Pillar Post Place Holder for Sidebar Listing
Thoughts for the Serious Reader of Harry Potter
Hogwarts Professor Pillar Posts
Keys to Understanding J. K. Rowling’s Novels and Screenplays
Recent Conversation
- Savanna on Not Until the Mockingjay Sings: Seven Reasons Suzanne Collins May Not be Ready to Leave Panem
- Amy on The Secret Doctrine of ‘The Secret Garden’
- RuVe on Rowling Tweets Status of ‘Sleep Tight, Evangeline:’ Sixty Percent of First Draft
- Mary on Rowling Tweets Status of ‘Sleep Tight, Evangeline:’ Sixty Percent of First Draft
- Viki on Audible Full Cast Recording – Draft Cover Art
As a former professor I also enjoy deep mining. My interest is the philosophers stone. Is it literally real? I have read Burkhardt’s “Alchemy.” He has a whole chapter devoted to The Flamels in which he states that they did claim IN FACT to have created the stone and used it to MAKE both silver and gold, even commenting on the malleability of the gold that they produced. JKR certainly treats it as real in volume 1. I find symbolic interpretation of it to be convincing. But I cannot take the making of this stone and its alleged powers LITERALLY. Yet Burkardt and JKR both seem TO DO SO. It fits in Harry’s pocket and its elixir has kept the Flamels alive for centuries. And it can be and has been destroyed.To me all that seems just impossible! Do you believe these assertions??
Hi there,
Will you be writing a continuation to the “Looking for God in Harry Potter” for the last remaining books?
The last update to ‘Looking for God in Harry Potter’ was published in 2008 as ‘How Harry Cast His Spell.’
My book on the series finale is ‘The Deathly Hallows Lectures.’
Has anyone else noticed the following? In “Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore,” Scene 51, Gellert Grindelwald is inside a car, surrounded by a riot made up of his supporters. His acolyte Rosier tells the driver, “Take us around back. It’s not safe here.” Grindelwald contradicts Rosier, telling her to roll down the window. Then, over Rosier’s terrified objection, Grindelwald gets out of the car, into the mob. This seems to be a parallel to former President Trump, struggling to get his Secret Service team to drive him to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It seems eerie that the authors included these actions, well before testimony about President Trump’s actions came out. [posted July 28, 2022]
Have been re-reading the Harry Potter novels, looking for connections to the Fantastic Beasts movies. Finally found this, in Chapter 22, “The Deathly Hallows,” of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, page 436. “The visions [Harry] and Voldemort were sharing had changed in quality; they had become blurred, shifting as though they were moving in and out of focus. Harry was just able to make out the indistinct features of an object that looked like a skull, and something like a mountain that was more shadow than substance.” This passage occurs after Voldemort discovers that Gellert Grindelwald stole the Elder Wand from Gregorovitch, and before Voldemort visits and kills Grindelwald at Nurmengard. Seems to me that the “skull” might be the “skull-hookah” that Grindelwald uses “to see snatches of the future.” Seems to me that the “mountain” might be the “Angel Eye” mountain in China, where the Qilin gives birth. Maybe these visions are fuzzy because Voldemort is trying to read Grindelwald’s mind, and so they are being filtered through Grindelwald’s mind, Voldemort’s mind, and Harry’s mind. [posted August 30, 2022]
Why This, Why Now?
My wife and I recently saw the Broadway musical, “Annie,” after having seen it decades ago. Years ago, reading J.K. Rowling’s HP6, Ch. 13 about the London orphanage where Tom Riddle grew up, reminded me of Annie’s orphanage in the musical. Seeing the play again, and hearing a church sermon about assumptions and expectations (using the film, “The Sixth Sense” as an example), got me thinking (“a dangerous pastime” – “I know”).
Recent Information (From the Past) Concerning Memory
In Rowling’s FB1, Sc. 120, Jacob Kowalski is supposed to be Obliviated. But in FB2, Sc. 35, Jacob reminds Newt Scamander that the Obliviating potion “only erases bad memories.” So, Jacob remembers many of the events of FB1. In FB3, Sc. 46, Grindelwald extracts Yusuf Kama’s memory of his sister, Leta Lestrange, because Yusuf holds Grindelwald responsible for Leta’s death. But, Yusuf seems to signal to Queenie Goldstein that he still has some memory of Leta, and that he will act against Grindelwald. Yusuf does so, later in FB3. Maybe this is important in “Harry Potter” – see below.
