Palace Thief (The) by Ethan Canin ~ July Book Club Online

[BarbStAubrey]

heading

[BarbStAubrey]

Wow am I ever impressed this story is in the 10th grade curriculum - wonderful - and great questions - more than I want to get into tonight but tomorrow I will give it stir

However, asking if Sedgewick is Victorious - and that I think is based in how you define victory -

If we are looking for victory to be based in integrity with a democratic or lassie faire roll-out that allows the financial supporters and voters to 'not' be influenced by the good times rolling provided by Sedgewick's attempt to influence them a certain way than, he is not victorious.

However, if it is just the power game of using Mr. H as an opening to his persuasive speech built on top of handsomely wining and dining and treating like long lost friends these potential financial supporter to his campaign then yes, he was victorious.

And he successfully one ups Mr. H. again, so that there is no loud public announcement of his chicanery - another victory.

[Jonathan]

The Palace Thief. I'm with Dana, when she says, 'I don't understand the title at all.' But I think I am beginning to see a light at the end of the tunnel. It's Mr Hundert who has been robbed, and he does say about Sedgewick that 'Virtue had no place in the palaces he had known.' p196

'I was naive to think...' 'Why was I surprised?' p195 and 196 Sedgewick has just told his former schoomates what he wants to do for his country and his intention to run for the senate. Mr Hundert has become disillusioned, and yet there was a time, forty years earlier, when he had seen the promise in the boy.

Here I get into trouble. Was it in the book? Or the movie? The class is going to read Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. 'Sedgewick', said the teacher, 'you read the part of Brutus. The noblest Roman of them all.' And Sedgewick shows he has learned the lessons of history. 'They should have killed Antony along with Caesar.' Why? 'He was their nemesis later.'

The battle in the story? For Mr Hundert I think it is the battle between past and present.

Ginny, I like your question about Al Qaeda and the history in the Buddha statues. How could they see any 'history' in the statues. They were still very much a part of their battle with the infidels. I think.

Bellamarie, welcome back. Who has told us more of, 'what's the story about?'

My question. What's the difference between a toga and a gun, when you're teaching a history lesson? The answer: A toga puts the action in ancient Rome. A gun, in this case, in Civil War America. One should know about both.

[bellamarie]

I see Sedgewick victorious in his games he is playing with Mr. H., because he has gotten Mr. H., to make choices that go against the grain of his character, something that is important to Mr. H., and something he so desperately wants to think he can help these young men build while in his class.  Where I do not see Sedgewick victorious is in his own character, as he becomes a man.  He likes playing with other people's lives, he knows what he wants and goes after it by any means, and we all have seen cheating and deceit, are some of his means to get there.  I've never been a believer in the old cliche, " The ends justifies the means."

The saying is a maxim from consequentialism, a school of thought notably advocated by Niccolo Machiavelli. Earlier uses come from the Greek playwright Sophocles and the Roman poet Ovid:

"The Greek playwright Sophocles wrote in Electra (c 409 B.C.), 'The end excuses any evil,' a thought later rendered by the Roman poet Ovid as 'The result justifies the deed' in 'Heroides' (c. 10 B.C.)." From "Wise Words and Wives' Tales: The Origins, Meanings and Time-Honored Wisdom of Proverbs and Folk Sayings Olde and New" by Stuart Flexner and Doris Flexner (Avon Books, New York, 1993)."

However, I would attribute its "origin" to Machiavelli, as he developed an entire school of thought (consequentialism) from the saying.
Source(s):
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequenti...

The origin of this quote is attributed to Prince Machiavelli. His thought was that anything can be done no matter what the consequences may be for the end result will be justified, the method used to attain it is of no consequence. More information may be found In Machiavelli, The student Prince. he is known to have said, "The prince must be the lion, but he must also know how to play the fox."
Source(s):
The Studen Prince. 
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100308164633AAo5fo3

Oh how Sedgewick the lion, was able to play Mr. H., the fox, seeing his victory each time.  But in doing so he was losing as well.  I think when you harm another person, you harm yourself as well.

Mr. H., sees in the end he was never going to mold Sedgewick, he already was on a path to not caring much about his character, which most likely came from seeing how his father operated in life.  The apple does not fall far from the tree.  I think Mr. H., had to take solace in knowing he at least gave it a shot, when he had the opportunity.

I've given a lot of thought about the title "The Palace Thief" and have had a very difficult time trying to make heads or tails of it's meaning to the story.  I'm thinking Sedgwick's character and integrity, represents the Palace, (as in your body is your castle)and he (the thief). robbed himself of being a better person, and robbed Mr. H., of possibly helping him become a better person, or as Mr. H., saw it, "mold his character."

Ginny, it will be a nice change to switch gears, and look at Mr. Ellerby.

Jonathan and Dana, I think we are on the same thought process, as far as trying to understand the title.  The only problem, is tomorrow is another day, which could bring a new light to this twister of a story.   

