Great post, Kiwijo. You make some great connections with the oaths and whether they should be broken.
I'll have to review the sections you speak of.
Spoilers for Checkmate:
kiwijo: While I remember I'll post on Book III, Sections 96-115 dealing with the taking and breaking of oaths, because it's going to become very relevant in our Checkmate read. Cicero outlines in some detail in what circumstances the obligation is to keep or break an oath, which made me ponder Lymond's oath in St Giles which he (disputed, I know) breaks, and the oath made by Sybilla, which she keeps at enormous cost to herself and to Lymond. I hope I remember to come back to this in about a year's time!
This would indeed be interesting and I hope you will bring this/Cicero to the discussion when the time comes. There are few of us who come in and out of this thread to at least read new posts, so I trust we will remind you. I sense that when you get there, you'll remember, though.
Sybilla's oath may have been fine at the time, as was Lymond's in TDK. But circumstances change, different situations present themselves. People have to think about how they word their oaths, so that it includes the present circumstances. One can only go by circumstances at the time, but greater needs may present themselves and one needs to re-evaluate.
Lymond may have made a different oath if he had received all the information about there being two children. But he had no clue of the other babe. I don't hold Lymond to that oath and he had to most painfully break it for the greater good. Sybilla could have done differently, based on the torment of her son. In the end she too had to tell Lymond after seeing what it had led to. (My memory is quite foggy on CM so I write my thoughts on Sybilla from memory not having re-read it yet.)
Off to read what Cicero wrote. I can't recall if I'd gotten that far. I'm guilty of reading other OBC related material over this summer.
Thanks for keeping up with this thread Kiwijo.
Edited to Add: I searched Cicero on oaths and found an interesting website: https://lonang.com/library/reference/gr ... e/gro-213/
I found something St. Ambrose said in that website, which I thought might be helpful.
Ambrose says: ‘It is in fact sometimes contrary to duty to fulfill a promise, to keep an oath.’ Says Augustine: ‘If good faith is shown in committing a sin, marvelous it is that it is called good faith.’ In his second letter To Amphilochius, Basil has the same teaching.
VII. That an oath is not binding which hinders a greater moral good.
I'm glad to see that a greater good has to take precedence. I don't know how else Lymond could have decided that would have prevented more deaths at the hands of Gabriel, not to mention that horrid Roxelana.
I'll be back...