House-Elves yet again (extremely long)

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181131

Carol earlier:
> > Nevertheless, House-Elf servitude or ownership or whatever it is
did> not begin with a law declaring all House-Elves to be "slaves" or
> property. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I never said it did. (And do you know of any slavery in real life 
> that began with a law proclaiming slaves property?) All I said is 
> that elves are put under double constraints: magical and legal.<snip>

Carol responds:

My apologies for misunderstanding you. I'm glad we agree that
House-Elf servitude began with an enchantment. Whether that
enchantment was placed on them by Wizards taking advantage of the
House-Elves' inborn desire to serve or is part of the House-Elves'
nature is the question, and I don't think that canon answers it for
us. I think, however, based on folklore (and I'm thinking more of "The
Elves and the Shoemaker" than of hobs) that it's part of their nature.
See my suggestion earlier that Wizards decided to withhold the giving
of clothes, causing a particular House-Elf and his or her descendants
to be essentially bound to that house and family.

Carol earlier:
> It began with an enchantment. Whether that enchantment is part of
House-Elf nature or was imposed on them by Wizards, we don't know. All
*I* know is that in folklore, elves voluntarily serve humans until
they are given clothes. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> And as far as I know they are not bound in folklore.

Carol:
Which is exactly what I said. In folklore, Elves serve a human being
(of their own volition) until they're given clothes, at which point,
they leave. Whether they serve another human being or family is not,
so far as I know, specified in the stories, which are told from the
human point of view. Again, see "The Elves and the Shoemaker," the
best-known story of this type that I'm aware of.

a_svirn:
 Which, considering the issue in point, is a crucial difference. 

Carol:
Of course. We're dealing with JKR's alteration of folklore. But what
I'm trying to say is that the enchantment in which giving clothes (not
cloths, which is what Kreacher wears) to Elves predates their being
bound to a particular family or house. *It's part of theior nature,
along with the desire to serve,* if we accept folklore as an
explanation for these imaginary beings.

Elves in folklore serve humans voluntarily. House-Elves also want to
serve humans (specifically Wizards). Both sets of magical creatures
seem to have no other purpose. The only difference is that the
House-Elves are bound to serve a particular family until they are
given clothes. Perhaps the folklore Elves are also bound to serve a
particular family, the difference being that they bound themselves. 

When Elves in folklore are given clothes, they probably peek in the
window of the nearest (Muggle) family and decide whether they're going
to serve them instead. Or perhaps they go off and live in the woods
off nuts and berries. Who knows? They certainly don't go around as
"Free Elves" seeking employment from (Wizarding) families who will pay
them, as Dobby does. 

a_svirn:> 
> Also the cloth thing from folklore was not for sacking unwanted
servants but for getting rid off domestic pests.

Carol:
No, it isn't. You're thinking of hobs. The shoemaker and his wife gave
the Elves little shoes and clothes as a reward or a thank-you gift,
and the Elves stopped working for them. Their (voluntary) service was
ended. The Elves were certainly not domestic pests. They were helping
the shoemaker with his work. Here's a link to the Grimm's fairytale
version of the story, since you're apparently unfamiliar with it:

http://www.authorama.com/grimms-fairy-tales-39.html

asvirn:
 When hobs were making themselves nuisances (like gnomes in the WW)
they were got rid off this way. 

Carol:
But we're not talking about hobs. We're talking about Elves--who are
not pests and want to serve humans. In the folktale, they cease to do
so, or at least cease to serve the shoemaker and his wife, after
they're given clothes. But JKR's Elves still want to serve humans even
after they're given clothes. Winky wants to return to her master;
Dobby goes looking for work with Wizard families and ends up working
for Dumbledore, with voluntary service to Harry on the side.

Carol earlier:
> > I'm not sure when or how House-Elves as a species originated, but
when we see elves in folklore, the giving of clothes is already the
means of ending their association with a particular set of humans.
Clothes may be a cultural artifact (I'm using the American
spelling)--not necessarily a Wizarding artifact, but a human one--but
maybe House-Elves originated at a time when human culture, including
clothes, was well-established.
> 
> a_svirn:
> So? It wasn't established as a part of nature, was it? Wizards are
not born wearing cloths? 