[bellamarie]

My favorite quote in the book, I have to say is: 

"A man's character is his character."  Mr. Hundert pg. 205

[BarbStAubrey]

Wow Bellamarie - lots of fabulous thoughts - who would have guessed or at least I was not aware of the straight line from Heroides to Sophocles and Ovid to Machiavelli - fascinating - and for me a lesson in how we read something with our own views on life because after your bringing us this slant of justification for any behavior when I saw some of the quotes Plato included that were from the speech by Socrates that said something to the affect - that evil is as a result of ignorance and the other that I have been memorizing - "an evil act is always with the thought that it will bring some good or benefit" - certainly that could fit "the end justifies the means"

Amazing how the line between a compassionate view of what someone says and does compared to a manipulative calculated view is razor thin.

And that analogy of the lion and the fox is really spot on isn't it - the bluster of a lion and the slyness of a fox - the huge presence of a lion and the slight muscled body of a quick fox. Interesting also is that a fox lives in a den, hidden and is protective of those in the den where as the lion lives abroad and just about ignores the pride except for his needs. Very interesting -

And then to top it off your concept of the Palace is easy to see - an interior slant... hmm. a step further, I wonder if we all have our 'Palace' that we thieve from when we do not live up to our sense of integrity. So many great ideas in this post - thanks - really - thanks.   

[Frybabe]

Ginny, I should have added information about "wick". It is Anglo-Saxon and means town or dwelling. It may alsoi have originated from the Latin "vicus", which is a neighborhood or administrative division.

Jonathan, your comment about togas vs guns reminds me of the pen vs the sword proverb which I just looked up. I was surprised to find that it was coined by Edward Bulwer-Lytton when he wrote his play, Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy. So, in the end, the pen (the news media) did in S. Bell's bid for the White House.

Bellamarie, Machiavelli is yet another voice (The Prince) sitting in my TBR pile for a few years.

[Halcyon]

I see fear as one of the themes in this story.  In the beginning.....When describing Sedgwick's background Mr. H tells us how Hyram Bell used fear to get elected.  Page 156 "....after his father had been delivered to office on the shoulders of southern patricians frightened by unionization of steel and mine workers."  Interestingly Sedgewick also uses fear to get elected at the end of the story.  Unlike his father who was at one with the southern aristocrats, Sedgwick had to court the miners.  Page 203:  "He won that election not in small part because he managed to convince those miners that he was one of them."

Back to the beginning.   Page 159:  "From the first day, Sedgwick Bell was a boor and bully....."  According to Mr. H he was also a natural leader and and organized the boys to participate in his antics.  At that age a boy would be afraid not to go along with Sedgwick.

On Page 161 we get a glimpse of Sedgwick's relationship with his father when Mr. H told him he was going to meet with the senator. "His gaze faltered.  I'm going to try harder, sir, from now on."  And at the end on Page 195 ".....I watched confusion and then a flicker of panic's the face of Sedgwick Bell.  He stood haltingly.  How clear it was to me that the corruption in his character had always arisen from fear."  Sedgwick, it seems, was always trying to please his father.   Out of fear of not being loved, noticed, good enough, accepted?  Remember the scene when Sedgwick lost the Mr. Julius Caesar contest and his father abruptly got up and left with his mother trailing after him.  What child would not feel fear by these actions.

On to Mr. Hundert.  He is riddled with fear. Knowing he has to call Sedgwick's father on Page 161 "....my hands trembled as I dialed his office...."On arriving at the senator's office on Page 162:  "I was frightened but determined....."  When told by Mr. Woodbridge to ignore the cheating or lose his job, Mr. Hundert reacts from fear.  He goes along with his headmaster.  Mr. Hundert fails to confront the senator about Sedgwick's cheating.  He seems to fear authority figures.  What happened to him in his childhood?  Later on in the story we see that fear has caused his isolation, "My boys were passing once again into the world without me." Page 186.  He hadn't planned for retirement, was too afraid to think that he might not always be at St. Benedict's.  Therefore Mr. Hundert was afraid not to take the good sum of money offered to him by Sedgwick to conduct a repeat performance of Mr. Julius Caesar Day.  First the father, Hyram, gives him a gun and then Sedgwick gives him money.  And Mr.  Hundert is just too afraid to stand up for himself and say NO.  Fear of conviction?  Once again he fails to out Sedgwick with his elaborate cheating scheme.  Is he afraid of losing the money promised him?  Page 198 sums it up.  Sedgwick says "And I see that you have not changed either."

But wait.  At the end Mr. Hundert did speak even if it was without conviction!  For those of you who have not looked it up Hundert means one-hundred.  Does that mean it took Mr Hundert lots of toys before he wriggled out of his canon of fear and finally spoke up?

As to the title, The Palace Thief, I think "palace" refers to a man or a civilization and the "thief" is time.  It all ties in to "Ozymandias",  Shutruk-Nahhunte and Mr. Hundert's retirement.

Although I've tried to defend "fear" as a theme, I'm not sure if that is THE theme.  (I'm a gemini, I can change my mind.  Haha.)

[Halcyon]

One more thing.  Could we have some comments on the last sentence in the story?  "Nonetheless, it was startling, every now and then when I looked over at the sunlight falling across his bowed head, to see that Deepak Mehta, the quietest of my boys, was now an old man."