The London Orphanage
Rowling describes the orphanage matron, Mrs. Cole, as “sharp” but “no novice to gin drinking.” Mrs. Cole seems to be something like Miss Hannigan, who is in charge of the orphanage where Annie lives at the start of the musical. Mrs. Cole may be kinder: Rowling writes that she is “harassed-looking” and “more anxious than unkind” (HP6, Ch. 6). Mrs. Cole certainly seems to be a nicer person than Mary Lou Barebone at her Second Salem Church (FB1, Sc. 30). (See note below.)
Mrs. Cole tells Dumbledore that she thinks Tom Riddle hung “Billy Stubbs’s rabbit,” and that “Amy Benson and Dennis Bishop were never quite right” after Tom led them into a seaside cave. For a while now, I have wondered if the orphan Amy Benson might be the same person as Amelia Bones, present as Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement at Harry Potter’s Ministry hearing (HP5, Ch. 7) and later killed, about which Minister Fudge says, “We think [Voldemort] may have murdered her in person …. (HP6, Ch. 1).” (See note below.)
But, isn’t the London institution a Muggle orphanage? Maybe some things point to it’s not being so, or not entirely so. First, suppose that Amy Benson is the same person as Amelia Bones (see above). Second, notice Dumbledore’s sense of ease at the orphanage: twice (in front of Mrs. Cole and in front of Tom), Dumbledore does magic “in a building full of Muggles,” apparently without feeling the need to “be cautious.” Third, note that Dumbledore tells Tom, “I shall know” whether Tom has returned the stolen trinkets (HP6, Ch. 13). It seems that Dumbledore will know in the same way he implies when he tells Harry that he has “watched you more closely than you can have imagined,” (HP5, Ch. 37) and as Harry threatens his son, Albus: “I will fix you with a spell which will allow me eyes and ears into your every movement, your every conversation” (CC, Pt. 1, Act 2, Sc. 8).
Fourth, perhaps Dumbledore’s telling Mrs. Cole, “[Tom] will have to return here, at the very least, every summer” (HP6, Ch. 13) indicates that Tom has protection at the orphanage similar to Harry’s at the Dursley house (HP5, Ch. 37). Dumbledore says that “Merope refused to raise her wand even to save her own life,” but in counter to Harry’s question, “[s]he wouldn’t even stay alive for her son?” Dumbledore asserts that Merope “had a choice.” So, maybe Merope gave her son protection by sacrificing herself to get him to the orphanage and identify him to Mrs. Cole. But then, who is Tom’s blood relative at the orphanage (Mrs. Cole, not much younger than Merope?), and from whom does he need protection? Fifth, less convincing, the orphanage has “stone stairs” (HP6, Ch. 13), more like a wizard house or building than a Muggle one.
Sirius Black’s Identity
Along with wondering about Amy Benson, I’ve also wondered about Sirius Black’s identity. Rowling gives us our first glimpse of Sirius in Severus Snape’s memory, which Harry views in the Pensieve: On the train to Hogwarts, Sirius tells James Potter, “My whole family have been in Slytherin,” and James replies, “Blimey … I thought you seemed all right!” James’s impression is correct: the Sorting Hat puts Sirius in Gryffindor (HP7, Ch. 33). We learn in HP5, Chapter 6, that Sirius runs away from home at age 16 and goes to live with the Potter family. When Harry explores Sirius’s bedroom in the Black house, he finds that before Sirius leaves home, he seems “to have gone out of his way to annoy his parents …. [and] to underline his difference from all the rest of the Slytherin family.” Sirius decorates his room with Gryffindor banners, “pictures of Muggle motorcycles,” and “posters of bikini-clad Muggle girls” (HP7, Ch. 10).
So, could Sirius be Muggle-born, adopted by the Black family from the orphanage? Perhaps the information on memory from “Fantastic Beasts” might fit here. Maybe the Blacks extract Sirius’s memory of the orphanage, to make him think that he was born into the family – but maybe doing so fails to change his gut feeling of being Muggle-born, and also fails to change his character. Kreacher says that Sirius “was a nasty ungrateful swine,” he remarks “how [Mrs. Black] hated him, what a disappointment he was,” and he says that “[Mrs. Black] swore he was no son of hers.” Sirius tells Harry, “I hated the whole lot of them,” “[a]s far as I’m concerned, they’re not my family,” and “I never thought I’d be stuck in this house again” (HP5, Ch. 6). Maybe Sirius is a biological Black and a rebel, but perhaps he is an unhappy adopted child in an unsuccessful adoption. (See note below.)
