1. As Isildur’s heir, Aragorn has the right to claim the Palantir and call upon
the Oathbreakers. As a strong and noble man, Aragorn is capable of wresting
control of the Palantir and getting his men through the Paths of the Dead.
Is Aragorn capable of this because he is Isildur’s heir, or because he is
Aragorn? How much of Aragorn’s seemingly charmed life is fate? Was he
destined to be the one who restores Gondor? Or was it just convenient timing
for him, and any of his forefathers, given the opportunity, would have achieved
the same?
A.1: Aragorn has the authority to do certain things, such as hold the
Oathbreakers to honor their oath and use the palantír, and he has the ability
to do them successfully. There are (at least) two ways of looking at this, that
it is his authority that grants him the ability to be successful, or that it is
his authority from who he is that allows him to use his innate ability and be
successful.
In other words, he either can wrest control of the palantír from Sauron because
he is the heir to Isildur, or because he is heir to Isildur he can use his
strength of will to wrest control from Sauron. I like the latter view. His
heritage is a leg up in certain situations, but he still has to expend effort.
Both Aragorn and Gandalf may have been able to wrest control of the palantír
from Sauron, but Gandalf is clearly much more powerful in most other situations
than Aragorn. Their parity here is because Aragorn gets a bonus from his
heritage. But it was clearly still a struggle for him. If he was simply granted
the ability from his authority, I would be inclined to think that he would not
have needed to struggle so hard.
In a like manner, I don't think it would have been automatic for any of his
forebears to command the Oathbreakers. They would have been at an advantage
over anyone else, but I think that Aragorn's personal ability carried the day.
Which isn't to say that Eru didn't grant him his abilities in the first place,
but once granted, they are his to use as best he can. And he certainly
does.
--------
"I like the kind of literary criticism that tries very hard to understand what the author is saying. I despise the kind that cares only about how the reader responds to it. The first requires a great deal of hard scholarship, ultimately as much as had the writer. The second can be practiced by anyone with a navel into which to gaze."
Reverend