Mr. Hundert is, maybe, eight or nine years older than Deepak.  All those years of teaching his boys "to understand their own insignificance before the sand of time", does he not realize that the sand of time have caught up with him too or does he realize this and is astounded by it?

[Halcyon]

Another thought.  The palace could represent Sedgwick, molded and shaped by his father.  The thief is also his father who took away any integrity Sedgwick may have had.  I think I've had too much coffee!

[bellamarie]

Barb,

I wonder if we all have our 'Palace' that we thieve from when we do not live up to our sense of integrity.

Indeed we do!

Halcyon,

I'm a gemini, I can change my mind.  Haha

I am Leo, the Lion....ugh I better stay away from foxes! I change my mind constantly, maybe I was meant to be a Gemini.

Frybabe, Isn't it interesting how this book may inspire you to get to reading, "The Prince", I'm thinking it would spark my interest, even though I had never heard of it til now.

Jonathan asks,

What's the difference between a toga and a gun, when you're teaching a history lesson?

In this particular story Senator Bell uses the gun as a bribe, while young Sedgewick uses the toga to mock the boys.  Both are used as a means to gain some form of control. 

[Jonathan]

Each of us is a palace and time robs us of everything. Time as the thief! Yes, there's much in the story to support that.

'Mr. H., sees in the end he was never going to mold Sedgewick....' Right on, Bellamarie.

And that suggests another theme: Mr Hundert's Revenge.

Instead of molding Sedgewick's character, Mr Hundert is forced into frustrating his pupil's ambitions, whether it's winning the prize or winning the presidency. And the end justified Mr Hundert's improvised means. Then, as an old man, the pupil is remembered as a 'boor and a bully.'

Doesn't Deepak Mehta, as the 'old man' serve as a foil to the successful, vibrant Sedgewick, who just keeps going from success to success?

[ginny]

MAN, you miss a half hour of this discussion and you're so far behind you have no hope of responding to everybody and I don't think I will try,  love the ideas here, back this evening with a couple of comments on them. For now:

Yes I think the Palace IS symbolic and I am loving all the different takes. I don't see the one I think it is, but I'm loving what you think it is, and I look forward to comparing them in the last days of the discussion. In fact, I think we need to get up a list of them in the heading as they occur so we can keep all of the different ones in front of us and have a good old gabfest about each one.

You all do realize the author himself uses the word "palace" in the book? It's plural there. IS he pointing toward his own reason for the title? If so I don't agree with it, but I think some of you will.

OH and a personal note: I'm going to be traveling tomorrow some distance to my in-laws for my MIL's 95 birthday and reunion, and will be back Monday night.  The connection there is almost non existent. I will try to get a signal but if you don't see me, carry on exactly as you are now and we'll all be the richer for it.

I'll be back tonight,  each  of you have made wonderful points I want to think about!

[PatH]

I'm a Leo too, but frequently change my mind.

Frybabe, if you ever do read The Prince, it won't take you long.  My ancient paperback (cover price 35 cents) has 35 pages of introduction and 100 pages of actual text, and the style is clear and straightforward, with a kind of rhythm to his arguments.  His examples are from the labyrinthine Italian Renaissance factional politics of his time, but you don't have to understand who's who to get his points.

The book is a manual on how to get and keep power, and I don't think it ever specifically says the end justifies the means, but he assumes you'll use whatever means you need to.  He does warn you not to be more evil than you have to, though.  It's an outlier among his political writings.  I haven't read the others, but evidently they are somewhat more moral.

He was a poet and playwright, too.  I've read one of his plays, Mandragola, a bawdy comedy.

[BarbStAubrey]

Good grief the whole discussion crossed an ocean of thoughts while I was writing.

Yes, fear seems to be at the bottom of so much of these characters behavior - Halcyon that was quite an effort - lots of time to pull all that out and type out not only your thoughts but the quotes - what a gift of time and effort you have given to us -

I needed and thought maybe y'all might want to refresh yourself as well on how to find the theme in Literature.

http://www.learner.org/interactives/literature/read/theme2.html

Fear certainly plays its part, doesn't it - seems to me wasn't it Dana who said something about fear - need to go back and look. It fits as a tool to manipulate control as Bellamarie points out. And control is a weapon to gain and maintain power. Sounds like the ankle bone is connected to the leg bone. Wasn't it you Halcyon who suggested power as a theme. Those three, fear, control and power sure appear to me to be connected - Ha, I can even see a male lion roaring to set a tone of fear in order to control and maintain his position of power.

Is it the only time Mr. H. stands up publicly to face down a fear tactic when he justifies teaching Roman History as Charles Ebberly attempted to persuade the new curriculum to exclude this class taught by Mr. H. - He made an attempt to get his message across to Hyman but does not get the job done. Also, the first go round of confronting the cheating he does it quietly after Mr. Woodbridge lets him know his job is at stake. I'm thinking it is the only time he speaks up and defends his turf.

