Questions on the Sword

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I'm working on a couple more essays for my "Indestructible" series, and a separate essay on Harry's moral education. But I thought I'd toss out here a couple of questions that have been nagging me on a mostly-unrelated topic.

The fabled Sword of Gryffindor.

Because as I was considering Severus' moral arc in DH I found myself asking questions about that little scene by the pond, and what he's doing with the sword there and why. And from there I started asking myself about the sword itself. And suddenly things that I had unreflectively accepted as making sense started to seem less so.

By which I mean: the Sword of Gryffindor?

The Sword of Gryffindor?

Godric Gryffindor, legendary wizard and co-founder of a magical school in which wands are the fundamental required tool for functionally any life skill, including combat, left behind as his most powerful and revered artifact a sword?

Blink.

Something feels just a little off, here. Help me unravel it?


First question:

Why a sword?

Yes, yes, I know, symbolism and it's a fantasy book, you've got to have a magic sword for the brave hero, blah blah.

Watsonianly here. What's up with Godric leaving the school a sword, and not a wand of some kind? Ollivander's was established in 382 B.C., so cored wands were in use long before Hogwarts' founding sometime in the late 900s A.D. And in addition to cored wands being most likely far more easy to channel magic through than regular solid objects (based on what we see of potions, where you pretty much have to be using standard stirring rods in order to get consistent results and which seem that much more difficult to master), a sword in particular is going to have very, very limited use compared to a wand.

At first I theorized that he may have been a knight of some kind and carried a regular Muggle sword as well as a wizard's wand, but the sword of course is Goblin-made. And even still, no matter the provenance of the sword, it wouldn't explain why his sword is the powerful magical artifact left behind to be linked to his name (besides the hat).

The sword itself, though it seems to be treated as a powerful magical artifact of some kind, actually displays few particularly unique abilities that would seem to justify its status on that front. When Harry uses it to kill the basilisk it's its functionality as a sword that he uses. And later we're told that it's able to destroy horcuxes because of the basilisk venom impregnated in the blade from that encounter, not because of any inherent power of its own.

Indeed, the only peculiar power I can remember the sword displaying beyond that is the ability that people (supposedly only Gryffindors, though he've never had a test case against that) occasionally have of pulling it out of Godric's hat in the middle of battle. Which is undoubtedly useful, if you happen to need a sword, but doesn't answer why it's held in such reverence to this day. Or why Godric would have had it in the first place.

Second question:

As to that issue of using the sword and who is worthy to carry it...

Need and valor? Those were portrait-Dumbledore's words to Severus, yes? "Do not forget that it must be taken under conditions of need and valor -"

Why?

Clearly those conditions don't apply to touching or carrying the sword in general: Severus carries it easily (yes, yes, he's quite valorous, but you know what I mean) without having taken it under any specific conditions, and in all of the fake-sword dealings nobody bats an eye at the idea of either the kids or Bellatrix being able to handle the sword, or points out that this might indicate a fake is in play.

Nor is it clear how the sword would supposedly distinguish, or react, to someone who is carrying it suddenly switching to using it without having taken it under these special conditions beforehand. And how are we defining 'use' in this case anyway? Harry and Neville do take it from the hat under such conditions and use it as a sword, but it seems unlikely and difficult to pin down how it would work if it was, say, some distinction between handling and using the sword that was at issue.

I could see this being a restriction on the times it can be pulled from the hat, but that doesn't explain why both Dumbledore and Severus act as if it is a general requirement, leading to the need to stage that little scene in the woods.

So what's up with the "need and valor" aspect?

Comments

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I wish I knew! It actually makes no sense given what we see of the sword and its use. As to "why a sword", I think there was some sort of explanation on Pottermore about Gryffindor using it to duel Muggles, so that he wouldn't have an unfair advantage as a wizard, or something. What gets me, of course, is that, however "fair" he might have been to his Muggle opponents (and I'd love to see a story where some enterprising page or squire beat the pants off him!), he was not at all fair to the Goblins. I speak as a member of the Gringotts Grrls (or Girls). As such, I'm again going to quote a song we wrote on the subject:

The Wizard folk may call it
The Sword of Gryffindor,
But he is not the owner,
That man we made if for!
No, Godric's not the owner,
Although he paid a fee,
For what we have created
Is ours perpetually.
Yes! What we have created
Is ours perpetually.

