Oaths & Oathbreaking

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

In neither case did Frodo officially accept Sam's oath, as Denethor did Pippin's and Theoden Merry's.

My feeling is that when Frodo says to Sam, in response to Sam's account of his conversation with the Elves:

'I understand that Gandalf chose me a good companion. I am content. We will go together.

he is officially accepting Sam's oath. From that point Sam becomes 'servant', Frodo 'master'. I believe its an oathtaking - Sam offers his service to Frodo & Frodo acknowledges it.

But, I accept your point, that this question turns on the individual reader's interpretation of the episode. Clearly, though, given that we are dealing with hobbits who have known each other all their lives, I can't see that any 'oath' could be expressed any more formally. The master/servant relationship (referred to by the scribe in 'Of the Rings of Power', where it speaks of Frodo going into Mordor 'alone with his servant') implies a more formal relationship than simple friendship.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Going back to Aragorn's oath to Frodo, you could possibly say that he hadn't broken it in that he rode out to the Morannon outnumbered, to help Frodo. Granted, other motivations were included in this, but certainally Frodo's well-being was one of them. I don't see that letting Frodo go off on his own neccessarily means that he has broken an oath. He didn't afterall, swear to stick to him like Sam.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

If I can intrude with a question about termination of oaths in Middle-earth, is it possible to negate an oath by appealing to the oath's witness(es)?
How about the intriguing discussion of Maglor and Maedhros?

""Then Maglor desired indeed to submit, for his heart was sorrowful.....But Maedhros answered that if they returned to Aman but the favour of the Valar were withheld from them, then their oath would still remain, but its fulfillment beyond all hope.....Yet Maglor held back, saying: 'If Manwe and Varda themselves deny the fulfillment of an oath to which we named them as witness, is it not made void?' And Maedhros answered: 'But how shall our voices reach Iluvatar beyond the Circles of the World? And by Iluvatar we swore in our madness, and called the Everlasting Darkness upon us, if we kept not our word. Who shall release us?'
''If none can release us,' said Maglor, 'then indeed the Everlasting Darkness shall be our lot, whether we keep our oath or break it; but less evil shall we do in the breaking.' "

[Aiwendil]

Tuor of Gondolin wrote:

If I can intrude with a question about termination of oaths in Middle-earth, is it possible to negate an oath by appealing to the oath's witness(es)?

My understanding is that if you swear an oath to someone or by someone, that person can release you from it.

Davem wrote:

From that point Sam becomes 'servant', Frodo 'master'. I believe its an oathtaking - Sam offers his service to Frodo & Frodo acknowledges it.

Yes, I can see that. It's a matter of interpretation I suppose. Frodo, at any rate, seemed to have no compunction about leaving Sam behind - but then neither did Theoden or Denethor about releasing Merry or Pippin from service.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Tuor

is it possible to negate an oath by appealing to the oath's witness(es)?

It seems to me that in Middle earth once an oath is sworn it will work through. Problem then arises if you swear to do something which is logically or physically impossible. Effectively feanor & his sons swore (without realising it) an oath which bound them to do something which they could not possibly do.

Could the witnesses - including the 'ultimate' witness - Illuvatar - release them? Its almost as if a 'force of nature' is invoked at the oath taking, which will work through willy-nilly.

This perhaps brings in the 'power of words' - I'm, thinking of Finrod's contest with Sauron, which is a n incident really of words shaping reality - Finrod attempts to shape 'reality', or Sauron's perception of it, by his song. But Sauron's words are more powerful, & Finrod's attempt at reality manipulation fails. Arda comes into being at Eru's word - 'Ea!' 'Let these things be'. Could it be the case that an oath is something that works in a similar way, the oath taker is saying they will change the world, make it different, & so, invoke this 'force'.

Probably none of that makes any sense. I'm fumbling to make sense of the nature of oaths in Middle earth, because the more I think about them the stranger they seem. They seem 'magical', involving this 'power' which doesn't have its source in the individuals who swear them. That power seems to give strength to the oath takers, help them achieve their goal, but if they forswear the oath it turns on them, & they suffer till they do what they swore to do, or die trying. And the Sons of Feanor simply put themselves in a situation they couldn't get out of. Could Eru have set the oath aside? I don't know - He was called as a witness to it - it wasn't sworn to Him, & he didn't recieve the oath.

Of course, He was never asked to set it aside, so we can never know whether he would have done so.

One thing occurs in the light of the recently revived 'Curses!' thread - is a curse the same thing as an oath, does it work differently? Both are down to the power of words, or rather both are a case of words calling up a 'power', & both are attempts to shape reality, make it different.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

While there are instances which seem to indicate oaths and curses can't be recalled, there is an interesting passage in The Silmarillion in "Of The Flight of The Noldor" which seems to hint that it could.

"...all heard the curse that was uttered upon those that would not stay nor seek the doom and pardon of the Valar ."

And
"Feanor hardened his heart and said: 'We have sworn, and not lightly. This oath we will keep."

These seem to suggest the possibility of having an oath invalidated.

[akhtene]

I would think it depends on TO whom and BY WHOSE NAME(S) the oath is sworn.

In Feanor’s case the oath was sworn to themselves, nobody really wanted or expected them to do what they promised. So in case the oath givers \ takers settled the matter among themselves, the Valar (as witnesses to it and the Supreme Court in one) would decide whether they had the right to do it, as well as to start the whole affair.