INTRODUCTION BY ANNETTE JONES
One of the best things about being a librarian is having the ability to recommend great books to eager readers. I get to learn about all sorts of genres and the authors who write in them.
My dad was an avid reader so when he was in hospice with multiple myeloma he wanted me to recommend some good reads. The Brutal Telling had just come out on Playaway, which is a small MP3 player that contains one audio book. My dad couldn’t hold a book or maneuver a cd player at that point so this was perfect for him. I had read great reviews of Louise Penny’s books and had always meant to try one. So Dad started reading The Brutal Telling and was thrilled to tell me and my husband, Joe (also a librarian!), all about it. This, of course, prompted us to pick up the book and read along. All three of us fell in love with Louise’s writing, with her wonderful characters and with Three Pines. My dad was nearly to the end of the book when he started to take a turn for the worse and he passed away before he had a chance to finish it. During the second day of his wake, when all of us were saying goodbye to him, Joe told me to go ahead so he could be alone with my dad. . . . A few minutes later he told me that he wanted to tell Dad how the book ended.
So then I went back and started with Still Life and caught up to the rest of the series. When I read Bury Your Dead, I thought of my dad and how he would have loved the storylines and the continued investigation into the murder of the Hermit. After it was released, my library was host to Louise as she entertained 200+ very loyal fans. So I’m very pleased to be participating in the reread. Oh, and you’ll be meeting Joe as well . . . he’s bringing you Bury Your Dead’s Recap Part 2.
With Bury Your Dead, Louise Penny brings us not one, not two, but three brilliant storylines. She uses flashbacks to tell the tale of a rescue gone awry, in a way she has not done previously. The complexity of Gamache’s character comes center stage.
Each of the three storylines will be handled separately.
RECAP
Ch. 1-11: The book opens with an adrenaline-pumping description of a police stakeout . . . and the reveal that Chief Inspector Armand Gamache has made a mistake. What mistake? What could he have possibly done and how long must we wait to find out!?
Murder at the Lit and His:
Flash forward to the present day as Gamache is being consoled by his mentor, Emile Comeau. As a result of the mysterious incident (and the urging of his wife, Reine-Marie), Gamache takes a sabbatical to the quiet of Quebec City during Winter Caranaval to recoup.
While there, Gamache decides to take advantage of one of Québec City’s most iconic institutions, the Literary and Historical Society, to research the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. During the infamous battle, French General Montcalm was defeated by the English General Wolfe—a fate which took Canada out of French rule and handed it to the British. Gamache meets the librarian Winnie and various members of the Society’s board. While there, a body is discovered in the basement of building and our recovering Chief Inspector gets roped into the investigation.
The body is that of Augustin Renaud, a Champlain scholar who made it his life’s work to discover where Québec’s hero is buried. It seems that Renaud had consistently attempted to gain an audience with the Lit and His Board because he believed that Champlain was buried in their basement. Apparently, the man had a habit of making a nuisance of himself. While investigating, Gamache speaks with board members Elizabeth MacWhirter and Porter Wilson. The police state that Renaud was killed by a shovel at approximately 11 the previous evening . . . and that someone had to have let him into the subbasement where he was found.
Elizabeth MacWhirter meets Gamache at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, where they discuss the theory that the “English” may have murdered Renaud to keep the secret that Champlain was buried under the Lit and His. We then meet the young minister Thomas Hancock. Gamache asks if he is Québécois but as it turns out, he was born in New Brunswick. The Reverend sat on the Lit and His board for 18 months and tells Gamache that the Society refused to speak with Renaud. Gamache asks who has access to the basement and Hancock tells him that Winnie does. He then goes on to say that the subbasement where the body was discovered was scheduled to be cemented over in a couple of days.
Emile invites Gamache to the Château Frontenac hotel to meet with two gentlemen from the Champlain Society. René Dallaire and Jean Hamel tell Gamache that Champlain is believed to be buried near his statue in the city. The chapel where the statue now stands was burned along with all of their burial records, making it difficult to find his body. The other, more controversial, theory is that they dumped his body in a landfill while Québec City was expanding. Gamache visits the Notre Dame cathedral and meets a Father Sébastien to talk about Renaud. While there, he is told that the portrait that is most associated with Champlain is really that of Louis XIII’s accountant.
In the meantime, the board gathers to listen to Porter give a radio interview about the murder. Elizabeth then reminisces about the Separatist revolt in 1966 and how the Lit and His, an “English” institution, was attacked.
Gamache meets Inspector Langlois at Renaud’s home, which is covered with Champlainalia. After hours of searching, he comes across the diaries of Augustin Renaud.
Hermit’s Murder Revisited:
At the close of The Brutal Telling we discover that bistro owner Olivier Brulé is accused of murdering a man referred to as The Hermit. After Olivier’s arrest, Gamache starts receiving letters every day from Olivier’s partner, the affable Gabri, stating, “Why would Olivier move the body?” Gabri’s prodding prompts Gamache to send his assistant Jean-Guy Beauvoir to Three Pines to unofficially investigate.
As Beauvoir arrives in Three Pines, we have a recap of what happened in the previous book. Olivier had discovered that a hermit, who lived in a cabin in the woods, had an amazing talent for carving sculptures. Olivier exchanged food for the works of art and sold them and other valuables to an antiques dealer for a huge profit. The Hermit was later beaten to death and the weapon found in Olivier’s possession.
In Three Pines, Beauvoir visits the new inn, run by Carole Gilbert. While there he is introduced to Roar Parra, who, along with his wife Hanna and their son Havoc were all previously suspects in the murder of the Hermit.
Beauvoir decides to visit the scene of the crime and takes a Ski-doo to the Hermit’s cabin. On his ride he suddenly collapses from overwhelming “familiar” pain, only to be rescued by Dr. Vincent Gilbert, the hated “asshole saint.”
Upon recovering, Beauvoir visits Olivier in prison and tells him that Gamache has asked him to investigate his case further. Olivier admits that he has lied and proceeds to tell him how he became involved with the Hermit. He shares how he visited the Hermit every two weeks to gather the valuable goods to sell for his own profit. The Hermit had scratched the words Charlotte, Emily and Woo in carvings that he had made. Olivier confides to Beauvoir that he moved the body to implicate Mark Gilbert, the owner of the new inn in town.
Beauvoir proceeds to visit the shop where Olivier had sold the Hermit’s goods, the Temps Perdu. He questions the shop owner about Olivier’s items, under the ruse that he was Olivier’s partner and that he had died. Afterwards, Beauvoir calls to speak with Olivier, who admits to yet another lie, the Hermit was not Czech.
