A Critical Analysis of Aragorn's Violation of Parley in The Return of the King

In The Return of the King, the scene between Aragorn and the Mouth of Sauron presents a complex ethical dilemma involving the principles of parley and the conduct of war. The question posed is whether Aragorn's actions in killing the Mouth of Sauron constitute a violation of the terms of parley and whether it places the human forces in the wrong. This essay explores the nuances of this event, contextualizing it within its literary and cinematic settings.

Introduction

The assumption in the original question is partially correct but heavily misguided. While the movie portrays Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron, the books provide a richer context that complicates this binary stance. In the books, the parley is not just a diplomatic negotiation but a strategically designed taunt by the Mouth of Sauron to demoralize and intimidate the defenders of Minas Tirith. Aragorn's actions, therefore, are not as straightforward as one might initially assume.

The Encounter and Context

When the Mouth of Sauron arrives, his mission is clear: to spread fear and misinformation about the fate of Frodo and Sam. This tactic is designed to break the morale of the defenders, preventing any potential alliance and negotiation. Aragorn, however, is not just a diplomat; he is a leader in the face of an immense threat. The scene in the books reveals that Aragorn is in a state of despair and fury, warning the ambassador that his embassy has exceeded its bounds, thereby ending the parley officially. This is crucial because no physical violence is done at this point.

Parley and Diplomatic Protocol

The violation of parley is a severe breach of trust. Traditionally, a parley is meant to facilitate peaceful negotiation. However, the Mouth of Sauron is not acting in good faith; his presence is overwhelmingly aimed at spreading fear and misinformation rather than diplomacy. In this context, Aragorn's actions should be seen as a justified response to an enemy who has violated the agreed-upon rules of engagement. It reflects the desperation and moral complexities faced by leaders in times of war.

Justification for Actions

A critical point to consider is Aragorn's justification for killing the Mouth of Sauron. He may view the Mouth not as a legitimate envoy but as a representative of evil intent. This act can be interpreted as a necessary measure to demonstrate strength and resolve against Sauron, potentially rallying the human forces and dissuading further attempts at intimidation. The broader context of war, especially against a figure like Sauron, means that the rules of engagement become more complex, with the stakes incredibly high and the threat posed by the Mouth of Sauron immediate and dire.

Conclusion

While Aragorn's actions in killing the Mouth of Sauron can be seen as a violation of the principles of parley, they can also be justified in the context of the larger struggle against a malevolent force. This incident highlights the moral and strategic complexities often faced by leaders in times of war, where the traditional rules of engagement are often pushed to the limits. It is a testament to the intricate nature of leadership and the ethical dilemmas one must face in the face of overwhelming evil.