In Defense of Salazar Slytherin

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 40961


Hi,

Treyvan offers a lovely (new!) theory regarding Salazar Slytherin's 
possible innocence. I think the theory is lovely, like I said, but I 
have found a few chinks in the armour.


--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "wild_karrde_77" <wild_karrde_77 at y...> 
wrote:
<snip> 
> 	So, lets begin by separating fact from rumor and myth. Here 
is what
> we know from "reliable historical sources" (CS 9) and our
> first-hand experiences with Mr. Potter. We know that Godric
> Gryffindor, Helga Hufflepuff, Rowena Ravenclaw and Salazar Slytherin
> founded Hogwarts as a school to train young wizards. During this
> time, "magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards
> suffered much persecution." (CS 9) We know Slytherin left the
> school a few years after the school was opened. It is commonly
> believed that Slytherin left because of an argument with Gryffindor:
> Slytherin did not want children with muggle parents to come to
> Hogwarts, Gryffindor wanted to teach anyone with the ability to
> learn.  We know that there is a chamber hidden in Hogwarts that can
> be only opened by a Parsel-mouth, inside which Tom Marvolo Riddle
> found a Basilisk. 
> 
> We also know, from Professor Binns, that Slytherin did not want
> muggle-borns attending Hogwarts because he felt they were
> "untrustworthy."(CS 9) No other reason is given by the
> "reliable historical sources." He did not believe, as the
> Malfoys and presumably Voldemort do, that muggle-borns were less
> powerful or incapable of learning. Just that they were
> "untrustworthy." 

We don't know whether he did or didn't. There's no information either 
way.

> It seems hypocritical of Slytherin to call
> them that, considering he prefers students who have a "certain
> disregard for rules." I think Slytherin didn't trust
> muggle-borns to keep the location and existence of the school 
secret.
> After all, the castle was built as a safe haven, away from the eyes
> of muggles. Revealing any information about Hogwarts to the muggle
> parents of witches and wizards put the school and all the students 
> in jeopardy. The four founders might have been the best wizards of 
> their
> time, but I doubt very much they could have held off a muggle army.

You know, I've never seen why not. It seems to me, from what we've 
seen so far, that a) Muggles simply couldn't have found Hogwarts and 
b) wizards can easily defeat any number of Muggles.

<snip> 
> Let's apply Slytherin's actions to a slightly different set
> of circumstances. It is January 30th, 1938, five years after Hitler
> was appointed chancellor, ten months before Kristallnacht. German
> schools have begun teaching concepts of genetic purity and of a
> German master race. 
<snip>
>Four leading
> members of the Jewish community establish a secret school called
> Schweinwarzen (that's German for Hogwarts) as a place where
> Jewish children can learn away from the ignorance and distrust 
>spread by the Nazi party. One of the founders, Gryffintür, believes 
>that the school should teach children of Jewish and Nazi parents 
>alike, in the hopes that by spreading knowledge, the children of 
>Nazis will be
> unable to remain ignorant and intolerant. Another of the four
> founders, Slitherinnen, thinks that it is dangerous to teach 
>children
> with Nazi parents, thinking they might betray the existence and
> location of Schweinwarzen. Gryffintür is an idealist, doing what
> he thinks is right. Slitherinnen is a pragmatist; he thinks that the
> potential risk of letting non-Jewish students into the school
> outweighs the benefits of taking them in. The other two founders
> support Gryffintür, and Slitherinnen leaves the school, taking his
> family with him, and flees Germany. Are Slitherinnen's actions
> evil? I don't think so. However, had he opposed teaching
> non-Jewish students because he thought that everyone else was
> inferior and were unworthy of being taught, then the same actions
> would have been evil. 

There is one important difference between Hogwarts and Schweinwarzen, 
though: In the Potterverse, magic children are born to Muggle 
parents. So, your scenario would have to include the (inherently 
impossible) fact that Jewish children are spontaneously born of Nazi 
parents. 
That, I think, makes the case somewhat different. It means that 
Slytherinnen is refusing to open the school not to children of Nazi 
parents, but to *Jewish* children of Nazi parents. *Jewish* children 
are denied Jewish education. Which is really undermining the whole 
point of the school, isn't it? 

The reason Gryffindor wanted to accept any magic child (I think) was 
not to educate the public (as you suggest), but because any magic 
child needs magic education. By refusing to accept them, no matter 
why, Slytherin was undermining the raison d'etre of Hogwarts - a 
school that was intended to provide magical education to whoever 
needs it (i.e., to all magic childre).

> 
> There are other reasons that people assume Slytherin was evil,
> besides the fact that he disagreed with Gryffindor. Most people,
> wizard and muggle, believe Slytherin built the Chamber of Secrets so
> that someone in his bloodline could come back and kill all the
> muggle-born students, and therefore he is an insane and evil 
>monster.

<snip> 
> But, let's look at the Chamber of Secrets from Slytherin's
> perspective. Assuming he wanted the Chamber to be found by a 
student,
> why would he hide the entrance in a girl's bathroom? We don't
> even know if women can be Parsel-mouths, the three we know of are
> male. For all we know, the ability to speak to snakes could be tied
> to the y-chromosome. 

It it were, Voldemort couldn't have inherited it, since he is 
Slytherin's descendent through his *mother.*

>And even if there are female Parsel-mouths,
> putting the entrance in the girls' bathroom would theoretically
> cut in half the number of potential decedents of Slytherin who could
> find the Chamber. It seems logical, that if you wanted your Chamber
> to be found by someone with the exceptionally rare ability of
> Parsel-mouth, you would not place it in such a limiting location. 


Hmmm... If someone is seriously looking for that chamber, s/he would 
hardly be deterred by such prudish qualms, would they? And, in fact, 
both Voldemort and Harry had no hesitation to enter the room, girls' 
bathroom or not.

> 
> Also, if you were one of the four greatest wizards of your time,
> why would you leave a creature so weak as your ultimate weapon? A
> second year student figured out what the basilisk was. I acknowledge
> that Ms. Granger is exceptionally bright, but if a second year can
> figure it out, any competent Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher
> should have too. And after knowing what the creature is, it seems
> easy enough to kill. How hard is it to find a rooster? Or record the
> sound of one crowing? Even without such foreknowledge of the
> basilisk's weakness, a twelve-year-old boy and an intelligent
> bird defeated it. Does that really sound like the type of creature
> that could "purge the school of all who were unworthy to study
> magic?" (CS 9)

You may be right in principle, but I think we have to look at this 
from the perspective of the books' inner logic. To me it seems 
obvious that the Basilisk is meant to be a terrible monster. 
Also, the fact that Harry vanquished it doesn't make it any less 
monstrous. Most of us believe that in book 7, when he is merely 17, 
Harry will somehow vanquish Voldemort, right? Would that make 
Voldemort a puny enemy? 


> 	
<snip>

> 
> Or the legend could have been created fifty years ago by Tom
> Riddle. Just like Hitler, the boy who grew into Voldemort was an
> expert at deceit, lies, and propaganda. B

It's a nice idea, but since it was professor Binns who told the class 
of the legend, I doubt it could be Riddle who invented it. Professor 
Binns died when he was very old and continued to teach - God knows 
how long since. That means that he predates Riddle by a good long 
while. He wouldn't repeat to the kids a piece of rumour that only 
started to circle about during his life time. If he calls the story a 
legend, it must be old enough to predate him.

<snip>


Naama