Questions on the Sword
Aug. 10th, 2015 08:18 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
condwiramurs.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockI'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?
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?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-08-14 01:57 am (UTC)Speaking of which, in what century did European scientists figure out that the brain is for thinking and not the heart?