Why did Mhoram DO THAT?

[Shuram Gudatetris]

At the beginning of The Illearth War, Covenant begs Mhoram to not put hurtloam on him, but Mhoram shrugs it off and violates his wishes anyway.

Why would he do that? The last time Mhoram saw Covenant, at the End of Lord Fouls Bane, he tried to force Covenant to take action, realized his folly, and asked for forgiveness. Mhoram realized that Covenant needed to be free to make his own decisions.

But the very next time he sees him, Mhoram throws all that out the window, decides that he knows what's best for Covenant, and forces health upon him. Mhoram doesn't seem like a person who forgets lessons learned. I don't get it.

[wayfriend]

They had summoned Covenant because they wanted to have every opportunity available to them which might help them win their war. "We summoned you, though we knew it might carry a cost hard for you to bear. We have sworn our service to the Land, and could not do otherwise." And Mhoram approved of this.

I imagine that they healed him with the same idea: yes, it puts Covenant out, but the Land's need is the utmost concern. What good is bringing him to the Land if he's too unhealthy to do anything?

But still, "The Land has no need of service which is not glad and free." They brought him to the Land so that he would be able to choose to help them. Which seems like a contradiction. But I think it's a matter of going so far, but not farther. Covenant can't choose to help them if he's not there, or if he is unwell for that matter. If they didn't summon him, then they would always believe that they could have done more to save the Land.

[DrPaul]

Two other points:

1. At the end of LFB the issue was whether to compel Covenant to act. At the start of TIW the issue was whether to heal Covenant's injuries.

2. Mhoram's actions in applying hurtloam at the start of TIW would have been in accordance with the collective decision of the Lords (and Wayfriend has already addressed this point). At the end of LFB Mhoram was making a spot judgment of his own.

[wayfriend]

Yes, the Lords clearly would take actions for which their was consensus where they would not take them unilaterally.

Which reminds me of something else I had intended to say, and forgot. Which is: Mhoram had come to understand how acute was the moral distress that using his ring caused Covenant. Hence, he relented. But Covenant clearly needed healing, and his protestations were only cynical. So: a matter of degree. AFAICT the Lords had no moral imperative to not heal people who refused their aid. And there is every indication that they consider what lays behind peoples words as much as their words themselves.

[DrPaul]

AFAICT the Lords had no moral imperative to not heal people who refused their aid.

This was dramatically illustrated by their attempt to cure dhukka at the beginning of TIW.

[mmurphy1968]

I am currently re-reading the books and read that scene earlier today. Covenant had just collapsed because of a bout of vertigo and then fell unconscious. Maybe more was intended than I read into it but I simply saw it as Mhoram trying to help the best way he could. Since Covenant was out cold and was obviously bleeding (though not badly) in addition to them knowing "There is other ill at work in him" applying hurtloam seems no different than to me than you or I calling a doctor.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I am currently re-reading the books and read that scene earlier today. Covenant had just collapsed because of a bout of vertigo and then fell unconscious. Maybe more was intended than I read into it but I simply saw it as Mhoram trying to help the best way he could. Since Covenant was out cold and was obviously bleeding (though not badly) in addition to them knowing "There is other ill at work in him" applying hurtloam seems no different than to me than you or I calling a doctor.

That was always my take on it as well.
LM understood TC a lot more after he was summoned in IEW.
I suspect that had the summons finished in PtP HLM would have healed TC with something other than Hurtloam (even if they had it).

[shadowbinding shoe]

AFAICT the Lords had no moral imperative to not heal people who refused their aid.

This was dramatically illustrated by their attempt to cure dhukka at the beginning of TIW.

They did what they believed a hale and whole Dhukka would want. Theoretically a pre-leprosy or a unleproused Thomas Covenant with no fear of its return would thank them for their action even if the current tarnished Thomas Covenant called it a Wrong. It's an interesting moral question, do you give psychiatric drugs to a depressed person despite his objections for example?

[DrPaul]

There is another way of looking at this. As far as the Lords were concerned, Covenant's illness and injury were real, but their healing of him would also be real. Covenant, on the other hand, does not - cannot allow himself to - believe that the healing would be real.