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.
Quote:
|
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
It is at the end of Gandalf's long resume to the Council of Elrond of his narrow escape from the tower of Saruman, imprisonment which had kept him from meeting Frodo & company in Bree as planned. He asks forgiveness: 'But such a thing has not happened before, that Gandalf broke tryst & did not come when he promised. An account to the Ring-bearer of so strange an event was required, I think'
|
|
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?