I think it is stealing. I think Bree's use of "raiding" was an attempt to rationalize a wrong behavior. Shasta is younger and sees things more how they are.

I would argue that Lewis thought that stealing was wrong. Bree at the point in the book where he calls stealing raiding also doesn't believe that Aslan exists as anything more than a metaphor. He is terrified of the physical lions they encounter, I think partly because of his own guilt about things he has done and then rationalized.

On the other hand, both Bree and Shasta are slaves in Calormene and worth a certain amount of money themselves. So in a way they are stealing themselves or each other from their masters when they run away. So whether it was wrong for them to run away or not depends on whether one believes that slavery is a corrupt system and not honorable to adhere to.

How to behave honorably when one is functioning in a system that is inherently corrupt is a complex discussion.

I think its stealing. I agree that Bree was trying to rationalize it. I believe Lewis knew it was wrong but he wanted to show Bree's character through this. So I think Lewis wanted to show Bree make excuses for stealing by saying it was "raiding."

I also have some degree of reservations concerning the definition of "raiding." In my opinion, it's stealing. Bree is SO arrogant, which allows him to convince himself otherwise. Along those lines, arrogant people always think that they are "owed." It just goes to show that Bree thinks that - despite HIS choice to disobey his mother - the world still owes him for all the time spent in Calormen.

Shasta has some reservations about it (showing an inward moral struggle) but goes along with it in the end showing that he is easily influenced and naive.

I think its stealing. I agree that Bree was trying to rationalize it. I believe Lewis knew it was wrong but he wanted to show Bree's character through this. So I think Lewis wanted to show Bree make excuses for stealing by saying it was "raiding."

Yes, C.S.Lewis did want to show Bree's character. But he also has to show Shasta's character as well, and why Aslan would save his life, and why he would see him as a good candidate for the Archenland throne, later on. But in this escape, where at this stage even Bree has only an imperfect knowledge of Aslan, he makes it very clear that Bree is the one taking charge, not Shasta, however right he is.

Whilst it might be his making excuses about stealing, Bree has also been heavily influenced by the military uses he has been put to. Shasta calls it stealing because he has been brought up by Arsheesh, an impecunious fisherman, who counted every crescent. And although Shasta had been made to feel indebted to the harsh Arsheesh for his upkeep, however hard he worked, he wasn't actually a slave until Anradin wanted to buy him from Arsheesh.

Bree knows that in the military, humans, let alone animals, are doing things they wouldn't do in civilian life, such as killing and 'raiding'. Badly provisioned soldiers, and even their better-off captains, sometimes have to help themselves to whatever is available just to survive. C.S.Lewis knew this from his own war experiences, and thus he shows Bree, the war-horse, having fewer qualms than Shasta about 'helping himself'. But can Bree really justify his 'raiding' because of he and Shasta being combatants in an enemy country?

Bree is arrogant because he knew he was a more clever and valuable horse than the other horses in Anradin's stables, but is that the only reason why Bree would be so full of himself and his exploits? Is it a case of like master like slave? Anradin also is an arrogant person to stop at a poor fisherman's hut and to expect to be fed, don't you think? Isn't Anradin also 'helping himself' because of his social position? And is this moral blindness to 'stealing' something that is inherent in Bree's enslavement?

Hmm, interesting topic. Throughout HHB Lewis adds comments that show that the characters do recognize that "raiding" means "stealing". Shasta didn't grow up with normal manners and etiquette, and would feel more comfortable with doing wrong things. Cor was offended that Shasta would suggest lying. However, they needed it to survive. Right and Wrong have many gray areas. That brings up the debate whether it's ok for a man to steal a loaf of bread for his starving family, a scenario I hear often.

i tend to side with Bree on this issue- he had been kidnapped and sold into slavery, (which seems to be a little disproportionate punishment for a child for not listening to his mother), but I think what Lewis was doing here was insisting on looking things fully in the face, without using euphemisms.

IMO it was stealing, but it was also justified.

