Classical knowledge/ cultural education

[Ev vy]

No: HPFGUIDX 33294

It's long. Longer than I though it would be. And I hope it's more or less
logical.

---From: infobreakdotcom
> 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.

OK, I agree that it was not a well chosen example, or rather that my
explanation to it was not well-applied. Acromantula would have been a
better one. Fluffy may not be a part of common knowledge but may be a part
of curriculum or knowledge of Greek wizards. Which may mean that Hagrid
(expelled), children (not yet educated enough) may not know about its
existence. But I'll elaborate on this later on in response to Eloise's
post.

---From: Eloise
<<<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?)>>>

Yes, Bagman did have troubles communicating with Bulgarian wizards during
the World Cup. It was the Bulgarian Minister of Magic (or other official)
who had a good command of English. But Latin, not being a dead language,
does not have to be a lingua franca. Even if it's used in spells and
potions
(and wherever else) does not mean that wizards are able to communicate
using Latin.

<<<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.>>>

Fluffy might not have been the best example. But, as I see it, this general
ignorance may be in fact limited to tackling Fluffy and not his existence.
Virgil and Homer were Muggles so their works may be simply disregarded
in the wizarding world. If we assume that Muggle and wizarding worlds
separated long time ago (and it's my view of this matter) then why should
wizards pay heed to anything that was produced by Muggles? Moreover, if
Muggles were writing about mythical creatures that existed in the wizarding
world, even as not necessarily common ones but simply existing (or common
in the past), it would have been even stronger reason to disregard their
works, to ignore their existence. Or to laugh at them: "Oh, those poor
Muggles, they think that three-headed dogs do no exist." Assuming that
Muggles know about Fluffy/Cerberus (and what about tackling him? is
anywhere in the Muggles writing mentioned how to tackle such a creature?)
is somehow limited to educated and well-read Muggles. About ninety percent
of Muggles don't have the faintest idea what a creature Cerberus was (sad
truth, isn't it?). Another point: we don't know the exact curriculum,
three-headed dogs may be a part of curriculum for older students, so Hagrid
(expelled) and the Trio (first-years) may not know about his existence. Yet
another point: Virgil and Homer may be a part of Muggle studies. Muggle
studies is not an obligatory subject so children may be avoiding it (I
don't see Slytherins willingly attending Muggle studies) as Muggles are
considered in the wizarding world as less able (partially disabled by lack
of magic) and thus their creations may be ignored. Of course there are
wizards like Arthur Weasley who are fascinated with Muggle creations, but
rather with mechanical devices that artistic creations. And even if Fluffy
was a part of Muggle studies (as a beast in Muggle writings) learning about
its existence wouldn't mean learning about tackling it, its not the scope
of Muggle studies, but DADA. BTW, DADA may not be covering three-headed
dogs as they may be rare enough (giant spiders do exist in a dangerous
proximity of Hogwarts, their existence is acknowledged in general but their
neither native nor believed to exist in Britain so they may not be the
scope of DADA) or not native to Britain.

<<<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.>>>

I've written above why I think that the wizards may be ignorant about
Fluffy. Same applies to Snape. Somehow I don't see him taking Muggle
studies. Besides, the general ignorance about Fluffy may apply only to
British wizards, they seem to be preoccupied mostly with creatures native
to Britain. Even 'Fabulous Beasts' may not be known as a whole to each
wizard. Or even if they have read it, they would forget about creatures
they don't have in their own country. Hagrid got Fluffy from a Greek
chappie, so at least one person in Greece knows how to handle Fluffy. And
I'd assume that Greek wizards are acquainted with the fact of its existence
and the way to tackle it. Well, at least some of them, or those who are
interested. Voldemort didn't know how to tackle Fluffy and neither did
Quirrell, come to think of it. However, I can't see Tom Riddle attending
Muggle studies and Quirrell seems to be incompetent as DADA teacher (and I
wrote my musings on the scope of DADA above). And Voldie had more important
things to do than to enhance his knowledge about fantastic beasts.