I have seen Mr. H. as an artist whose medium is his love of language, with his quotes and elevating the words of Shutruck-Nahhunte above the door -  keeping the tablet hung that was a term project by Stimson - his ability to see relevance in the past which is like a painter or musician's expression of art also built on the past. I loved the sentence during the battle to keep history in the curriculum, "Its words flowed as though unbidden from my tongue, and when I finished, I knew that I had won."

He uses the words as his weapon to fight the battle of keeping history, the word of man, alive at St. Benedict's. Reminds me of the Dark Ages when Monks were keeping alive the written word by copying Bibles and the work of other historical authors.

Seeing Mr. H. as an artist puts his life in perspective - Artists are not usually in the middle of political debate even when they make a statement with their art - Their funding is dependent on the wealth builders, patrons and benefactors.  Few artists are elevated into acknowledged places of honor and wealth but even when they do reach a status of honor and wealth they still do not have the power of world leaders like those who meet in Davos every year along with the 1500 business leaders.

And so when money is at stake, as it became at St. Benedicts the power that controls who is hired and who is retired is in the hands of the administrators not in the hands of an artist regardless the value of the art. We see that choice played out today as nearly all art has been removed or downgraded in schools with budget constraint as justification. Today, History is taught but not the beauty of the word or reading from books that keep alive the words from an anthology of classic works.

And so, part of the battle to include history in the curriculum I see as the battle between the arts and those studies that are directly related to building a financial or politically lucrative career. Mr. H. had success keeping history and the beauty of the word alive and well.  He faced his fear of speaking and his fear of feeling he was inadequate to win a debate and won in a battle few artists win unless they can show huge profits with their art.

[bellamarie]

Jonathan,  "Each of us is a palace and time robs us of everything."

Oh this is so true.  Time is like a thief in the dark. It's the one thing we are not able to control in life.  We can not stop time, we can not slow it down, and we can not forsake it.  We can only decide to accept the time we are given, and do the very best with that time.  Mr. H., sees Deepak looking old, sees time has passed them by, and sees how little time they all have left.

Yesterday's the past, tomorrow's the future, but today is a gift. That's why it's called the present. Bil Kean

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_time.html#bQW5AgRMAZ49WiHI.99

Ginny, Safe travels and good luck with getting a connection.
PatH., I'm happy to share being a Leo with you. 
Barb, and Halcyon, Yes, fear is a nasty monster who rears it's ugly head in all of us.  I am reading a book called, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope by His Holiness John Paul II.  The first chapter deals with fear, and he repeats many times, "Do not be afraid."  One of my favorite songs at Mass is "Be Not Afraid."

[bellamarie]

PatH.,

The book is a manual on how to get and keep power, and I don't think it ever specifically says the end justifies the means, but he assumes you'll use whatever means you need to.  He does warn you not to be more evil than you have to, though.

I think you could be correct in saying it ever specifically says, "The ends justifies the means."


I found this a bit interesting:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli

"Machiaveillianism" is a widely-used negative term to characterize unscrupulous politicians of the sort Machiavelli described in The Prince.  The book itself gained enormous notoriety and wide readership because most readers assumed the author was teaching and endorsing evil and immoral behavior.  Because of this, the term "Machiavellian" is often associated with deceit, deviousness, ambition, and brutality, although Machiavelli likely only used it as stylistic device to gain the reader's attention for his close analysis of the actual techniques used by rulers.

Well, now I think I could use this description of both Senator Bell, and Sedgewick Bell, especially in their views of politics and means to be successful.  So, has our author Canin, much like Niccolo' di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, used this as his technique in this story, The Palace Thief to gain reader's attention as well?

[ginny]

Just gets better and better in here!  We know what the road to hell is paved with,  and here it is 10:15 pm and me off at 5 am tomorrow. And I DID want to share this new theory I have!  I have got to reluctantly pull the plug here and leave it to you all. I am hoping to see 100 sparkling new ideas  when I can next logon.

I have copied every post since yesterday and will read them over and over probably. The Palace Thief is packed, too. I hope to see you all before Monday but if not, carry on! What's the expression, keep  calm and carry on? Love that. I need one of those coffee cups with that on on it.  Was it something about WWII and England? At any rate, see you when I can...hold the fort!

[BarbStAubrey]

This sentence has intrigued me and in light of the recent stare down between Merkel and Tsipras it appears to have legs.

"It is a largely unexplored element of history, of course, and on that has long fascinated me, that a great deal of the arc of nations arises not from intellectual advantage nor social imperatives but from the simple battle of wills among men at tables, such as has just occurred between Charles Ellerby and me."

I am also thinking how often as moms we used the direct unflinching stare especially in public and always if we could catch it in time, just before things got out of hand.

Back to the story - I guess we could say that 'the look or the stare' was ammunition during this battle between Charles Ellerby and Mr. Hundert.

[Dana]

We're leaving for a trip of the "great parks" out west.  Should be fun.
 
 Anyway, before I go, just wanted to say that I think the palace is the school, or the ideal of the school as a place to mould future leaders to behave with integrity, and the thief is anyone in the book who corrupts that high ideal, Hundert, Sedgewick, headmaster, Ellerby, S.'s father.....

