Great Article on Horcruxes
| On her blog JKR2 linked to an amazing article from Mugglenet on Horcruxes and Slavic Mythology. Many of you may have already seen this article but if you have not - check it out. Also read down through the comment thread between JKR2 and myself - I'm really excited about this article in that it represents some of the first information I have seen on the textual background of this key Rowlingian/Potterian image. I have been trying to figure out what the literal Latin meaning of "Horcrux" is. The "crux" ending is, I believe, the same as the etimology of the English word "cross" - as in the "cruxt" of the matter meaning the "center" or central thing or intersection. The "Hor" is a little harder to figure. I don't believ it comes from the word "hora" which Latin picks up from Greek vocabulary, which means "hour" as in a particular appointed hour (the Greek term is that used in the NT of "Christ's hour" not having yet come, or when it comes). I think it comes from the verb "Horreo" which is synomous with the verb "Horresco," both meaning "to shudder or dread" and both related to the adjective "Horribilis" which translates into the English "Horrible," which is of course related to "horror." So as near as I can place it it literally means "horrible intersection" "horrible cross" or "horrible meeting/combination" (as in an unatural combination or cross of things like a physical object and a portion of somebody's soul) or something along those lines but I have not yet lit upon any particularly siginificant deeper meaning to this, one that would elucidate a particular quality of the term that shows something specific about Voldy's character/agenda. ... Any suggestions anyone? There is also some interesting speculation (I think in this comment thread, although it may be another) of the question of what the resulting situation would have been had the diary Horcrux achieved substantial material presence and Voldy also regained his body as he did in GOF ... would they have been friends? I don't think so. |
Comments on "Great Article on Horcruxes"
-
jkr2 said ... (January 17, 2006 2:22 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 17, 2006 3:27 AM)
:
-
La Shawn Barber said ... (January 17, 2006 3:00 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 17, 2006 5:02 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 17, 2006 6:04 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 18, 2006 12:49 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 18, 2006 7:39 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 18, 2006 6:44 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 18, 2006 6:57 PM)
:
post a commentcertainly it is a horrible idea - as in full of horror!
the other comments re the 'alter ego' voldemort are on the thread -
"another HP ? re voldemort" (but i don't know how to make that a link!)
jkr2
neither do i ... I have to look it up - at one point Pauli sent me the text of an html-tag for it to use in text of a comment but I have to find it in my one email account
I read somewhere the likely meaning is "horrible cross." Now where did I read it..oh, here:
HP and the Charmed Christians II
Hmmmm, I'll have to read Granger's second book sometime, I only read the first one (possibly "self-published" on Zosima? - at least was the guess of a professor friend of mine based on the formatting) that came out back before book 5 - "back before he sold out, man!" (sorry, just a litle joke on the standard rock and roll "old school die hard" battle cry - I don't think John G sold out)
Although, I must point out that my own suggestion was a primary literay meaning of "cross" as in a "Gryffin is a cross between a ... and a ..." or "what do you get when you cross a ... with a ... ?" and a possible "spiritual" meaning of an evil perversion of the "Cross of Christ." In this I mean "spiritual" more specifically in the sense of the medeival Catholic understainding of the 3 "spiritual senses" and the 1 literal sense of Scripture (the four of which together as a system which usually get refered to as the "Quadriga"). The 3 Spiritual senses are the "Allegorical" (the way in which the literal sense corresponds to the events of the historical first coming of Christ - as the PBD points out in the IBC document, in the case of the Gospels the literal and spiritual senses are the same in this usage), the Tropological (or "moral" sense - in the case of the Pauline Epistles , the literal and moral sense may be the same with a unique allagorical sanse also) and the Anagogical or "Eschatological" (in the case of the book of Revelations many would see the anagogical and literal senses as being the same but I am more convinced by arguments that the literal sense of that book has more to do with typological reading of events present in 1st century Christianity and the liturgy, with the eschatalogical being a distinct sense)
I myself am not a big fan of jumping to the "spiritual senses" (the first of which is refered to as the "allegorical" sense) without some basis in (but not necessarily identity with) the literal sense, since this warning is the direction of even the more magisterial branches of the Roman Church (cf The Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1993 document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church p 85: "While there is a distinction between the two senses [literal and spiritual], the spiritual sense can never be stripped of its connectino with the literal sense")
(this is admittedly a Catholic perspective, but I am admittedly a Catholic, which case has also been made for medieval European imagination ... the point being made by an Anglican discussing the Grail in the Arthurian legends ... and medeival European imagination is a primary source of Rowling's Christian themes - and in treating Biblical Literature the PBC is still treating of literature)
The Cross on Calvary was a "cross" between the divine and the human and thus the pinnacle of the Incarnation (IE part and parcel of it) because you have to be human to die but only God could have that much love.