This also comes up in "Huckleberry Finn", in nearly the same context- an escape from slavery- though Huck's conscience is somewhat more...flexible:

Mornings before daylight I slipped into cornfields
and borrowed a watermelon, or a mushmelon, or a
punkin, or some new corn, or things of that kind.
Pap always said it warn't no harm to borrow things if
you was meaning to pay them back some time; but
the widow said it warn't anything but a soft name for
stealing, and no decent body would do it. Jim said he
reckoned the widow was partly right and pap was partly
right; so the best way would be for us to pick out two
or three things from the list and say we wouldn't borrow
them any more -- then he reckoned it wouldn't be no
harm to borrow the others. So we talked it over all
one night, drifting along down the river, trying to
make up our minds whether to drop the watermelons,
or the cantelopes, or the mushmelons, or what. But
towards daylight we got it all settled satisfactory, and
concluded to drop crabapples and p'simmons. We
warn't feeling just right before that, but it was all
comfortable now. I was glad the way it come out,
too, because crabapples ain't ever good, and the
p'simmons wouldn't be ripe for two or three months
yet.

The more I think about it the more I lean towards its being stealing. It's odd that Lewis kind of implies that it is wrong but doesn't really say it. I can understand taking food because they are hungry (from a garden not from a store or house.) Taking the sacks bothers me though since they obviously had money to buy clothes for Aravis.

But can Bree really justify his 'raiding' because of he and Shasta being combatants in an enemy country?

Well, they are in enemy country, but it seems a little unfair to "blame" the whole country. One can make the argument that Bree was "entitled" to the money, etc. in the saddle bags because he was a being wrongfully imprisoned and made to work for room and board only and the saddle, etc could be considered his.

Bree is arrogant because he knew he was a more clever and valuable horse than the other horses in Anradin's stables, but is that the only reason why Bree would be so full of himself and his exploits? Is it a case of like master like slave? Anradin also is an arrogant person to stop at a poor fisherman's hut and to expect to be fed, don't you think? Isn't Anradin also 'helping himself' because of his social position?

You make a very interesting point. Assuming Anradin had done this type of thing before, Bree would be used to the idea of getting things for nothing. Bree's time in Calormen must have influenced his morals some. He had a lot of influences on his life (his mother, Anradin, things he saw in his travels, ...) and it would be really hard for him not to be influenced by them somehow. Although Shasta has not been brought up the best by Northern standards, he was rather sheltered so he had only one major influence on his life. I would imagine that Shasta had it pounded in to him that he should not take things.

The more I think about it the more I lean towards its being stealing. It's odd that Lewis kind of implies that it is wrong but doesn't really say it. I can understand taking food because they are hungry (from a garden not from a store or house.) Taking the sacks bothers me though since they obviously had money to buy clothes for Aravis.

Though up to that point they have been buying the things they need, i.e. food for Shasta.

It also says that in the end they had no choice but to buy the clothes for Aravis, implying they would have stolen them if they could- maybe at that point their money was runing out?

Well, they are in enemy country, but it seems a little unfair to "blame" the whole country.

I saw a documentary awhile back about an escape from Auschwitz, the German extermination camp in Poland. The escapees were actually in the working part of the camp, doing forced labour until the point they were so weak they would have been sent for extermination.

They stole some officer's clothes and a car, and simply drove out, until the point where they could ditch the car and escape across country- "stealing" the things they needed. Note the Poles weren't even the enemy, other than the point that for the majority in Poland anti-Semitism was so bad that most Poles happily turned in Jews.

How about the Underground Railroad- would you critcize escaped slaves for stealing food on their way North? Or the persecuted Christians from Cuba, East Germany or North Korea who stole some of the things they needed to escape- do you condemn them, too?

As for Cor, while he was offended by the thought of lying, he had no qualms about assault- three times on private individuals, two of which he was the instigator, plus resisting arrest and bribing officials- all while in a country where he was supposed to be on a friendly diplomatic mission.

I think that you mean Corin, Cor (Shasta)'s twin brother. And yes, Corin did behave badly in Tashbaan, but it seems to be his style of personality. We know, once we meet him and hear his tale, that Corin is certainly someone who can look out for himself, that he is fiercely loyal to his friends, and is proud of his ability to fight. But although Corin was far too brazen and self-confident to consider lying, I'm not sure whether he would steal or not, if he had a good reason to do so.