Keep calm and carry on was on posters in the UK during the war, but it got a rebirth a few years ago, no idea why!

[BarbStAubrey]

How fabulous Dana - seeing the west - ah St. Benedict's the Palace and the characters who do not live to the ideal of the school are the thieves - interesting - need to play with that idea - the more we read and talk the more my concept of the Palace keeps changing - I wonder if that will be what we decide that there is no agreement on the Palace and we all come away from this read with our own insight - we shall see what we shall see - hope you have a grand time on your trip - thanks for giving us so much to chew on as a result of your contributions - this has been a super discussion don't you think... one of our best. It sure brought out a variety of opinions. 

[bellamarie]

Barb, leading into your paragraph about the stare down, Ellerby asked Mr. H., about the gun and he refused to open the desk drawer.  "There's a rumor you keep a pistol in your desk drawer."  "Hogwash."  "Will you open it for me," he said pointing there.  "No, I will  not.  I have been a dean here for twenty years."  "Are you telling me there is no pistol in this house?"  He then attempted to stare me down.  We had known each other for the good part of both of our lives, however, and the bid withered.  At that point, in fact, as his eyes fell in submission to my determined gaze, I believe the headmaster became mine.

Mr. Ellerby reminds me of those type of so called friends, who are nice to you, listen to you, make you think they can be trusted, so you share things with them, thinking it would  be in confidence and safe, and then use what you say at an unexpected time to hurt you with the knowledge you provided them with.  Mr. H., confided in Ellerby about the whole cheating incident years before.

This entire part that transpired shows that Sedgewick Bell had to have had a hand in Mr. H.'s demise at the school.

After dinner I returned to the assistant headmaster's house in order to plot my course and confer with those I still considered allies, but before I could begin my preparations, there was a knock at the door.  Charles Ellerby stood there, red in the cheeks.  "May I as you some questions?" he said breathlessly.  "It is I would ought to ask them of you" was my answer.  He came in without being asked and took a seat at my table.  "You've never been married, am I correct, Hundert?" 

To this day I wonder how he knew about what he said next, unless Sedgewick Bell had somehow told him the story of my visit to the senator. (pg.180)

Now I see I was doomed the moment I threw that pistol in the water, for that is where I lost my conviction.  It was as though Sedgewick Bell had risen, all these years later, to drag me down again.

What does he mean when he says, "drag me down again"?  Why so many years later would Sedgewick Bell feel the need to destroy Mr. H.'s chance at the headmaster job, and force him into retirement?  What kind of person even goes to such lengths to harm another person?  Ellerby had to have shared with the faculty the information he felt damaging to Mr. H., since he states:

Indeed, once the meeting had begun, the older faculty members shrunk back from their previous support of my bid, and the younger ones encircled me as though I were a limping animal.  There might as well have been a dagger among the cloaks.  By four o'clock that afternoon Charles Ellerby, a fellow antiquarian whose job I had once helped secure, had been named headmaster, and by the end of that month he had asked me to retire.

Sedgewick Bell had to have put this entire thing into motion.  He was the first to ever ask about Mr. H., never being married, and he had to know about the gun.  Senator Bell warned, or threatened Mr. H., back years ago, his son had told him things about him.  Obviously, Sedgewick told Ellerby as well.

What's that old saying, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

From @Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The...
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
This has often been attributed to Sun Tzu and sometimes to Niccolò Machiavelli or Petrarch, but there are no published sources yet found which predate its use by "Michael Corleone" in The Godfather Part II (1974), written by Mario Puzo & Francis Ford Coppola: "My father taught me many things here — he taught me in this room. He taught me — keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

The Godfather, wow!  Was Sedgewick that powerful?

Hmmmmm....... another mention of Niccolo' Machiavelli.  Another coincidence our author Ethan Canin has used yet another possible reference to the Machiavellian style in this story?

[bellamarie]

Frybabe and PatH., the talk of The Prince and Machiavelli has peaked my interest.  I was able to get the book from my library online.  Just have to know more about this, since it seems to be tieing into The Palace Thief in some way.  Or at least I am seeing possibly Ethan Canin has used the same Machiavellian style in his writing, as in The Prince. It too is a short story, only 80 pages long if I am correct.

[Jonathan]

Perhaps Mr Hundert should have been teaching Machiavelli rather than Greek and Roman republican ideals to the future leaders at St Benedict's.

The Prince I found on my shelf must be the same edition as yours, Pat. The 35 cent Mentor Classic. Why haven't I read it?

'A handbook for those who would  acquire or increase their political power.'  'Mussolini selected it as the subject of a thesis for his doctorate.' 'It was Hitler's bedside reading.' 'Lenin and Stalin as well have gone to school to Machiavelli.' From the introduction. It seems one must be ruthless. But that was for Italian rennaissance politis. Surely it hasn't come to that in America.

[Jonathan]

Those beautiful parks in the West. Have a good time, Dana.