The Stakeout:
Now back to the story which permeates the whole book: The stakeout. In the beginning of Bury Your Dead we learn that Gamache is speaking to a young person via a set of headphones, telling the mystery listener that nothing bad will happen to him. Then we see that time is counting down: 47 seconds… 43 seconds… 36 seconds… All we know at this point is that officers are in an abandoned factory building with automatic weapons, ready to infiltrate. At this moment, Chief Inspector Armand Gamache realizes that he’s made a mistake.
As our other storylines unfold, so does the story behind the stakeout. A note from Agent Isabelle Lacoste tells Gamache that the atmosphere is intense at the Sûreté. Then we flash to memories of a funeral with uniformed officers: the first realization that someone has died.
And now the slow unfolding of the story, a brilliant device. While Gamache finds solitude at the Lit and His his peace is interrupted by haunting memories of gunshots, exploding wood and the words, “I believe you, Sir.” The fireworks for the opening festivities of the Carnaval de Québec prompt Gamache to remember that Beauvoir was shot on the factory floor.
Throughout the next several chapters Gamache recalls conversations with Agent Morin, the Sûreté officer who lovingly played the violin in the Hermit’s cabin in The Brutal Telling. The two talk about Morin’s childhood and his first swimming lesson. He speaks of his upcoming nuptials and Gamache tells of the Apache prayer that was spoken at his wedding with Reine-Marie.
We see the story through Beauvoir’s eyes as well. We discover that an officer, who had been investigating a stopped car had been shot. Agent Morin was apparently present at the incident.
Gamache then gets a call from a frantic man who was pulled over with a flat tire, a gun in his front seat. The man was terrified that the officers would find out what he was carrying in the back of his truck and, in turn, ended up shooting the officer and kidnapping Morin.
Ch. 12 – end: Hi, this is Joe taking over for Annette on part 2 of this recap. I consider myself a reader and have been ever since I can remember. Over the years there have been many books I have loved and consider a favorite. Surprisingly though, I am not the type of reader who will reread a book. There are so many books I want to read that I have a hard time justifying going back to one I’ve already read even, if it was a favorite of mine. Bury Your Dead I can make an exception for because it still won’t let go of my emotions after all this time.
Murder at the Lit and His:
While going through Renaud’s diaries, Gamache finds the date of the Lit and His board meeting with nothing else. He also sees a notation for the following week—SC at 1pm. The journal is blank after that. Looking back he finds a mention of the Lit and His a week before the board meeting and above it, four names Renaud planned to meet there—a Chin, a JD, S. Patrick, and F. O’Mara with the number 18-something. There is a S. Patrick in the phone book.
A visit to Sean Patrick’s house turns up nothing of interest, as does asking the Lit and His board. Gamache does notice some strange numbers in the book Mr. Blake is reading that look like two numbers Renaud had put in his diary: 9-8499 & 9-8572. It turns out they are catalog numbers the Lit and His used years ago. Not a very efficient system and the best they can do is narrow the references down to two possible years. The first year is 1939 and does not seem promising. The next. from 1899, refers to a lot donated by Madame Claude Marchand of Montreal. Gamache later discovers that Marchand was a housekeeper in 1899 for a Charles Paschal Télesphore Chiniquy who had died that year.
From Émile., we learn that Chiniquy was a priest who preached against the dangers of alcohol in Québec back in the 1860s or 1870s.
Gamache heads to search the local bookstores while Émile. does more research on Chiniquy. Gamache finds a store that sold Renaud some boxes of books it had purchased from the Lit and His the previous summer. Émile. discovers that Chiniquy was good friends with a James Douglas, who was one of the founders of the Lit and His. James was a doctor who started a mental hospital in Québec after being forced to leave the United States for robbing the wrong grave for dissection purposes. Also, it is revealed that the books that were sold by the Lit and His included the collection donated by Mrs. Claude Marchand back in 1899.
Gamache gets the idea to go back to Sean Patrick’s house and ask if he can check the back of a photo he noticed on his first visit. The photo is of Patrick’s great-grandfather, who shared his name, and a group of laborers in front of a large hole. The back of the photo reveals the names Sean Patrick and Francis O’Mara with the date 1869. Gamache also learns Patrick bought his home in 1870 in an unusual location for an Irish laborer to be able to afford.
Now we know the four names mentioned in Renaud’s diary. Gamache first meets with the Chief Archeologist, Serge Croix, to ask him to look into what digging work was going on at the time of the photograph. and then with Langlois to find that Renaud had left some boxes of books with his ex-wife. Gamache immediately visits Madame Renaud and discovers that two of the books are missing. The two they are searching for.
Serge Croix sends Gamache an email telling him that in the summer of 1869 there were three big digs—one at the Citadelle, one at the Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, and one to dig a basement under the local restaurant The Old Homestead. Visiting the restaurant, Gamache recognizes the site of the photo he found at Sean Patrick’s house.
Gamache then spends a few hours at the Lit and His examining their books. When he leaves he has two books hidden in his satchel.
At the meeting of the Société Champlain, Gamache tells a story about what happened in the summer of 1869. The two books missing from Renaud’s collection are the two books Gamache found at the Lit and His: one of Chiniquy’s diaries and Champlain’s bible! The bible shows that Champlain was a Huguenot, which is why he was not buried in the Catholic cemetery. Also, from the diary we learn that Patrick and O’Mara found Champlain’s coffin under the Old Homestead and brought it to the Lit and His. After the meeting, Gamache asks Émile. why he lied about the time the meeting started and why he didn’t tell him the SC appointment in Renaud’s diary was for a meeting at the Société Champlain. Émile.apologizes for lying and says they rejected meeting with Renaud, who told them he had discovered important information and was willing to bury it if they accepted him into the group.
Back at the Lit and His, we find Inspector Langlois and Serge Croix in the basement. Gamache wants them to search again for the coffin and when Croix sees Champlain’s bible he agrees. A coffin is found buried near the stairs. The coffin is opened and…it contains the skeleton of a woman.
That evening Gamache and Henri head out for their nightly walk. Even in a blizzard they walk on until they are at The Plains of Abraham, where they find they are not the only ones out on this frigid late evening. Entering a stone turret to get out of the storm, Gamache finds the mystery guest is the young Presbyterian minister, Tom Hancock, whom he identifies as Renaud’s killer. Tom doesn’t deny it and says he had to because he was the only one who could. Also, that he came out in the storm to take his own life to end things. Gamache refuses to let that happen and finally Tom agrees to go with him to be arrested.
