-Poul Anderson, Mother Of Kings (New York, 2003), Book Three, Chapter XIII, p. 243.
First, what an appalling attitude! It is better that England should continue to exist than that it be ruled by me or anyone supported by me.
Secondly, I think that Mafia-style protection is a survival of feudal relationships into modern society. A business that does not pay protection is fire-bombed. A land that does not yield to a king is devastated. Landholders swear fealty to one lord for protection against others. There are ancient laws and customs but the rule of men overrides the rule of law. That kind of personal loyalty to a chief continues in modern organized crime - but is now criminal. When I worked, I never was given an illegal order by a manager and would have been protected by the law if I had refused to obey such an order. Society has made some moral progress.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
In fairness to King Eadred, I suggest we have to keep in mind he might not have meant his "vow" literally. That it was meant, at least in part, as propaganda indicating his STRONG DETERMINATION to reconquer Northumbria. In a violent and warlike age, such "vaunts" were expected, after all.
And Mafia style thuggery is simply not the same as feudalism in some important ways. While feudalism is not as "advanced" as the current view in the UK and US that the law should not be capriciously overruled by the arbitrary will of men, still, it was LEGAL. Precedent and customary law did play a role. And conscientious feudal barons did take care to police their fiefs and stamp out banditry. Mafia gangsterism was and is totally illegal and based on nothing but force and the threat of force.
Sean
I agree with Sean. Jerry Pournelle had a line in one of his *Janissaries* novels to the effect that a TRUE feudal lord knows how to BE loyal to his vassals, not merely demand their loyalty.
With regard to Eadred, satirical cartoonist Larry Gonick claims that the famous "Judgment of Solomon" story was actually a political parable put about BY Solomon as a veiled threat. It hints that if his rival(s) for the throne truly loved the kingdom of Israel, such rival(s) would back off ... because Solomon, like the woman falsely claiming to be the mother, would rather tear Israel apart in civil war than yield it to another. This, in Gonick's view, is why the Bible says "all Israel trembled" at the tale. Sounds not too different from Eadred's threats, doesn't it?
Hi, David!
Many thanks! And you can find similar lines in the works of Poul Anderson. One example being from SATAN'S WORLD where Nicholas van Rijn said he would not be a good boss to his subordinates if he too was not loyal to them.
Very interesting, what you said about Larry Gonick's comments about the two babies and King Solomon story. That it included a political element or a veiled threat. Most comments I've seen takes it seriously as an actual attempt to determine who was the real mother of the living child.
Sean
Post a Comment