[BarbStAubrey]

Well you have convinced me to get my copy of The Prince down from the shelves and read it keeping in mind while reading this short story by Ethan Canin

Little of the how is really explained in the story is it - how Charles Ellerby knew what he knew - what the faculty knew or not, that had them take sides - that whole scene is really close to the scene where we have the famous line, 'et tu Brutus' -

I saw that scene from Ancient Rome as a power grab, not so much because others had the same gripe with Caesar but they were acting using today's terminology with a 'crowd-source' charge - when we are part of a crowd we tend to go along with the emotions of the crowd and park our logic - and so my thought when I read the take over scene in this, the Palace Thief, the other teachers could smell a coup and wanted to assure themselves they were on the winning side for their future job security.

And so my take was job security has the best of us backing whatever dark horse enters the fray. Almost like those in politics who look to stay loyal to a tyrant but in fact they are only protecting, sometimes their life but at best their economic security the job provides. We are not given the particulars of the scene except the sarcastic, irony of how Mr. Hundert interpreted the scene that he imagined would have been his elevation to head. 

He is not as quick to plot this reach, this campaign to take over after the death of Mr. Woodbridge - he even says he was not ready which yes, I have to agree Ellerby must have been plotting this inevitability for a long time.

What we do not know from the story and like a detective trying to piece together backwards from the outcome - how Charles Ellerby learned of the gun - during the days of their intimate friendliness did Mr. H. tell him - or if Sedgewick was the tattler then how does he know of the gift since he and his father were not exactly what we would call close during the years when the gun was gifted to Mr. H. - somehow the news had to travel a trail from Hyram Bell to Charles Ellerby or the only other one that knew of the gift was Mr. H. himself

There is the possibility that Charles Ellerby was a snoop along with being a back stabber. Charles Ellerby does not say the gun that was given to you or the gun from Hyram Bell, he only asks - do you have a pistol - why would he call it a pistol. When Mr. H. was gifted the gun Hyram called it a side arm - more in keeping with the age of the gun and I could see if Hyram passed the story on to his son he would have said he gave that history teacher of yours, Mr. H. an old side arm or according to its age and multiple shot ability, an old revolver.

We do not know the age of the gun but if it was made before Colt was manufacturing hand guns then the word pistol was not used - Colt did make the first small pocket 'pistol' starting in 1855 soon after they opened for business - however, the Colt pistol was army issue during WWI and was used by law enforcement but the gun was not described as a Colt by Hyram, which is the word any gun owner would use.

Since Bell was from the South the side arms used by officers and the calvary were called revolvers - there was a Colt used by both north and south even though Colt Manufacturing was a northern company - this gun was also used during the western campaigns but again it would have been known as either a revolver or simply a Colt, usually followed by it's numbers or name e.g. Colt 45 or Colt MI_#_

And so that says to me neither Mr. H. or Charles Ellerby had any knowledge of guns and if he was passing on something heard from the Bells either Hyram or Sedgewick I think he would pass along word for word and neither of the Bells would call the gun a pistol.  The word pistol most often refers to a semi-automatic handgun.

I am also having a difficult time seeing Charles confront Mr. H. with such assuredly if he had reason to think the gun may not be in his possession - for all he knew, if it was a story passed along to him, than Mr. H. could have gotten rid if the gun with no one being the wiser but he confronted with such audacity and I bet knew Mr. H. was lying or in the mind of Charles there was maybe a small fraction of a chance Mr. H. could have gotten rid of the gun but regardless, he could not tip his hand he riffled through Mr. Hundert's personal belongings or he would have really blown his so far successful position, climbing towards being head. And so where Mr. H. in his mind won that encounter in reality he was not a good statistician to realize Charles Ellerby would loose more if he were to persist with his claim.

My take - not right or wrong only how I see Mr. H - my take on him is that he bumbles through life and makes small adjustments where and when he can, winning a few battles but never wins the wars  - he knows his history and loves history, even in retirement studying the history of Japan but, he is not a change maker that successfully wins the integrity wars with Sedgewick, his father or with Charles Ellerby.

[bellamarie]

Barb, if I ever have a mystery to solve, I am calling on your talents as a sleuth detective!  You did some great research on this whole gun, pistol, revolver, firearm.  Kudos!!

My bet is that Ellerby knew a gun was in the desk drawer, and you make a very valid point, because Mr. H., had been given this so many years prior, Ellerby is very confident that if he opens the drawer it will be there.  So....I lean in the direction Ellerby very recently snooped in that drawer, for whatever reasons, and KNEW without a doubt the gun was there. 

I like your take and agree,   

I see Mr. H - my take on him is that he bumbles through life and makes small adjustments where and when he can, winning a few battles but never wins the wars  - he knows his history and loves history, even in retirement studying the history of Japan but, he is not a change maker that successfully wins the integrity wars with Sedgewick, his father or with Charles Ellerby.