Hermit’s Murder Revisited:
Beauvoir returns to the B&B after learning from Olivier that the Hermit’s name was not really Jakob. He decides to take Clara into his confidence and tell her the real reason he is back in Three Pines. Time for Beauvoir to question the original suspects, starting with Old Mundin and The Wife.
During an exercise class Clara and Myrna are debating if they should murder their instructor Pina. Elizabeth Gilbert and The Wife both agree that they should and need to do it now! After the class Clara tries to steer the conversation to help Beauvoir and asks Hanna if she could kill anyone. She is not sure, but both Dominique and The Wife say if they had to they could.
After hearing about this conversation, Beauvoir calls Gamache and says he needs his help about the murder of the Hermit. He has narrowed it down to five suspects—Havoc Parra and his father Roar, Vincent Gilbert and his son Marc, or Old Mundin. They all had opportunity, but what motive? Beauvoir suggests that maybe the murder had nothing to do with the treasure. Beauvoir ends the phone call by asking if the Chief could look into Carole Gilbert and Old Mundin’s backgrounds since they both came from Quebec City.
Gamache asks Elizabeth MacWhirter if she knew Carole Gilbert. It turns out there were in the same bridge club, but didn’t socialize otherwise. Elizabeth did add that Carole was very patient, very calm, and a great strategist. Also, her maiden name was Woloshyn. which was an old Québec family. She knew the Mundins as well and told Gamache the father committed suicide by walking out on the thin ice of the river.
Beauvoir begins to speculate that the treasure was not the reason for the murder, but was what brought the murderer to Three Pines. Beauvoir says if the treasures are not the key, then the words “woo” and “Charlotte” must be. Each of the suspects, except one, would have taken at least part of the treasure because they needed the money. Vincent Gilbert was the only one who had enough money and didn’t care about the treasure. Which is when the murderer stands up and reveals himself to be…Old Mundin.
Old Mundin, whose real name is Patrick, tells us he saw a walking stick of his father’s in the the Temps Perdu antique store. He knew then his father had been murdered because he never would have parted with any of his treasures. When he learned the seller had been Olivier he moved to Three Pines. It did not take long to realize that Olivier was not his father’s murderer, but his father’s treasures kept appearing for sale. Years later after marrying Michelle, The Wife, Old saw Olivier go off into the woods after locking up one Saturday night. He decided to follow him the next time he did this and discovered the cabin. When he looked in the window he recognized all the treasures from his father’s secret collection.
First, Patrick wanted to torment the Hermit with a spider web and wood carving of the word woo. When that didn’t seem to have any effect, Patrick took a menorah and hit the Hermit over the head, killing him. He left the body, figuring Olivier would find it and keep quiet because he still wanted the treasures. Upon further questioning we find out who the Hermit really was: he was Patrick’s father who faked his own death years ago and moved himself and his treasures to Three Pines!
We end with Gamache and Beauvoir delivering Olivier back to Three Pines a free man.
The Stakeout:
The burden is too much and Beauvoir has to tell someone his story and chooses Ruth, the one person he feels won’t judge him or care.
The frustration of not being able to trace the phone call from Morin grows, and Gamache goes against orders and secretly passes a note to Beauvoir to enlist the aid of Agent Nichol, who has been placed in Communications by Gamache to learn how to listen. She agrees, but needs Gamache to pause in talking so she can listen for ambient sounds in the background.
When the one clear word they hear is La Grande, Gamache pleads with Francoeur to at least put a few people on it and alert the security at the huge hydroelectric dam.
For the first time in their conversation, Gamache hears the fear in Morin’s voice. He asks Morin if he is afraid. Everything stops in the office as the agents all stare at Gamache and listen to Morin trying to be brave. When he finally admits that he is, Gamache tells him he will find him in time, and asks Morin if he trusts him. Morin says he does. When asked if he thinks Gamache would lie to him, Morin says “No sir, never.” Each time Morin’s voice has more confidence. Gamache then tells Morin, “I will find you in time,” and asks, “Do you believe me?” When Morin says he does, Gamache tells him to never, ever forget that.
While meeting with the Société Champlain, Gamache feels his phone buzzing over and over again. When he finally checks it, he sees he has 27 missed calls and Beauvoir is on the line now. Beauvoir breaks the news that a video has been released online. We learn that Beauvoir and Nichol were able to figure out where the factory was located from the background noise and they expected to find three kidnappers there. Gamache handpicked six agents to cover the chance there were more. There were: There were more than they could possibly have anticipated. After the phone call, Gamache has some phone calls to make: first to his wife, then to the officers who survived and the families of those who didn’t.
Beauvoir heads over to Ruth’s house again, where they sit and watch the video together. Back in Quebec City, Gamache and Émile.do the same. What follows is heartbreaking. Into the breach they went, determined to save one of their own. only to find themselves outnumbered. First Beauvoir went down with a gunshot wound… then Gamache. By the end there were three dead Surete officers and four wounded. Eight kidnappers were killed, one critically injured, and one captured. The plot to blow up the La Grande dam was stopped but at a price no one knew would be so high. Not just for the loss of life.
Gamache still blames himself as he tells Tom Hancock his story. When Tom asks if he knew how the video got out, Gamache says no. When asked if he had his suspicions, Gamache remembers the rage on Francoeur’s face when Gamache told him to send help to the dam. If Gamache was wrong he would resign, but if he was right and Francoeur did nothing, he would bring him up on charges. Gamache sees another face as well: one that saw everything, that heard everything, that remembered everything.
After dropping off Olivier at the Bistro in Three Pines, Gamache goes for a solitary walk outside. He sees the image of Morin’s dead body, found too late to save him. “I’m so sorry. Forgive me” is all he can say. This time there is no answer back.
FAVORITE QUOTES & CONCLUSION
While on the phone with Morin, Gamache tells him about the Apache blessing that he and Reine-Marie used at their wedding. I was floored when I read it in Bury Your Dead because, oddly enough, Joe and I used it at our wedding as well. Here it is, in its entirety:
Now you will feel no rain
For each of you will be shelter for the other
Now you will feel no cold
For each of you will be warmth for the other
Now there is no loneliness for you
Now there is no more loneliness.
Now you are two persons, but there is one life before you.
Go now to your dwelling place
To enter into the days of your togetherness.
And may your days be good and long upon this earth.
