Via John Granger

Alan Jacobs have written a review/article about Deathly Hallows; The Youngest Brother’s Tale, where he writes some pretty insightful thing about the Harry Potter series. But I feel that he is wrong on at least two important accounts. Let me quote:

The key theme of the whole series is the opposition of death and love: the devastation wrought by those whose fear of death causes them to shun love as a weakness, and, in contrast, the rich rewards in store for those who will not allow the fear of death to block love, who know that love risks all for the beloved. Preceding the events of the first book are the sacrificial deaths of James Potter, in a vain attempt to save his wife and son, and of Lily Potter, in an equally vain attempt to save Harry. In the fourth book of the series the deaths resume: Cedric Diggory in that one, Sirius Black in the next, Albus Dumbledore in the sixth. In this final installment the named dead exceed a dozen, and many more remain unnamed. Among those whom Harry knows and cares for, all of them, in this book and in the previous ones, die for someone they love, or for something they believe in. (…)

Many readers have already exclaimed that Harry’s final quest marks him as a clear Christ figure. This is wrong, seriously wrong, and I think J. K. Rowling goes out of her way to tell us so. People (characters in the books as well as readers) think that Harry is a unique person of unique power, but at a dozen points in the series we are clearly shown that he is not: he is called the Chosen One, but he is chosen by Voldemort, and Dumbledore emphasizes to Harry the sheer contingency of this choice. The work of the Cross is done by Christ alone; Harry always has help. (It’s worth emphasizing that while each of the Horcruxes is destroyed, each is destroyed by a different person.) At his moment of agony Christ was abandoned; at the end of his quest Harry is supported and comforted. As my friend Jay Wood has noted, if Harry resembles a biblical figure it is not Christ but rather Stephen the Protomartyr. But the comparisons with Stephen are limited too: for a more precise analogue, I encourage you to rummage through your children’s books until you find an old copy of The Tales of Beedle the Bard. Surely you have one. Read the story of the Three Brothers, and pay particular attention to the youngest. You’d be surprised what you could learn.

I would not say that Lily Potter’s attempt to save Harry was in vain. Firstly it did in fact work, he didn’t die. Secondly, I feel that it’s wrong to call sacrificial love “vain.” But this might be a “slip of the keyboard,” as one of the commentators over at HogPro put it. It may be that he only meant that she died in the process, and that Voldemort didn’t grant her dying wish. But it was a very weird sentence indeed.

I firmly believe that Harry is a Christ figure, but he isn’t a new Aslan. He is more of a Frodo, a Sam or an Aragorn — characters who resemble Christ in different ways. And just as The Lord of the Rings has it share of Christ figures, so does the Harry Potter books; Lily, James, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, etc., etc. It is also worth noting that a Christ figure isn’t the same as a Christ allegory, and that a Christ figure is often more of a Christian. John Granger points out that he has, since 2002, said that “Harry is a Christian Everyman, from his name to his status as seeker, which in no way diminishes the edifying and symbolic meaning of his serial near deaths and faux resurrections, not to mention his sacrificial death and victory in Deathly Hallows.”

The reference to The Youngest Brother’s Tale is a good one, and I believe he is correct in saying that Voldemort is shadowed in the eldest brother, Dumbledore in the middle brother, and Harry in the youngest. But that doesn’t rule out Harry as a Christ figure (understood typologically.) Rather, it complements it. And this is in fact a “rule” in typology, that the type should not be to close to the original.

Let me end with a quote from Alan Jacobs article “Harry Potter’s Magic” from January 2000 (First Things):

The fundamental moral framework of the Harry Potter books… is a familiar one to all of us: it is the problem of technology. (As Jacques Ellul wrote, “Magic may even be the origin of techniques.”) Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is in the business of teaching people how to harness and employ certain powers-that they are powers unrecognized by science is really beside the point-but cannot insure that people will use those powers wisely, responsibly, and for the common good. It is a choice, as the thinkers of the Renaissance would have put it, between magia and goetia: “high magic” (like the wisdom possessed by the magi in Christian legend) and “dark magic.”

