Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.
Amendment added because of Night's King? I think yes...
I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men.
Old Vows, spoken at the Black Gate, and often repeated by black brothers....
I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.
Saw that you were thinking on this in Sly Wren's W. post.
Yes, agree on part one being in reaction to the NK. Part two seems the original, this is the Black Gate "open sesame" after all. Agree again.
Part three sounds like something admitting to a time when NW wasn't a life term. The older part of the vow reads present tense. The addendum is future tense.
The wording actually makes me wonder if the last part was added before the first part. The last part just specifies future service, not exactly how far into the future that service would go. The first part specifies that it ends at death. Hmm. Was it a shorter or a LONGER term of service prior to this addition?
Why must I always be the isle of crazy alone in an ocean of sensibility? The should to everybody else’s shouldn’t? The I-will to their better-nots?
The wording actually makes me wonder if the last part was added before the first part. The last part just specifies future service, not exactly how far into the future that service would go.
Makes sense to me. According to this scenario, the vows would read (from oldest to newest):
I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men.
I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.
Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.
Which actually makes a lot of sense: We begin in the present tense with the old vow, mention future service in the last line (now the middle stanza), then speak of the future in the new section that seems to be a reaction to NK.
[I'm going to edit the OP to set each sentence of the old vow as independent paragraphs. I think the one, single, very long sentence in the old vow is quite significant...]
The first part specifies that it ends at death. Hmm. Was it a shorter or a LONGER term of service prior to this addition?
Death ain't all it used to be during the Long nights. If it was a LONGER term of service prior to the mention of it ending upon death, then surely Coldhands is an example of a member who was exiled by the 'ends at death' clause. "We got no room for the likes of dead rangers here, see. Take your Elk and get on back to the Haunted Forest where you belong!"
If it was a SHORTER term of service, that is also quite intriguing, as it would seem many present restrictions did not exist, once.
Night gathers, and now my watch begins. So during the day, and summer, did the watch end? It shall not end until my death. Again thinking this could have meant service did end at one point, without necessarily requiring death.
I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. The "sworn brotherhood" begins. Mayhaps the Night's King wasn't the first to take a wife, hold lands, and father children? He certainly wasn't the last. We have tales of the NW warring with itself, and Craster is a "fathered child" sired by a brother of the watch.
Folks in Heresy have often wondered if he's a Stark, which I don't buy, but perhaps it is quite significant that his father was sworn to never father children. Now, Craster embodies the breaking of this part of the oath, quite entirely. He takes multiple wives. He holds a keep. And fathers children upon his children.
I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. This seems to bash not only the Night's King (crowns), but the Sword of the Morning (glory).
I shall live and die at my post. I can see this applying to the Sword of the Morning as well. I think his bros were pissed that he got while the gettin' was good. This also seems to make Coldhands an outlaw, once again, as he is now dead and alive and away from his post.
I wonder if this part was composed because of wight attacks. If rangers stop ranging, they cease to become like Othor and Jafer. Otherwise, it seems to be quite impossible for any Ranger to honor this line...
Unless... mayhaps Waymar Royce was oblivious to it, but Gared and Will certainly felt the moment building when they should stop ranging north, and return to Castle Black. Might this survival instinct be a more tangible strength that is tied to the vow? Mayhaps this is what the mocking voice of the Other was saying to Waymar, that he was going to die away from his post, or that he was too arrogant to avoid dying away from his post. /rambling
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
Part three sounds like something admitting to a time when NW wasn't a life term. The older part of the vow reads present tense. The addendum is future tense.
The wording actually makes me wonder if the last part was added before the first part. The last part just specifies future service, not exactly how far into the future that service would go. The first part specifies that it ends at death. Hmm. Was it a shorter or a LONGER term of service prior to this addition?
Agreed.
The "Black Gate" part of it reads like a mantra. Less of an oath or promise and more of a statement of identity.
With the "watcher on the walls" part, makes me wonder if this was a statement many people in the North on many walls might have made--"we're all in this together. We are all watchers on walls"--one body, together, in the night. Watcher on Walls.
Especially since the list of "I Am's" seems completely impractical for a single person to accomplish.
The Others and the wights and the potential hive mind--could this part of the oath be a reaction against that--"we may not be 'one mind' but we are 'one watcher'"? "Solidarity sister--and brother!"
The oath's being said at the Black Gate--before my thread got closed for length, I was wildly speculating about what might happen if the Sword of the Morning and his black brothers said that on the Wall, facing the Others.
