Classical knowledge (was: "This is just too easy...")

[infobreakdotcom]

No: HPFGUIDX 33280

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ev vy" <bricken at t...> wrote:
> From: Eloise <Edblanning at a...>
> : 1)  The key to pacifying Fluffy clearly is not common 
knowledge ( I have to 
> : say that this lack of Classical knowledge is one  of several 
failings in the 
> : curriculum that bothers me. There's enough Latin in the 
spells, many of the 
> : creatures occur in classical myth etc, and the style of  
education is old- 
> : fashioned enough to make me think that a knowledge of Latin 
and classical 
> : myth/ literature would be essential)
> 
> Such an approach to Classical knowledge seems to me a 
Muggle approach. What for Muggles is classical myth/literature 
and Latin (as a separate language), for wizards may be a part of 
their common knowledge.

> Harry, as brought up by Muggles does not have the knowledge, 
which a child brought up in a proper wizarding family may have, 
about all the creatures that could seem mythical to Harry (or the 
reader) and not very unusual to a child-wizard, who would hear 
about them quite frequently I guess.

I think you missed the point.  If knowledge of how to calm a three 
headed dog is common knowledge to wizards, Fluffy wouldn't be 
protecting the stone from many wizards.  Even Ron would know 
unless he is a kinda stupid.  So all you say about the limitations 
of Harry's knowledge is only valid if the stone is being protected 
from Harry, muggleborns, and wizards who lack common 
knowledge.