Okay. Now for fandom.
Jul. 11th, 2005 02:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cygna_hime(New icon, btw.)
I have two principle topics here, Dumbledore and Founders.
How old is Dumbledore, really? He defeated Grindelwald in 1942, so he need be no more than eighty-some during the series. On the other hand, he worked on alchemy with Flamel. As far as I know, the goal of alchemy is the creation of the Philosopher's Stone. Once you've done that, you can either invent chemistry (which wizards don't seem to have), or stop, because that's all there is to do. So, either I'm wrong and Flamel found enough alchemy he hadn't done yet to occupy him for five hundred years (in HP:PS, he's cited in the bok as being 665 years old), and Dumbledore was called his partner for reasons I really can't fathom, or Dumbledore was alive before the creation of the Philosopher's Stone.
HP:CoS minus 50 years (1946 or -7), he's teaching and seems rather youngish. The questions are: a)how does the Philosopher's Stone work, exactly, b)how long do wizards usually live, and c)how old is Dumbledore?
There are few witches and wizards as old as sixty, or so it seems. Lucius Malfoy, who must be well under sixty (Riddle was 'before his time'), is the head of his family. Similarly, there seems to be a dearth of people who even could tell you about the Chamber of Secrets. (Binns doesn't count; he's a ghost. Hagrid doesn't count; he's half-giant, and I don't know how long a giant would live.)
It's just odd, I find.
With the Founders, I have a series of questions.
1) When was Hogwarts founded?
Answer: At least 1000 years pre-series, according to Binns in CoS. So, before AD 996. This is confirmed with this note on the name 'Godric' (www.behindthename.): This name became rarely used after the Norman conquest. So, previously to 1066, probably previously to 1000.
Was it founded in a castle? Yes, but almost certainly a different and a smaller one. Among other things, building castles takes more manpower than four people could raise in such a scattered community. Also, the style Harry sees is almost exclusively post-Norman Conquest. Possibly the Founders built it that way themselves, some years after the school was founded.
One can be fairly sure the school was only founded after the fall of the Roman Empire (480 or so), because of the nature of the school and the fact that the Latin influence is clearly there, but it is not the only one. None of the Founders have Roman names, but nor was the expulsion of the Romans considered part of their motives.
The surnames of the founders are obviously ones they adopted themselves as titles. In that era, people did not have surnames as we know them. The four Founders took these epithets for themselves.
So, the school was founded between AD 500 and AD 1000, probably toward the later end. And that's the best we can do.
2) What was the Chamber of Secrets originally meant for?
Answer: This is a double-ended questrion, because it seems to have an answer. According to Tom Riddle, to purge the school of muggle-borns. According to Professor Binns' regurgiatation of legend, to purge the school of those Salazar considered unworthy, which he implies includes muggle-borns. However (see question #4), we can't really trust either. Riddle, of course, has a bee in his bonnet. He'd think anything was a directive to slaughter muggle-borns, because he thinks that way. As for Binns, 'reliable historical sources' don't include the Founders themselves, I'd bet anything. As anyone who's studied Richard III can attest, historical sources are as likely to have biases, to suppress information, or to just plain get things wrong as anyone else.
The Chamber was quite possibly constructed before the basilisk was placed there. Among other things, the thing was probably smuggled in or brought in openly by Salazar when it was small and manageable, if he didn't raise it himself. I have further questions like what the others thought, or how he managed it in the first place, but they'll keep. Therefore, the Chamber was made rather bigger than the basilisk actually needed. I doubt Salazar created it for the sole purpose of growing an immense basilisk in. I suspect it was simply one of the lower dungeons, his private work area, which was closed off when he left, with the basilisk still inside.
It is possible that Salazar built the Chamber with the agreement of the other Founders, as a defense of the school. Parseltongue does not go with being a Dark wizard, necessarily (no one says Salazar was a Dark wizard, you'll notice), but it would serve to keep the children out. That could explain why, for example, the place is so neatly made, and there is an entrance that was added later. Salazar could have meant the Chamber to house a protector for the school, which only a few could control (and only in his name, because he was a sneaky bastard), and which stood small chance of falling into the wrong hands. He left, the rooms were sealed, and the legend started to grow.