Sedgewick, Senator Bell, Woodbridge and Ellerby were in a whole different league than Mr. H., when it came to character and morals.  Yes, I was hard on Mr. H., but if I had not read the entire 50 pages, knowing the outcome so early on, I think I could have come to this conclusion I have now, which is, Mr. H., made some mistakes in his actions as to how he took on this challenge with Sedgewick, but I think he took it on hoping to help build his character, which we can all agree he was in need of.  Yes, Mr. H., broke rules, and even allowed his own convictions be lost on this one person.  But, in the end, I see it as you do Barb, he was bumbling through life, but I believe he always had good intentions and was looking out for his students and St. Benedict's school.  He just got caught up in his own webs, he spun.  He was no match for the others. 

Jonathan,  So why does it not surprise me you also have a copy of The Prince on your bookshelf.

From the introduction. It seems one must be ruthless. But that was for Italian renaissance politics. Surely it hasn't come to that in America.

Do you say this in jest, Jonathan?  I would have to say with a resounding voice, indeed it has come to that in America today, and many years prior. 

Dana, enjoy your journey to the west!
Ginny, any connections yet?  I feel like the Verizon commercial......"Can you hear me now?" Enjoy your time away, we got ya covered here.   

[Jonathan]

Perhaps he is a bumbler. There is also a charming innocence to Mr Hundert. For years he has dreamed of succeeding Mr Woodbridge as Headmaster. When his chance comes, finally, he's caught up, in his own words, in 'a Byzantine struggle for succession'. Incomprehensible. For which he is totally unprepared. He loses his faith in St Benedict's, although he resolves to make no excuses for St B's (Back to the beginning of the book.) He lacks character and yet wants to mold the character of others. He can't understand himself, but is prepared to judge others.

Barb, your post is a splendid piece of sleuthing and deducing. Too bad that you have such a poor witness in the case. Mr Hundert teaches history, but is such an uncertain witness to history himself. I don't think we can accept as truth Mr Hundert's notion of Sedgewick's relationship with his father. Seeing through what Mr H tells us, I can see a good relationship between father and son. As father, we hear him say, he wants to be the one to mold his son's character. He comes to witness the Mr Caesar contest. Father has a heart-to heart with his son, a talk about his failure, and hears about Mr Hundert's dishonesty and much more.

I'm inclined to think that Mr Bell followed through and got more information about Mr Hundert from faculty at St Benedict's, including Mr Ellerby. The gun may have been mentioned in passing in an exchange about what should be taught in the school. I do believe Mr Hundert does have some things wrong. Perhaps a wife along the way would have influenced his views and his perpectives.

Bellamarie, there may be a lot of hard ball played in American politics, but it's still a great working democracy.

[Halcyon]

Barb, what good points you make.  Mr. H certainly likes the status quo and only makes changes when absolutely necessary.  Again I go back to fear.  Is he afraid of change?  So, between Bellamarie's post and Barb's is Sedgwick Bell the thief and Mr. H the palace?  This is beginning to sound like a game of Clue.  Sedgwick Bell with the gun in the palace.  Or could it be.........

[PatH]

Sedgwick Bell with the gun in the palace.

Good detecting, Barb.  I agree that Ellerby must have been snooping to be sure of the location of the gun.  Hundert isn't even living in the same house he was when it was given to him.   I don't think the terminology "sidearm" vs "pistol" matters.  A sidearm is any weapon meant to be worn at the side or on a belt, so includes pistols.  And I agree neither man seems to know anything about guns.  Hundert is lucky he didn't shoot himself in the foot in the process of getting rid of it.

[PatH]

We certainly go all over the place in these discussions--Machiavelli is a surprise, though.  Funny that you and I should have the same paperback, Jonathan.  I got a lot of good Mentor classics back then.  My copy of Edith Hamilton's Mythology fell apart, though, and had to be replaced.

[bellamarie]

Jonathan I agree, even though we may not approve of Senator Bell's methods of how he got successful, and all we really have to go on is the insinuations of Mr. H., and the behavior of Sedgewick, I do think he has a very good, close relationship with his son.  Sedgewick decides to follow in his father's footsteps, that is one of the most highest forms of honor a child could give to their parent, as far as I am concerned.  Jonathan, it's nice to see someone still has some faith in our politicians and democracy.  Me, not so much.

I think we all see the Palace representing many different things.  My take was the Palace is each person's character, and they themselves are the thief, because they rob themselves of being the best person possible.

OMG  PatH., you totally made me laugh out loud....."Hundert is lucky he didn't shoot himself in the foot in the process of getting rid of it."   

[BarbStAubrey]

Its funny how certain words hit you and send you off on a sleuthing search - having been around guns, the word pistol and the way the gun was described I thought of a dueling pistol and knew that was not right since they are usually single shot front loaded guns and are not called sidearms - since this story was written to depict life in the 1940s the only thing I could think of was guns pre WWI and since Hyram was from West Virgina it had to have been a gun used in the south. The word I knew to describe a sidearm had to be a handgun and it was described as an antique - which, except for some French guns, the guns from the US were usually Colt, Smith and Wesson, Remington and the old Whitney and so hit Google.