The words open the Gate--have magical interaction with the Wall. The Wall has a kind of will--at least at the Black Gate. So, not only do the words stress unity of watchers (maybe) but are tied to unity with the purpose of the Wall. . . . maybe.
Which actually makes a lot of sense: We begin in the present tense with the old vow, mention future service in the last line (now the middle stanza), then speak of the future in the new section that seems to be a reaction to NK.
Agreed--might also be in reaction to moving the entire Night's Watch to the Wall--assuming they used to all watch on different walls.
I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. The "sworn brotherhood" begins. Mayhaps the Night's King wasn't the first to take a wife, hold lands, and father children? He certainly wasn't the last. We have tales of the NW warring with itself, and Craster is a "fathered child" sired by a brother of the watch.
Folks in Heresy have often wondered if he's a Stark, which I don't buy, but perhaps it is quite significant that his father was sworn to never father children. Now, Craster embodies the breaking of this part of the oath, quite entirely. He takes multiple wives. He holds a keep. And fathers children upon his children.
Agreed--I think that part of the oath relates to the NK.
Craster--the problem there is less "wife" than "massive incest and child sacrifice/infanticide." Even if he's helpful, Mormont still finds Craster difficult. I do think it's interesting that Jon has his "icicle moment" after NOT sleeping under Craster's roof AND staying away from all the black brothers who are fine with Craster. Makes me think something is supernaturally wrong with the man (whether you hold to the child sacrifice ideas or not)--like the Night's King.
Am thinking the oath may have been a bit of overkill--and maybe face-saving. If just "no wives and children" can skip right over the nasty bits about child-sacrifice--which sound much less inspiring in an oath.
I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. This seems to bash not only the Night's King (crowns), but the Sword of the Morning (glory).
I shall live and die at my post. I can see this applying to the Sword of the Morning as well. I think his bros were pissed that he got while the gettin' was good. This also seems to make Coldhands an outlaw, once again, as he is now dead and alive and away from his post.
Yes--this fits my "NK was SotM who kept the sword and got drunk on power" idea. And why Nan stresses it was a group effort.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
The "Black Gate" part of it reads like a mantra. Less of an oath or promise and more of a statement of identity.
With the "watcher on the walls" part, makes me wonder if this was a statement many people in the North on many walls might have made--"we're all in this together. We are all watchers on walls"--one body, together, in the night. Watcher on Walls.
Especially since the list of "I Am's" seems completely impractical for a single person to accomplish.
It has struck me before that the formulation of this part is reminiscent of a structure found in celtic poetry where the poet claims a kind of mystic one-ness with the land by using an "I am " formula for a range of somewhat abstract things. The most famous example is probably the Song of Amergin, which is best known in Robert Graves very loose translation in The White Goddess. A number of Taliesin's poems use the same "I am"/"I was" formula, such as this from the Cad Goddeu:
I was a sword in the hand I was a shield in battle. I was a string in a harp
Just for fun, that poem (the name means "The battle of the trees" is about a battle fought between Gwydion, who's name means "born from the trees" and who is a magician, and Annwn, the king of the otherworld (Bloodraven and the Great Other?) and obscurely mentions someone called Euron.
The "Black Gate" part of it reads like a mantra. Less of an oath or promise and more of a statement of identity.
With the "watcher on the walls" part, makes me wonder if this was a statement many people in the North on many walls might have made--"we're all in this together. We are all watchers on walls"--one body, together, in the night. Watcher on Walls.
Especially since the list of "I Am's" seems completely impractical for a single person to accomplish.
It has struck me before that the formulation of this part is reminiscent of a structure found in celtic poetry where the poet claims a kind of mystic one-ness with the land by using an "I am " formula for a range of somewhat abstract things. The most famous example is probably the Song of Amergin, which is best known in Robert Graves very loose translation in The White Goddess. A number of Taliesin's poems use the same "I am"/"I was" formula, such as this from the Cad Goddeu:
I was a sword in the hand I was a shield in battle. I was a string in a harp
Just for fun, that poem (the name means "The battle of the trees" is about a battle fought between Gwydion, who's name means "born from the trees" and who is a magician, and Annwn, the king of the otherworld (Bloodraven and the Great Other?) and obscurely mentions someone called Euron.
Now that you bring up Taliesin, I feel stupid. Just was reading something about him. Should have noticed that.