There were a number of ones to choose from, but the one that has stuck with me was when Beauvoir was about to meet with the residents of Three Pines at the Bistro to reveal the murderer:
“Like the rest of Three Pines, and its residents, it took what was coming and remained standing.”
A simple thought that has so many meanings. We can look at this as a city, a family, or a person. Life can be challenging and it is how we deal with its ups and downs that define us. Thanks to the Gamache series it is comforting for the reader to know that no matter what is going on in our hectic lives we can always come back to Three Pines, sit in the Bistro by the fire, and feel at home.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- Rene said, “I sometimes think we are a rowboat society. It’s why Québec is so perfectly preserved. It’s why we’re all so fascinated with history. We’re in a rowboat. We move forward, but we’re always looking back.” Do you think this is true? Is it unique to Québec?
- Anti-English sentiment is a theme that runs throughout the book. For American readers; were you surprised that this still exists today? For our Canadian fans, have you ever encountered this?
- Pere Sebastien tells Gamache there are a lot of reasons for murder. Gamache answers back that there is actually only one. “Beneath all the justifications, all the psychology, all the motives given, like revenge or jealousy, there lies the real reason. Fear. Fear of losing what you have or not getting what you want.” True?
- Which of the three storylines appeals to you the most?
- Gamache seems newly vulnerable—and fallible—in this book, compared to the earlier titles in the series. How does this change your view of him?
- Do you think Beauvoir’s cynical view of Three Pines is beginning to change, and if so, how?
- While talking about Renaud, Émile comments that his lack of any friends is the price of greatness. When Gamache comments that he thought Émile. and the Champlain Society considered Renaud a kook, Émile. says “Aren’t most great people? True? Is this one of the costs of greatness?
- Gamache is struck for the first time by how interesting the English expression to “know something by heart” is. “To commit something to memory was to know it by heart. Memories were kept in the heart, not the head. At least, that’s where the English kept their memories.” Are your great memories – tell us! – stored both in your heart and head?
- Mr. Blake comments on how the British Museum has many treasures taken from graves and says it was a good thing; otherwise they would be looted or destroyed. Gamache thinks that one civilization’s courageous action was another’s violation. Such was history and hubris. Is it good to have these treasures in museums? Should they be returned to the countries they came from?
- General Montcalm was originally buried after his injuries and the French loss at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The nuns had buried him there because they were afraid of English reprisals. Later he was dug up and his skull and a leg bone were reburied in a crypt in the chapel. Then recently he was reburied in a mass soldiers’ grave that contained the bodies of all the men who died in that one terrible hour. French and English together for eternity. Long enough to make peace. Should they have been buried together?
- Croix tells a quote from Horace to Gamache who then finished it. Croix says “It is sweet and right to die for your country. Magnificent.” Gamache doesn’t agree and says “It’s an old and dangerous lie. It might be necessary, but it is never sweet and rarely right. It’s a tragedy.” Who is right? Is there a right answer?
- Were you surprised to learn that Old Mundin was the real murderer of The Hermit? Whom did you suspect?
244 replies on “Series Re-Read: Bury Your Dead”
OLIVIER
I was disappointed yet again in Olivier and his reaction when Gamache very publicly shook his hand and apologized. Admitting, for Olivier’s benefit, that he had been wrong about Olivier’s guilt.
In THE BRUTAL TELLING Gamache had tried and tried and tried to get Olivier to tell the truth, afraid that the real killer would get away. Finally, based on evidence available, he’d had to arrest Olivier and let a jury decide whether or not he was guilty.
At one point he had begged Olivier to tell the truth, “Do you have any idea what trouble you’re in?” “. . . The lies must stop now. If you are to have any hope, any hope at all, you must tell us the truth.”
But, Olivier DIDN’T tell the truth. He lied himself to jail and beyond. Then he blamed Gamache for his incarceration. And then refused to forgive Gamache.
How often are we our own worst enemy, blaming others for what we ourselves have caused?
As Olivier said, Gamache did not have any idea what it was like in prison, no doubt, as a gay man he was taunted by both guards and fellow prisoners. He had not killed the hermit, in spite of all the other bad things he had done. I found it quite understandable that he wouldn’t be ready to forgive Gamache for perhaps a long time. But even then, he is able to at least see the possibility of forgiveness in the future.
5) I thought of Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est” when I read this line. It is hard to think of war, or terrorism, and not think of that poem. The words “Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori,” have ever been used (albeit in various renderings) to convince people not only to die but to murder for what ‘is right’. But the deaths are not beautiful, or courageous. They are sad. Sadder still is that the situation could have been handled better, meaning more could have survived. Notably Morin. Now, Morin is another ghost that will haunt Gamache.
“DULCE ET DECORUM” – Doesn’t that translate to “It is sweet and proper to die for your fatherland”? Choice of first adjective and word for homeland have always torqued this one for me. :~{
#1 No, I don’t think all great people are kooks. Their preoccupation with their thoughts or ideas may prevent them from being as social and outgoing as “normal” people(whoever they are). Some have ideas that are not widely understood or accepted at the time. Kooks are found in all groups.
#2 I, too, think I keep non-emotional knowledge in my mind and emotional based knowledge and feelings (love) in my heart.
#3 Where they first buried together because it was necessary in order to cover the bodies as soon as possible? I wondered about the burial of the
dead when w e read of the Battle in The Brutal Telling. There were so many casualties. Who buried them? I guess I need to google these questions. Yes, it is fitting they were buried together. They died together.
# 4 It may be brave to died for one’s country and necessary, but sweet–No. It is heart-breaking to think of idealistic men with no thought of what war would be like marching happily off. The Civil War in the US is surely an example.
… idealistic men with no thought of what war would be like marching happily off. The Civil War in the US is surely an example.” Excellent example. I’m reminded of the first battle of Manassas, when spectators drove out with picnics to witness what they believed would be a very short war …and blocked the roads in their panic to flee the carnage. The slavery issue aside (and in no way do I mean to lessen its importance), if people had remembered what war was like, perhaps both sides could have worked through their differences. The slavery issue reintroduced, and knowing full well that that was not the reason the war was begun, I’m not sure it still wouldn’t be legal in places. But I really doubt those men so eager to join were thinking of anything but a grand adventure.
1) One of my favorite quotes: “…rice pudding led him there…” I guess (as a “kook” myself!) I would say that all the great are “kooks” but not all “kooks” are great! The truly extraordinary are the outliers, the ones that don’t always fit in with the rest of us.
2) Yes, I think of special things as being kept in my heart rather than my head. Generally, anything having to do with those that I love.