Red Herrings or Clues?
Kingsley Shacklebolt gives Arthur Weasley an issue of The Quibbler magazine, for Sirius to read. Arthur says, “I’m sure Sirius will find that very amusing.” Soon after, Harry reads what is presumably (but not definitely) the same issue, specifically one of the magazine’s headlines that blares, “SIRIUS – Black As He’s Painted?” The article quotes a person named Doris Purkiss (no background given) as saying, “Sirius Black is a false name …. [he] is actually Stubby Boardman” (HP5, Ch. 7). We could dismiss The Quibbler as tabloid trash, except that the name Stubby Boardman might be a version of Billy Stubbs. (It may be silly, but could there be a reference to these names in “[h]is hair is as dark as a blackboard” from Harry’s singing valentine in HP2, Chapter 13?)
Could Sirius be “painted” black by being reputed to be a multiple murderer, or be “painted” black by being portrayed as or assumed to be a member of the Black family? Note how even Dumbledore remarks that the magical media are “bound to report the truth occasionally … if only accidentally” (HP6, Ch. 17). Also, in HP5, Chapter 36, Bellatrix Lestrange refers to Sirius as “the Animagus Black” – could she be (unintentionally?) revealing that Sirius only appears to be a Black?
Four Notes
Thinking about why Voldemort murders Amelia Bones, one obvious reason is that she is a key official in the Ministry (Harry even fills her post in CC, Pt. 1, Act 1, Sc. 5). Another reason could be that she treats Harry fairly during his Ministry hearing and votes against his being convicted (HP5, Ch. 8). A third reason could be Voldemort’s “contempt for anything that [ties] him to other people, anything that [makes] him ordinary” (HP6, Ch. 13). Amelia possibly having a memory of abuse by Tom Riddle could be a link to Voldemort’s past. The same might apply as part of Voldemort’s motivation for killing the Riddles, and framing his uncle Morfin for the crime, which leads to Morfin’s death (HP6, Ch. 17).
What should we think about Sirius’s younger brother, Regulus? Regulus starts life as a loyal Black and becomes a Death Eater (HP5, Ch. 6). But then, Kreacher returns from the seaside cave. Regulus becomes “strange … disturbed in his mind,” exchanges the lockets, sacrifices himself, and orders Kreacher to destroy the (Horcrux) locket (HP7, Ch. 10). Regulus leaves a note telling Voldemort that “I face death in the hope that when you meet your match, you will be mortal once more” (HP6, Ch. 28). The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2010 states that a “regulus” is a “relatively impure intermediate product of various ores in smelting.” All this is ambiguous: Regulus may be a sincere Death Eater until discovering Voldemort’s Horcrux changes his heart. Or, maybe Regulus is adopted like Sirius, secretly feels the same way Sirius does, but acts as a loyal Black out of sibling rivalry with Sirius? Perhaps Regulus naively thinks he can survive being a temporary Death Eater, or joins with the intent to be a saboteur, or plans his actions together with Sirius (joining at the same time that Sirius leaves home)?
Thinking thoughts like all the above, sometimes I tell myself that I’m trying to tie together unrelated bits of the text. But then I remember that Rowling seems to invite and encourage readers to do so: For example, consider Harry speaking to Dumbledore, asking “But you didn’t really trust [Tom Riddle], sir, did you? He told me [that] ‘Dumbledore never seemed to like me as much as the other teachers did’” (HP6, Ch. 17). Also, consider how Dumbledore quotes Harry, who in turn is quoting Voldemort claiming to have gone “further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality” (HP6, Ch. 23).
Lastly, please note that near the end of “Annie,” Miss Hannigan begs Annie to “tell these people how good I’ve always been to ya, huh?” Annie replies, “I would, but the one thing you always taught me was ‘Never tell a lie.’” (tvtropes.org) In the HP5 movie, but not the book, Dolores Umbridge begs Harry to “Do something! Tell them I mean no harm!” and Harry replies, “Sorry, professor. I must not tell lies.” Having forgotten this parallel, it’s fun to be reminded of it.