Sometimes I think this may relate to copyright law! But I am straying far afield now. I like the idea that the "need and valor" thing relates to pulling the sword from the hat, and that only. Once again, I'd guess, Dumbledore didn't know what he was talking about.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

Godric Gryffindor carried a sword because Godric represents the aristocracy, and aristocrats carry swords as a symbol of status. Aristocrats and gentry continued to carry them as status symbols through the eighteenth century, long after the advent of firearms. In the nineteenth century, military officers still carried swords, though enlisted men had bayonets as their stabbing weapons. Even civilians of the upper classes wore swords when they were presented at Court, though in everyday life they switched to walking sticks, which were likewise never used for anything other than appearance. (In the twentieth century, the sword/walking stick became a furled umbrella.) It doesn’t matter that Godric didn’t need the sword as a practical weapon, any more than the court sword one wore when being presented to the monarch was a practical weapon. What matters is the symbolism.

I once saw a production of Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro in which the servant Figaro, while singing an aria in which he describes how he plans to get vengeance on his master the Count for trying to muscle in on Figaro’s wife-to-be, began the song while cleaning the Count’s sword. But by the time he reached the end, he was fighting a mock-duel, demonstrating clearly that he knew how to use it, which is something no servant should be able to do. This really brought home the radical political message of this opera, in which all the servants are smarter than the masters and all the women are smarter than the men.

Swords are for aristocrats and gentry (Gryffindors) only. No peasant (Hufflepuff), merchant (Slytherin), or member of the clergy (Ravenclaw) is allowed to handle one. Even Severus did no more than deliver the Sword, as a servant would do. By retreiving the Sword from the pond and using it to kill the Horcrux, Ron proved that the Weasleys are still true gentry, though their financial situation is sadly decayed. It was his moment of true glory.

Severus, our Working Class Hero, neither receives nor desires glory. He just wants to get the job done. Slytherins use any means to achieve their ends, whether it results in glory or not. No wonder Gryffs think they’re all scum.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Ooh! I like the way you've divided the houses; that makes so much sense. So Gryffindor needed the sword to "fit in" as a nobleman? In that case, he probably never used it at all. It would have been for show. That, too, makes sense, though it doesn't match what we see of the sword in the series.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

I don’t think of it in terms of “fitting in.” This was centuries before the separation of the wizarding and muggle worlds. At that time it was all one culture. A nobleman carried a sword, and Godric was a nobleman. Because he was a magical nobleman it was a magical sword, but it never would have occurred to him not to carry one, even though his wand was a far more versatile and useful tool, which he must have used a great deal more often.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Good thoughts - the social role of it, as well as the actual use...

I like the way you break up the houses!

Severus, our Working Class Hero, neither receives nor desires glory. He just wants to get the job done. Slytherins use any means to achieve their ends, whether it results in glory or not.

Why I will always root for the Slyths and admire our Head of House. ;)

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Dumbledore not knowing what he was talking about - that wouldn't surprise me, yep.

The way wizards treat non-wizards is really just atrocious, isn't it? (I'll have to look for your song! How cool.)

[spongebending.livejournal.com]

The wand really would have more sense. Even more so because it's the symbol of fire!

I believe Rowling has said (pretty sure it was on Pottermore) that houses represent to four elements, Hufflepuff is earth, Ravenclaw is air, Slytherin is water, and Gryffindor is fire.
I believe it has also been elaborated on here, how the different elements represent the different parts of the self; earth is the body and practicality, air is the mind and reason, water is the heart and emotions, while fire is the spirit and our willpower/passion.
In the occult, the elements also have symbols, that are most commonly seen in the Minor Arcana of the Tarot.
Wands are fire, chalices are water (while in Harry Potter, the cup is used for the earth founder, Helga Hufflepuff), pentacles or coins are earth, and swords are actually air.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was thinking about the tarot suits as I wrote this. The sword really would be more suited to Ravenclaw in that regard. Though then also the Cup would rightfully be for Slytherin.

