I am referring to any code of law which allows slaves to be bought and sold openly, without any sense of doing wrong, in a business transaction, like the one done between Anradin and Arsheesh, and therefore the slave to become the personal property of the slave owner, ie someone like Anradin.

Bree was Anradin's personal property. Had Shasta not fled when he did he would become the personal property of Anradin. Bree makes that abundantly clear. I've also wondered already in the thread what would happen when both Anradin and Arsheesh woke up and found both Bree and Shasta missing.

And yes, in many parts of the real world, not only in Calormen, someone like Shasta would owe Arsheesh for his upbringing, and would be considered the personal property of his foster-father until he was old enough to make his own way in life. Arsheesh even alludes to the fact that if Shasta was to go he would have to buy another boy to do the work in Shasta's place.

This was also the sort of quite common attitude which allows Aravis' stepmother to marry off Aravis to someone like Ahoshta, despite Aravis's hating the idea. It wasn't so long ago in UK, before women got the vote, that girls and women were considered family property, themselves, even when their marriages were not arranged outright, as still happens here and elsewhere.

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.

There was the fact that Lord Bar was involved in embezzling, that he was in the pay of the Tisroc, that King Lune pursued him in ships once Shasta was stolen from his own parents, and that Aslan brought Shasta ashore on the Calormene coastline for Arsheesh to receive, two days journey further north from where Anradin had his palace.

But Shasta was not a slave, and therefore not the property of the fisherman. He would have become a slave, if the transaction had been completed, but it wasn't.

Certainly Arsheesh would have bought a boy to replace Shasta, and certainly he treated him as a free source of labour, but in the absence of any actual knowledge of the Calormen legal system, I don't think we can assume he was stolen property because he decided to run away from a life of (faintly) familial servitude.

Those societies which have had legal slavery usually have also had very precise laws about how to define entry into slavery.

Given the patriarchal nature of Calormen, I'd say it would be more than an even chance to assume that a father may sell his children into slavery, though there may be limiting circumstances.

In the case of Shasta, the child is a foundling brought up by Arsheesh, who saved his life in the first place- I wouldn't like to argue a case like that in a Calormen court.

Neither Anradin nor Aesheesh seem to have any doubts about the legal validity of the sale- would Anradin have been willing to pay out the money otherwise?

There was the fact that Lord Bar was involved in embezzling, that he was in the pay of the Tisroc, that King Lune pursued him in ships once Shasta was stolen from his own parents, and that Aslan brought Shasta ashore on the Calormene coastline for Arsheesh to receive, two days journey further north from where Anradin had his palace.

Yeah, Lord Bar was a paid spy, but I don't see there being a plot by the Calormenes to kidnap one or both of the twins- why would they?
To me it seems like a desperate attempt by Bar to take a hostage to enable him to get away- which makes one wonder why he didn't offer a deal to let him go in exchange for Cor. King Lune doesn't seem the type to prefer strict justice over the life of his son.

I'm starting to feel that my posts are getting off-topic, moving from discussion of the raiding/stealing question to the general culture of Calormen, so I'll make this my last post on this thread. But... what is bugging me is the general assumption that things must be bad in Calormen, and so things are assumed to be bad, and so on, circularly. To say

Given the patriarchal nature of Calormen, I'd say it would be more than an even chance to assume that a father may sell his children into slavery, though there may be limiting circumstances.

is a case in point. Assuming such a thing about a largely unknown culture is precisely what fuels accusations of racism in the books.

Similarly about not liking to argue the case in a Calormen court -- what precisely is written about how such courts - if there were courts - operated? For all we know, all cases involving dependent non-noble children are decided by appeal to an oracle of Zardeenah, Lady of the Night. Or the cases may have been decided by ordeal at the tombs of the ancient kings. or ... well, you get my point, I'm sure.

I think, myself, that the society which produced Aravis and her brother and Emeth probably had a very high conception of truth and justice, and a society as attentive to literature probably had a very large body of orally transmitted case law, although men as grasping and as arrogant as Ahoshta and Anradin would have seen to it that this one case of a classless boy didn't ever get as far as a challenge under whatever justice system there was. But that's getting away from the raiding/stealing question again, so I'll stop.

