Muggle Matters Home
About our site
Make Site Suggestions
Narrative defined (Merlin)
Silver & Gold (Merlin)
Elendil's Sword (Pauli)
"X" Marks/Chiasm (Merlin)
Literary Approaches (Merlin)
We hope you enjoy reading our Harry Potter discussion weblog. Please feel free to leave a comment and return often for more discussion.
"I will sing, sing a New Song"
Good theory from the "Dumbledore-faked-his-death" ...
Cleaning up with Joseph Pearce, in Verse and Prose
Good blog entry by Travis on characters "turning g...
Muggling Along
Fact Become Myth: C.S. Lewis and Israelite History
Modern vs Post-Modern: An Explanation of Harry Potter
Giants and Gin: C.S. Lewis' Narnia and Paganism
A Mystery
Paul Simon's Heart
Hogwarts, Hogwarts,
Hoggy Warty Hogwarts,
Teach us something please,
Whether we be old and bald,
Or young with scabby knees,
Our heads could do with filling,
With some interesting stuff,
For now they're bare
And full of air,
Dead flies and bits of fluff.
So teach us stuff worth knowing,
Bring back what we forgot,
Just do your best
We'll do the rest,
And learn until our brains all rot!
1: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2: Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3: There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4: Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5: Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6: His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
7: The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8: The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9: The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10: More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11: Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
12: Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
13: Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
14: Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
| Since we've been piling up comments about differing opinions on vows in a recent post, I figured I'd link up to this post on LaShawn's site which speculates that Snape also made an unbreakable vow with Dumbledore. Merlinus, you may fire at will! |
Comments on "Snape: Bound by multiple vows?"
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 2:42 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 09, 2006 2:49 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 2:55 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 3:00 PM)
:
-
La Shawn Barber said ... (January 09, 2006 3:13 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 3:23 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 4:56 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 5:04 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 09, 2006 5:21 PM)
:
post a commentI'll have to check out a more official write up of the theory like LaShawn's before I officially draw my arms - but one of my main questions (not really a problem as much as a question) that I have not heard answered by anyone suggesting this, is WHO (hypothetically) would you get to be the 3rd on that one? Minerve? Hagrid? Sluggo? Lupin? I think this question, provided it could be answered, would put even DD's cleverness to the test in the actual answering of it so He and Snape could do it - although I grant, if there is anybody who could word the vow cleverly enough to REALLY circumvent all or even most possible contingencies (ie consciously see them and actually concretely deal with them rather than count on loopholes) ... it would be DD.
I'm sure there are a lot of unbreakable vow notaries and lawyers in the wizarding world who could be a binder on a moment's notice. Or maybe they got Mundungus to do it one time when he was drunk?
After reading LaShawn's post, it seems to me that what the vow was on makes a difference - the theories I have heard thus far have either been that Snape made a vow to kill DD if it was necessary or the people who have been making the Theories have unconscioulsly conflated this with the "protect Harry" vow into one big nebulous vow.
Lashawn's is the first place I personally have encountered the idea of a clearly delineated UBV specifically on protecting Harry, but not concerning killing DD (as ruse etc). This is much more possible than a UBV to kill DD. Using the Chess analogy this might be a fulfillment of Ron's sacrificing himself to get Harry across the board in book 1.
In other words, I'm sure that Ron would Rather not have done that if he could have won without doing it and I'm sure part-way through the game ron looked back and said "shoot, should have done this rather than that" - and no chess player NEVER makes errors, even DD - and it may be possible that Snape had to make the UBV with Narcissa and in the end it meant DD had to sacrifice his queen (himself) to save his king (Harry) and leave both the king and say a knight or bishop (Snape) free to checkmate Voldy ... it's possible.
I still don't like the effects of Snape actually handling the AK curse ... for the record, I would not view the actual physical contact with the AK curse as even neutral, let alone good ... I think of it as the lesser of two evils. But I must admit it is possible that the lesser of two evils had to be chosen to allow a greater good.
Think about it ... you're gonna let Minerva or Lupin or Tonks or Hagrid know that the possibility of DD dying exists by letting them be the third on an unbreakable vow of Snape to let DD die, or more over to kill him? How do you think they'll react to the news? Do you think they'll react in a way safe for keeping the thing hidden? Mundungus? even drunk I think he would notice this (he'd have to be so blasted that his reason could not be really considered functioning enough to be the third on the UBV) and maybe sell the info to the highest bidder.
That is all on, as I said, the theories that I have heard before where the hypothetical UBV involved killing DD if necessary - not a former vow simply to protect Harry etc
Thanks for the link, Pauli. I'm trying to find some explanation for Snape's protection of Harry. He seems to hate him, and if he is protecting him, Dumbledore must have strongly urged him to, or to prove his loyalty to the Order, Snape must have vowed to protect young Harry.
BUT, I do have to add this ... on the possibility of a "notary" of sorts, or even anybody being privy to the information of even a UBV to protect Harry - it is not just the person but the wand that is privy.
Let's say a ministry of magic person did it and then got themself in a bind with death-eaters and Voldy ... the information that Snape made such a UBV would be worth something in maybe saving your skin in that situation and even if the person did not yield to temptation they may not necessarily be able to hold onto their wand and Voldy might be able to test it to see what it knows ... the only wand that seems really "safe" to me in this regard is DD's and even that is not absolutely certain (like for instance, do we really find out what happened to it in book 6 after Draco popped it out of his hand?).
