Letter 38: Victor Krum to Hermione Granger, 15th October 2000

A/N: For simplicity's sake, titles of books, journals etc are underlined and emphasises are italicised. In reviving the old tradition of epistolary novels, I understand the plot may be a little slow, laborious and difficult to follow. Some might consider it AU and a little OOC.

In order not to weary the reader's patience, a number of letters from the series of correspondences have been suppressed; those only have been given which appeared necessary to a complete understanding of the events in this group. For the same reason, some letters from the actors in the events of this drama have also been suppressed.

One reviewer of letter 36 wanted to know if Victor was also deciphering the message. Having received many emails to that effect and doubtlessly enraging many for my refusal to reply, I urge you to read this letter and put your conjectures on that score to rest.

Proestigium or What the Seasons may Bring

Letter 38: Victor Krum to Hermione Granger, 15th October 2000

Victor Krum

284, Makarios Avenue

Cy-3720 Sophia,

Bulgaria

October 15, 2000

Hello Hermione,

I received your message on the Krum doll. Thank you for the new broom servicing kit, you always know what I need. Irina is unhappy that we beat the Russian team again, so I will have to take her out later tonight.

I do not know why the publication of Nomos has been delayed at your end. Never mind, I will send you a copy of Jigger's article like you asked. I am very surprised that he is Severus Snape. If you remember, I always said that I suspected something was not right about this Dr Jigger. I am confused. You write to him and he does not answer. But you comment on each other in publications? Very funny, no? I do not mean funny ha-ha, but the other kind of funny. You know he gets your letters because they do not get sent back to you. I do not understand. If Severus Snape does not want to reply to your letters, why does not he send them back to you? Is there really some form of communication between the two of you in the journals? I see nothing that tells me that there is.

I do not think that going to his home to look for him is a good idea. If he does not want to reply to your letters, he will not want to see you either.

I must fly, Irina is here. Send my best thoughts to the newest Aurors, Harry Potter and Ron Weasley. And don't worry, the secret of Jigger is safe with me.

Your friend,

Victor

P/S Here is the Jigger article in Nomos.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nomos, (English edition) Vol. 1111, No. 5.

A Critique of Hermione Granger's Review of Acton Levis's Machiavellian Potions.

By Arsenius Jigger

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So far, there has been little consideration on Machiavellian potions. Prior to Levis and Granger, Machiavelli's contribution to the art of potion making was not considered for over two centuries. Engelhard will say that Machiavelli's contribution to magic is purely philosophical and politically. Acton Levis adds to this by claiming (rightly), "Modernity is this obsession with change and we're experiencing it now with this period of radical change – in the economy, in our way of life, in the way we live, in the way we work." Keeping this in mind, one will fall on Granger's reasoning that Machiavelli is the father of modern potion brewing. Notes made by Machiavelli in his book, Discourses on Livy prove that his potions are not of a naturally insidious nature. On the contrary, their purposes are for the unification of the mind and the soul so as to strengthen a person's noble character. That much, at least, is intimated in the work. On the matter of whether it has been conclusively proven, I am able to safely conclude that no one has successfully cracked the elaborate code he uses in his writings. Furthermore, Machiavelli's works are couched as political treatises, which make his work more difficult to decipher and interpret. Levis, however, claims that Machiavelli's potions are evil because his Florentine Brew is designed to reunite the spirit with the body without raising the dead. Ordinarily, this view would have been perpetuated if Granger had not entered the debate with her notion that the Florentine Brew is supposed to moderate the impulses by amalgamating the bodily desire with the spiritual one. Vouching for this theory, is Machiavelli's own words, "A quickening will develop without touching those things which had died." Effectively, what this means is that the 'dead' refers to the faculties and bad habits which the subject has since weeded out of his character. While it is possible that a cadaver is alluded to, Granger conclusively proves that Machiavelli cannot be read literally in the Profundis Potion that she uses for her article. Hence, she is right in her surmise.

Elucidating this further by means of the Machiavellian problem, Granger attempts to lay down the fundamental premises for modern potion brewing. Nevertheless, she does not take into account the school of Realist Potion Brewing created by some alchemists claiming to follow the Florentine way. In her neglect, she does not realise that Machiavellian potions fell out of use because the end of Machiavellianism in potions is not just around the corner; it is not of this world at all. Which is, in the fact, the same as saying that the controversy created by Machiavellian potions will not lead to perfect results as there will be factors beyond one's control. In looking at Machiavellian potions objectively, rationally without sentiment and dispassionately, as Granger attempts to do, one can conclude that they have many uses, if we are able to uncover their true meaning. Leafing through Levis' book, I am inclined to agree with Granger that he is unacquainted with the twenty-seven different views of looking at Machiavelli's potions. Last but not least, Granger should be congratulated for looking at Machiavelli's style of writing rather than his potions per se. Correct interpretations of his potions are dependent on deciphering his style. Other methods of reading that one might employ can be gleaned from Hobbes, Laird and Strauss. Recognising the inherent difficulty of reading Machiavelli is half the task of the researcher. Researchers must also consult the secondary literature to get a feel of the conflicting views on this phenomenal figure's alchemical formulas.

Until such time when we are able to say for certain that Machiavelli intended for us to read his potions in a certain way, I encourage all scholars to take the Hobbesian view of keeping an open mind. Pinning down one reading alone will do the scholar no good. There is no doubt that Granger is on the right track in her assessment of Machiavelli's writing. Yielding to the superiority of her exoteric reading could be the best option for those who are only beginning to take up the study of Machiavellian potions. Of course, the reader must be aware that Granger is not infallible. Undoubtedly, you would have noticed that I have criticised some aspects of her reading. Restraining oneself from underestimating Machiavelli would be the best advice for Granger if she is to continue her education in Machiavellian potions. So, what is left to say? Other than the fact that Granger has encapsulated many of Machiavelli's points in her assessment, she should have also considered his own clarification of his writings. Unless she does so, she will not comprehend Machiavelli's qualifications on his explanations. Leaving you with that thought, I caution against dismissing Machiavellian potions potential for the wizarding world.

Footnotes

Proestigium is Latin for illusion. Ironically, the English word Prestige derives from it.

The letter structure and style of this letter may leave some fuming. Let me stress that Victor Krum's first language is not English. He does not write or speak English as well as native speakers.

If you extract the first letter of each of the review's sentences (notice that I stress sentences, not every capital alphabet), they read, "SPEAK NOT OF LOVE WHEN I WILL CORRUPT YOUR SOUL."

Readers have been asking me why HG and SS are communicating through journal articles rather than letters. The answer is simple – SS refuses to reply to HG's letters (apparent in letters 37 and 39), instead he chooses to reply to her in kind through journal articles. Why journal articles? She started the ball rolling with the article annexed to letter 35. I assume as should you that SS and HG read, subscribe and contribute to several alchemical/potion journals.

By now, you should have realised that "corresponding" through journal articles is extremely tedious because HG and SS have to comb through all the potions and alchemical journals, find the other party's articles, decipher the message (if any) in the article and write a response to the person and the alchemical community. But when dealing with a stubborn man like Severus, what else can one do?