too dangerous a tool. 

I need clarification: Are we talking about magic as Tolkien "created" it in the non-existent world of Middle-earth, or are we talking about it as it is alleged to exist in the real world?

Barley


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 4, 2005)

*Re: Curses and Blessings*

Just a note. The word "blackmail" arises from medieval tournaments. Younger sons not in line to inherit would go to "make their fortune" in tournaments. If a knight "won" a joust, the loser's horse and armor became the property of the winner. The usual procedure was for the loser to "buy back" his property from the winner. If a knight was good enough, he could make a fairly good living in the lists. 

Now, where does the term "blackmail" come in all this? Younger sons could seldom afford to employ a squire to attend them. Among other duties, squires _polished their masters' armor (mail)_. So such landless knights rode into battle in _black_ armor (mail) which didn't require polishing. Hence, the name for something that is "sold" back to its original owner is "black mail" or "blackmail".


----------



## Greenwood (Feb 19, 2005)

Eledhwen,

I don't have anything specific to add to your thread as far as the real world is concerned -- I don't believe in curses. However, in regard to LOTR, Gollum's fate was not brought on him by either Frodo's or Faramir's curse. Gollum brought the doom on himself because he broke his oath to Frodo. The peril's of breaking an oath are a common subject in many literary works. Certainly, a person may be cursed for breaking an oath, but the reponsibility for the doom lies with the faithless, oathbreaker, not the person making the curse. It may seem like a minor distinction, but I believe it is an important one.


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 19, 2005)

Another example of the power of words.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 19, 2005)

Another interesting thing: if you noticed, Tolkien does not have the members of the Fellowship _swear an oath_ before they set out. Gimli states that they should to 'strengthen weakening hearts', but Elrond will not allow it saying that an oath may serve to 'break' that heart or will. Now, consider: nothing was worse in ancient times (and in some modern societies that are still virtually medieval) than an "oath breaker". It was considered worse than murder and there was no forgiveness for such a one. 

Now, what might this have to do with the story? The answer to that is Boromir. For had Boromir sworn an oath to protect the Bearer and foreswear the Ring before the Fellowship set out, then his attack on Frodo in an attempt to wrest the Ring would have been "oathbreaking" and that would have put him beyond redemption. As it was, yes, Boromir fell, but he was redeemed in the end because he died defending the two hobbits and then he admitted his guilt to Aragorn and asked forgiveness before his death. So, in effect, he did what was necessary for redemption: recognized his "transgression", asked forgiveness for it from a concerned party and atoned and provided restitution by giving his life for Merry and Pippin. 

However, _none_ of that would have been enough had Boromir been an oathbreaker. Oathbreakers are beyond redemption at least according to the ancient moral worldview that Tolkien presents in his myth and that is why he made it _very clear_ that _none_ of the Fellowship had been constrained by an oath at the beginning of the quest to continue with Frodo to Mordor and destroy the Ring.


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 19, 2005)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> (Boromir) asked forgiveness for (trying to take the Ring) from a concerned party and atoned and provided restitution by giving his life for Merry and Pippin.
> 
> However, _none_ of that would have been enough had Boromir been an oathbreaker. Oathbreakers are beyond redemption at least according to the ancient moral worldview that Tolkien presents in his myth and that is why he made it _very clear_ that _none_ of the Fellowship had been constrained by an oath at the beginning of the quest to continue with Frodo to Mordor and destroy the Ring.


We'd better not mention film Sam's outburst at Osgiliath, then. (oops, I just did!  )

Tolkien spends some considerable time on the oath thing, at an early stage in the story; so he must have meant the reader to take it on board. Even Gollum tries to think of ways he can sidestep the oath he made before Frodo, rather than breaking it outright - until the last desparate moments.


----------



## Greenwood (Feb 19, 2005)

Mrs. Maggott,

Excellent points. To them I would add Faramir's words to Frodo and Sam in the cave above the Forbidden Pool after Sam has let slip that Frodo is carrying the One Ring:


> "... We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt. _Not if I found it on the highway would I take it_ I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them."


The breaking of an oath/vow can bring on the most dire consequences. Therein lies the power, not any curse spoken by another.


----------



## no1liz (Feb 20, 2005)

Interesting, very interesting. I never make a promise if I can help it. To make a promise is to make a vow. If I promise something and then can't deliver, I feel terrible. Usually I will say only that I will do my best. This is a personal quirk of mine. Also I don't tell lies. One of my mother's favourite sayings used to be, "You can hold a thieve's hands , but not a liar's tongue." It left an impression on me and so I don't lie. White or social lies can usually be got around by simply changing the subject. But I have to stress I am not a goody-goody by any means. I do love going to the roots of words, like Mrs Maggott's story about the origin of "blackmail". I like to look out for the names of places as well. Here in Aberdeen, there is a street called Flourmill Lane. In the Middle Ages, there was a mill there. Loch St is so called because there was a Loch there up to the 1700's. I get a little kick everytime I walk down it. The college where I go for my adult education class is on the Gallowgate, guess why it's called that? Liz in Aberdeen.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 20, 2005)

Well in LOTR we obviously have the power of oathbreaking that has supernatural power even to suspend the guilty man's spirit beyond death. Or have we forgotten Aragorn's recruitment of the dead army? I personally believe that this is not shy of the reality of blessings and curses, and I could go into it (but won't, for obvious reason  )

Thanks, Mrs Maggot for the "blackmail" explanation. Very intriguing! I have a sudden urge to go steal somebody's armour now!


