Oaths & Oathbreaking

[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.

[Earendilyon]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Theoden swears and oath (not to slay Beren) but breaks it in spirit by sending him to get a Silmaril

I assume you meant Thingol?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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?

Its matter of interpretation, I suppose. This is what sparked the whole discussion off on the Chapter thread. I'll give some of my post there:

So, Sam has sworn his oath to serve Frodo, to the Elves, & then declared it to Frodo. Hence his shock & horror at discovering Frodo has set out from Parth Galen without him, & later, outside Cirith Ungol, when he agonises over whether to take the Ring or stay with his master,is not simply down to love for Frodo, but also because if Frodo does go alone, & then if Sam leaves him 'all alone on top of mountains, Sam will be an oath breaker. From that moment at Woodhall Sam has bound himself to stay with Frodo till the end. Once Frodo accepts his oath:

they become Lord & Theign. We can understand Sam's shock when Frodo does set off alone - Frodo is breaking tryst with Sam. Yet the oath holds them both.

As to the rest of your points, I can only agree that there is certainly a more 'negative' view of oaths in the Sil. I must look more deeply into the whole thing.

[The Saucepan Man]

Aragorn clearly doesn't accept Denethor's annulment of the oath

Legally, it might be said that Denethor was not of sound mind, and so his annulment of the oath was ineffective.

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?

Does Aragorn pledge his service to Frodo as an individual or to Frodo as Ringbearer? If the latter, then his duty is to prevent the Ring falling into Sauron's clutches. However, I take your point, davem, that he pledges to save Frodo and not the Ring.

If his pledge is to Frodo personally, then arguably he breaks it at Parth Galen when he lets Frodo go without following him. On the other hand, if his duty is to the Quest, then he might be said to be discharging his duty if he concludes that Frodo and Sam have a greater chance of succeeding on their own.

This raises another issue (and ties in with my earlier point about Merry and Pippin acting in the interests of the realm to which they have sworn fealty by disobeying the individuals to whom they pledged their service). What scope does an oath-taker have to use their discretion to discharge their duty? If, for example, a character pledges themselves to a particular cause and takes a course of action which they think will further it but which in fact is detrimental to it, can they be said to have broken their pledge? I would say not if they genuinely (albeit mistakenly) believe that what they are doing was in furtherance of their oath.

[paavo]

What I find interesting is that even Tom Bombadil has taken an "oath" (if oath you can call it) which results in the saving of the hobbits from Old Man Willow.

Each year at summer's end I go to find them for her...

I know this is more a custom than an actual oath, but still, if Tom wouldn't have made this promise/oath/custom to get water-lilies for his fair Goldberry he wouldn't have been there to save the hobbits and their quest would have ended quite short.

[davem]

I think the number of oaths Aragorn swears is very significant, in that he is binding himself to so many tasks its arguable that his life isn't his own. Also, once he becomes King he will recieve many oaths, all of which he will have to uphold. Someone who swears an oath to a lord has only that oath to stick to, whereas a Lord may recieve thousands of oaths of service & have to uphold all of them. Must take a very sharp mind (or a lot of advisors) to keep track & make sure none of those oaths conflict with each other.

Originally Posted by SpM

This raises another issue (and ties in with my earlier point about Merry and Pippin acting in the interests of the realm to which they have sworn fealty by disobeying the individuals to whom they pledged their service). What scope does an oath-taker have to use their discretion to discharge their duty? If, for example, a character pledges themselves to a particular cause and takes a course of action which they think will further it but which in fact is detrimental to it, can they be said to have broken their pledge? I would say not if they genuinely (albeit mistakenly) believe that what they are doing was in furtherance of their oath.

I think this would depend on how specific the terms of the oath were. Some oaths seem to have been very precisely worded - as in Pippin's case, some more general, as with Merry's, & some you could argue about whether they consituted an 'oath' at all - like Sam's. Obviously, the more precisely worded, the easier to break. In the context of whether an 'oath' is an oath, I can only quote again something from the 'chapter' thread, regarding Gandalf's promise to Frodo:

Gandalf has promised Frodo he will return to accompany him, but he doesn't turn up. But is this really a case of 'oath breaking - well Gandalf seems to think it is:

This 'promise' is such that Gandalf shouldn't have to apologise for not keeping it, especially given the circumstances, but he obviously feels that not only does his 'failure' to keep it require an apology to Frodo, but that the apology should be made in public. Gandalf's honour is in question, as far as he is concerned. In short, its down as much to what the oathtaker understands the oath to be. I suppose you only truly break an oath if you go against its spirit - the opposite of what Gollum does, in keeping to the letter of his oath to Frodo while sticking to the letter of it. But I suppose we'd also have to take into account what the person who recieved the oath understood by it. I wonder if there's an example in Tolkien of both parties to an oath having different understandings of its meaning?

[Aiwendil]

Earendilyon wrote:

I assume you meant Thingol?

I should hope so! Seems that I was typing a trifle too hurriedly. Thanks.

Davem:
With regard to Frodo and Sam - I don't deny that Sam swore an oath, certainly. But he did not swear it to Frodo. First he accepted Gandalf's charge to accompany Frodo. Then he accepted the Elves' charge not to leave him. In neither case did Frodo officially accept Sam's oath, as Denethor did Pippin's and Theoden Merry's. A person cannot be bound by an oath that he or she has not made - therefore Frodo cannot be bound by Sam's oath. This is in contrast to Denethor or Theoden who have accepted the service of their respective Hobbits. That's my line of reasoning, anyway.