Now that I think about it, I'm not sure the Basilisk was such a good idea...

[darrin_burnett]

No: HPFGUIDX 57958

:
I wrote: 
> > I don't know if it only has to kill Muggle-borns. There have been 
plenty of slurs thrown around against "Muggle-Lovers" to make me 
think that just being a pureblood isn't necessarily protection 
enough. Protecting a mudblood
> > could 
> > be sin enough in the eyes of a madman like V-Mort or Slythering.
> 

Andrea:
> Which is, IMO, one more indication that the basilisk wasn't the 
best idea if its purpose was slaughter of only certain people with a 
varying definition.
> 


Me: 

No, my point was that Salazar (or V-Mort's interpretation, if you 
like) made a distinction as to what is pureblood. My read of that 
view is that if you have a Muggle ancestor somewhere back, you're not 
pure, in their eyes.

The canon tells us that the legend is -- on page 114 -- that the 
horror within the Chamber would be used to "purge the school of all 
who were unworthy to study magic."

I think that could easily include anyone but purebloods.

> > Let us assume for the moment that whatever the reason Salazar left
> > behind > the basilisk, it was not a benevolent or harmless act. 
> 
> Why?  The only indication that it *wasn't* is a thousand year old 
>legend and the actions of his many-time-great-grandson who wasn't 
>even raised by the family and so wouldn't know any family stories 
>passed down, whether for or against Muggle-borns.  He just had 
>whatever knowledge he learned from his research, and his own 
>prejudices formed by growing up in an orphanage after being rejected 
by a Muggle.

He did research the thing extensively. And again, we are talking 
about the "Heir of Slytherin," are we not? This is the one chosen to 
open the thing. If we are to believe the Sorting Hat has essence of 
the founders, then Salazar at least had some say in this.

If the Heir was just a descendant of Slytherin, then why couldn't 
dozens of other people over the years open the thing? And if it was 
opened, and the basilisk escaped, there would be a record in 
Hogwarts: A History.

So my point is that the desires of Salazar and the actions of Riddle 
are not completely separated. I grant it is likely tenuous, but I 
think it is stronger than the idea that the basilisk is a weapon of 
defense. (But this brings something else up... more on that later)

Who would have been the most likely attackers in Slytherins time? The 
Muggles, specifically, the Inquisition and other witch-hunters. To 
defend the school, it should have been charmed to attack Muggles, not 
Muggle-borns, and certainly not left to just roam free, attacking 
whomever.

> > I am willing to concede that, although I believe Salazar to be a
> > genocidal > loony for even leaving the damn thing behind, V-Mort 
has perhaps twisted Slytherins wishes. 
> 
> Thank you. :)  I also will concede that it's fully possible that 
Salazar is a raving genocidal madman.  But it's not canon, and I 
always feel
> obliged when people treat it as such.  It's simply one 
interpretation of still vague text.
> 

I love you. You love me. We're a happy family.


> > Then why not take it with him when he left? Didn't he miss his 
wittle
> > Fido?
> 
> *snickerfits* I actually have a fic where a magical serpent's very
> complicated Parseltongue name is translated into English 
as "Fido". :) 
> I'm sure if the pet scenario was true, he'd miss it when he left, 
but it's a lot less practical to take a basilisk on a cross-country 
journey than keep it in a hidden room of a castle.  And if it was 
meant for defense or was confined because it was a danger, then 
there's no reason he'd take it and every reason he *wouldn't*.
 
OK, I'm coming around to the possibility of defense, but I'm not sure 
I can go with the pet thing.

 
> And at the time he created the Chamber, Slytherin may have thought 
he and his descendants would *always* be at Hogwarts.  We don't know 
how long the Founders were all together at Hogwarts before the last 
argument that split them.
> 

Actually, we do, but it depends on your definition of "a few" and "a 
while."

"For a few years, the founders worked in harmony together..." pg 114

Then disagreements sprang up..and "after a while."

Pick a number. I say less than 50 years.

> > I would agree it would have been a defense... for Salazar. I 
could see him thinking: Let the other three nitwits fight the 
invaders brought on by their Muggle-loving foolish ways, while I -- 
and perhaps the other Slyths, though that is not a requirement --  
retire to my hideout and wait for the 
> > dust to settle.
> 
> That would also be a possibility.  But it still doesn't mean he was
> actively advocating the deaths  Muggle-borns and Muggle-lovers.  
It's reasonable to think each Founder would have a special defense 
for their own students.  No one thinks there's anything wrong with 
Godric leaving a
> sword for students in *his* House.  The only difference was in how 
their respective students chose to use it.  Harry could have just as 
easily gone on a mad rampage with that sword and killed off the 
Slytherins.  Riddle used the basilisk to attack, Harry used the sword 
to defend.  Neither is necessarily an indication of their House's 
Founder's original intentions.
> 
>

We're back to the Sorting Hat, which gave Harry the sword. Original 
intent is closer than you might give it credit for.

OK, more on my follow up thought. I've asked this before, and it does 
tend to puncture my "Salazar is a nutjob" routine.

Why does the hat still have Slytherin in it and why do the other 
houses put up with Slytherin? 

I maintain that the hat is a magical contract. Not even the combined 
power of Godric, Rowena and Helga could get rid of Salazar, since the 
essence of him was in the hat.

BUT... if that's not the case, then there is obviously some reason 
Salazar's thoughts are still in the hat, and that is because even 
Godric doesn't think he's all that bad.

Don't believe it, but in the interest of presenting both sides...

Darrin
-- Never let it be said I can't argue against myself.