The Legal History of The Lord of the Rings

J.R.R. Tolkein’s epic draws heavily on the author’s expertise in Anglo Saxon, Norse and Celtic languages and literature, as has often been observed. Its legal content has, perhaps, been given less attention. There is, though, much to interest the legal historian.

Here are some preliminary thoughts (working from Unwin Paperbacks, 3rd  edition, 1979).

The emphasis on oaths shows clear influence of Norse and Saxon models. Oaths are often required or given. They are binding, and oath-breach may continue to have an effect even after death. Gollum swears by the precious to help and not harm the hobbits – Two Towers 79; Book IV chapter 1. Pippin and Merry swear fealty to Denethor and Theoden respectively – Return of the King 27, 54; Book V chapters. 1, 2. The long and terrible effects of oath breach can be seen in the tale of the King of the Mountain of Erech and his men, who broke their oath to fight Sauron, and could not rest until they should fulfil it – Return of the King 58-9,  Book V chapter 2.

Also profoundly Saxon are the law of weregild, or compensation for the kin of the slain in respect of a (wrongful) killing, and the concept of bane, or attaching blame or significance to the thing which moved towards a death. Thus, a horse which squashes its master may be his ‘bane’. Weregild is mentioned in respect of men, as when Isildur justified his taking of the ring as weregild for his father and brother – Fellowship of the Ring 319; Book II chapter 2. It is part of the law of Rohan and of the dwarves. Return of the King 428, 444, appendix A. The Riders also – 428 – adhere to the idea of the bane.

As far as the law of property is concerned, the ring itself is, of course, the acquisition by finding story par excellence. There are various claims to or views of the ownership of the ring, from Gollum’s claim that the ring was his birthday present – Fellowship pp. 30-3, Prologue, to Frodo’s idea that Aragorn has a right to it by inheritance from Isildur, who might have had a claim to it by conquest or as weregild – Fellowship, I:79. 323; book I chapter 1; book II chapter 2 – to Sauron’s claim, presumably based on original ownership and the mixing of his power with the ring’s material – Fellowship, 78; Book I chapter 1. Presumably, Sauron would not have liked an argument based on limitation or abandonment.