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.)