[davem]

Originally Posted by 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.

But wouldn't this deny the autonomy of the oathtakers - why should anyone - even the Valar - have the right to decide whether an oath should count? Surely the Valar in that case would be treating the oath takers as children who didn't know what they were doing. It seems that once sworn, an oath must be binding, unless both parties declare it null & void. And it seems both parties understand this full well - Gollum knows, as do the oath breakers, & the Noldor, that they must see through the oath they have sworn. In the latter case the Valar are called as witnesses, because effectively the Noldor have sworn the oath to themselves - so it could be argued that they could agree with themselves that they would put the oath aside, but I feel its actually more subtle. An oath seems to call into being its own driving force, which will see it carried through. Elrond's warning against swearing aan oath seems to imply this at least - once sworn it may 'break the heart' of the swearer if he does not manage to carry iit through - or die in the attempt.

Of course one could argue that from Tolkien's perspective - the anglo saxon perspective - an oath is an oath, & if sworn there should be no thought of not carrying it through - one's freedom lies only in whether one takes it in the first place - if one swears an oath with some condition in mind - a kind of 'pre-oath' agreement, offering a get out clause, one is playing with the oath taking ideal. An oath is a sacred vow, more important than life itself in a way. Its a commitment to something greater - for good or ill, not something to play at in order to seem 'honourable'. The whole response of Tolkien & his characters seems to be if you swear an oath you lose some of your personal freedom, & are bound to the cause you've commited yourself to. The worst sin is to break the oath, & it seems that oathbreakers 'deserve all they get - no-one feels sorry for the Oathbreakers at Dunharrow, despite the millenia of terrible suffering they've been through - they swore an oath & so its their own fault, & they have no-one to blame but themselves. This may strike us as cruel, yet on some level even we moderns, with our 'clever' lawyers who can twist even the most binding agreements to find 'escape clauses', feel that oaths should bind those who take them, & feel that that is 'right'.