Priori Incantatem Part 3: The Missing Spell
| Read this aricle by Cristalle Watson. I mentioned it in my concluding comment in finally putting to rest our theory about the order of Lily and James during the "priori incantatem" scene at the end of Goblet of Fire. Very interesting; she contends that there might be something very significant about the reverse spell effect in that the spell which was intended to kill Harry isn't regurgitated. She brings up objections to her own theory, reconstructs the scene in Godric's Hollow, alternative wands and wandless magic. But this article was written in February 2005 which means it was written before the revelation of the Voldemort's horcruxes. This provided me with a new nearly-groundless speculation, which seems to have become my specialty on this weblog. (The "sword and the ring" deal isn't a speculation, and anyway it belongs to G. K. Chesterton.) So I herely speculate, based on very little "prima materia" that horcruxes are created using wandless magic. It might be possible also that horcruxes are "resurrected" using wandless magic also - think about the Tom Riddle/Ginny scene in the Chamber of Secrets. He was drawing life from Ginny without use of a wand. Doesn't Voldemort mention in the graveyard that any spell which could have helped him required a wand? But this was when he was a bodiless spirit, not a "trapped piece of soul". But I'm more curious about why a great wiz like Voldemort would make such a statement unless he was very accomplished at wandless magic and/or had wandless magic on the brain. Maybe Merlin's post applies here and Voldemort inded has a contempt for wands for the same reason he has a contempt for the wizarding world in general. And here's one more possibly unrelated tidbit - isn't potion creation kind of a wandless form of magic? Didn't even Snape poo-poo the use of wands in that famous first potions class? Hey, that reminded me of the "wands away" mantra of Delores Umbridge, possibly a betrayal of her love of bureaucracy over magic - her wand is also described as very short and stubby. |
Comments on "Priori Incantatem Part 3: The Missing Spell"
-
Merlin said ... (November 11, 2005 4:54 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (November 11, 2005 5:12 PM)
:
post a commentWow,
There is a lot there.
I think the speculation on horcruxes being wandless is a good one. Even if not "right" in the end I think it IS getting to somehting that is true in the story.
The whole thing of a specialness to murder in regards to sorcery is not original to Rowling. Charles Williams uses it in War in Heaven when he reveals that the anonymous murdered man found at the outset of the story was murdered by the character Gregory because he was required to do so in order to enter a circle of men focused on black magic (required simply to murder, it didn't matter who, and Gregory picked a complete stranger. He left the body, hoever, in the office of his employee Lionel Rachstraw, whose little boy becomes a central character)
But, in regards to your theory of horcruxes being wandless magic I was wondering if there might be two parts to the creation of a horcrux: the murder (which could be done with or without wand) which sort of "prepares" the soul for splittng (and which is the only way the soul can be "adequately prepared") and then a wandless magic which involves the presence of the murdered person (whose remains might still bear the mark/stain of the identity and malice of the murderer) and the objest to be made a horcrux.
Good observations on Snape and Umbridge.
Maybe the thing of potions being wandless is a sort of indicator on potions and on Snape. Both potions masters we have seen have been from Slytherin. Maybe, like the water element Slytherin Symbolizes, potions is something that can be used for goo but should be used with great caution (of course in Christianity we see the mostt dangerous element transformed into the conduit for the greatest good, Baptism. Maybe Snape's role in the story will be along these lines).
Most of the potions we see (especially in HBP)are not "un-natural" in the sense of "super-natural, but rather "contra-natural." Take love potions for example (and this is one of the reasons I love Rowling so much, her ability to weave the themes of the higher meaning in with "lower level" details of life). True Love is based in some knowledge of the person loved and a choice to love them .... the love potion distinctly involves neither (no knowledge of something making you "fall in love" and no choice in the matter). Note also that his is how Tom Riddle Jr came to be ... a love potion.
(PS this comment is so long because I just got home from work and need to take a shower and study, as well as attened to some nice cuts on the fingers of my left hand I acquired at work, and I dont have the time to construct a good post ... but I intend to possibly come back and copy and paste stuff into a better constructed post ... just getting the thoughtst this post has inspired "out on paper")
Hey, in connection with the Neitzsche posts, I just noticed this in proof reading my last comment (I know ... I missed some things in the proof reading).
Neitzsche is famous for his breaking the world down into a dichotomy of masters and slaves.
It is interesting that the only post at Hogwarts that seems to use the title "master" (at least in common paralnce) is potions. Everbody else usually gets refered to as "Transfiguration Professor" or "Charms professor" etc
Maybe DD always hitting on Harry calling Snape "professor Snape" was not just for Harry to learn respect but also to clarify the sanctity of the life direction Snape had chosen and what that says about his character.
Did you know that a "professor" or "professional" used to always mean "one who takes an oath" ... one who professes an oath (oaths are distinct from promises in that in a promise your own name is your gaurantee; in an oath the name of the god is the gaurantee ... "So help me God")
The idea was that the responsibility invovled was so great that the help of the god was required (teachers, doctors, lawyers or those responsible for the common good in the crafting of legislature).