Of course, there's always an interesting option: Someone else, much, much more recently, built the Chamber based on his or her own idea of what a legend should look like, for the purpose of using it to destroy his or her enemies. Why do I think this is possible? First, someone had to put in the connection to the plumbing, and it sure wasn't Salazar! Second, the statue in the chamber is of an old man. I, personally, don't believe Salazar was very old when he left (wizards, like everyone else, live longer than they did, and the life Salazar led requires much energy). And the incantation is a bit off, a bit too formal and not quite like Salazar, who didn't consider himself the greatest of the Founders that we know. It sounds more like someone's idea of Salazar than like Salazar himself. Third, the basilisk must be very old if it was put in the Chamber a thousand years ago. The basilisk mentioned in Fantastic Beasts only lived to 900.
Any way it goes, I don't see why Salazar should have done things the way he is said to have done. It makes no sense. Besides, whichever way it goes, someone had to build the girls bathroom there, put the pipe behind the sink, and scratch the snake on the faucet.
3) What really made the Founders break up?
Answer: At this date, who can say? The Sorting Hat, and only the Hat, was there then, or anywhen near then. The Hat says:
The Houses that, like pillars four,
Had once held up our school,
Now turned upon each other and,
Divided, sought to rule.
And for a while it seemed the school
Must meet an early end,
What with dueling and with fighting
And the clash of friend on friend
And at last there came a morning
When old Slytherin departed,
And though the fighting then died out
He left us quite downhearted.
The Hat does not blame Salazar, or Slytherin House, for what happened. It says there was conflict between all the Houses, all of whom wanted power. Ambition is not, and never has been, a trait limited to Slytherin. The Founders themselves did not even fight, necessarily. (According to Binns, Salazar's departure was precipitated by an argument with Godric, but that need not be the case. They could have argued about whether or not Salazar should go, and Salazar won. [Okay, maybe Godric won, but I doubt it.]) I can construct an alternative history quite easily:
The students are beginning to take arms against one another, because of various frictions caused by the so-called 'House traits'. Each House wants to be the superior one, the one that contains only the best. House Slytherin misinterprets some remarks of Salazar's, and tries to get him made Headmaster over the other Founders, possibly with some justice, possibly not. Either way, the other Houses either fight back, join, or start their own movements. The Founders are aghast. None of them wants to be above the others, but none of them knows how to quell the students. Salazar insists that he does not want to be made Head; the students believe he is being modest, if they listen at all. Students are fighting in the hallways. Some have died. Salazar realizes that the Slytherin faction, the one he considers most dangerous, is based entirely on him as a figurehead. He resolves to leave immediately. He discusses this with Rowena, who agrees that it is the only thing to do; with Helga, who sympathizes with him. When he tells Godric what he has decided, Godric argues. He refuses to let Salazar leave. They have a long, loud argument, but at last Salazar wins the day. He leaves the next morning, after insisting one last time that he does not wish to be Head. Godric does not see him off; the students speculate that Salazar left because he and Godric fought. The House War dies down, but Gryffindor House no longer quite trusts Ravenclaw; Hufflepuff, which by and large tried not to get involved, blames Slytherin; Ravenclaw trusts Gryffindor no more than the reverse; Slytherin mistrusts everyone; and everyone blames Slytherin.
Is it any less possible?
4)How far can we trust Harry's schoolbooks?
Answer: Not as far as I can throw them, that's for sure! We know Hogwarts, A History doesn't mention house elves, presumably because of the slavery issue. If three-quarters of the world distrusts the other quarter, do you think more books are going to appear supporting the perspective of the three-quarters, or of the one-quarter? Do you think the parents will encourage their children to believe the majority, or the minority?
Which do you think is easier, blaming House rivalries on the 'evil' one (Salazar) and the 'evil' House (Slytherin), or admitting that it got blown way out of proportion, that everyone was wrong, that there was no leader, and that the rivalry is just kept up because it's always been that way? (Hint: Montague and Capulet ring a bell?)
Always, always the former. People hate admitting that there's no villain. And by Harry-era, the inter-House feud has evolved beyond even Shakespearean proportions. It's done because it's been done for thousands of years, and no one knows anymore how to do otherwise. The books Harry reads will reflect this.
In case it's not obvious, I'm writing stuff down to write Founders-fic. Fun.