3) If it is a matter of saving something from “the unsparing hand of time” then I suppose a museum is the best place for it. So many of the treasures in museums wound up there through other means, however…but there are other means by which things come to museums, depending upon the kind of collection — I guess I’m thinking of the Victoria and Albert, which has mostly items of daily life — textiles, furniture, etc. — donated rather than looted.
4) Let them all rest in peace together.
5) I don’t think there is a right answer to this question, but it’s one we should constantly ask ourselves.
6) I didn’t suspect Old Mundin, but I did think that the treasure was a distraction and the real motive was something else unknown to us. I never thought Olivier did it, though. His behavior was reprehensible, his actions really criminal, but never murder. Ms. Penny did an amazing job of presenting him in The Brutal Telling as a chronic liar who lives in fear. Beautifully done. And it carries over to Bury Your Dead, when he finally admits that the Hermit wasn’t Czech. He’s got nothing to lose anymore.
Oh, of course, Champlain too and Renaud.
I’ve been thinking of the title of this book and the number of interesting things tied in. I guess most of them are tied in with the last book and I have only started to think about this but…we have the title of this book, “Bury Your Dead”, and it seems that there are a number of instances of those who are dead (of thought to be) and won’t stay dead. They keep coming back. Like the hermit who is Old’s father and the Gilbert who is Marc’s father and Morin who is still alive in Armand’s head. And even Rosa who has flown off and may be dead..or not. Is there anyone I’ve missed? And what does this mean, if anything?
Nancy, I’m so glad you listed the two fathers! I haven’t been including them, but of course they are essential to relate to the Bury Your Dead title. I was caught up in Gamache’s dead agents, especially Moran, and the historical dead, especially Champlain. I have wondered, too, about Olivier burying his anger at Gamache and going on with his life. So many ways to look at it, a brilliant title.
It is indeed a brilliant title and evocative of so many things that I think it stays in the mind forever.
Nancy, that’s a really interesting question. There’s also Champlain, whose body couldn’t be found – even when they found his coffin, he wasn’t in it. And then there’s the whole idea of burying your dead so that you can move on – which Gamache and Beauvoir haven’t yet been able to do.
Q #6 – THE HERMIT’S MURDERER: When we re-read “Brutal Feeling”, I honestly forgot that Olivier was arrested for killing the hermit – and was even more dismayed, dissatisfied with circumstantial “evidence” for arresting him. Things just jarred for me and didn’t really add up. Was happy to see Armand assign Jean-Guy to work the case ‘to prove/find evidence” that Ollie hadn’t done this. Yes, our Mr. Brule does have a streak of venality, does walk the grey areas in terms of financial dealings with his antique business, – but we never saw him exhibiting deliberate and hurtful cruelty to anyone. Not one slip up! That alone made me seriously wonder about his “guilt.”
The same thing happened for me in this book when Patrick “Old” Mundin was arrested for the Hermit’s murder. Motivation really seemed contrived. Yes, one can understand a kid thinking that his father had been murdered and that the culprit had “stolen” his father’s secret treasures — and wanting justice for those two “crimes.”
BUT , & it’s a really BIG BUT for me! Obviously the Hermit saw Patrick in Three Pines area and that could have contributed to his decision to remain in his cabin, to not return to the village. Obviously, Old Mundin watched Ollie go to the hermit’s cabin on weekend nights with his bags of groceries and most likely saw the hermit and possibly heard him speaking to Olivier too. I’m sorry, but it’s very difficult for me to believe that Patrick did NOT recognize his father’s face., eyes, voice when they had spent so much time together when Patrick was younger. Yeah, it adds to suspense and surprise factor to not only reveal him as the hermit’s murderer, but then to also tell Patrick and readers that he unknowingly killed his own father – this again tests the credibility factor for me – even more than Olivier being identified as ‘the killer’ in the previous book. “Old” Mundin has been one of the ‘good guy’ characters in this series. He’s been a very talented and hard working carpenter/restorer. He has a good marriage and a little son that both he and his wife adore. It really stretches things for me to believe that he would sacrifice the two people who mean the most to him and whom he loves the most by such an action. Rash behavior has not been indicated prior to this convenient “reveal” at the end of this story. Was anyone else bothered by this?
Well … I was a bit surprised that he didn’t recognize his father, but then, time could explain a lot of that. It makes me wonder if my own dad, who died in 75, were to come to the door right now. He’d be almost a hundred years old, and it’s very likely that I wouldn’t recognize him. And I adored my dad, too.
As to prior indications of behavior, I think Old was the example of what Gamache often talks about, these old secrets that fester in a person. But I do think it more likely he would have snapped, not tormented the hermit like he did.
Thinking about it overnight, though … his memories of his father, and what his father might have taught him, were probably flawed, given that he remembered his father as this great guy, when he actually preyed on the desperate.
It is a bothersome ending, to be sure. I forget how old Old was when his father “died”. It was a most odd death, but I wonder how the father managed to fake it and why he would give up all that he held dear – his wife and son – for the sake of his treasures. It’s not clear how he had actually obtained them. All we can do is speculate. However, I am really glad that Beauvoir was able to clear Olivier. He had got himself into a terrible mess with all his lies, and moving the Hermit’s body was a totally stupid thing to do. I can understand how Gamache came to the conclusion he did, but, thanks to dear, “magnificent” Gabri, insisting that Olivier didn’t’ do it, he got Beauvoir to try again. I just hope Olivier never forgets how much Gabri loves him.
These wonderful books are so real that all these characters have become friends, and, like many of you have mentioned, I would love to move to Three Pines any day!
I think, too, that the hermit had changed more than most people in the intervening years. Remember – people thought he was in his late 70’s when the body was found, and the coroner told them he was in his 50’s! This adds another reason why Old didn’t recognize him – he seemed to be the wrong age. Even if he reminded him of his father, Old’s complete conviction that his father was dead coupled with the apparent age discrepancy completely convinces me that Old wouldn’t recognize him. We have to remember, too, that if this were real life – well, how many people have ever successfully faked their death? It’s not a common thing – if you truly believed your father was dead, and then 20 years later saw a man who looked like him, wouldn’t you just think it was a man who looked like him? This works fine for me.
It’s a little harder for me to believe he would kill the hermit, no matter who he was – Old seemed so gentle and I think that most people would stop and think what they, themselves would lose if they committed such a horrific crime – he’d be taken away from his beloved wife and son. That’s where I have a little trouble – but I also know that there needs to be a certain amount of “suspension of disbelief” in any work of fiction. I can buy into those things a little easier than some, I guess.