Duelling Puzzles (August 20, 2024)
In Deathly Hallows, Aberforth and Albus Dumbledore describe the three-way duel with Gellert Grindelwald that resulted in the Ariana’s death. Aberforth says, “I don’t know which of us did it, it could have been any of us – and she was dead” (Chapter 28). Albus says “I never knew which of us … actually cast the curse that killed my sister …. I dreaded beyond all things the knowledge that it had been I who brought about her death, … that I actually struck the blow that snuffed out her life” and that “Ariana … lay dead upon the floor” (Chapter 35). But years earlier, as recounted in Secrets of Dumbledore, Albus tells Newt Scamander, “I can’t say for certain it was my spell …. One minute she was there, and the next she was gone …” (Scene 66).
Several things are puzzling here.
What kind of magical spell hits Ariana? Could it be a spell that makes her disappear, maybe not killing her at all? Or, is it in fact a killing curse, leaving Ariana lying “dead upon the floor”? In Secrets, Albus confirms that Ariana was an obscurus [Scene 66]; could it be that she is not killed, or that she is killed but the obscurus continues to exist, or that in either case the obscurus is transferred to Aberforth and/or to Credence?
Speaking of Credence: In Secrets, a phoenix feather “strewn with [ash]” appears [how? when?] in Aberforth’s hand; Albus says, “The bird comes to [Credence] because he’s dying” and says that Credence is an obscurus just like Ariana [Scene 66]. But later, just as Grindelwald seems to have won election as “leader of the magical world,” a phoenix drops a “feather of [ash] that “attaches itself to his [Grindelwald’s] cheek.” So, is Grindelwald a Dumbledore? Credence approaches Grindelwald and “smears the ash on his [whose?] cheek.” Then, Grindelwald is defeated and disapparates, Aberforth tells Credence to “Come home,” and “[Albus] Dumbledore watches as the [p]hoenix takes flight behind them” [Scene 95]. We know that Grindelwald lives until Voldemort kills him [Deathly Hallows, Chapter 23], and we know that Aberforth lives through the Battle of Hogwarts [Chapter 31]. On the other hand, we do not encounter Credence anywhere in the Harry Potter series, after the events of Secrets (although maybe we would in a sequel to Secrets) so maybe Credence does die? We must ask, what is going on here?
Why do both Aberforth and Albus say that they do not know whose spell struck down Ariana? We know from Goblet of Fire that a wand can be forced to “regurgitate spells it has performed,” although there seems to be disagreement as to whether the forcing wand must have the same core as the wand being forced (singular “Prior Incantato” in Chapter 9 vs. plural “Priori Incantatem” in Chapter 36). It seems that Aberforth and Albus could easily test their wands, right after the duel, as Grindelwald flees. We know from Deathly Hallows that Grindelwald later “procure[s] a wand of immense power” i.e. the Elder Wand, but maybe he keeps his previous wand also. Albus tells Harry Potter that he eventually dueled Grindelwald, “won the duel …. [and] won the wand” (Chapter 35; note that Albus does not mention the blood troth). When Grindelwald is locked away in Nurmengard, Albus should be able to test any wand that Grindelwald possesses. But whether or not Albus is able to do so, testing his own and Aberforth’s wands would have made clear, by the process of elimination, whose wand struck down Ariana. Maybe both Aberforth and Albus fear this truth so much that they never test the wand(s). Or could they be hiding the truth for another reason?
We know from Crimes and from Secrets that Albus and Grindelwald create a blood troth to keep each of them from attacking the other. This must happen before Grindelwald flees. Later, when Dumbledore and Grindelwald meet in a cafe, Grindelwald remarks that he has “carried [the blood troth] for so many years” and asks how it feels for Dumbledore to wear it (Secrets, Scene 4). Given that Newt Scamander’s niffler steals the blood troth from Grindelwald (Crimes, Scene 115) and that Dumbledore keeps the blood troth until it is accidentally destroyed (Secrets, Scene 14 and Scene 93), maybe we can conclude that Dumbledore and Grindelwald meet at the cafe after the events of Crimes but before the events of Secrets. If so, this seems to imply that Grindelwald took the blood troth with him when he fled, and, in turn, that Grindelwald was wearing the blood troth during the three-way duel. Does this mean that neither Dumbledore nor Grindelwald could cast spells at one another during the duel, instead only being able to cast them at Aberforth or (accidentally?) at Ariana? It is easy to guess that Grindelwald would cast a killing curse, but should we imagine that Albus might have done so?