Anyone have any further ideas, explanations, or places where I make no sense at all?
I have two principle topics here, Dumbledore and Founders.
How old is Dumbledore, really? He defeated Grindelwald in 1942, so he need be no more than eighty-some during the series. On the other hand, he worked on alchemy with Flamel. As far as I know, the goal of alchemy is the creation of the Philosopher's Stone. Once you've done that, you can either invent chemistry (which wizards don't seem to have), or stop, because that's all there is to do. So, either I'm wrong and Flamel found enough alchemy he hadn't done yet to occupy him for five hundred years (in HP:PS, he's cited in the bok as being 665 years old), and Dumbledore was called his partner for reasons I really can't fathom, or Dumbledore was alive before the creation of the Philosopher's Stone.
HP:CoS minus 50 years (1946 or -7), he's teaching and seems rather youngish. The questions are: a)how does the Philosopher's Stone work, exactly, b)how long do wizards usually live, and c)how old is Dumbledore?
There are few witches and wizards as old as sixty, or so it seems. Lucius Malfoy, who must be well under sixty (Riddle was 'before his time'), is the head of his family. Similarly, there seems to be a dearth of people who even could tell you about the Chamber of Secrets. (Binns doesn't count; he's a ghost. Hagrid doesn't count; he's half-giant, and I don't know how long a giant would live.)
It's just odd, I find.
With the Founders, I have a series of questions.
1) When was Hogwarts founded?
Answer: At least 1000 years pre-series, according to Binns in CoS. So, before AD 996. This is confirmed with this note on the name 'Godric' (www.behindthename.): This name became rarely used after the Norman conquest. So, previously to 1066, probably previously to 1000.
Was it founded in a castle? Yes, but almost certainly a different and a smaller one. Among other things, building castles takes more manpower than four people could raise in such a scattered community. Also, the style Harry sees is almost exclusively post-Norman Conquest. Possibly the Founders built it that way themselves, some years after the school was founded.
One can be fairly sure the school was only founded after the fall of the Roman Empire (480 or so), because of the nature of the school and the fact that the Latin influence is clearly there, but it is not the only one. None of the Founders have Roman names, but nor was the expulsion of the Romans considered part of their motives.
The surnames of the founders are obviously ones they adopted themselves as titles. In that era, people did not have surnames as we know them. The four Founders took these epithets for themselves.
So, the school was founded between AD 500 and AD 1000, probably toward the later end. And that's the best we can do.
2) What was the Chamber of Secrets originally meant for?
Answer: This is a double-ended questrion, because it seems to have an answer. According to Tom Riddle, to purge the school of muggle-borns. According to Professor Binns' regurgiatation of legend, to purge the school of those Salazar considered unworthy, which he implies includes muggle-borns. However (see question #4), we can't really trust either. Riddle, of course, has a bee in his bonnet. He'd think anything was a directive to slaughter muggle-borns, because he thinks that way. As for Binns, 'reliable historical sources' don't include the Founders themselves, I'd bet anything. As anyone who's studied Richard III can attest, historical sources are as likely to have biases, to suppress information, or to just plain get things wrong as anyone else.
The Chamber was quite possibly constructed before the basilisk was placed there. Among other things, the thing was probably smuggled in or brought in openly by Salazar when it was small and manageable, if he didn't raise it himself. I have further questions like what the others thought, or how he managed it in the first place, but they'll keep. Therefore, the Chamber was made rather bigger than the basilisk actually needed. I doubt Salazar created it for the sole purpose of growing an immense basilisk in. I suspect it was simply one of the lower dungeons, his private work area, which was closed off when he left, with the basilisk still inside.
It is possible that Salazar built the Chamber with the agreement of the other Founders, as a defense of the school. Parseltongue does not go with being a Dark wizard, necessarily (no one says Salazar was a Dark wizard, you'll notice), but it would serve to keep the children out. That could explain why, for example, the place is so neatly made, and there is an entrance that was added later. Salazar could have meant the Chamber to house a protector for the school, which only a few could control (and only in his name, because he was a sneaky bastard), and which stood small chance of falling into the wrong hands. He left, the rooms were sealed, and the legend started to grow.