It's almost like the dissonance with the characterization of the Houses is them being too divorced from their real roots, distorted somehow...

[spongebending.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I definitely felt that dissonance too. With Slytherin the most of all, Slytherin is supposed to house of water and emotions; and I do sometimes get the feeling that emotions and sensitivity are scorned by the Gryffs (though not anger- anger is fiery and passionate), think of Cho Chang, Moaning Myrtle, and sobbing Draco in the bathroom. But then JK will turn around and say the Slyths are 'cold and emotionless', which seems to contradict what she has actually written.

Also, personally I always felt that the Cup would've been perfect for Slytherin, in all it's liquid, watery symbolism.

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

Really, none of the Founders objects make much sense. Not even without the tarot being involved.

What does a coronet -- tiaras were NOT known in the time of the founders -- have to do with intelligence? Or for that matter with scholarly pursuits? They too are a symbol of nobility. Not appropriate to the clerics. Of course, I think JKR was really taking a swipe at intelligence as vanity and hence the reason she kept calling it a tiara.

And the Cup? That should have been Slytherin's. Not just because of the water implication, but he was the Potion's expert! The only connection I can make to Hufflepuff is the hint that she was an alewife in the barrels for the common room entrance as per Pottermore.

And just WHY would a WIZARD have a locket? Not to mention that actual lockets are more of a victorian thing, not medieval. The closet thing to a locket in that time period would be some kind of pilgrim's ampule or very tiny reliquary worn on a chain. Certainly not something that opened up to matching sides. Those terribly tiny minature portraits didn't come into play until closer to the Renaissance - several centuries after the Founders' time.

[sunnyskywalker]

As for the coronet/tiara/whatever it is, iirc in Rowena's time, powerful abbesses often came from noble and royal houses. Some daughters to marry well and make the family new connections to temporal power, others to the church to gain power there. Similar to the fate of spare noble sons. So you could fanwank it as a sign that Rowena eas a high-born younger daughter who joined the church (at least in her youth; she might have left to have her daughter and to found Hogwarts if the school was not conceived of as some sort of monastic or cathedral school at first based) and did the church scholar thing but stayed close to her powerful family and expected recognition of her status. So, a noble or royal cleric could work.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

I always think of Rowena as a former abbess who left the Church to marry—or maybe because she had to marry. The Bloody Baron’s interest in Helena would indicate the family was noble.

[vermouth1991.livejournal.com]

What does a coronet -- tiaras were NOT known in the time of the founders -- have to do with intelligence? Or for that matter with scholarly pursuits? They too are a symbol of nobility. Not appropriate to the clerics. Of course, I think JKR was really taking a swipe at intelligence as vanity and hence the reason she kept calling it a tiara.

Speaking of which, in what century did European scientists figure out that the brain is for thinking and not the heart?

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

This really isn't true, but I think Godric thought it showed more bravery to use a sword than a wand because he wouldn't be using his magic -- something like fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

But in truth I think it was because it was showier. Anyone in any house has a wand. Any of the other Founders could just as easily left their wand.

My personal little bit of head-canon involves an epic poem about the historical Battle of Maldon. IF anyone is interested, you'll have to google since we can't put in links.

The battle took place in 991. Just about the time the founders got together to form a school. There are two Godrics in it. One very brave, who was killed and one who took the leader's horse and fled, leading many away.

Truthfully, after the leader did a stupidly gryffie move, waiting to allow the Vikings to successfully land and leave their boats (rather than attacking as they came out of the water and were at a disadvantage), I must say that I don't blame him once it turned into a rout.

But this must have been a terrible blow to an anglo-saxon warrior's reputation. I rather like the idea that Godric had to flee all the way to Scotland to hide from his peers' contempt of his cowardice. I just personally love the idea that Gryffie Bravery is all based on an attempt to hide a time when Godric fled.