Greetings!
In contrast to some of my earlier postings, this is a rather high-level analysis. I hope that it is enjoyable and/or useful to readers. Please note that the original essay was composed using word-processing software, with footnotes. Copying the piece to this “Speak Your Mind” box converted the footnotes to inserted notes and eliminated all italics. If anyone wants a copy of the original file, I would be happy to send it to you. As usual, I claim authorship of this analysis but not copyright – anyone may reproduce it, anywhere, so long as you do me the courtesy of crediting me as author. My sincere thanks, and very best wishes, Randall K. Voigt on November 14, 2024
Amor Vincit Omnia
Having written about the duel among Albus, Aberforth, and Grindelwald, which causes Ariana’s death, here is a thought about the duel in which Dumbledore finally defeats Grindelwald.
Before that last duel, Grindelwald is incorrigible. He declares that he will destroy the Muggle world, with or without Dumbledore’s help.[ Secrets of Dumbledore, Scene 4] He cannot be kept captive, because he convinces and converts his jailers – even the removal of his tongue does not stop him.[ Crimes of Grindelwald, Sc. 3, 4] In contrast, after the duel, Grindelwald is successfully imprisoned for decades in Nurmengard, where he is allowed to speak, rather than in the presumably higher-security, much more oppressive Azkaban.[ Deathly Hallows, Chapters 18, 23] Allegedly, he shows remorse for his actions.[ Hallows, Ch. 35] His last act is one of good intent: he lies to Voldemort about the Elder Wand.[ Ibid.]
How does this come about? Perhaps the answer lies in Dumbledore’s much later duel with Voldemort in the Ministry of Magic. Dumbledore casts an immensely powerful spell at Voldemort, who successfully shields himself from it. Voldemort recognizes that Dumbledore is not trying to kill him, and Dumbledore acknowledges that he wants to “destroy” Voldemort rather than take his life.[ Order of the Phoenix, Ch. 36] Soon after, Dumbledore tells Harry Potter that the Ministry has a room full of a “wonderful,” “terrible,” and “mysterious” force (Harry and his friends find the room but cannot enter it[ Phoenix, Ch. 34]) and identifies that force as love.[ Phoenix, Ch. 37]
So, does Dumbledore try but fail to cast an all-powerful love spell at Voldemort, seeking to completely change Voldemort’s personality? Does the spell fail because Voldemort parries it? Does it fail because Voldemort has split his soul into eight pieces? According to Dumbledore, Voldemort is the only wizard who has ever split his soul into more than two pieces.[ Half-Blood Prince, Ch. 23] Although one can easily suppose that Grindelwald might have done so, it seems that he is satisfied with the Elder Wand and with the Blood Troth, which he and Dumbledore accidentally destroy before their duel.[ Secrets, Sc. 95] Also, note that although Dumbledore tells Harry there is no helping Voldemort’s soul fragment,[ Hallows, Ch. 35] Harry tries to encourage Voldemort to redeem himself through remorse.[ Hallows, Ch. 36]
Could it be that earlier, in their final duel, Dumbledore successfully casts an all-powerful love spell at Grindelwald, entirely changing Grindelwald’s character? Does the spell succeed because Grindelwald and Dumbledore love each other, whereas Voldemort and Dumbledore do not? Does Grindelwald then, in the words of Rita Skeeter, “[conjure] a white handkerchief from the end of his wand and [come] quietly”[ Hallows, Ch. 2]? Would such a character change mean that Dumbledore could persuade the wizarding authorities to confine Grindelwald under lifelong “house arrest” in Nurmengard rather than subjecting him to the Dementors of Azkaban? Is this why Grindelwald later shows remorse, tries to hinder Voldemort, and says there is much that Voldemort does not understand[ Hallows, Ch. 23]?
