House-Elves yet again

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 181281

> a_svirn wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181113>:
> 
> << Yes I can. If I make the binding enchantment illegal, wizards 
will
> have to undo the bondage. (big snip) why should anyone bother to 
find
> and use the countercharm if things are perfectly legal and 
convenient
> (for wizards) as they are. >>

> Catlady: 
> I feel compelled to nitpick. Just because something is illegal 
doesn't
> stop all people from doing it. <snip>
> 
> In my real reply, I'm not sure whether you and I mean the same thing
> by "find the countercharm". I believe that the countercharm is not
> known to wizards and therefore cannot be found by even the most
> extensive library research; it must be found by experimental 
research,
> like Muggles finding a new drug for bipolar disorder or something. 

a_svirn:
We don't know that one way or another. I feel sure that just as every 
action has a reaction every charm has a countercharm, though. I also 
feel sure that if wizards had but *tried* to find the solution they 
would have found it. Apparently they don't try because they don't 
want to.  

> Catlady: 
> If the bondage enchantment on House Elves was illegal while the
> countercharm was still unknown, then even the most law-biding 
wizard,
> eager to obey all laws, could not lift the enchantment by
> countercharm. His only option for obeying the law would be to give
> clothes to the Elf.

a_svirn:
Yes, this is pretty obvious, isn't it? And just as obvious that there 
is more to legislation that "let's do this" and "let's stop doing 
that". There would have to be a good deal of research, white papers 
(or whatever they are called) before the Bill of House Elves' 
Liberation would be presented to the Wizengamot. I certainly did not 
expect to see anything like that happening in the books. The Trio had 
enough on their hands as it was. I did, however, expect to see them 
*thinking* about it. Asking questions similar to those we have been 
asking on this list. I expected Harry to feel acute discomfort at 
owning a slave. Or whatever euphemism we use instead. A bound 
servant. I did not expect him to complacently settle into being a 
slave-owner. Certainly it does not look like he is going to sponsor 
any research into countercharms. 

> Catlady: 
> If they were pre-existing beasts who were put under enchantment, 
then
> when the enchantment was removed, their intelligence might drop to 
the
> level of some animal and they might no longer have the ability to 
use
> language, if that were implanted in them by the bondage enchantment.
> If this were discovered, I think ethicists would argue about what to
> do about it. 

a_svirn:
I too feel compelled to nitpick. They are not at all beasts, they are 
magical creatures. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that 
their intelligence such as it is has anything to do with 
enchantments. There are quite a few sentient beings in the WW: 
goblins, centaurs, etc. The idea that a bond, however strong, can 
*implant intelligence* into a simple beast strains credulity to the 
breaking point, especially when you consider that wizards would have 
to be able to invent and perform this truly outstanding bit of magic 
some millennia ago. 

> Catlady:
Some would be all for removing the enchantment and ending
> this human meddling with their true nature. Some would argue that
> turning beings into beasts is -- I don't know the words, except 
Yuck.
> I keep thinking 'kind of like murder' because it terminates a 
being...

a_svirn:
I quite agree that pretty much any decision on the subject will be 
painful to some, and that it won't be a simple matter to settle. What 
galls me about the whole thing is not that it wasn't solved in the 
books. What galls me is that no one, except for one self-righteous 
and high-handed teenager felt that the status quo is unacceptable and 
something had to be done about it. And as Hermione matured she had 
accepted the established view on elves as well (except for the self-
punishment which troubled her fine sensibilities).  

> Catlady
> The other wild speculation has nothing to do with Goblins, but holds
> that the ancestral Elves were so violent among themselves that after
> one battle, only two Elves in the world were left alive, a male from
> one side and a female from the other side. And they decided to make
> peace and get married and reproduce the species of Elves. But when
> their second one killed their first son in a temper tantrum, they 
put
> this bondage enchantment on all their descendants as a way to keep
> them from killing each other.

a_svirn:
I don't quite see why these elvish Adam and Eve had to bind their 
descendants to wizards. It's like binding Cain and his descendants to 
the Serpent. Voluntary. 
a_svirn