As a moderator for this section, I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing this line of discussion. I think that everybody in this thread has raised valid points about the culture of Calormen, and it is this culture (whether one realises it or not) that fueled this question in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, go for it

One thing I'd like to say, is that sometimes I see members on this forum speculating (as was done above) about non-canon attributes that they assume are present in the books. These court systems are a prime example. If you can go back to the text and find something to support this; fine (and great!) otherwise, it's all speculation and can be valued as nothing more than an opinion.

I've been required elsewhere, but I really should answer the thread. Hien, I don't think that you have gone off topic, as in this case there is a debate on raiding versus stealing which does involve the culture of Calormen to some extent.

I don't think we can assume he was stolen property because he decided to run away from a life of (faintly) familial servitude.

Fair point, though Shasta never thought of running away until Bree talked him into it. As Graymouser pointed out, earlier, on this thread, Shasta was even willing to be a slave if he thought he would be better off than he was in Arsheesh's employ. And it wasn't until that fateful conversation that he learned not only that he was to be sold as a slave but also that he was not any relation to Arsheesh. As Bree said later, it was more a case of Bree stealing Shasta than the other way around.

The difficulty is, would Bree taking Shasta along with him constitute raiding or stealing? Bree thinks that everything he does is raiding, since he sees everything through war-tinted lenses, and he also regards himself as escaping slavery and captivity in Calormen. He isn't all that worried about the ethical niceties to the degree Shasta is. No wonder, when it is Anradin who is his master, and when all Bree has to do is play dumb if they both get caught.

The trouble is, that Shasta realises it is he, Shasta, who would be hung for being a horse-thief in the event of capture. And yes, that suggests to me that Calormen does have some sort of legal system, including courts, apart from its traffic code. Though how it operates and whether it is a fair one would be a different matter, if its final authority in the land is going to be that Tisroc or the likes of Ahoshta and Anradin.

That is a theme over and over again in all of the Narnia books, not only in HHB. If the leaders are corrupt - and there is no reason to think that all of Calormen's upper class were as horrible as that particular Tisroc, then it has a trickle down effect, affecting eventually how the rest of the society behaves towards each other. If the current traffic rule is that 'those less important have to get out of the way of those more important than themselves', then what does it say about how justice, including any laws about buying and selling slaves, is administered by the likes of Anradin? The sort of high-up Tarkaan, probably the chief magistrate for the area, who can demand hospitality for his fully armed self and his warhorse for the night at a moment's notice from some poor fisherman?

At least the fish would be freshly caught!

To me it seems like a desperate attempt by Bar to take a hostage to enable him to get away- which makes one wonder why he didn't offer a deal to let him go in exchange for Cor. King Lune doesn't seem the type to prefer strict justice over the life of his son.

I understand that when Lord Bar escaped with the baby, it was mainly because of Cor that King Lune was in hot pursuit. There was a battle at sea in which Lord Bar was killed, but instead of giving Cor back to King Lune unharmed, Lord Bar had instructed one of his knights to take the baby away in one of the ship's boats, which he did.

If he was only using Cor as a bargaining chip, why didn't he offer to give the child back instead of fighting? Why not, when he realised he was going to die, let King Lune have his son back? The knight to whom Lord Bar entrusted Shasta, was decent enough to protect the baby, at the cost of his own life. And Arsheesh was decent enough to take the baby and rear him, even if it was only to make whatever use he could of whatever labour Shasta could provide along the way. But in the end, wouldn't you say that Lord Bar stole Shasta? And doesn't that also make Shasta, himself, stolen property, who if it wasn't for the villainy of Lord Bar, would have no business being in Calormen at all?

Similarly about not liking to argue the case in a Calormen court -- what precisely is written about how such courts - if there were courts - operated? For all we know, all cases involving dependent non-noble children are decided by appeal to an oracle of Zardeenah, Lady of the Night. Or the cases may have been decided by ordeal at the tombs of the ancient kings. or ... well, you get my point, I'm sure.

When I said that "I wouldn't like to argue the case in a Calormen court" I was not making a statement about the jurisdiction of, organisation of, use of advocacy within, or even the existence of, courts within the Calormen legal system.

Any more than if, discussing the efficacy of Ahoshta's foreign policy over that of Rabadash, I were to say "He's got my vote for Grand Vizier" would mean I was supposing the presence in Calormen of democracy, election, or the broadcasting of Grand Vizerial debates on Calormen News Network. I guess I need to use smilies more

As has been pointed out, all we have to go on is the books- and the only example we have is that of the transaction over Shasta.