Of course, there's always an interesting option: Someone else, much, much more recently, built the Chamber based on his or her own idea of what a legend should look like, for the purpose of using it to destroy his or her enemies. Why do I think this is possible? First, someone had to put in the connection to the plumbing, and it sure wasn't Salazar! Second, the statue in the chamber is of an old man. I, personally, don't believe Salazar was very old when he left (wizards, like everyone else, live longer than they did, and the life Salazar led requires much energy). And the incantation is a bit off, a bit too formal and not quite like Salazar, who didn't consider himself the greatest of the Founders that we know. It sounds more like someone's idea of Salazar than like Salazar himself. Third, the basilisk must be very old if it was put in the Chamber a thousand years ago. The basilisk mentioned in Fantastic Beasts only lived to 900.
Any way it goes, I don't see why Salazar should have done things the way he is said to have done. It makes no sense. Besides, whichever way it goes, someone had to build the girls bathroom there, put the pipe behind the sink, and scratch the snake on the faucet.
3) What really made the Founders break up?
Answer: At this date, who can say? The Sorting Hat, and only the Hat, was there then, or anywhen near then. The Hat says:
The Houses that, like pillars four,
Had once held up our school,
Now turned upon each other and,
Divided, sought to rule.
And for a while it seemed the school
Must meet an early end,
What with dueling and with fighting
And the clash of friend on friend
And at last there came a morning
When old Slytherin departed,
And though the fighting then died out
He left us quite downhearted.
The Hat does not blame Salazar, or Slytherin House, for what happened. It says there was conflict between all the Houses, all of whom wanted power. Ambition is not, and never has been, a trait limited to Slytherin. The Founders themselves did not even fight, necessarily. (According to Binns, Salazar's departure was precipitated by an argument with Godric, but that need not be the case. They could have argued about whether or not Salazar should go, and Salazar won. [Okay, maybe Godric won, but I doubt it.]) I can construct an alternative history quite easily:
The students are beginning to take arms against one another, because of various frictions caused by the so-called 'House traits'. Each House wants to be the superior one, the one that contains only the best. House Slytherin misinterprets some remarks of Salazar's, and tries to get him made Headmaster over the other Founders, possibly with some justice, possibly not. Either way, the other Houses either fight back, join, or start their own movements. The Founders are aghast. None of them wants to be above the others, but none of them knows how to quell the students. Salazar insists that he does not want to be made Head; the students believe he is being modest, if they listen at all. Students are fighting in the hallways. Some have died. Salazar realizes that the Slytherin faction, the one he considers most dangerous, is based entirely on him as a figurehead. He resolves to leave immediately. He discusses this with Rowena, who agrees that it is the only thing to do; with Helga, who sympathizes with him. When he tells Godric what he has decided, Godric argues. He refuses to let Salazar leave. They have a long, loud argument, but at last Salazar wins the day. He leaves the next morning, after insisting one last time that he does not wish to be Head. Godric does not see him off; the students speculate that Salazar left because he and Godric fought. The House War dies down, but Gryffindor House no longer quite trusts Ravenclaw; Hufflepuff, which by and large tried not to get involved, blames Slytherin; Ravenclaw trusts Gryffindor no more than the reverse; Slytherin mistrusts everyone; and everyone blames Slytherin.
Is it any less possible?
4)How far can we trust Harry's schoolbooks?
Answer: Not as far as I can throw them, that's for sure! We know Hogwarts, A History doesn't mention house elves, presumably because of the slavery issue. If three-quarters of the world distrusts the other quarter, do you think more books are going to appear supporting the perspective of the three-quarters, or of the one-quarter? Do you think the parents will encourage their children to believe the majority, or the minority?
Which do you think is easier, blaming House rivalries on the 'evil' one (Salazar) and the 'evil' House (Slytherin), or admitting that it got blown way out of proportion, that everyone was wrong, that there was no leader, and that the rivalry is just kept up because it's always been that way? (Hint: Montague and Capulet ring a bell?)
Always, always the former. People hate admitting that there's no villain. And by Harry-era, the inter-House feud has evolved beyond even Shakespearean proportions. It's done because it's been done for thousands of years, and no one knows anymore how to do otherwise. The books Harry reads will reflect this.
In case it's not obvious, I'm writing stuff down to write Founders-fic. Fun.
Anyone have any further ideas, explanations, or places where I make no sense at all?