Yes, Julie, that’s a great explanation of why Old would not have recognized his father. The very disappointing thing about Old being the murderer of the hermit was that he let Olivier take the rap for it. It doesn’t seem to fit his sweet character to have let Olivier go to jail for life. Old’s explanation for doing that didn’t ring true for me.
You’re right, Sylvia. It seems totally out of character for Old to let Olivier go to jail to keep his secret. I didn’t think of that.
Meg,
Yes!! Very bothered and disturbed!! It haunted me all day!!
I was also upset that she chose Old as the murderer. Of all the people, why visit that terrible tragedy on his family. I also don’t understand why he wrote the word Woo in the cobweb and carved it in wood. Why would the Hermit recognize that word if it was a term of endearment between him and his dad?
Re the items in museums, it’s a thorny question. I’ve seen the “Elgin Marbles” in the British Museum. They are spectacular. Was it right to chisel them off the buildings on the Acropolis? No. Would they still be available to be viewed if they had not been? One wonders. Re Greece’s request for their return: does the Greek government have the money to properly protect and display them? Not at the moment.
Also in the British Museum was a temporary exhibit of Afghanistan artifacts which were absolutely amazing. The commentary was that the museum was preserving them until such time as it would be safe to return them to Afghanistan. I suspect that time will not come given what’s going on in that country today and has been going on for a long time.
I guess my preference would be that these items remain where they are safe and can be viewed by reasonable people rather than being returned to countries which will probably end up being ruled by religious maniacs who have no compunction about destroying historical artifacts.
Regarding the re-read, I also never re-read books as there are too many new ones waiting to be read! I’m very greatful I abandoned that rule and re-read these books. I got much more out of them the second time around!
Interesting how many people don’t usually read books a second time. I have a handful of books I read over and over again. Some books I’d never re-read, but this group really shows how much more you can get out of a book in a re-read. And how much you can learn from a discussion.
Julie, I too have special books that I read over and over again because I have enjoyed them so much. I collect those by my favourite authors. Some of them have died and their books are not always available in the library so this way I can access them anytime. My life seems to be in turmoil these days so it feels good to return books I already know. In fact I would recommend the Jan Karon series to anyone who is going through a lot of stress and has trouble sleeping. A few pages will take you to a wonderful place with hilarious characters and give you something sweet to think about as you go to sleep. (Alert: they are Christian books, although not “preachy”, but if this bothers you, you are hereby forewarned) Oh yes, I’m terrible with commas, please excuse.
Nancy and Julie. I have had books that I call my “comfort books” since I was a child. The books have varied over the years but have always come through to help me through difficult times.
I too have enjoyed the Jan Karon books so much. Such great humor and so touching. When things get stressful, I often think I’d like to duck into a bush and have a Little Debbie cupcake like Father Tim!
I, too, rarely re-read books, because there are so many more I want to read. I made a decision to set that aside this summer so that I could participate in this group, and I’m so glad I did! I love seeing the long view of Louise’s books, the way she weaves in threads that appear and subside throughout the series.
I have been interested for years in the whole idea of re-reading books! I did it as a kid, and do did my kids. (For me, Laura Ingalls Wilder; for them, Redwall, among many others.) Why does that change when we become adults? There are a few books, including Pride and Prejudice, that I still re-read. What about the rest of you?
SHOULD THEY HAVE BEEN BURIED TOGETHER
I think it is fitting that they be buried together – they died together, at the moment of the creation of a new country. No matter which side they were on, they were coming together in a destiny that was very important to many people for a long time. And to be buried together near the site of the actual battle is important, too, I think. If we are to learn anything from history, we seem to need to learn from visual cues. Having so much history all around in Quebec City has, I think, helped to preserve the sense that history is important, not just to see where we’ve been, but also to see where we’re going (to continue the rowboat analogy).
IS IT SWEET AND RIGHT TO DIE FOR ONE’S COUNTRY
Hmmmm – the people in the battle on the Plain of Abraham were English and French – neither was Canadian. The true Canadian people were forgotten in this fight. (I’m feeling particularly philosophical today – I may have much more sang-froid tomorrow!) So first of all, these people died in fighting for something that really wasn’t going to mean that much to their own country one way or the other. England would still be England and France would still be France after the battle, no matter how it turned out. So in this way, I think it was neither sweet nor right. There are times when I think it is right to die for your country, though it is hard to find such circumstances in the wars people are waging today. Like Lizzy, I think it is never sweet. Think how much sweeter it would be if every soldier out there came home today!
GREAT PEOPLE KOOKS?
I think a great many people with big ideas are considered kooks until such time as history proves they were right! I think this as sure as I think the world is flat and no “Magellan-come-lately” is going to prove otherwise! ;-p
MEMORIES
My husband and I take our registered therapy pets to visit assisted care facilities where we have many friends with dementia or Alzheimers. Though they often don’t recognize their loved ones, we are often touched by the beautiful memories that they share with us.
They talk about their favorite pets. They share stories of when they were children and talk about their parents and siblings. We’ve come to understand that they must be sharing those memories they “knew by heart,” those ones so precious that they are accessed by different, deeper emotions. Their families often despair at not being recognized, but often if they would just visit the land their loved one currently resides in, instead of trying to drag them back to the here and now, they would learn so much about what was held deeply in their loved ones heart.
We were so excited a few weeks ago when we visited with our little Shih Tzus. After many, many, many visits where we introduced ourselves each time, we had a different experience. When we entered the building of one of the Alzheimer’s units, several of the residents turned around and waved and cheered. “It’s our puppy people!” They exclaimed over and over, waving and smiling. We knew then that for the first time they had remembered us with their hearts.
Thank you so much for sharing your experiences! Your information is incredibly important. We can make a profound difference in someone’s life even if they don’t recognize us from visit to visit. I think most people, including me, don’t have nearly enough understanding of dementia.
Thank you for what you and your dogs do. I have seen people respond to therapy dogs when they would not interact with people. There is just something so wonderful that happens between dogs and people. Your statement that “if they would just visit the land their loved ones currently reside in” explains why patients sometimes respond to people other than their family. Family needs to go to where they are because they can not come to them.
I had a similar experience with my sister-in-law. I found myself practically testing her memory. Then, appalled at myself, I let her direct the conversation. She talked about many things I was happy to hear, hadn’t known before, and to be with this warm and funny woman was quite a treat for me. We learn from everyone.