Very good catch--and stating a one-ness with the purpose of the NW seems likely to have an effect on something the the Black Gate.
Agree on the "mystic-oneness"--the NW has to be one with each other. Am also wondering if they have to be one with the Wall. If that's what we are seeing in Jon's Nightmare Battle--one-ness with the Wall--might need to go amend my post over on Westeros.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
I really like that poem, kingmonkey, so I think I've read the "I am" parts subconsciously with that in mind. Sort of a magic-infused boast at the hive on one hand, and a meditation on becoming part of your environment on the other. SlyWren, when you imagine the Watch repeating their vows at the Black Gate, are you picturing the mouth like the Star-gate event horizon? A portal into the otherworld? Or are you not as geeky as I am? :-D
My Giants are improbably winning, and my lesson plans are actually finished. I'm off to bed while I am still ahead :-D
The last part just specifies future service, not exactly how far into the future that service would go. The first part specifies that it ends at death.
I tend to disagree that the (current) Night's Watch vow ends in death. The last lines are about being pledged to the Night's Watch for all the nights to come, and that obviously extends beyond your lifetime as night will continue to come after your death. We need only look at the seventy nine sentinels to see that the Night's Watch can be thought of as a service that extends beyond your life as they were all interred within the Wall facing north so that even in death they'd still be performing their duty so that they could never abandon it again.
Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.
This almost seems to be a secondary vow that's supposed to be sworn when the Long Night begins. It screams of "NOW is when the threat comes, and NOW I must have no distractions". As if prior a brother COULD have had all those things, but when the dead come, they must be put aside so that the brother focuses solely upon his duty to the realm to stop the Long Night. Because all those things that a brother cannot have, are only mentioned as being in place once "night gathers"
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!
I tend to disagree that the (current) Night's Watch vow ends in death. The last lines are about being pledged to the Night's Watch for all the nights to come, and that obviously extends beyond your lifetime as night will continue to come after your death. We need only look at the seventy nine sentinels to see that the Night's Watch can be thought of as a service that extends beyond your life as they were all interred within the Wall facing north so that even in death they'd still be performing their duty so that they could never abandon it again.
Plus, there's Coldhands. I may be in the minority on this one, but ever since my first-read, I've always seen him as alive because he died/was martyred while keeping true to his vows, and even now continues to uphold them. He certainly sees himself as an active member of the watch, as he refers to Samwell as "brother". And I think his respect of the Wall is evident in that he does not pass through the Black Gate.
I have a hunch Jon will be continuing in his service as well, even though he's been assassinated.
This almost seems to be a secondary vow that's supposed to be sworn when the Long Night begins. It screams of "NOW is when the threat comes, and NOW I must have no distractions". As if prior a brother COULD have had all those things, but when the dead come, they must be put aside so that the brother focuses solely upon his duty to the realm to stop the Long Night. Because all those things that a brother cannot have, are only mentioned as being in place once "night gathers"
This is how I interpret it as well. Which gives rise to a great many possibilities.
Might the Sword of the Morning be chosen in Winter, as a way to usher-in the return of light?
Might black brothers actually be free to tend their titles and lands in peacetime?
I'm thinking this second one, at least, makes a lot of sense. Before the NW became a prison, why would they need such harsh penalties for desertion? According to the stories, theirs was a noble calling. And then, there is that shield room. If the NW was ever comprised of men with honor, why the harsh restrictions on their activities and station?
I think the reserve idea creates a lot of wiggle room for the SotM to play a part in the Wall's effort in when night gathers, but it certainly isn't restricted to him. Considering the need the NW seems to have for Valyrian steel (if it is indeed dragonsteel, which seems pretty likely), and, considering the Lords of Houses all seem to either have or used to have a Valyrian steel sword, I think it is very likely that their responsibility to their bannermen stems from this very practice. Night gathers, and Lord X of House X heads north to protect his people with his ancestral dragonsteel sword.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
SlyWren, when you imagine the Watch repeating their vows at the Black Gate, are you picturing the mouth like the Star-gate event horizon? A portal into the otherworld? Or are you not as geeky as I am? :-D
HA! It does have that vibe. But first time I read it, I was thinking the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland: "Who are you?" While he smokes his hookah.
I can't believe I've never thought of the watch beginning at winter time/night/darkness. Or if I have it has been forgotten. But, if it is so, then that could be the turning point for leaving multiple walls to fortify The Wall. Much easier to gather at one wall and spread out than defend multiple strongholds.
Or...