<<<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.>>>

Centaurs may be a part of curriculum for older students, in any subject, I
can't think of one which could cover them magical creatures, etc. Actually
(this came to my mind second ago), centaurs may be a part of curriculum for
Divination, they are creatures which look into the future, aren't they? And
Hagrid spends a lot of time teaching (?!) about flobberworms, he seems not
to have any curriculum. And do unicorns really need care? And still the
students learn about them. Besides, we don't know the exact curriculum for
all seven years. Elves (house-elves in particular) and goblins are so well
established in the wizarding society that there's no need to teach about
them. Or it's not written that students learn about them. Example: Harry
refers to a person ordering raw liver (sorry, can't remember where or when)
as a hag. But we don't see him learning (at school or anywhere else) about
existence of hags. I'm not sure what creatures they are, but still.

<<<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.>>>

If we assume a complete separation of the two worlds (and I think that it's
indeed so and it's taken place long ago), then these cultural pursuits may
be considered as Muggle and not worth learning. E.g. literature. Let's take
literature in the Middle ages: adventures of knights fighting against
mythical beasts ('Beowulf'), romances, quest stories, lives of saints (I
know it's not all, but at 2.30 a.m. I can't think of more examples). If the
separation of the worlds goes back in time as far as middle ages (or
further), I do see wizards completely ignoring literature, or most of it as
not entirely applicable in their world (Merlin is legendary in our world,
but in the wizarding world he's a part of history, and what about Circe?
She's not Medieval, but the reasons apply to her, IMHO). And contemporary
wizards would ignore those writings for the same reason. We don't know if
anything like a notion of being a saint exists in the wizarding world. I,
as a Muggle, had to read excerpts from lives of saints, but it was abstract
for me (not that I didn't enjoy reading them). I love 'Beowulf', but how
many people in Poland know it (I'm Polish, BTW)? Not many, as it's a part
of British culture. So all these writings may have for wizards the same
value as for Muggles (even in Britain, how many people read 'Beowulf' or
lives of saints and remember exactly what it was about; I don't remember a
single thing from the lives of saints; I can't refer to 'Beowulf' in the
same manner as I still remember it quite well), or even less. Muggles would
read and forget, wizards wouldn't read at all, why bother? And maybe those
talents that Muggles have for literature, music (wizards can dance - Yule
ball) were somehow substituted with the talent for magic. Just a thought,
not re-considered.

<<<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)>>>

OK, I see it as such. Arithmancy is not an obligatory subject. Among the
Trio only Hermione took this subject and she as Muggle-born knows at least
basics, however it's probable, that she knows much more than average Muggle
pupil, even older than she is. So maybe only those kids are admitted to
Arithmancy, who have basic knowledge of Maths. Or maybe many wizarding
children (before they come to Hogwarts) attend Muggle schools. Children
stemming from wizard-only families probably don't attend Muggle schools as
their existence is not known in the Muggle world (at least I think so),
half Muggles and Muggle-borns probably attend Muggle schools in majority.
But I see another problem here. I don't know British law, but in Poland
parents who don't send their children to school may get arrested, as
learning is obligatory. OK, I've heard about home-teaching or rather
self-education, but I'm not sure if it's acceptable in the UK or the USA.
So, Hermione who's Muggle-born probably attended a Muggle school, we know
that Justin Finch-Fletchley's name was down for Eton so he must have
attended a Muggle school. But when those kids are accepted to Hogwarts,
they disappear form the Muggle world. So what happens? Are there any legal
consequences? Maybe Hogwarts does exist in the Muggle world as a normal
school, somehow. And as the kids leave it at the age of eighteen then it's
no Muggle authority's scope of interest to check on them, to check on their
level of education?

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

Ev vy
who had a chance to learn Latin but ignored the subject as it was
extra-curricular and the teacher seemed not very sober most of the time

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's nothing level in our cursed natures
But direct villainy.
      William Shakespeare "Timon of Athens"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
     William Shakespeare "Richard III"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~