I want to thank you, too, for bringing your dogs to patients, Linda. I’ve never needed this service, but expect I will once day, and it’s wonderful to think there are people like you who devote your very precious time and energy to others. Not to mention that the dogs do “what comes naturally”and bring so much joy!
We get so much joy from doing it that I always feel grateful to those we visit for letting us come.
This is so insightful and touching. I will never think of those with memory loss in the same way again.
Linda, thanks so much for sharing this story – and for what you do. My dad is in a dementia unit, and we have had to learn to let him guide the course of our visits. We have come to see parts of his heart that he never shared before, which helps to allay some of the pain of feeling that we have lost him…
I, too, never believed that Olivier could have been the murderer, but I questioned why he did not fight harder to prove he was innocent. Is it the difference between the law in Quebec, based on Napoleonic law, vs English common law??? It was always Gabri who bombarded Gamache with his insistence that Olivier was innocent!
I was surprised that “Old Mundin” murdered the Hermit, his own father. What a strange twist in this book.
It was interesting that JG chooses to bond with Ruth and to tell her the story. Ruth claims to have no mothering instincts, yet that is exactly what we see her doing with JG.
The most difficult part was learning of the betrayal by the Francoeur and the stakeout that ended so horribly for Gamache and his men.
As an old history teacher, the plot regarding Champlain was fascinating and has caused me to look more closely at his story. What we teach, in the class time allotted, barely skims the reality the time and place.
There is no easy answer with regard to museums and the information that is available for us to view and study. It is one thing to have articles given to a museum by a family or as a “spoils of war” but historically is important to see the artifacts as they were and used. I am very lucky as my children and grandchildren are as interested in visiting museums and art galleries as I am, a love that was passed on to me and my siblings by our father.
there were so many stories encapsulated in this book. I love how Louise is able to weave so many story lines and not lose the reader. With each book, the layers of personalities are unfolding — it makes you hunger for the next installment.
Gamache is the most vulnerable in this book. We see him very broken at this point and questioning his decisions. Yet, for him to heal, he needs to find himself and he does this by reaching outside is experience and use his skills as an investigator in a different way.
As always, there are so many questions that need answers — that is why we keep coming back to read her books.
Karen, I, too, was dismayed to see that Olivier didn’t work harder to prove his innocence. I think that Quebec civil law is different, but criminal law is the same in Quebec as the rest of Canada. But it may be that he had no real understanding one way or another of how the law works. He may have held the naive thought that since he was innocent, he couldn’t possibly be convicted. In hindsight, I’m sure he realized that if he’d told the truth from the beginning (and not moved the body – nope, I won’t let that go, hahaha), he’d have been believed and Gamache and his team could have proven him innocent. The best illustration of how you ought to let Gamache decide what’s important, is the innocuous-seeming lie that the hermit was Czech, and his name was Jakob. This stopped a whole line of questioning that ultimately was what proved his innocence.
Olivier is incapable of defending himself because then he’d have to reveal secrets, lies, failings, and inclinations that he’s kept hidden his whole life. The more of a defense he’d mount, the more he’d have to open himself up — that exposure would be like a thousand cuts. He did some despicable things that, if he was my spouse/partner, I would have great difficulty ever trusting him again. But as a village friend and partner to heroic/loving (more than I could ever be) Gabri, I’d take him back in an instant.
Olivier and Nicole have very annoying personalities that repel and attract simultaneously. I just want to slap them — and then hold them tightly so they don’t continue to hurt themselves and others.
Peggy – I know that this is what Olivier is doing, but instead of protecting his secrets, they still all came out – every one of them – and the thousand cuts became like 10,000 because at each point in the investigation, he would say that NOW he’s telling them the truth. When that, again, was proved not to be the case, it was far worse than if he’d told everything in the first place. This was not Olivier’s first rodeo – he’d seen several homicide investigations in the past, and he should have known that it would all come out in the end. If he’d forgotten that, Gamache reminded him of it several times.
Especially, once he was truly faced with jail (which would have been pretty brutal for Olivier, I’m guessing), why didn’t he, finally, tell everything? Why was there one last lie to find out after he’d been convicted of this crime? I know that this is pointless to ask – Olivier will never really be able to explain it, but still, I’m frustrated with him, because I like him so much!
I do think his anger with Gamache is his nature – blame anyone other than himself – and it rings very true to me. I just wish he could have been more open. Of course, then, there wouldn’t have been a book, hahahaha.
I like most found Olivier’s behavior in this case baffling, and very frustrating. I also did not like the fact that Gamache felt guilty,I could understand him feeling bad for putting a friend in jail, but so called friend did everything to put himself there. Olivier’s indignation just burns my nerves, every time it comes up. I want to scream at him, you owe Gamache an apology, he is the one that was let down by you.
Karen, I’m confused- how did Francoeur betray Gamache in this book? His is one thread I lose track of, and I would love to get it straight. Thanks!
He tried his best to keep Gamache away from sending people to check the dam in the first place. He wanted to keep them following the hunt for whoever killed one agent and kidnapped another. Except for Gamache’s secret weapon in the Communications room, this would have been impossible in the time, Gamache would have been a failure at saving his man, and the dam would have been destroyed flooding the area. Leading to who knows what consequences. Even if Gamache found the.hostage, it was a trap which might well have killed . Who was behind it all we don’t know at this point.
Are your great memories – tell us! – stored both in your heart and head?
I believe they are in our hearts when they are not just great, but good. I think some memories can be great, but bad. They are in our heart like a scar. Most my great memories involve family which in turn involves love. So it’s all intertwined in the heart that way. But then I think of people who have dementia and can’t recognize their loved ones. Where are their memories? It’s so sad.
That’s a haunting thought, Lizzy – where are the memories of those with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia? My memories are definitely etched in my heart – even those pieces of poetry I learned in school “by heart”. I am so often struck by the thought that we are made up of our memories. These wonderful parts of our lives (and sometimes, not-so-wonderful parts) are seen through a filter, and it’s how we interpret them that makes us who we are. I definitely think our “selves” are in our hearts (or our souls, depending on your point of view) and so yes, our memories are definitely preserved in our hearts.
I have a question for discussion. Gamache doesn’t allow the female detective who helped locate the factory to go on the raid, although she was ready and expected to go. She showed her ability with a gun in a previous book. Why didn’t Gamache let her go? Her lack of tact wouldn’t be relevant. Was it because she’s a female? What do you think will be the result?
Sharon, I was wondering that. Maybe he felt she was too inexperienced for what they were about to do?
I believed that he wanted her to continue to help with the communications. It can’t have been because she was a woman as Lacoste was at the factory.