Hogwarts was founded by four wizards, one of whom, Salazar Slytherin, at least dabbled and perhaps reveled in the Dark Arts, that is, the use of his powers for questionable if not downright evil purposes, and for centuries many of the young wizards who reside in Slytherin House have exhibited the same tendency. The educational quandary for Albus Dumbledore, then-though it is never described so overtly-is how to train students not just in the “technology” of magic but also in the moral discernment necessary to avoid the continual reproduction of the few great Dark Lords like Voldemort and their multitudinous followers. The problem is exacerbated by the presence of faculty members who are not wholly unsympathetic with Voldemort’s aims.

Harry is stunned [in Chamber of Secrets] because he realizes for the first time that his confusion has been wrongheaded from the start: he has been asking the question “Who am I at heart?” when he needed to be asking the question “What must I do in order to become what I should be?” His character is not a fixed preexistent thing, but something that he has the responsibility for making: that’s why the Greeks called it character, “that which is engraved.” It’s also what the Germans mean when they speak of Bildung, and the Harry Potter books are of course a multivolume Bildungsroman-a story of “education,” that is to say, of character formation.

Spoiler alert! Do not proceed if you haven’t read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. This is based on some comments I made in the combox for this post over at Sword of Gryffindor.

We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”[612] Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.[613] To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” (Cathecism of the Catholic Church[1])

After reading the last Harry Potter book, I have decided to write some thoughts on Hell. I do this mainly because (i) these books are great, they have a deep Christian foundation, and (ii) they are popular, giving me a good starting point for what I want to tell.

As I tried to show with the quotation from the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, Hell is to be separated from God, separated from Good, “for ever by our own free choice.” But I also believe that God is present to the damned. This is partly because He is omnipresent, and one cannot flee from Him. Let me elaborate.

One of the main themes in the Harry Potter books, is that evil (or the evil one) cannot stand that which is good, but is tormented by it. When, in the last chapter of Philosopher’s Stone, Harry confronts professor Quirrell when the latter tries to kill him, after the mirror of Erised had seen the Heart’s desire of both,[2] Harry discovers that Quirrell cannot touch Harry without being tormented and burned. Harry uses this as a weapon, destroying the professor and almost destroying himself. Dumbledore explains why this happened in their conversation in the hospital wing:

Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn’t realize that love as powerful as your mother’s for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign … to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good.[3]

We later find out that Voldemort has ripped his soul, himself, apart, through the so-called “Horcrux-magic.” The etymology of the word is clearly latin and I believe John Granger’s thoughts on the matter is correct. He writes:

The word Horcrux is an interesting combination of Latin and French derivations. Hor-crux from the Latin would be “frightening or horrible” (horreo) and “cross” (crux); rather than finding the way to immortality in the lifesaving sacrifice of Christ, the Horcrux accomplishes the task through murder.[4]

Odd Sverre Hove, the chief editor of norwegian Christian newspaper Dagen, and a sworn Harry Potter fan (he has read the book 12-15 times), explains what Rowling is trying to show us in an interview with another Christian newspaper:

To live as a whole human being, is a good Christian ambition. [Rowing] indirectly getts out a warning by showing that the one who splits up his soul, becomes himself a tool for evil.[5]

For a analysis of the Horcrux-magic itself, read this article.

Dumbledore elaborates on this in Half-Blood Prince, where he explains the main difference between Harry and Voldemort

‘You are protected, in short, by your ability to love!’ said Dumbledore loudly. ‘The only protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemort’s! In spite of all the temptation you have endured, all the suffering, you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at the age of eleven, when you stared into a mirror that reflected your heart’s desire, and it showed you only the way to thwart Lord Voldemort, and not immortality or riches. (…) You have flitted into Lord Voldemort’s mind without damage to yourself, but he cannot possess you without enduring mortal agony, as he discovered in the Ministry. I do not think he understands why, Harry, but he was in such a hurry to mutilate his own soul, he never paused to understand the incomparable power of a soul that is untarnished and whole.’[6]

And this is built upon in Deathly Hallows, in the after-life/waiting place scene after Harry’s self-sacrifice. Harry is at King’s Cross station, and he sees a little, repulsive child:

[Harry] recoiled. He had spotted the thing that was making the noises. It had the form of a small, naked child, curled on the ground, its skin raw and rough, flayed-looking, and it lay shuddering under a seat where it had been left, unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for breath…. ‘You cannot help.’ [said Dumbledore] (…)

‘… But before you try to kill me, I’d advise you to think about what you’ve done … think,and try for some remorse, Riddle.’ (…) ‘It’s your last chance,’ said Harry, ‘it’s all you’ve got left … I’ve seen what you’ll become otherwise … be a man … try … try for some remorse…’[7]

I see this “child,” as an image of what Hell is all about. It is about self-inflicted damnation, a state of soul which suffers when exposed to God, to Love, truth and Light. The Bible tells us that those in hell will “be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.” (2. Thess. 1:9, NKJV, emphasis added.) Most translations add the word “away” (“away from the presence…”), but that is not there in the Greek text. We see also in Rev. 14:10 (ESV) that the damned “will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.” And in Psalm 68:2 (ESV) we read that “as wax melts before fire, so the wicked shall perish before God!” This doesn’t mean that those in Heaven has some sadistic fulfillment by watching the tormented, but that everybody will one day have to “face the facts.” Christ said that “the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21, NKJV) And I believe this is tru for Hell also. It is our Heart’s condition that is important.

Andrzej Fiderkiewicz has some interesting thoughts on this in a comment over at Sword of Gryffindor:

From Eastern Orthodox perspective it is not so surprising that Harry and Voldemort (or part of his torn soul) are sharing “place” of afterlife. Many Church Fathers taught that being in eternal presence of God (and that’s what afterlife really is or will be) is a torment to unrepented sinner and bliss for those pure of heart. The same presence is felt differently because of different state of one’s soul.

Those who are damned are, in their hearts, “separated from him for ever by [their] own free choice.” And this ia a “definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed.” (Cathecism of the Catholic Church).

Dumbledore explains to Harry that he, as opposed to Voldemort, is pure of Heart. And Christ said that; “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” (Matt. 5:8, ESV) This does not mean that we will physically see him (or not), but I believe that we “see” God in the same way that we “see” our beloved ones.

Let me close with some thoughts on professor Quirrell from John Granger (from an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint):

Professor Quirrell is possessed by the evil one. He stands before the judging Mirror, looking at the quality of the desires reflected from his heart. It sees what possesses him: a selfish and self-centered love apart from God. He is unworthy of the Stone/Christ and the ensuing Elixir of Life, so these are kept from him. When he touches someone blanketed by the sacrificial love of a savior (here, of course, Harry’s mother) and worthy of having Christ in him, the love of God therein burns Quirrell. His judgment reflects the judgment of hell that rejecters of hell will experience. (…)

Let me close here with a story. When I first read this book aloud to my children, my then eleven-year-old daughter Hannah (who had read the book with my permission already) was in the room. I asked her why she thought Quirrell couldn’t hold Harry. She explained matter-of-factly that Harry was protected by his mother’s love and that love burns people with hard hearts “just like heaven and hell being the same place.” I was amazed that she’d made the connection on her own. I guess the world will always underestimate the wisdom and courage of its eleven-year-olds.[8]

Notes & references:

1. Cathecism of the Catholic Church, #1033. The footnotes:

• 612: 1 Jn 3:14-15.
• 613: Cf. Mt 25:31-46.

2. When Harry first finds the mirror of Erised, he reads; “Erised stra ehru oyt ube cafru oyt on wohsi.” Turn this backwards and shuffle some of the letters, and you get: “I show not your face but your hearts desire.”

3. Rowling, J.K., Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone Audiobook read by Stephen Fry. Unabridged Adult Ed edition (BBC Audiobooks, 2001)

4. Granger, John, Looking for God in Harry Potter, updated second edition (Tyndale/Saltriver, 2006), pp. 187

5. Rogstad, Britt, “Potter — en skole i etikk” (Vårt Land, November 18th 2005) (June 19th 2007) Translated from norwegian. The norwegian text goes like this: “Å leve som et helt menneske, er en god kristen ambisjon. [Rowing] får indirekte fram en advarsel ved å vise at den som deler opp sin sjel, selv blir et redskap for ondskapen.”