Carol again:
*Of course* they're not born wearing clothes. The Elves in the
folktale are naked. I'm talking about *the nature of Elves* including
an *enchantment* that they're born with: If they volunteer their
services to a Wizard (as any House-Elf will) or if they are born to a
House-Elf who is already serving a particular Wizard, they are
magically bound to that Wizard and his family. Giving them
clothes--not loincloths or tea towels or pillowcases but actual
clothes, even a sock--ends the enchantment (breaks the spell). It has
nothing to do with clothes being unnatural or Elves or Wizards being
born wearing clothes. It has nothing to do with Nature, as in trees
and flowers and rocks, as opposed to manmade objects like houses and
clothes. I'm talking about *the nature of House-Elves* as magical
creatures with magical properties, *including* an enchantment that
"frees" them (unbinds them from their service to a particular family)
when they're given clothes.

A part of Nature and a part of House-Elf nature are not the same
thing, any more than human nature and the nature that you encounter on
a nature walk are the same thing.
> 
> > Carol:
> > We need not assume that some Wizard somehow enchanted all House-
Elves to work for Wizards and be freed by clothes. I think that the
desire to work for humans (specifically Wizards in JKR's version of
the story) is part of their nature. 
 
> a_svirn:
> You are persistently substitute *owning* with *serving*.

Carol:
No, I don't. I use "serving" for both voluntary and involuntary
service, and "owning" for what you call "slavery." I *am* avoiding
that term because it applies to humans and has nothing to do with
House-Elf servitude, voluntary or involuntary. I am trying to get away
from the "slavery or not slavery" argument and examine House-Elf
servitude as it is actually depicted in the books and to explore its
possible origins. Also, semantics has nothing to do with my point, to
which you did not respond.

It would be difficult to confuse serving, which means working for
someone else and helping them, willingly or unwillingly (we all
"serve," BTW, whether in our jobs or in our families or in the
military service) with ownership, which means the condition of
belonging to someone. House-Elves either serve or want to serve
Wizards, whether they are owned by them or not.

Again, I think that owning of House-Elves must have begun with
voluntary service, with the House-Elf becoming bound to a family when
he or she was not given clothes. Once the House-Elf and his or her
descendants became, in essence, part of the household, the Wizards
regarded them as property to be passed on to their descendants and the
Elves themselves felt honor-bound to serve that particular family. 

All I'm saying is that the enchantment that "freed" the House-Elf by
giving him clothes probably was not placed by any Wizard. (How could
it have been, if it affects all House-Elves, even those who were yet
unborn at the time?) I think that Wizards took advantage of the
House-Elves desire to serve them (and who wouldn't?) and chose not to
give clothes to House-Elves that they wanted to keep in the family
once they found out about that enchantment. And House-Elves who were
happy serving those families would not have wanted to be given clothes
because it would mean that they had failed to please their masters.

a_svirn:
> Without bondage the picture you are painting (family retainers etc.)
is quite a happy one. But we know better. We've seen elves constrained
against their will. 

Carol:
By the enchantment that forces them to punish themselves when they
disobey their masters, not by servitude itself. 

BTW, human beings who are not slaves are also constrained against
their will all the time by such things as deadlines and tax laws. The
penalty for disobeying our masters (though we don't use the term) is
being fired or imprisoned.
> 
> > Carol:
> As for the enchantment that "frees" them when they're given clothes,
why would any Wizard want to do that to his own Elf or any other? 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Why indeed? So much more convenient to keep them bound. 

Carol:
I agree. I think that not giving them clothes is what "bound" them in
the first place. (See above.)

But I meant that no Wizard would have created the clothing enchantment
(which "freed" rather than bound the Elves). I think its part of
House-Elf nature. (I don't think that House-Elves existed during the
Pleistocene. They would have come into being no earlier than the New
Stone Age, with the advent of--wait for it--houses.)

> > Carol:
> > Forgive me for saying it yet again, but House-Elves are magical
creatures, just like dragons and Hippogriffs and Merpeople. They are
not human. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I readily forgive you, but it is quite unnecessary for you to remind
me of that. I have never denied the fact. 

Carol:
Good. But you do understand, I hope, that I am differentiating between
House-Elves as magical creatures and Wizards, who are not "creatures"
but people. House-Elves are bound by enchantments that don't apply to
human beings and their psychology differs from that of human beings,
the desire to serve Wizards being the most important component. It
seems to me that, while you do acknowledge that they're not human,
you're not taking their nature as nonhuman magical creatures into
account in your arguments.

Carol earlier:
> > Winky wants to be owned. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> When did she ever say so? She only wants to serve the Crouches. It
doesn't bother her that she's owned so long that she can have her
wish. But if she hated the Crouches she would be as unwilling to be
owned as Dobby and Kreacher. 

