[HPforGrownups] Re: Classical knowledge/ cultural education

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 33286

Ev vy replies 


> 
> From: Eloise <Edblanning at aol.com>
> : I had the same thought, but of course, we have the benefit of hindsight.
> : 
> : 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. 'Fabulous 
> beasts' exist in their world, Latin is incorporated into language to be 
> used in naming all the spells, and not necessarily exists as a separate 
> language or in fact a dead language (is it a correct term?).
> 
> 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. E.g. the 
> Weasleys have a ghoul in their attic. They don't seem to think it's unusual 
> (rather annoying), or that the creature itself shouldn't be there or 
> shouldn't exist because it's mythical (that what a Muggle would think). 
> IMHO, Fluffy being a mythical creature for us, for wizards is just a huge 
> three-headed dog. Maybe not the only one around.
> 
> Moreover, Harry not being very much 'Muggle-educated' (uncle Vernon is 
> known to shut Harry up in his cupboard for a long time periods) probably is 
> not aware of anything like Classical education and for him all the 
> creatures are just incredible, awesome, etc. and not mythological in the 
> very meaning of this word. And he may not even know that Latin _is_ a 
> separate language in the Muggle world.
> 
> 

Actually, I think you are in some ways making my point again. Perhaps I 
didn't make my thinking very clear the last time.

I agree that Harry, who has been English state- educated to the age of 10, 
will probably have a woeful lack of classical knowledge, but that isn't what 
concerns me.

It is also,now that you point it out, quite possible that Latin is not a dead 
language in the wizarding world: perhaps that's why we have no evidence of 
their learning French or German or any other language to communicate with 
wizards of other nationalities (but don't I remember ?Bagman having 
communication problems with officials from another country at the World Cup?)

What I mean is, if those creatures which are to us myth, and those accounts 
for which to us are mythical are in the wizarding world factual, or at least 
based on fact, then why is there an assumed general ignorance over such an 
important mythical creature?  IMHO there should not be ignorance among 
wizards about something 
( the power of music over Cerberus, who is clearly, if not Fluffy himself, at 
least his  forbear/ close enough relative for it to be a reasonable guess 
that music might work) which even  I as a mere muggle know about. It implies 
that the texts of which we know, Virgil, Homer, etc and treat as myth/ legend 
but which in the wizarding world might even be treated as historical/ 
pseudo-historical just aren't known.

Sticking with Fluffy, if he is 'just a three- headed dog. Maybe not the only 
one around',  (and doesn't Hagrid  ask, 'How many three-headed dogs do you 
see?) it makes it even harder for me to understand why no-one knows how to 
tackle him. I'm not surprised Harry doesn't know; it's Snape's ignorance and 
the assumption of general ignorance (why else use him as a deterrent?)  that 
bothers me.

Just because a creature is a 'real' in the wizarding world doesn't mean it is 
common knowledge and shouldn't be taught about. They learn about unicorns in 
Hagrid's class. But what about, for instance centaurs? Not creatures you're 
going to 'care' for, but isn't it important to learn about them? Thinking 
about this, there seems to be a place in the curriculum for a whole subject 
devoted to the study of other magical beings that don't require care and 
aren't covered under DADA: elves, goblins, fairies etc etc.

Others have noted a lack of reference to the lack of cultural/ recreational 
pusuits taking place at Hogwarts. I see it as part of this. There seems to be 
a whole cultural dimension missing or at least not mentioned in the 
curriculum: literature, music, art, language, (other) sports, dance . The one 
thing they do have is History.  I suppose we could see a parallel with kids 
going off to a specialist music or stage school, but in the muggle world, 
there is generally an attempt to keep up a general education alongside the 
specialist one. I just can't see very rounded characters coming out if all 
they ever learn is magic.

I also find it strange that there is no evidence of Maths teaching. I wonder 
how they manage those astronomy charts? Would you need it for Arithmancy? 
(confess complete ignorance of subject)

Eloise (Who did study Latin many moons ago and is rather peeved that her 
children don't have the opportunity)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]