[HPforGrownups] Re: The Falling-Out of the Hogwarts Four

[Lindsay]

No: HPFGUIDX 126022

The problem I have, personally, about all the stories we have heard
about the Founders - save the Sorting Hat, who is the only primary
source we can really have - is that these stories are about people
that lived a thousand years ago, spread by word of mouth.

We only have the Sorting Hat to tell us any truth of the matter.  I
think we can reasonably assume the Salazar Slytherin *built* the
Chamber of Secrets - after all, it is no small feat to have a large
underground chamber to be built after the fact, and have its
construction and origins secret.

But do we even know if Salazar left the basilisk?  It is called, after
all, the Chamber of Secrets - not the Chamber of Death or etc.  The
term "secrets" indicates *potentially* harmful information only, but
there is nothing malicious about it at all, and I would think that if
you built a chamber to house a giant, murderous snake, you would call
it something a bit different than "Chamber of Secrets."  That is, of
course, my opinion.  I cannot know the mind of Rowling or Slytherin. 
=P

How would the basilisk, who is nothing more than a magical snake, be
able to discern a Muggleborn from any other student?  My impression
was that basilisks were nothing special in and of themselves.  Indeed,
if it were the only one of its kind, I doubt Hermione would be able to
find much information on it in the library.  So this is just one
basilisk, what makes it so different than any other basilisk?  If
basilisks were Muggle-detectors, you would think that some of these
other pureblood families might keep them around, eh?

I think that the monster who was to rise up to kill those "unworthy"
to study magic was something that was at completely dependent on who
opened the Chamber.  That person, a Parselmouth, and probably a
descendent of Slytherin, would then be able to control the basilisk
(you see that the snake that was attacking Justin immediately stopped
upon Harry's command - it seems that being a Parselmouth doesn't just
guarantee communication, but also control over the said snake) to do
his or her bidding.

If Slytherin indeed did leave the snake, we cannot immediately assume
that it was left for the purpose of killing off Muggleborns until we
get this information from a primary source - either the Sorting Hat,
or the personal journal of one of the Founders or their students or
someone who was AROUND at the time.

The Sorting Hat said that the other Founders were sad after
Slytherin's departure, which leads me to believe that whatever
Slytherin was, he was well-liked by his peers.  Such is, I doubt that
he had many fights with them past this Muggleborn issue.

Like Steve, I agree that Slytherin had a very justified reason to
distrust the Muggles of the time.

> bboy:
> The split between the Founders did not come because of student House
> characteristics, but because of Slytherins distrust of muggles, and
> therefore muggle-borns. Remember that wizards at this time in
> historywere greatly persecuted by muggles.

>Valky:
>But JKR has pointed this out to be relatively laughable a situation in
>Harrys History of Magic essay on Witch burning.

I am going to have to disagree with you when it comes to this certain
issue, Valky.  While JKR does say, through an essay, that the
situation was laughable, that does not explain two things:

How are children, or any witch or wizard of the time, who have not
been educated, able to know the Charm to keep them from burning at the
stake?  Or drowning?  Or saving themselves from any one of the
horrible situations that we saw during the periods of time where
people were persecuted for witchcraft?

I do think that a fully educated witch or wizard could easily save
themselves from a situation of being attacked by Muggles, but the
people of the time of the Founders did not have a centralized
education before they created Hogwarts.  There was no way for anyone
to know the magic they would need to freeze the fires, or the
Bubble-head charms, or Apparation or any other number of spells. 
Which is why, I imagine, many of the magical people of the time WERE
killed by Muggles, and why it would be justified for Slytherin to have
something against them.

Second, would a children's history book, being taught in precarious
times such as these, tell the hard truth that witches and wizards who
did not know any better were tortured and killed?  What would this do,
except possibly create more anti-Muggle sentiment?  I doubt that
Dumbledore would allow such a circuluum, even if it were the truth.  I
believe Harry's History of Magic book painted the issue with a flowery
tale, and did not tell the entire truth of the matter.

The Wizarding World as a whole seems to be in denial, IMHO.

I do not mean to sing praises for Slytherin, but I also do not want to
immediately assume that he is an evil maniac dark wizard just because
Hagrid and Ronald Weasley do not like those of Slytherin House.  I
believe Voldemort has covered the deranged dark wizard role well
enough, and because of that, many views have been tainted that
otherwise may not have been.  ;)

--Lawless