----------



## Greenwood (Feb 20, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> Well in LOTR we obviously have the power of oathbreaking that has supernatural power even to suspend the guilty man's spirit beyond death. Or have we forgotten Aragorn's recruitment of the dead army? I personally believe that this is not shy of the reality of blessings and curses, and I could go into it (but won't, for obvious reason


Yes, the Dead were also called the Oathbreakers! They were condemned to linger in Middle Earth until they had fulfilled their oath to fight with Gondor against Sauron. The power of oaths and the dire consequences of breaking an oath are found in many works of literature besides LOTR; many of them not considered fantasy.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 21, 2005)

Just a little "aside" here. The Trojan War involved oathbreaking of the worst kind. First, of course, Helen broke her "oath" to her husband to remain with him. This is not a sexual matter since men frequently had women sexually other than their wives. This was forbidden for the wife, of course, not because of some "moral concept" but because if a wife became involved with another man, then the legitimacy of any children she bore could seriously affect in this case, the succession and in the case of an ordinary couple (not kings and queens) the distribution of the father's wealth upon his death. 

However, Helen was not the only oathbreaker. Paris was a _guest_ in the house of the King. There was nothing that was more sacred in antiquity than the interplay of host and guest. It was an "oath" situation - although no formal oath was or needed to be taken. The host took an oath not to injure his guest while he dwelt beneath his roof and the guest took an oath to do nothing detrimental to the well being of his/her host. (Another aside: this is why MacBeth's crime of killing Duncan while he was his guest placed him beyond redemption.) 

By running off with Menalaeus' wedded wife, Paris dealt a severe blow to the well being of his willing host and thereby broke the oath involved in hospitality. Thus did a thousand Greek ships set sail for Troy to bring justice to the oathbreakers. For the King and his allies to have failed to respond to this egregious behavior would have been to accept a complete loss of face possibly followed by attacks on Sparta by those petty kingdoms who considered that the kingdom was weak because its king was weak. There was a lot more on the line here than mere personal rage or jealousy.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 21, 2005)

That's very true. There's a Greek myth (maybe in the legend of Herakles or Perseus?) where the hero comes across a man offering travellers his hosplitality. He shows them to a bed that he claims will perfectly fit any guest, then either crushes them down to size or beats them out to fit. The hero visits the same punishment on this perverter of the law of hosts.

Also in the legend of Arthur, Guinevere is confronted with her infidelity. She bestows a favour to a beggar, kissing him on the cheek. He is Lancelot disguised, and she then swears before Arthur's court that her lips have only touched the beggar and Arthur, thus avoiding the consequences of a false oath.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 21, 2005)

In actual history, St. Thomas More when confronted by the oath that Henry VIII had all of his nobles take regarding his divorce of Queen Katherine, said "Show me the oath!" In other words, if the oath had been worded in such a way that St. Thomas could have taken it without debasing his honor, _he was willing to take it_ despite the fact that everyone knew what the oath was intended to convey - that the person taking it agreed with the King's desire to divorce his wife. Certainly More, a good Catholic, did _not_ agree with this, but had the oath been worded in such a way that he could take it believing as he did, he would have taken it. Unfortunately for St. Thomas, it was not and he was imprisoned and then executed on the false testimony of Sir Richard Rich, a man who owed his own status to St. Thomas' kindness earlier in his life.


----------



## joxy (May 16, 2005)

Thank you for that Mrs M. It gives me the excuse to recommend one of the best plays and films of the last century: A Man For All Seasons, the story of St Thomas More.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (May 16, 2005)

joxy said:


> Thank you for that Mrs M. It gives me the excuse to recommend one of the best plays and films of the last century: A Man For All Seasons, the story of St Thomas More.


Yes, alas, men like Sir (St.) Thomas are as rare as hen's teeth - then _and_ now. Another man who was absolutely uncompromising in his beliefs and his honor - although far more belligerant than More - was John Singleton Mosby, a man whose name was made in his actions as a "Ranger" for the Army of Northern Virginia in the Civil War. Mosby is a most fascinating character and a man whom I have admired since I was (quite literally) 12 years old. His life reads like a novel, but it's all real. 

Anyway, nice to hear from you. It's the first time I've posted in a long time and it was fun, but now I shall return to my comfortable obscurity.


----------