Snape's wand would be accessible to Voldy and it may be that he does "wand checks" like the lie-detector machine in "Free-Jack" where the guy Mick Jagger tests says "I can't believe you don't trust me and need to test me" and Jagger replies "I wasn't testing you ... I was testing the machine."
And I cannot claim know at all if there are stipulations in UBV magic that the wand used not be one belonging to one of the participants, but it would seem congruous to me if there were such a stipulation because it would be fitting to the "transcendant" nature of the UBV.
The general impression I get is that UBVs are usually used for matters that you would not want, say, to have be "public" knowledge (meaning here "public" in a much more "general" sense than what is involved in having another as a witness for the "transcendant" nature of UVBs) ... but that is just an impression, theoretically the thing remains possible.
As far as Snape's protection of Harry, it could simply be that he is a "true believer." As much problem as he has had with James' and Harry's flippant behavior and arrogant strut and animosity toward himself, and as much problem as he may have with his own animosity towards Harry and possible great pain surrounding Lilly's death for such a brat(as he sees Harry - cf some of Grangers thoughts on teh debt Snape may owe Lily) ... he remains a human being and not one of Pavlov's dogs. It is possible that one of the single greatest self-sacrifices in the whole of the work will be Snape's decision to do the right thing and protect Harry as the final hope for undoing Voldy. Christian Charity does not demand that one like somebody else, but it does demand that they love them.
And it is still possible that Snape will do this to the greatest extent of anyone in the works, even Harry's mother. It is possible that he will do it to the greatest extent possible, "no greater love has on man than to lay down his life ..." I think it was on Mugglenet but I'm not sure, that I was reading some of the interviews with Rowling and she noted a difference between Lily and James. James is honorable but his rushing in to save his wife and child is more of a gut level reaction. JKR seems to let it go (intentionally slip) that Voldy probably offered Lily a chance to live by stepping aside, and that this opporunity to deliberate on the possibility of not giving up her life puts her sacrifice in a higher class than James'. BUT as the good book says, (to quote Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof) - anyone wil make a sacrifice for a "friend" but the truly charitable one will make a sacrifice for an "enemy" as well ... I think Harry definitely classifies as an enemy of Snape in this sense and for Snape to willingly lay down his life for Harry to have a shot at voldy would, I think, be even higher (if possible) than Lily's sacrifice since he is her son and obviously she would love her baby boy with a great emotional fervor.
Now, on what we have been saying on UBVs and what I have been saying on the "sacramental" quality of it in regards to marriage. A question came to me in this regard: wouldn't a thrid party be bound to secrecy like a priest would be in the confessional? (since this is sort of the analogy that is going on, with the third party being a representative of the "trascendant" as the priest represents the Church as witness and channel of all graces, although not the specific minister in the specific sacrament of marriage)
1. The priest is only bound to a seal in the sacrament of confession, but with other sacraments the priest is not bound (such as marriage)
2. We have already seen one who WAS bound to secrecy reveal the secret ... when Peter gave up the Potters' location to Voldy on that fateful night. Even were the third party bound, it is possible for them to break the bond to their own detriment/damnation (just as it is possible for a priest to break the seal of the confessional to his own detriment)
On what I have said as far as the oath/vow being "swearing by the name of a god" in ancient cultures and the fact that there is not a mention of such in the UBV in HBP.
That aspect of appeal to the transcendat is covered by the magic from Bella's wand in the way proper to literature.
This is analogous to the thoughts of Joseph Pearce (I can't really cite a reference here because I personally heard him say it in a Q&A session following a talk he gave at FUS where I did my MA) concerning the lack of the "presence of God" in The Lord of the Rings. For Rowling to have had God (or a god)directly invovled in the UBV would have been a huge diversion from the proper scope of her work as a piece of literature. Pearce notes that, since the scope of LOTR is "pre-Incarnational" (or I would say "extra-Incarnational in its literal, or material, scope - although not it's artistic scope) the only "god" there could have been would have been like Plato's greatest good or Aristotle's "unmove mover" (as Iluvatar is in The Silmarillion) or a pagan idol cult god.
I would say the same is true of Rowling's work. She does include elements such as Christmas, but this is really on the level of a braoder cultural frame that is part of the setting of the works as being in contemporary England (much in the same way as in the history of English myths Christian elements have been woven intimately into the naional/ethnic consciousness of English myth and history.
Charles Williams does a sublime job of discussing the tension between the political and religious realities of Brittain as, respectively, the Arthurian-mythical kingdoms of Brittain and Logres, and between them is the "Wood of Brocelenaide" in which is the Chapel of the Fisher King, who is both King of Brittain and Pendragon of Logres (and his wound in the thigh and the barrenness of the land is really the tension between the two kingdoms). Lewis uses this tension between these two kingdoms in the end of That Hideous Strength when he reveals Ransom as the current Pendragon of Logres, the first two of which were Uther and Arthur Pendragon.
Majorly intense stuff, it'll make your head spin and your heart soar