I hope that someday, JK Rowling will write and publish the story of Dumbledore’s defeat of Grindelwald. In the meantime, maybe the theory here can explain these outcomes, in accordance with Rowling’s over-arching “love conquers all” theme.[ John Granger, various works on Harry Potter] And, maybe we can all try to win through love in our family lives, in our societies, in our nations, and in our world.[ “The good man will seek to take pain out of things. The foolish man will not even notice it except in himself. And the evil man will drive pain deeper into things and spread it about wherever he goes. But each man is guiltless, for the evil man no less than the foolish man or the good man did not ask to come here and did not come alone, from nothing, but from many worlds and from multitudes. The evil do not know they are evil and are therefore innocent. The evil man must be forgiven every day. He must be loved, because something of each of us is in the most evil man in the world and something of him is in each of us.” William Saroyan, The Human Comedy, Ch. 26, 1943]
Yesterday (November 14, 2024), I sent an essay entitled “Amor Vincit Omnia” to Hogwarts.com. In that essay, I proposed that Dumbledore was able to cast a love spell at Grindelwald, completely changing Grindelwald’s character. Also, I suggested that Dumbledore casts a similar spell at Voldemort, but either Voldemort parries the spell, it did not work on him, or both. Today (Nov. 15, 2024), I realize that what I theorized was absolutely wrong, but in a way such that the results would be exactly the same – that is, “six of one, a half dozen of the other.”
To wit: In Half Blood Prince, Chapter 9, Horace Slughorn explains to his Potions class that “It is impossible to manufacture or imitate love. No, Amortentia will simply cause a powerful infatuation or obsession.” It seems logical that neither can any spell create love (just as no spell can create food, and no spell can resurrect the dead). But, what if a spell applying an overwhelming dose of love could drive hate and fear out of a person? If Dumbledore were able to successfully cast such a spell at Grindelwald, it might well leave Grindelwald with only his love for Dumbledore. Then, maybe Voldemort parries Dumbledore’s love spell, or maybe the spell does not work on someone who has nothing but hate and fear in him. Or, maybe Dumbledore realizes that driving hate and fear out of the loveless Voldemort would “destroy” Voldemort, and thus casts the love spell halfheartedly and ineffectively?
Thanks and best wishes,
Randall K. Voigt on Nov. 15, 2024
My wife recently checked out “The Black Bird Oracle,” the latest novel in Deborah Harkness’s “All Souls” series. Searching the Hogwarts Professor website for Deborah Harkness, I found a reference to Harkness’s novel “A Discovery of Witches,” but nothing more. So, I wonder if John Granger and/or other Wizarding World fans have read and/or analyzed Harkness’s writing? In the mean time, let me mention this delightful, playful reference to the Wizarding World in “Oracle”: In Chapter 1, Diana Bishop and her daughter Becca receive a message carried by a raven. In Chapter 2 (page 29), Becca’s Uncle Chris asks her, “You got a message from a bird? Are you enrolled in a school of witchcraft and wizardry now?”
Thanks and best wishes,
Randall K. Voigt on April 02, 2025
Here is another thought about Albus Dumbledore vs. Gellert Grindelwald: Could the ultimate outcome of Dumbledore’s and Grindelwald’s ongoing conflict in J.K. Rowling’s works have been inspired by the story of the conflict between Armand d’Hubert and Gabriel Feraud in Ridley Scott’s 1977 film, “The Duellists,” which in turn was based on Joseph Conrad’s 1908 novel, “The Duel”? The film and the novel describe a series of duels, over the course of many years, between the two men. Wikipedia.org states that in the film, at the climax of their last duel, d’Hubert ends up with the “only remaining loaded pistol,” then “calmly stands and takes aim” at “Feraud … [who] says, ‘Go on. Kill me.'” But, d’Hubert declines to do so. Wikipedia.org goes on to state, “By the rules of single combat, [d’Hubert] says … Feraud’s life now belongs to him, so he will simply declare [Feraud] dead, and … Feraud must ‘conduct [himself] as a dead man.'” Wikipedia.org states that in the novel, “The [ongoing] conflict … becomes almost legendary … [and] takes on almost mythical proportions” and that in the last duel, “D’Hubert outwits his adversary, enabling him to spare Feraud’s life.” Online, I found some information on the “code duello,” but nothing saying that “the rules of single combat” entitle a victorious but merciful duellist to own the opponent’s life. Maybe we must consider how Severus Snape is in debt to James Potter, and Peter Pettigrew is in debt to Harry Potter, for life-saving actions. Also, perhaps we must consider the similarity of the name “Armand d’Hubert” to “Albus Dumbledore” (or for that matter, to “Armando Dippet”). Thanks very much, and best wishes, Randall on July 07, 2025