The Rule of Men Or The Rule Of Law

In Poul Anderson's The Sign Of The Raven (New York, 1980), Harald Hardrada imposes his will on his people. Some are killed. Others lose hands or feet and everything they own. Houses are burned. Women and children are driven into the snow. Kine killed are left for crows.

A sheriff is present because he is:

" '...the king's sworn man; yet I've not hidden from him that this work turns my guts.' " (p. 122)

Which is right? To keep an oath to the king or to rebel against his injustice? We no longer have this dilemma, living under the rule of law. The last man to be hanged in England was executed for the murder of an anonymous tramp, a man of no social standing with no kin to take vengeance or to claim weregild. At least according to the law, the convicted murderer would have suffered no worse fate if he had assassinated the King or the Prime Minister. I think that we have made some moral and social progress.