GG and Durmstrang

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 182686

Carol earlier:
> 
> << As you say, we don't know what Gellert did to get himself
expelled from Durmstrang, but if Durmstrang deserves its reputation as
a school that teaches the Dark Arts (presumably using teachers with
considerably more intelligence and subtlety than Amycus Carrow), he
must have done something dark and dreadful or else endangered a large
number of people. I doubt that he killed anyone or he'd have been
imprisoned rather than expelled. >>

Catlady: 
> The author obviously wanted us to think, what could be horrible
enough to break *Durmstrang* rules? One imagines that even a Dark Arts
school would have rules against students practising AK on each other
or teachers or staff, but would they have a rule against practising AK
on a Muggle, as long as the Statute of Secrecy was well defended by
making it look to all the Muggles that the guy died of cold or of
falling of off a cliff? Maybe they allow students to practise
Cruiciatus and Imperius on each other, thus giving the opportunity to
practise dodging and parrying and resisting. <snip>

Carol responds:
I wish I knew, but unfortunately, we see only a handful of Durmstrang
students, and only one, Viktor Krum, in any detail. We see that
Karkaroff, the headmaster, pampers his protegee, worrying about his
head cold (and, of course, finding out what the first task is in the
hope of giving him an advantage--in marked contrast to DD, who in this
book, at least, gives no overt help to his favorite student until
after Harry returns from the graveyard). The only thing I recall him
saying to any other of his students other than Viktor is the sharp
reprimand to Poliakoff, the "disgusting boy" who spilled food on his
robes. (Sidenote: I don't think that Karkaroff attended Durmstrang
himself; I think he's a former Slytherin. He speaks perfect English,
in any case, unlike his students or Madame Maxime.) It's natable,
however, that neither Viktor or Poliakoff seems at all Dark Wizardish
(until Viktor is Imperiused, but he's sorry afterwards). *And* Viktor
Krum is adamantly opposed to even the memory of Grindelwald. It seems
to me unlikely that Durmstrang actually teaches the Unforgiveable
Curses despite its reputation for teaching Dark magic. Krum has
certainly learned the usual DADA spells needed to get through the maze
and fend off "zee grindylows," he uses the Conjunctivitis Curse (which
Sirius Black intended to recommend to Harry) on his dragon, and he
uses an incomplete shark-man Transfiguration (a complete one would
have left him without hands to use a wand or release Hermione) in the
second task, so apparently he's had quite a good magical education
(not to mention Quidditch training). Yes, he could cast a Cruciatus
Curse under Imperius, but since Harry and Draco both attempt that
curse and Harry succeeds in using it in DH, I don't think we can
conclude that he learned it at school. If those curses are actually
taught, it's probably to a select group of seventh years who aren't
likely to practice them on each other in the corridors. And, of
course, they wouldn't use AK on each other or their teachers. At any
rate, we know Durmstrang only by reputation through remarks by Draco
and Rita Skeeter. It produced Gellert Grindelwald, but it also
produced Viktor Krum. Hogwarts produced Harry Potter, but it also
produced Voldemort--and the young Albus Dumbledore, whose ideas meshed
so neatly with Gellert Grindelwald's.

Catlady quotes: 
> "[W]here we meet resistance, We must use only the force that is
> necessary and no more. (This was your mistake at Durmstrang[.)]" (US
p357)
> 
> Take it literally - he met resistance and used too much force trying
to get his own way. 

Carol:

Yes. Exactly. But we're not told what he wanted or what kind of force
he used. Coercion through torture? He seems to have done that as an
adult, and we know that he used the Cruciatus Curse on Albus's young
brother, Aberforth. Maybe that's what he did at school. Maybe even
Durmstrang doesn't allow the use of the curse on fellow students (and
what he did outside of school would not have gotten him expelled).

Catlady:
It could be Gellaert had recruited other students to help him search
for the Deathly Hallows and Eurmstrang's professor of History of Magic
ordered him to stop leading the other children into delusion, told him
that the Deathly Hallows are nothing but a child's tale, they don't
really exist and if they did exist, they couldn't cause earthly
immortality. That would be resistance. 
 
> If he simply told the teacher 'You're wrong', that would be talking
back, and earn some punishment. If he carved the DH symbol. very
large, on a wall, that would be graffiti as well as disobedience. <snip>

Carol:
I doubt that he would have shared the secret of the Deathly Hallows
with his fellow students. If he wore the symbol as Xenophilius
Lovegood does and carved it as graffiti, as we know he did in one
instance, I don't think it was with the desire to invite people to
help him search for treasures they'd be likely to keep for themselves
if they found. I think it was a sign for fellow initiates into the
mysteries of the Hallows to recognize, but no one else. 

I also don't think it was the teachers who resisted his will. Nor do I
think he'd be expelled for producing "graffiti," even of a lasting
kind. He was apparently expelled for using too much force on whoever
resisted his will. (He could have Crucio'd a teacher. *that* would
have gotten him thrown out, I think.)

Carol earlier: 
>> << He and Albus as boys imagine themselves as co-rulers, but only
one can wield the One Ring--erm, the Elder Wand. >>

Catlady: 
> It would be interesting for Magical Theory to find out if the Three
Hallows can be owned collectively by two people in such a way that
they both get immortality. It would be interesting for Magical Theory
to find out if the Elder Wand can be owned collectively by two people
in such a way that each of gets super-wizard power when using it. Of
course, the personality of the Elder Wand, like that of the One Ring,
is such that it would tempt, urge, and seduce the one holding it not
to let the other have a turn, and tempt, urge, and seduce the other to
kill his friend just to get his turn. 

Carol responds:
I agree, which is why I made the comparison. It would be like Smeagol
killing Deagol on a larger scale. And I wonder whether DD hesitated to
fight GG not out of a lingering affection for him but out of fear that
he would want the Elder Wand for himself, tempted by its power and
becoming a second Grindelwald. It's just a thought. But I can't
imagine the Elder Wand, fickle though it is (in contrast to the One
Ring, which is loyal only to Sauron) dividing its allegiance between
two masters, nor can I imagine two wizards, however great their
friendship, agreeing to share it.

Catlady:
> But few people seem to have trouble believing that a man and a woman
who are something like married can claw their way to power as a team
and then wield power as a team, without falling out over which of them
gets to be top boss. If it were Greta Grindelwald, would you be as
certain tney couldn't share rulership and the Elder Wand? <snip>

Carol:
The sex of the people involved has nothing to do with it. Imagine a
Bellatrix who rivaled Voldemort in power and evil. She might still
worship him, but would he have shared the Elder Wand with her? And if
she found it and realized that she could be the most powerful Wizard
(in the generic sense of magical person) in the WW, would she share it
with him or become his rival? (If she did offer to share it, it's a
foregone conclusion that she wouldn't get it back.)

Carol, who thinks that the primary concern for Durmstrang students is
probably keeping warm in winter! <wink>