Carol:
Are you forgetting that Winky regards being "freed" and given clothes
as a disgrace? That, combined with the desire to return to Mr. Crouch,
which you acknowledge, amounts to wanting to be owned. Dobby (not
Kreacher) is the only House-Elf who considers his condition to be
slavery and who regards being "freed" as anything other than a badge
of shame. Kreacher's state of mind is very different, and he should
not be classed with Dobby as an Elf who wants to be "free."
> 
Carol earlier:
> > Kreacher has no objection to being owned.
> 
> a_svirn:
> He does, and says so very emphatically at that: "I won't! I won't".
And Dumbledore commented that Kreacher does not want to pass in 
Harry's ownership. 

Carol again:
He "won't" serve Harry (willingly), nor does he want to be owned *by
Harry.* But it's not an objection to either serving a master he
respects *or* being owned. Unlike Dobby, he does not want to be a
"Free Elf." He simply wants a master (owner, if you will) whom he can
respect, one who honors the traditions of the family he wants to
serve. It has nothing to do with ownership per se. (And, no. I'm not
confusing owning with serving. Kreacher wants to do one, as long as he
has a master he respects, and doesn't give a flying fig about the
other. Otherwise, he'd be upset about being owned instead of being
owned by the wrong person. He wants to be owned by *and* to serve the
Blacks. What he does *not* want and never once expresses a desire for,
is to be free.)

I've been too lazy to look up this quotation, which I think settles
the matter once and for all, but here it is.

Sirius Black, the "criminal" and renegade who "is not worthy to wipe
the slime from his mother's boots," according to Kreacher, says to
Hermione, who has suggested setting Kreacher free, after noting that
it's too dangerous to free him because he knows about the Order,
"Anyway, the shock would kill him. You suggest to him that he leaves
this house, and see how he takes it" (110). So, unless Sirius is
mistaken, and given Kreacher's devotion to his dead mistress, I don't
think he is, Kreacher does not want to be "free." He wants to "serve
the House of Black," which he can only do if Sirius Black owns him.
*That*, along with Harry's perceived unworthiness, is why Kreacher
"won't! won't! won't!"

Carol earlier:
> As we see, once he perceives Harry as worthy of his respect, he has
no problem serving him (or being owned by him). Essentially, House-Elf
ownership is a given like the desire to serve Wizards.
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't understand this phrase. 

Carol:
"A given" means something that can be taken for granted. But, to tell
the truth, I don't know what I meant, either. I think I meant that
Kreacher is unconcerned with being owned, which he takes for granted.
Forget that I said it. I'll try to word my ideas more precisely, in
the active voice, next time! :-)

Carol earlier:
>  He simply does not want to be owned by *HBP!Harry.* It's perfectly
okay with him to be owned by DH!Harry, just as it was perfectly okay
with him to be owned, as his ancestors were, by the Black family.
> 
> a_svirn:
> I like your *onlys* and *simplys*. Kreacher may not object to be 
owned by people whom he wants to serve, yes. But he clearly wants to 
make his own choices. Which he's quite unable to do while he is a 
bound slave. 

Carol:
Sorry about the "onlys" and "simplys." But I still say that Kreacher
has no problem serving DH!Harry (or post-"Kreaacher's Tale" Harry), as
we can easily confirm with reference to the end of that chapter and
subsequent ones. Nor does he have any problem with the concept of
ownership. As far as I can see, all he wants is a master worthy of his
service. 

To speculate for a moment, it probably helps that Harry is the heir of
the House of Black and is in 12 GP (Kreacher's home) when the events
of "Kreacher's Tale" occur. Once Harry becomes associated in
Kreacher's mind, through the lockets, with Regulus, Kreacher can see
himself as having not only a worthy owner (who is aiding Master
Regulus and helping Kreacher to carry out Master Regulus's last order)
but one who is, by association and informal adoption, a Black.

In any case, as I've already shown through the Sirius quotation,
Kreacher doesn't want to be free. As for "won't! won't! won't!" and
his expressed preference for the Malfoy boy (a Black descendant) over
Harry, he's just upset that Sirius's will passed him along to the
unworthy Harry rather than Miss Bellatrix. 

Kreacher *does* think about service and whom he wants to serve ("the
Noble House of Black). He doesn't think about ownership, per se
(that's Dumbledore's word). Note that he always uses the terms
"master" and "mistress," not "owner." He's thinking about the person
whom he must serve and not his status as "slave" or property. (Again,
he takes ownership for granted.)

Question: Do you really think that "freeing" Kreacher, which can only
be done by giving him clothes and which he would regard, per Sirius
and what we've seen of House-Elves in general, as a disgrace, would
enable him to serve the master of mistress of his choice? If he went,
as a disgraced House-Elf, to Bellatrix or to Narcissa, do you think
they wouldn't abuse him? Do you think they would pay him? Just
possibly, if he bound himself to serve them, the enchantment would
start all over again.