But again, it is my views that I wanted satisfied - As to father and son - sounds good - the other aspect is there are many children who decide to repeat in life the efforts of a parent because they think the can do it better - thinking of Bush Sr. versus Jr. In the 50s did we yet have any father/son Congressmen I wonder - another Google 

Aha so there are political legacies that go back to John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams - Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen is the sixth generation of Frelinghuysen to represent New Jersey in Congress, dating to 1794. There are the Roosevelts, the Harrisons (William Henry and grandson Benjamin), the La Follettes, the Stevensons and the Cabot Lodges, the Long family from Louisiana, the Tafts from Ohio.

There are later families that became multi-generational elected Congressman and Presidents after the 1940s like the Kennedy's and the Udall's but again, the story was showing likelihood so the story could be believable that depended upon known history before the 1940s.  Far more family dynasties than I realized.

An nice site that shows the firsts of families serving -
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Firsts-Milestones/Family-Firsts/

This story does appear as Halcyon suggests to be like a game of Clue - I wonder how many other bits we are glossing over. Interesting how we read with our own views - sounds like Jonathan you are comfortable with the gossip trail that leads to Ellerby's confrontation - where as Pat and I think Bellamarie see that snooping could have been the source of Ellerby's questioning Mr. H.

Back to that gun - after the idea of a dueling pistol came to mind I wonder if that was the symbol of the gifted gun - Hundert and the Bells would be dueling their different set of values and chosen careers for the rest of the story.

I am also wondering if we have impossible values that we use to measure others - I am having a difficult time putting Woodbridge in the same category with Ellerby - Woodbridge had to attract donors and patronize the current donors - that was his job - his job was not to teach anything but to manage the school body of students and teachers and to bring in the dollars needed for the school to exist. I am thinking how we all know when talking to a young child we do not stand over them we get down as close as we can to their level.

I am seeing that is what we do - so that even that aspect of Sedgewick appealing to the workers - yes, a lie about the school he attended - and an exaggerated 'getting on their level' and yes, for many of us we think, if he can lie about something simple like where he attended school than what else will he lie about. But then, as an example of how politicians went after votes sounds like Roosevelt appealing to the common man rather than allowing his wealth to be an issue and how we see Presidents to this day eating where the everyday working person would eat. And the old political 'saw' about showing a candidate coming from a log cabin background.

[bellamarie]

Barb,   

But then, as an example of how politicians went after votes sounds like Roosevelt appealing to the common man rather than allowing his wealth to be an issue and how we see Presidents to this day eating where the everyday working person would eat. And the old political 'saw' about showing a candidate coming from a log cabin background.

Not to get too far off the beaten path, but I snickered when I read this in your post.  I have to share with you that Hillary Clinton, when she began her Scooby Doo van tour to Iowa,  after announcing on the internet she was going to run for presidency, stopped at a Chipotle restaurant for lunch in Maumee, Ohio, a suburb of Toledo, which is my hometown.   Trying to seem like an everyday person, she walked into the restaurant in large dark sunglasses, and never even spoke to a single person there.  We Toledoans thought it was the funniest thing ever, because if she intended to fit in, she managed to not even be recognized.  The manager of Chipotle heard on the news she was there, went back and looked at their security camera tape to confirm she ever walked in.  Oh the blunders these politicians can make, trying so hard to make others think they are just like us. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3036527/Spotted-CHIPOTLE-Hillary-Clinton-finally-seen-ordering-lunch-minivan-road-trip-Ohio-NO-ONE-recognized-her.html

[BarbStAubrey]

now that is a funny 

[PatH]

The gun was alleged to have belonged to Robert E. Lee's coachman, so it was of Civil War vintage, though not necessarily a Service weapon.  This gives a list of weapons, with pictures underneath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_in_the_American_Civil_War

When we read The Greater Journey, we learned that the South had trouble getting weapons, as most were manufactured in the North.  The British Enfield rifles they imported were superior to the Northern ones, but I don't know about the pistols.

[Jonathan]

Isn't there a recent biography of FDR, with the subtitle: 'Traitor to His Class?

Do you mean to say that the gun has been loaded all these years? I'm amazed that the gun was such a big secret with Mr Hundert. It's possession and disposal put him into a severe crisis mode.

I'm surprised that he never showed it off to students and colleagues. It was certainly a significant historical souvenir, having belonged to Robert E Lee's coachman. If I remember correctly.

Mr Hundert's world has fallen apart. St Benedict's is not the school it once was. The history he has been teaching has turned into a relic, has become irrelevant. His story has a stocktaking theme. Will he keep soldiering on?

I see there are several new posts while I was composing. I see that you mention the history of the gun, Pat.

[Jonathan]

St Benedict's was a school for the privileged. The miners needn't know about that. Richmond High would sound better. But, for Mr Hundert, denying St Benedict's would have been the cruellest cut of all. That was when he decided to go to the tabloids with his information about the cheating schoolboy. 'That school was my life.'

[BarbStAubrey]

   "The history he has been teaching has turned into a relic, has become irrelevant." Like the gun?? 

[BarbStAubrey]

  that is even funnier when you think of it - the antique gun being passed along from Hyram to Mr. H - is the message we all become irrelevant and each generation passes along their irrelevancy to the next set of young lions - and even if you do not go out and grab it like Sedgewick you get the gift of irrelevancy handed to you