I think the Sword feels wrong partially because it's a bit 'doth protest too much'.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

'doth protest too much' - exactly. It's a little much</i<. Godric fleeing and the House of bravery omg! I'm cackling now.

Maldon

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

To both of you: there's a wonderful story in "Wordhoard" by Jill Paton Walsh and Kevin Crossley Holland, addressing precisely this history. Not Godric Gryffindor, of course, but Maldon and the Godric who fled.

Sword = bravery

[nx74defiant.livejournal.com]

I`ve seen programs about early guns where they talked about how guns were considered cowardly. That many considered it more noble to use a sword. They tried to cling to the tradition of the "noble knights".

Maldon

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

To both of you: there's a wonderful story in "Wordhoard" by Jill Paton Walsh and Kevin Crossley Holland, addressing precisely this history. Not Godric Gryffindor, of course, but Maldon and the Godric who fled.

Maldon

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

To both of you: there's a wonderful story in "Wordhoard" by Jill Paton Walsh and Kevin Crossley Holland, addressing precisely this history. Not Godric Gryffindor, of course, but Maldon and the Godric who fled.

[vermouth1991.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of the explanation of why Clark Kent chooses to be a news reporter as his day job: because it requires his own brains and talking to people and it has nothing to do with his superpowers, plus it provides good cover when he rushes off to dangerous places as Superman—they'll just think he's going into the lion's den for news coverage.

Late to the party

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Also, it's braver to use a sword because you have to move within reach of your opponent. Even a magical one, which can do things a regular sword can't (like be simultaneously light enough to be lifted by a small twelve-year-old and heavy enough to lop off a snake's head. Not to mention capable of killing magical beasts period--I really don't think a regular sword could have killed the basilisk, at least).

With a wand, you can keep your distance and just fire spells off (if you're competent). With a sword, though, you have to put yourself at risk. It's not a throwing knife; you have to get within arms reach (or claw or fang's reach) to use it.

So it's much braver and nobler to use than a wand.

[penguinsuzie.livejournal.com]

It seems like the sword was suppose to resemble Excalibur, though that would have been before the founders time. I don't think it's the same sword but I wonder if Godric putting his sword in the hat as a kind of test was suppose to mimic Excalibur and the worthiness needed to release it, and it later turned into a legend about requirements needed to actually wield the Sword of Gryffindor. The wizards of the present have a kind of awe towards Merlin and I wonder if even in the founders time there was a kind of reverence towards the tales. I can imagine Godric wanting to emulate King Arthur.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah. There's definitely that whole image at work, I think you're right.

Also wasn't it terri or swythyv who theorized that Albus originally thought he'd play Merlin to Harry's Arthur? Wizards do have a bit of a thing about Merlin.

[sunnyskywalker]

I would say a sword because magical and muggle societies were not yet divided and Godric was of the sword-carrying class, so he carried one to show his status.

I wonder if the lack of amazing magical properties is a sign of technological advancement? Back then, a sword that didn't rust or bend was probably pretty impressive. Actually it still is--how many 1000 year old swords are still usable even after being stored in a hat for centuries? But it probably seemed even flahier and more impressive then.

As for need and valor, yeah, maybe Albus is just making one of his "brilliant" but actually pretty dubious guesses.

[vermouth1991.livejournal.com]

It would indeed be impressive: Back in 1965 our archeologists excavated the burial ground of an ancient king of Yue who lived in the late 5th century BC, and they found a sword that was pretty much intact after fifteen centuries — it was still sharp enough to pierce and cut through layers of cloth or paper, and, check this out: it was made of *bronze*.

[oryx_leucoryx]

The special power of the sword is its ability to absorb anything that strengthens it, but only that which strengthens it. Which comes from it having been goblin-made. IOW it is a way to steal potions, because Godric was lazy in this discipline, like most present-day Gryffindors.

Why specifically a sword and not some other goblin-made item? I think the nature of the artifact determines which potions (or individual ingredient) is considered one that strengthens it. A sword, whose purpose is to kill, will selectively absorb poisons. (And now I wonder what has been absorbed by aunt Muriel's goblin-made tiara.)