Greymouser, much of what went on in Auschwitz was organised, industrialised stealing, anyway. Saying that the Germans were in an enemy country didn't give them the right to pillage the dead, to persecute the living and to help themselves to everything in Poland. Nor did it excuse any similar behaviour from the approaching Russians the Poles might have suffered. On the other hand, if it is a choice of survival or dying, then I think stealing is justified, and the escaped prisoners you mentioned were fully justified in doing whatever they did.

I was reading a book about a British POW, treated a little better due to the Geneva Convention, who broke into Auschwitz to see what was going on. He'd exchange places with a Jewish prisoner for a couple of days to give the poor bloke a chance to survive a little longer. Until the forced marches at the end probably killed the man. And along with the regular executions, hangings etc, visited on the Polish people, they were often sent to Auschwitz, themselves.

But, getting back to HHB, as Bree tells Shasta, he was relatively well-treated by Anradin because war-horses don't come cheap. In fact any horse doesn't come cheap as plenty of bumper stickers have informed me . Nevertheless, he wanted to get away from slavery, he found Shasta to be just the chance he ws looking for, and he couldn't very well stymie his deep disguise of being a dumb horse by leaving the gear behind, or could he? Shasta could barely ride, let alone bareback.

Assuming Anradin had done this type of thing before, Bree would be used to the idea of getting things for nothing. Bree's time in Calormen must have influenced his morals some. He had a lot of influences on his life (his mother, Anradin, things he saw in his travels, ...) and it would be really hard for him not to be influenced by them somehow.

I would take it as a given that Anradin normally helped himself to whatever he wanted when he wanted. According to Anradin, it was thanks enough that he bargained with Arsheesh for the purchase price of Shasta. I'd hate to be in Arsheesh's shoes the next morning when they realised that Bree and Shasta was missing. After all, from Anradin's POV, Shasta and Bree were both bits of property, themselves. So they already were thieves in a sense. Shasta even alludes to his likely fate when he and Bree are forced into meeting Aravis and Hwin.

In fact I wondered that Anradin wanted to stop and impose himself on Arsheesh's hospitality, when he had both money and food in his saddlebags. Couldn't he stop somewhere on the downs and eat what he had with him? Why does he make such a point of buying Shasta, anyway? Was he looking for him in some way?

I also think that an escaped horse, or any escaped animal, might have a different point of view to a human, anyway, regardless of what influences Bree had undoubtedly undergone in his life to that point. Horses have the immense advantage of being literally able to live off the land, being able to feed on any grass they can find along the way, without having to pay for it first. And yes, by the time they got to Tashbaan I'd well imagine that they might have been getting low on funds, even if they had managed to sell the spurs as Bree suggested in the first chapters.

In my opinion, the difference between stealing and raiding is whether or not it's a war: it's raiding in war, it's stealing if it's not. This wasn't a war and I think it was stealing and wrong of Bree.

As stolen property themselves, maybe Bree and Shasta had no choice but to steal. I agree it was peacetime in Calormen but they were to be regarded as enemy captives trying to escape. In that case they really were 'raiding'. Shasta had no money or anything at all. If they had been caught, he would have been hung for horse-stealing. What I am arguing, is that it isn't really relevant that Calormen was not then at war, the fact is, they were alien captives in a hostile country. Everyone they met, from traders in the market to the soldier who hit Shasta, would be ready to dob them in if they knew what or who they were, especially if the traders, soldiers etc got some money as a reward.

Take a look at them - a hard look at them. Bree - expensive runaway war-horse. I bet Anradin would like to have him back, at any rate. Shasta - horse thief and runaway slave - the Calormenes wouldn't think twice about turning him over to whatever fate awaited him. Aravis? Well what is likely to happen if her father or Ahoshta found out where she was? Only Hwin was running away legally, and she was Aravis' accomplice.