Arsheesh has no qualms over his right to sell Shasta, Anradin believes he has the right to buy Shasta, Shasta himself, though quite ignorant, does not object on the grounds that it is outrageous/unheard of for his adopted father to sell him, and Bree likewise takes it for granted that once the deal is struck Shasta will be a slave of the Tarkaan. We have to assume that they knew more of the Calormen legal system than we do.

As for the selling of natural children, Arsheesh says "what price could induce your servant, poor though he is, to sell into slavery his only chid and his own flesh?"

To me that seems a pretty clear indication that children could be sold into slavery, even if only as an act of desperation.

But... what is bugging me is the general assumption that things must be bad in Calormen, and so things are assumed to be bad, and so on, circularly. To say

Given the patriarchal nature of Calormen, I'd say it would be more than an even chance to assume that a father may sell his children into slavery, though there may be limiting circumstances.

is a case in point. Assuming such a thing about a largely unknown culture is precisely what fuels accusations of racism in the books.

I assume that things are bad in Calormen because C.S. Lewis keeps telling us that they are bad- and he created the place. His very first introduction of Calormen in VDT tells us that the inhabitants are a "wise, wealthy, courteous, cruel and ancient people"- and I think it's safe to say that the emphasis is on "cruel". They are slave traders in a scene focused on the evils of slavery.

When we first meet them historically in HHB they are trying to conquer their innocent smaller neighbors through treachery and defeat; in TLB, 1500 years later they finally manage it through the same method (so, maybe they weren't all that competent ). We are told they are usually in a state of aggression against the other smaller countries.

They have had slavery for at least that same 1500 years, and probably longer- it seems well established in HHB. In their history before that, parricide is a well established method of gaining the throne.

There are constant refernces in HHB to people- not only slaves- being threatened with being flogged, hanged, or boiled or burned alive, sometimes for trivial offences. As well, they have apparently practised human sacrifce to Tash for a long time

Now, Calormen is not Mordor; it is populated by ordinary human beings who undoubtedly have natural feelings of affection loyalty etc.- in TLB we are even told that a reformed Tashbaan exists beyond the stable door- though it may have suffered a drastic drop in population.

As for the racism issue, people bring that up not because Calormen is a bad place- there are plenty of bad places in fantasy literature- but because they feel it was too closely drawn to resemble Middle Eastern/Islamic socierty in our world

As has been pointed out, all we have to go on is the books- and the only example we have is that of the transaction over Shasta.

Arsheesh has no qualms over his right to sell Shasta, Anradin believes he has the right to buy Shasta, Shasta himself, though quite ignorant, does not object on the grounds that it is outrageous/unheard of for his adopted father to sell him, and Bree likewise takes it for granted that once the deal is struck Shasta will be a slave of the Tarkaan. We have to assume that they knew more of the Calormen legal system than we do.

I expect all of them would have a working knowledge of the Calormene legal system, even Shasta. He knows what happens if one steals a horse, especially a Tarkaan's horse. He knows that Tarkaans are to be bowed and scraped to, and the correct thing to say after referring to the Tisroc (may he live forever).

Bree knows his own worth in the slave.. er.. horse market. He also knows that he is particularly good at the sorts of things he has been trained to do as a warhorse. Why wouldn't he be? Bree can talk and that suggests he has more intrinsic horse sense than most horses. But he also knows how to get out of having to handle weighty legal and ethical matters by not talking. Above all, he knows that he is a more valuable possession to Anradin than what Shasta is likely to be, and that Shasta will be treated even worse at Anradin's hands than he was at Arsheesh's place.

Anradin would not only know the law, he probably was the law in those parts. We don't know what corners Anradin was cutting, or whether he was on the level, since this was a private deal, not openly done in the market place, unlike the bargaining at Narrowhaven in VDT.

