Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Muggles of the Past?

  1. #1
    James Jameson
    Guest

    Muggles of the Past?

    Hi!

    "Muggle" seems like a more modern name to me. When would witches and wizards call "non magic folk" back in the day? Like, way way way WAY back there... as in Founder Era.... I'm thinking of writing a fic where I would need it...


    Thanks for any help I get!

    Tine

  2. #2
    Sixth Year Hufflepuff
    Seeking Keys
    inspirations's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a book <33
    Posts
    355
    Umm ... that's a difficult one. To be honest, I've never thought outside of "Muggle". If you wanted a word, I should think you could make one up or find one. I think back in the Founder Era though, wizards probably just looked down on Muggles - maybe they didn't really refer to them. You could take the word muggle and make it sound more old-fashioned as well. I can't think of an example off the top of my head. Maybe Muggleth - no! Awful suggestion. But you could fiddle with the word in that sort of way. Because you know, language has changed loads since Founder Era times.

    You could also see if Wiccans or other similar communities have a word for the non-magic.

    I hope I gave you some ideas. I try my best.

  3. #3
    owlstar
    Guest
    If your thinking of founders era i dont think that distinctions would be so defined. Us And Them labels tend to have roots in conflict or traumatic separations like the inroduction of the statute of secrecy maybe. I don't know if that helps or not sorry

  4. #4
    The Canon Queen Hufflepuff
    Unspeakable
    Hermione Couldn’t Possibly Be In Two Places At Once
    mudbloodproud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    With Sirius on his flying bike
    Posts
    1,204
    Originally posted by Owlstar:
    If your thinking of founders era i don't think that distinctions would be so defined. Us And Them labels tend to have roots in conflict or traumatic separations like the introduction of the statute of secrecy maybe.
    I would agree with this. I believe in the Founders Era there would not have been the desention between Muggles and wizards. I think the Burning Times and resulting Statute of Secrecy is what caused the rift and therefore the feeling that Muggles were less than wizards. I think for the most part, wizards and Muggles lived together quite well until fear and bigotry took over the Muggle world and caused the Burning Times.

    If you think about stories from that time period, there was almost always a 'wise woman' in each village. Who was this wise woman? Probably a witch.

    I think the Founders would have merely thought of Muggles as non-magic people but without rancor. With the exception of Salazar Slytherin. We know he did not look favorably on Muggleborns, so it stands to reason he would have looked down on Muggles.

    Hope this helps.
    Terri Black (as in Mrs Sirius {aka Padfoot} Black)
    Hufflepuff Head of House


  5. #5
    Azhure
    Guest
    The only thing is we have to make it clear when the Stature of Secrecy did come about. Because in real life there were witch burnings, witch hunting, etc. etc. And there's evidence that certain witches of the past in canon - Wendelin the Weird - that were burnt at the stake, but, of course, they were not harmed because they could protect themselves with charms.

    In our world, witch burnings occured in around the 14th and 15th centuries, but this, as we know, is after the Founders' time which was approximately around circa 1000AD.

    So, it depends how far back you're going. But we also have to remember that Salazar Slytherin wanted to kill off all Muggle-borns, so there must have been some sort of prejudice, even in the Founders' Era.

    But all this is off topic from the original question... I think they would've been called 'Muggles' in the Founders' Era. It's just one of those general terms that seem to have been around for ever.

    ~~Azhure~~

  6. #6
    Wizengamot Hufflepuff
    Kill the Spare
    Equinox Chick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    using rare and complicated words
    Posts
    2,899
    I agree with Azhure that they'd probably be called 'Muggles'. However, what you could do is spell it differently - rather like Quidditch was 'Kwidditch' (or something similar- not got book to hand). Pehaps Olde Englande Spellinge would play a part as well (Magik perhaps) So the could be "Yon Non-Magik Folke"

    Carole (trying very hard not to say Verily at all)
    xxx
    I'm a BARMAID. I write. I drabble. I duel. I poet. I'm a BADGER!!!

    Banner by minnabird

  7. #7
    LadyAlesha
    Guest
    I agree with those who posted before me that there probably wouldn't have been a word for Muggles in the Founder Era, but there would certainly have been one for wizard. So what you could do is use the word for wizard whenever the founders refer to themselves and have them call Muggles simply 'men'. This term wouldn't have negative connotations, but it could still sound condescending and dismissive if someone wanted it to. There are lots of words today that don't have negative connotations per say but that are used as swear words or derogatif terms simply by putting emphasis on them. In this way you can have all the founders use the same term for non-magical people, but Slytherin's way of saying it can show that he thinks they are beneath him.

    I went ahead and googled Anglo-Saxon/Old English dictionaries and found some words for wizard and man that you could use:

    Quote Originally Posted by Old English Dictionary
    galdre [] m (-es/-as) wizard, magician

    galdricge [] f (-an/-an) enchantress

    galere [] m (-es/-as) wizard, snake-charmer

    man [] 1. mann m, carl m [ON karl], ceorl m, carlmann m male; æðeling2 m hero, hæle2 m hero; gást m human being, gástberend2 m living soul; gummann m, gumrinc2 m warrior, gumþegen m; guma2 m lord; geféra m servant; free~ ceorlmann m; learned ~ lárwita m;

    ceorl [] m (-es/-as) 1. a freeman of the lowest class, churl, countryman, husbandman; 1a. 2 a (noble) man, hero; 1b. a (married) man, husband; 1c. man, male person; 2. a man of inferior class, peasant, rustic; ~a cyning king of the commons; 2a. where ceorl is in contrast to eorl; 2b. in contrast with þéow; 2c. a layman; 2d. as a term of contempt?; 3. a free man, as opposed to þéow, and to þrǽl a slave; or as opposed to þegen a thane or nobleman, as we say ‘gentle or simple’;
    There are more words and meanings in the dictionary so if you want to look at it yourself, PM me and I'll send you the link, I wasn't sure if I'm allowed to post it here.

    I hope this helps,
    Ilka.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •