Magic "Like Fire in the Bones" in Deathly Hallows

I have mentioned a fair bit on here, particularly talking about issues of prophecy and such, imagery from the Old Testament book of the prophet Jeremiah (much stuff gleaned from a class I took on the book back in the Spring semester). The book and it's themes definitely played a role larger than mere "religion" or "Biblical Studies," a role in art, well into/past the late Middle Ages - with the prophet appearing in a number of medeival wood carvings and a famous painting by Rembrandt (I believe) - the time periods Rowling would have been studying as a classics major (and, as Granger ash noted, Rennaissance buff). I have noted a number of image sets that Rowling seems to like that are in common with Jeremianic images - the one that comes to mind first (outside of the one I am about to develop here, fire in the bones) is the death eaters circling the cage of Phoenix song in GOF specifically noted as being like jackals, and jackals are used a fair bit in Jeremiah as symbols of the desolation brought by the disentegration of the kingdom of Judah and also of God's judgment on Babylon, both cities becoming the "haunt of jackals." But this Jeremianic image to talk about here is much more dire. Compare Aberforth's retelling of his sister Ariana's story with Jeremiah 20:7-9. Going into this I would fist note something that in both cases could and will be disputed. I believe that the ambiguity in language owes to the greviousness of the event/image - with at least an allusion to (if not a full inclusion of, but I will explain in a moment what I mean) a sexual nature . In Ariana's case I believe the lack of detail but with presence of certain grave phrasings indicates something possibly sexual in nature or involving areas of the body direcly connected with sexuality (the boys were young, whether they would have had certain direct and violent criminal actions even in their mind to do, one should give the benefit of the doubt ... but it is possible for kids to pick up many other sexually tinged things, whether they be physical action or verbal taunts, as things to be used as weapons or in coercion). This is only a conjecture - but in such cases often the lack of detail (ANY detail as to the nature of the crime - as in not even "killed him" vs "slit his throat" or all the gorey details you find in works like the Illiad [everybody being split crotch to navel, bowels everywhere, eyeballs rolling around on the ground ... the Greek classics spare no details on war]) but with language pointing to something very serious is a sign of respect, the way instructors tell EMTs in cases of the victim of a particularly violating crime simply to wrap the victim in a blanket until reaching the hospital, and it is not necessarily for concerns of warmth, and while it may have some forensic protective value I suspect it is usually just as much for psychological considerations (the lack of detail is somewhat like the scene in Shawshank Redemption the first time Robbins' character is overpowered by the three men, the volume drops as the camera backs around the corner ... you know what happens, you don't need the details ... it is a sign of respect). I cannot say with certainty that this is what Rowling means by it ... in part I think it is because that is part of the respect factor. I do think that older readers are meant to ask the question, and that the very question itself is meant, for older readers, as a path to feeling exactly how strongly whatever it was impacted the girl, hurt her. Even if it is not meant to be indicative of a specificaly sexual inceident, I think the "lacunae" in details combined with the severity of tone ("It destroyed her") is meant to conjure that feeling: wounds inflicted by one human person upon another so deep that you do not speak of them or their details except where the situation requires it (like Aberfoth telling the trio the story and the dire effects the divide has), for to do so casually or idly, (or for profit - or the prophet? - as Rita Skeeter does) is to disrespect the person gravely. In other words the sexual allusion might serve not necessarily to say that the incident was indeed sexual in nature, but to portray exactly how deep of a wounding happened to Ariana - that is another possible interpretation of the text. In the case of Jeremiah the word used for "deceive" has a high occurence rate in other contemporaneous literature with connotations of highly invasive, often sexual in nature, violation. The use of the term in Jeremiah is, as one would expect, a hotbed and minefield of exegtical and interpretational problems/debates/arguments/barroom-brawls. The best core concept that I can find, especially given the following "fire in the bones" verse, is the invasion of personal space, meaning the very body of the person, no barrier at all, right into the marrow of the bones (a very effective image and word, "marrow" ... that was the line that stuck in my head more than any immediately from the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie, when one of the Dutchman crew says "down on your marrow bones and pray"). Ariana's Story (DH 564) [Aberforth Dumbledore] "They forced their way through the hedge, and when she couldn't show them the trick, they got a bit carried away tryin to stop the little freak doing it." "It destroyed her, what they did: She was never right again. She wouldn't use magic, but she couldn't get rid of it; it turned inward and drove her mad, it exploded out of her when she couldn't control it, and at times she was strange and dangerous." Jeremiah 20: 7-9 ("Jeremiahs complaint/Lament") NIV 7 O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me. 8 Whenever I speak, I cry out proclaiming violence and destruction. So the word of the LORD has brought me insult and reproach all day long. 9 But if I say, "I will not mention him or speak any more in his name," his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot. "You shall know the turth and the truth shall set you free." But I think the message in Rowling's work, as Harry finds out in "the forest again," is that when the truth will set you free, is when they crucify you for it. But Harry is 17 years old and makes the choice himself. Ariana was 6 years old and deserved the "hidden years" our Lord had before his public ministry, or at least the 6 years Harry had at Hogwarts with the very direct attention of Dumbledore (even if he couldn't see it all the time). I think that Ariana's "fire in the bones" is Albus Dumbledore's greatest regret: his shame felt of the wizarding world bickering over other things while it should be working harder at better integration so that things like this dont' happen in the first place (like Aberforth said, "she was a kid, she couldn't control it, no witch or wizard can at that age."); at himself for being so wrapped up in Grindewald's world that he could not see straight to take care of his sister better in the aftermath. I will discuss more later the LARGE issue of the deconstruction of Dumbledore, but for here, this is the regret of Albus Dumbledore (and for the next post I will just say here, it is VERY important that it is a regret to him).