I wouldn't say that Arsheesh gave in to Anradin without a qualm. That is part of what Hien says about the way Calormen is being painted as worse than it is. No doubt Arsheesh does see the monetary benefits that will come to him through the sale, and wants to get as much as possible out of it. But his first argument is still to ask :

"What price could induce your servant, poor though he is, to sell into slavery his only child and his own flesh? Has not one of the poets said, 'Natural affection is stronger than soup and offspring more precious than carbuncles?'" (HHB. p.14)

Maybe it was the greedy look in Arsheesh's eyes that was the final proof to convince Anradin of the truth. So we see him obliquely warning Arsheesh not to try 'to deceive the judicious'. (ibid). This passage demonstrates there was a Calormene tradition of prizing offspring, that a person would have to be very poor indeed before they would sell their own child, and that even so, it would have to be a good price to be worth their while.

But I think that no matter what qualms Arsheesh did or did not have, he must have been shaking in his shoes when a fully armed and horsed Tarkaan turned up at his place to bargain for Shasta. Question is, if Calormen was as bad a place as it has been portrayed, why didn't Anradin simply take Shasta, the way Bree and Hwin had been taken? That is surely what a lord from MN Charn would have done.

Yeah, that's why Isaid Calormen is not mordor- they have a legal and social system, and there certainly appear to be property rights.

And undoubtedly there is at least an aristocratic warrior's code of honour, as when it's pointed out that Shasta is wrong about Aravis going on without him- "she was as true as steel, and never would have deserted a companion, whether she liked him or not".

We do know that there was such a warrior code in Calormen from what Emeth says of himself. There were things that Emeth did not like to do as a result of his beliefs in Tash and among them, he said (p. 152 LB):

"Now when I first heard that we should march upon Narnia, I rejoiced......But when I found that we were to go in disguised as merchants (which is a shameful dress for a warrior, and the son of a Tarkaan) and to work by lies and trickery, then my joy departed from me.' Further on he objected to Shift and Rishda Tarkaan's confusion of Aslan and Tash and their misleading haranguing about 'Tashlan'. Since there was a warrior code, and Emeth was among those who adhered to it, he took a dim view of Rishda Tarkaan who clearly had broken with it.

The question is, getting back to HHB, what was Anradin doing in Arsheesh's hut anyway, haggling like a merchant, if he was a proper representative of the Tarkaan class? Is the loss of the money in Bree's saddlebags going to inconvenience him in any way? Was that the money he was planning to spend on buying Shasta? Or was it just his small change?

And come to think about it, since we are talking about raiding vs stealing, what do we make of the antics of Jadis in London and elsewhere, who seemed to think she was entitled to help herself to everything she fancied? Did she have any notion about stealing? Or did she see everything she saw as merely raiding?

I saw a documentary awhile back about an escape from Auschwitz, the German extermination camp in Poland. ... 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?

First, I wouldn't call what I'm saying as "condemning." To me anyway that implies severe judgment and usually desiring some kind of punishment. Poland was an occupied country and if most Poles happily turned Jews in, they were the in grave danger. This was during a war. They have much more of a claim of "raiding" than Shasta and Bree do. I'm thinking of it this way: To take something that belongs to someone else is stealing. However, if I were presiding over the mentioned cases (i.e. the Christians, Jews, and slaves) in a court of law, I would rule it as justifiable stealing and recommend no punishment. I'm not as bothered so much by them helping themselves to food if they don't have the means to purchase it. They need it to live. I would have preferred it if they had bought the sacks. They didn't exactly need those to live. If their case was tried in my (fictitious) court room, I would probably order them to send some new sacks to the people they took them from.

And come to think about it, since we are talking about raiding vs stealing, what do we make of the antics of Jadis in London and elsewhere, who seemed to think she was entitled to help herself to everything she fancied? Did she have any notion about stealing? Or did she see everything she saw as merely raiding?

Jadis thought she was above the law and was the law. The only way she would have a notion of stealing is if someone took something from her. I think she saw everything as belonging to her.

Yes, Jadis did think she was above the law. She, above all other inhabitants of the Narnian world, even the Tisroc. Except that, in Narnia, itself, when someone else erred, she thought she also had a right to kill such a person as lawful prey.

If their case was tried in my (fictitious) court room, I would probably order them to send some new sacks to the people they took them from.

I daresay that is what happened. Given that Rabadash was repatriated back to Tashbaan in a cattle boat, a discreet package containing sacks and some rope, addressed to wherever the travellers got them from, would scarcely be noticed, as part of the cargo. At worst, they could have been used to attend to Rabadash's asinine needs (donkey's needs ).

The only difficulty is that Shasta didn't know how to read and write until later on.