The author of a book about the Bombing of Darwin (19 Feb 1942) remarked that he and his fellow soldiers had to help themselves to the sheets at an evacuated Darwin hotel, so they could go on fighting the Japanese bombers with whatever they had at hand. They had to clean guns and help the wounded. Although they were fighting an enemy they were - still - in their own country and taking the sheets was a matter of practicality in an emergency, neither looting nor raiding.

I think it was a weakness in the story that Bree thought to take all his riding gear (forget the term for it - saddle, stirrups, bridle etc) with him, even the spurs. If Bree had escaped, with or without Shasta, wouldn't he have gone away without all his gear, if he had really been a dumb horse? But if so, how far would they have been able to proceed? Especially as Shasta could barely ride, let alone bare-back.

But since they took the saddle, complete with saddle bags etc, they could scarcely go back to Anradin, saying 'excuse me, but we don't really want to steal your belongings, only what is necessary for us to escape, so here is your money back'. I'm sure that would have gone down well with Anradin, now wouldn't it have done? Bree understood that perfectly, whereas Shasta was more afraid of looking and behaving like a criminal.

They did buy clothes for Aravis, and maybe food along the way. But wouldn't they be advised to keep such occasions to a minimum if they wanted to avoid detection? Since all four needed to be concealed, and were escaping property, they needed to remain undetected and uncaptured for as long as they possibly could.

Another way of looking at it is that while Bree and Hwin, as kidnapped slaves, were entitled to raid, neither Shasta nor Aravis were.

Shasta was, after all, a foundling. While he had been kidnapped by Bar, there is nothing to indicate the Tisroc or any other Calormene was involved in that. He had been fed and sheltered, if not too well, at least adequately enough for him to grow up healthy.

He didn't even object to being sold as a slave if he thought he might gain a material advantage by it.

As for Aravis, while she might have objected to being married off against her will, she was a minor under clear control of her father, who had her best interests at heart ( from his point of view). That certainly didn't make ordinary Calormenes her enemy; thus she had no right to their property.

As for Aravis, while she might have objected to being married off against her will, she was a minor under clear control of her father, who had her best interests at heart ( from his point of view). That certainly didn't make ordinary Calormenes her enemy; thus she had no right to their property.

I don't think that Aravis was involved in any 'raiding', or at least not directly. Once she was with them, she was able to share the provisions she had made for her own escape, and yes, that would have involved any money she had taken with her, as well. Her family was not a poor one, and I'm sure that is one reason why Ahoshta, though he was already quite wealthy, would have been so agreeable to the match. This is why Aravis sent that letter to her father, purportedly by Ahoshta, so that if money was the problem, then Ahoshta would be reimbursed, nevertheless.

Another way of looking at it is that while Bree and Hwin, as kidnapped slaves, were entitled to raid, neither Shasta nor Aravis were.

Now that is a good point, really. It is also why ropes and sacks could be taken from a barn, if it was left open and unlocked. The horses were able to enter such barns freely, plus pick up such items with their mouths and teeth. Just like cats and dogs and other animals might help themselves to items lying about. Nobody would complain, since they would see them as dumb animals with enough instinct to park themselves in their own barn, but with no horse sense.

It is also why it was Shasta who had to go to buy clothes for Aravis, since he was the only one who would have had any obvious use for them. It would be a bit weird for any of the others to have been involved in such transactions and it would have drawn unnecessary attention to them.

On the other hand, I still think of Shasta as stolen property, himself, once the transaction had been bargained for, and once he escaped. Bree, of course, as an escaped dumb animal, need never take any responsibility for the escape.

On the other hand, I still think of Shasta as stolen property, himself, once the transaction had been bargained for, and once he escaped.

!!!

When you use terms like 'stolen property' you are making a statement of legal status, which raises the question, stolen according to what code?

Not according to any current human code of law: since Shasta was, at the time of the negotiations, not legally property of the fisherman, he could not be legally sold by him.

Are you perhaps assuming a code of law in Calormen which allows foster-parents to declare their foster-children to be property, and if so, on what grounds? Why assume the worst about Calormene laws? In any case, I doubt that the transaction was completed, and therefore imagine that Shasta would retain his previous status as free fosterchild of a poor fisherman - that is to say, was emphatically not stolen property. He was on the run, certainly, but not as stolen property.