[Fordim Hedgethistle]

This discussion of Sam's 'oath' brings out yet another echo that exists between the Nazgul and the hobbits: the Ringwraiths are bound to their Lord in a manner that would seem to be the perversion of the ideal embodied by the bond of Sam and Frodo. The Nazgul are bound to their Lord by the strongest of all 'oaths' -- the power of the Ring. In this respect I would argue that Sam's ability to break his oath to Frodo sets him apart from the Nazgul insofar as their 'oath' is not freely given at all (so far as we know -- either that or it was freely given but they subsequently lost the ability to forswear).

So, apparently, blindly following an oath, or making one that cannot be broken (like the Nazgul) is problematic at best, evil at worst.

Interestingly, among the Anglo-Saxons, a Lord would give richly carved armbands of gold in return for oaths of fealty. This is why the vassal would refer to his lord as his "ring-giver", since these 'rings' would stand as a sign of both the pledge made by the vassal and the recognition and protection by the lord. Sauron is an evil ring-giver* because he does so to enslave; Sam is a good ring-acceptor because he does so for the love of his lord, even though it is in contravention of his oath (as he interprets that oath).

* In at least one dictionary of Anglo-Saxon idiom, I have seen a generous lord referred to as "ringas-theoden" (ringas=rings, theoden=prince/king) which was subsequently translated as "lord of the rings"!!!!!