Oaths & Oathbreaking

[davem]

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?

[drigel]

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.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

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.

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

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

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

The Muster of Rohan (RotK )p 833

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?

[Firefoot]

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

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.

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.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

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

Ah - I'd quite forgotten that quote.

Frodo attempts to leave Sam at Parth Galen.

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?

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

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.