I think it was also because he still doesn’t trust her judgement. Put a gun in Yvette Nicole’s hand? The thought scares me to death.
Me, too, Cathryne – I think that Nichol has proven herself very intelligent, but without good judgment. I think, until she can be absolutely trusted to follow orders without question, then she has no place in such a raid. Split-second decisions were required by Gamache, and he needed a team he absolutely knew would do as he asked without second-guessing him. Nichol doesn’t do that. Will she ever learn this?
Also, Nicole doesn’t understand the concept of working in a group. There has to be an element of trust in this kind of situation between the members. Nicole wasn’t trusted and she hadn’t tried to win that trust, either. He was right to leave her behind.
Sharon, Lizzy, Linda, Cathyrne, Julie, Michele: I agree with all of you about Nichol, but I think Michele has maybe discovered the core of why Yvette was not included in the rescue team. She hasn’t yet learned that she has to rely on others and they on her. She’s contributed to discovering where Paul Morin was situated – but by operating solely down in her basement cubicle – away from everyone else. She hasn’t managed to make it to the light of the squad room and of team players. She loves being unique and providing something that she sees as others incapable of doing. Not exactly someone you’d want to protect your back. Seem to recall that we will see a little more of her to come, but don’t recall if she manages to ever grow out of her adolescent self-absorption phase.
I catch myself getting impatient for fast resolutions. This author takes her time in character development, and Agent Nichole is a tough nut. She’s still under her father’s thumb, so it’s not just her on the job. Her father can insert himself into any situation wherever she is, tagging along blindly on her cell phone. It’s another delightful complication to the story.
I find the blooming relationship between Jean-Guy and Ruth a grace note in the series, so reassuring about them both. We don’t know anything about Jean-Guy’s childhood, other than the briefest hints. He has found a father in Gamache, and now maybe a mother in Ruth. When he confides in her, as he is leaving, he sees the flannel blanket nest she has prepared for her duck daughter. “Ready. Just in case.” That is my favorite quote in this book. I feel like I received a gift when I discovered the world of Three Pines.
I wonder if the Inspector could not risk another young officer that he mentors.
I also rarely reread a book, and debated with myself about rereading this one. I found that I was able to be less involved with the plot and more involved with the emotions and language. I love Louise Penny’s characters who are so human, have flaws and even the flawed have goodness. The tension between the two cultures, the tension in individuals, between individuals is so well described that it seems to reference my own life. My favorite line: I was wrong. I’m sorry. I don’t know. I need help. Why are those words so hard to spit out at times?
True? Is this one of the costs of greatness? I don’t think so. One can look at famous, great men through history and find that they weren’t all kooks . Many had a following if not friends. Off the top of my head I think of Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison. Some of our presidents were great men with friends.
Is it good to have these treasures in museums? Should they be returned to the countries they came from?
Tricky. So many variables. I think human remains should not be a part of a display. But artifacts and such is a way to keep history alive and real. To see where people have come from, their way of life and traditions. It is fascinating and can be sobering.
I think the ethics of having treasures in museums depends on how they were obtained. If they were looted or taken as an act of war, then I believe they should be returned. If they were obtained through legitimate means, then no.
There has been so much cultural exchange and mixing through the ages, having access to cultural items from other areas can help people identify and relate to their roots, or become more familiar with their neighbors and friends.
I don’t believe human remains should be displayed.
I do believe that in some instances the laws regarding archeological items has gotten rather extreme. Graves should be sacrosanct, but found items that weren’t connected to graves or burials should fall under more lenient laws regarding ownership or display.
#5. It is sweet and right to die for your country. I agree. It is never sweet. That’s some kind of poetic, romantic idea. It might be right at times, such as if your country was under attack and it must be defended. It can be heroic. But I don’t believe sweet.
I agree with you on this. Gamache calling it a tragedy makes a lot of sense to me because I see war as tragedy. Sometimes it is necessary to fight if your country is attacked but that doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the loss of life and destruction of the land and property. There is nothing poetic or romantic about war as far as I see.
Do I remember correctly that Gamache’s father advocated against war and was called a coward? The Inspector arms himself and kills to protect, but it takes a toll on him.
#6. First, thanks Joe. I so agree with your view about re-reading books! However, I am really enjoying re-reading Louise!
I was surprised by Old. I did come to the conclusion that the hermit was his dad. How heartbreaking for Old to find out! I was sick over that.
#3 This is a question I have often thought about. I have enjoyed and learned from exhibits in many museums. For many years the fact that items came from other countries,never came to mind. Our local museum had many Native American artifacts and I never questioned the correctness. When the move to return artifacts, especially Human remains, to the Native American Tribes, I attended a symposium where a Native American speaker asked how we would feel if someone dug up (his words) an ancestor of ours. Our museum had no human remains or known grave items but his words caused me to support the removal of Native American human remains from display and return to the correct Tribe.
The British Museum is a very special place we can visit on line when we return from England. I agree that the items were kept safe from destruction and those removed from the ground were done so under the archeological protocols of the time. However, looted still seems the appropriate word in many instances. I do think Items should be returned if requested by the country from where they were taken. If they will be kept safe. That would prohibit the return to some countries at this time. The precious artifacts should not be lost to the world. It is truly a thorny issue. Reading over this, I hope I don’t sound like an American saying we know what is best. But the Artifacts must be put first.
I have been struck by this question often in my life – I think the first time I heard about it, was in hearing of the “Elgin marbles”. How they came to be called that was always a source of wonder to me. These are the marble friezes that were on the Parthenon, though they became known by the name of the man who stole them. I know there has been debate that the Greek government would not have preserved them as they ought to be – but I find this argument so subjective. Who is to say how things “ought to be”? Certainly not Lord Elgin, who used his influence as British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire to deface the Parthenon and other buildings on the Acropolis! And how fitting that the British government decided that since they were already here, they should take them over and “preserve” them for the rest of us to see. I have been to see them – would far rather have seen them in place. I know the argument is that they wouldn’t be there any longer, but I think that would have been because someone other than Lord Elgin would have looted them, and they’d be in some other country’s museum, or a private collection. However I look at these things – whether it’s Egyptian mummies (which is simply grave-robbing) or other artifacts, I’m afraid I look at these practices as similar to zoos, which is I think, one of the most inhumane things that we people do. Why should such things or creatures be displayed for our amusement? And why are the countries of origin’s requests that such things be returned not honored? Who are we to judge who is “worthy” to have their own historic documents and artifacts?