Agreed--but are you saying they watched every night, or only when the long nights began? I hadn't thought of every night, but it kind of makes sense. With the story of the Night's King--watching at night to make sure the cold ones stayed away. . . A standard vigil of all northerners. Then, as you say, pushed north to the Wall.
Plus, there's Coldhands. I may be in the minority on this one, but ever since my first-read, I've always seen him as alive because he died/was martyred while keeping true to his vows, and even now continues to uphold them. He certainly sees himself as an active member of the watch, as he refers to Samwell as "brother". And I think his respect of the Wall is evident in that he does not pass through the Black Gate.
Is that "respect" or "limitation?
I hadn't thought of this angle on Coldhands. Could this be why he has associated with Bloodraven, a former Lord Commander? A black brother north of the Wall?
This almost seems to be a secondary vow that's supposed to be sworn when the Long Night begins. It screams of "NOW is when the threat comes, and NOW I must have no distractions". As if prior a brother COULD have had all those things, but when the dead come, they must be put aside so that the brother focuses solely upon his duty to the realm to stop the Long Night. Because all those things that a brother cannot have, are only mentioned as being in place once "night gathers"
This is how I interpret it as well. Which gives rise to a great many possibilities.
Might the Sword of the Morning be chosen in Winter, as a way to usher-in the return of light?
Might black brothers actually be free to tend their titles and lands in peacetime?
I'm thinking this second one, at least, makes a lot of sense. Before the NW became a prison, why would they need such harsh penalties for desertion? According to the stories, theirs was a noble calling. And then, there is that shield room. If the NW was ever comprised of men with honor, why the harsh restrictions on their activities and station?
I like this--explains how it could get twisted/stretched out, especially as the Wall got turned into a prison. The feel of urgency and honor against the Long Night gets turned into a punishment. Only making the Watch weaker.
think the reserve idea creates a lot of wiggle room for the SotM to play a part in the Wall's effort in when night gathers, but it certainly isn't restricted to him. Considering the need the NW seems to have for Valyrian steel (if it is indeed dragonsteel, which seems pretty likely), and, considering the Lords of Houses all seem to either have or used to have a Valyrian steel sword, I think it is very likely that their responsibility to their bannermen stems from this very practice. Night gathers, and Lord X of House X heads north to protect his people with his ancestral dragonsteel sword.
Agreed--am wondering when the practice of the Valyrian steal in the North came into being--meaning, when/why acquire it? It just for prestige, makes sense that it's potential power against the Others would be lost. But did they put that together earlier and then forget? Was VS created in part as a reaction against the Long Night?
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
Might black brothers actually be free to tend their titles and lands in peacetime?
I'm thinking this second one, at least, makes a lot of sense. Before the NW became a prison, why would they need such harsh penalties for desertion? According to the stories, theirs was a noble calling. And then, there is that shield room. If the NW was ever comprised of men with honor, why the harsh restrictions on their activities and station?
I like this--explains how it could get twisted/stretched out, especially as the Wall got turned into a prison. The feel of urgency and honor against the Long Night gets turned into a punishment. Only making the Watch weaker.
I mean cause really, what purpose does it serve to strip these men of everything they have or could ever have, when there's no threat? Their purpose is to protect against the Others. That I understand why they must set aside anything that could cause them to waiver in their duty when the Others are a threat, but when there's no threat, what's the point in making these men forswear everything? It really accomplishes nothing, and probably stripped the realm of many bloodlines from men who were the last of their families at the Wall but couldn't have children because they'd (perhaps incorrectly) sworn not to.
And the harsh penalty for desertion really only makes sense during the Long Night. If someone left their post then, then yes, kill them. The Long Night was a winter that lasted a generation, and there was a war going on. Anyone who wasn't fighting to defend the realm would have been holed up in their castles, and we know that food stores always become a problem during any winter, let alone ones that last a generation. Someone who's not defending the realm, is just another mouth to feed. They strain the men who are fighting's families if they leave their post as they're just another mouth to feed that can't, or rather won't, contribute.
Your lordship lost a son at the Red Wedding. I lost four upon the Blackwater. And why? Because the Lannisters stole the throne. Go to King’s Landing and look on Tommen with your own eyes, if you doubt me. A blind man could see it. What does Stannis offer you? Vengeance. Vengeance for my sons and yours, for your husbands and your fathers and your brothers. Vengeance for your murdered lord, your murdered king, your butchered princes. Vengeance!