> a_svirn:
> That's the first time I heard that Peeves is "naturally" connected
to the castle. I would have thought he's connected supernaturally. 

Carol:
Hm. Then maybe we should use "supernatural" rather than "natural" with
reference to the nature of "House-Elf magic? But the problem is, I'm
talking about the nature of House-Elves and you're talking about
nature as a natural phenomenon.
> 
Carol earlier:
> We're not talking about human evolution or anything else that's
subject to a scientifc explanation.
> 
> a_svirn:
> And yet, you are trying to explain away their bondage scientifically
 as though it is some kind of an instinct. <snip>

Carol:
No, I'm not. I'm talking about their apparently inborn desire to serve
(which need not be labeled with any such scientific term as
"instinct") combined with an enchantment that binds them to serve
Wizards until they're given clothes. I am also exploring the
relationship between JKR's House-Elves and Elves in folklore. Where
science comes into that, I have no idea.

BTW, I don't know about you, but I see my own position as subtly
shifting thanks to this discussion as the inferences I draw from canon
are becoming clearer to me. That, I think is the point of this list;
not to convince others of our correctness but to clarify our own
interpretations.



> a_svirn:
> To quote Snape I see no difference. "To be a part of nature" is 
opposed "to be a part of culture". You are talking about essential 
qualities of house elves. 

Carol:
And "essential qualities of House-Elves"--their nature--has nothing to
do with clothing being a cultural artifact, a manmade, artificial,
nonnatural artifact. You're saying that they can't be born wearing
clothes. I say that's both obvious and irrelevant to the *enchantment*
that they appear to be born with, which amounts to what happens when
they're given clothes. The *enchantment,* like the desire to serve,
appears to be part of their nature. We know of no House-Elf who is not
bound by it. It's universal for House-Elves. Therefore, "natural" as
in clothing is unnatural is beside the point. "Natural" as in inborn
or an essential quality (as in, "housework comes *naturally* to them")
is what I'm talking about here. There *is* a difference between your
use of the word "natural" and mine we're not talking about the same
thing. Not being born with clothing has nothing to do with the
enchantment, which I'm postulating as a natural (inborn) part of their
being. It's as much a part of being a House-Elf as pointy ears and no
hair.

Let's take a human infant, Muggle or Wizard. What happens when he's
given clothes? Nothing (except a socially acceptable, comfortable,
temporarily clean infant). Put that human infant in a tea towel and
what happens? Nothing (except that the infant looks like a miniature
ancient Greek or Roman rather than a modern child).

Now take a House-Elf infant. What happens if you dress him in clothing
rather than a tea towel from birth or soon afterwards? We don't know
because it doesn't happen in canon. Would he be "free" from birth and
evicted from his master's household? That would be disastrous unless
his mother was also evictee, and not ideal even then. What happens
when you give a grown House-Elf clothes? Well, we know, don't we?
They're "free" to work for some other Wizard but not to return to
their masters, if Winky is any indication. So the clothing enchantment
is part of their nature but no part of human nature. And it has
nothing whatever to do with clothing being "unnatural."

a_svirn:
A desire to serve can be an essential quality. And is, in this
particular case. 

Carol:
Agreed. It's part of their nature.

a_svirn:
The established bond with other species cannot. Especially if it is
involved cultural artefacts.  

Carol:
But I'm not talking about "the established bond with other species."
I'm talking about the enchantment that "frees" them when they're given
clothing. The fact that clothing is a cultural artifact is completely
irrelevant.

Are they born subject to the enchantment? I'd say they are. And if
that's the case, it's as much a part of their nature, as much an
essential quality, as the desire to serve.
> 
> > Carol:
> (Houses are also cultural artifacts that don't exist in nature as
you're using the term, but House-Elves are obviously associated with
them.)
> 
> a_svirn:
> So are humans. I can't say I see your point. Humans may be
associated with their houses, but no one ever said that houses are a
part of human nature. 

Carol:
My point is that House-Elves are by their nature associated with
houses, which are cultural artifacts. They have no other reason for
being except to serve in Wizard houses, and the fact that houses don't
exist in nature doesn't mean that working in houses isn't part of
*their* nature. House-Elf nature, Mother Nature. Two different things.

The same goes for clothing. Both clothing and houses are associated
with the essential nature of House-Elves, one as the means of
"freeing" them from the enchantment they're born with, the other as
their reason for being.

As for houses not being part of human nature, we humans do have the
need for food, clothing, and shelter. But I doubt that there were
Cave-Elves. House-Elves would have come into being along with or after
houses came into being.

Carol, ending the post here because it's already out of hand