HCs may be intentionally representing a direct perversion of the Cross of Christ as the means of eternal life, but I think that is better based in it being first a perversion of the Incarnation: splitting a human soul and putting it in anything other than the human body to which its creator wed it would be a perversion of the "indwelling" involved in God becoming lfesh in the form of human body and soul.
LB/Merlin: Yes, just saying the word "cross" in a definition for horcrux would be problematic because of all the connotations it holds. Possibly a way to understand the crux part would be to look at the juncture/intersection sense, a horrible cross as a "horrible decision" - like the oft-repeated legend of selling one's soul to the devil "at the crossroads".
Interesting, I hadn't thought of that "subjective" side of the will (I had mainly focussed on the objective un-natural crossing of elements) - but I think it fits really well - a crux or intersection often being a place where a decision must be made.
I thought I would sort of clarify some on what I am aiming at in comparing HP with Bilibcal studies in regards to the "literal sense" and the "spiritual sense."
With the Bible the literal sense is the sense intended by the human author and the spiritual sense is that intended by the Divine Author - which can be simultaneous, but in all cases the point is that the Divine author was the one actually to create the human thought processes (as a model of the Divine Author's own intellect) and thus there is always a connection between the literal and spiritual senses.
The spiritual sense is sort of like the third dimension: it is completely congrous with the first 2 dimensions - seeing the third dimension of extension never violates the other 2 - in fact it makes them more understandable (think of the difference between a 2-d picture and the 3-d extended reality it potrays) in a new way, one htat you never could have imagined if you had only ever known a 2-d world.
It should be noted that not all of the distinct "human author's intentions" are consious ones. Some choices of wording etc may be made on sub-conscious realizations of some connections in the world (in other words, an author may say - "it just felt right" but not be able to explain why) - some of these things may come from cultural backgrounds which the author may not have firectly in mind but still have a "sense" of.
The spiritual sense really has to do with connections that are unconcious altogther (although even here, some of what i have said about "cultural traditions" can fall into the category of "unconscious" but still "human author" meanings - and maybe this is where the analogy between big "i" Inspiration and small "i" inspiration breaks down. The spirutal sense in big "i" Inspirations is those unconcious connections that are unconcious precisely NOBODY could have realized them before the Incarnation or without the aid of big "i" "Inspiration - but the Divine Author knew them and fully intended them.
And here is where the relation comes in with HP. In a peice of literature like HP there is no "divine authorship" or "Inspiration" with a capital "i" but there is "inspiration" with a lower-case "i." There is the ability to formulate this thing of putting a piece of your soul in material object and naming it a "horrible crossing" or "horrible combining" or "horrible interstection" and there may be the ability to see the latent or broader implications such as the role of and the impact of the will, and there may be the ability to see how well this fits a model of perversion of the Incarnation and thus a perversion of all savlific action, expecially the Crucifixion, and thus how a horcrux is also a "horrible cross" in that sense."
It is difficult to tell which of the connections between the literal sense of "horcrux" and the "spiritual sense" are conscious and which are sub-conscious and which are altogether unconcious - but I think they are all there in the nature of the world as created, and especially humanity, in the image of God.
That ability in the mind of humans to make the leap from the literal to the spiritual is based in nature, but nature transforemd by Grace.
But either way, I would say it is roughly analogous between the "Qaudriga" of "spiritual interpretation" of the Bible and what we're talking about as the literal sense and spiritual sense of the word "Horcrux" (the spiritual being the idea of a perversion or replacement specifically of eternal life being won through the Cross of Christ on Calvary).
A related topic here is Tolkien's concept of art as "Sub-creation."
Corrections from my original comment
- the abbreviation was "the PBC's IBC document" and refered to the later mentioned The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church promulgated by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1993. Apologies - the full reference should be first, but I don't always write things out fully in order.
-And the Anglican who characterized medeival Eurpoean imagination as being thouroughly Catholic and "entirely wrapped up in the Eucharist" was Charles Williams in an unfinished essay called "The Figure of Arthur" which he reportedly read to Lewis and Tolkien in one of their offices one afternoon. It can be found in a work that is not easy to find, which is usually refered to as the "Arthurian Torso" and contains Williams' 2 volumes of Arthurian Poetry ("Talesian through Logres" and "Region of the Sumemr Stars" - together comprising the whole Arthurian cycle as told through the eyes of the court minstrel Talesian), the above-mentioned unfinished essay, and an essay by Lewis on Williams' "Arthuriad" (as the two mentioned volumes are refered to collectively)