6. Rowling, J.K., Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Adult edition (London: Bloomsbury, 2005), s. 477-478

7. Rowling, J.K., Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Adult edition (London: Bloomsbury, 2007), s. 566.594

8. Granger, John, Looking for God in Harry Potter, p. 136

One of the most interesting parts of Deathly Hallows, was Harry’s and Tom’s “chat” before their final duel. Harry says that he knows magic, and has a weapon, that Tom doesn’t. Tom’s emotional retort clearly shows his lack of wisdom:

‘You think you know more magic than I do?’ he said. ‘Than I, than Lord Voldemort, who has performed magic that Dumbledore himself never dreamed of?’[1]

As I have pointed out before[2], I main point of the Harry Potter books is that magical skill is not sufficient. In a analysis of the trio, John Granger points out that they could represent each of the three faculties of soul, according to the Platonic scheme.[3] He points out that

[p]art of Hermione’s brilliance is her determined dependence on her friends; she understands that her jewel intelligence is glorious in its right setting and almost inhuman on its own (remember Hermione at the beginning of Sorcerer’s Stone?).[4]

She understands what Tom does not. She understands that it matetrs not what your skills are, but what you are, what choices you make, to give a nod to Dumbledore. In “The Abolition of Man,” the last chapter/lecture in the book by the same name, C.S. Lewis points out that the interest in magic increased in the Renaissance, rather than decreasing. And he, as many others, saw the connection between technology and magic. He writes:

There was very little magic in the Middle Ages: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic. The serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse. I allow that some (certainly not all) of the early scientists were actuated by a pure love of knowledge. But if we consider the temper of that age as a whole we can discern the impulse of which I speak.

There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the wisdom of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique.[5]

The magic in Harry Potter is indeed scientific or technological. It is, as Robert Kvalvaag points out, “a craft that witches and wizards must conduct in a logical and reasonable way.” And he adds that it is never about “performing rituals with spirits and demons, but about using some sort of natural resource.”[6]

And this is precisely the point of these books. Let me explain a bit further, by utilizing Aristotle’s theory of knowledge. Dr. Peter Kreeft writes:

Aristotle rated technique (technical knowledge, technë, know-how) as third in the hierarchy of values, after (1) knowledge of the truth for its own sake, and (2) practical knowledge, or knowledge for living, for acting. The modern world has simply turned this hierarchy exactly upside down, as it has turned man upside down.[7]

This was also taught, maybe not will evil intent, by Francis Bacon, whose chant “Knowlwdge is power” is chillingly mirrored in Tom’s “Magic is power.” Tom’s problem is that he turns things upside down. s

Just as the serpent in the Genesis story, Tom is “crafty”[8]; he rates technique (magic) over virtue (knowlede, bravery, love.) As I pointed out in this post, the major difference between Harry and Tom is that,

[i]n Harry (and Dumbledore), we see a wizard who conforms his soul to reality, not relying on magical technique, but on knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. In [Tom] we see a wizard who tries to subdue reality to his own wishes, denying the spiritual realm and splitting up his soul to “be in control.” He is a exaggerated version of Francis Bacon’s scientist, shouting “knowledge for power” while trying to conquer nature.

And this is, I believe something we all need to be reminded of. It is not skill or ability that matters, but wisdom and love. As the great Solomon wrote: “Blessed is the one who finds wisdom, and the one who gets understanding.” (Proverbs 3:13, ESV)

1. Rowling, J.K., Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Adult Hardcover edition (London: Bloomsbury, 2007), p. 592

2. See here and here.

3. I myself am more of a Thomist. According to Plato, the three faculties are Head, Chest and Belly; Reason, Will/Heart and passions. Thomists divide the third faculty into three; (i) the ability to sense and perceive; (ii) the instincts; and (iii) the urges. The first two we share with animals, the third we (and animals) share with plants and the like. But I do not think that this matters. After all, Rowling is not a slave to this, they are *real* characters, not just parts.

4. Granger, John, Looking for God in Harry Potter Updated second edition (SaltRiver/Tyndale, 2006), p. 98

5. Lewis, C.S., The Abolition of Man (Lewis, 1944,1947/HaperSanFransisco, 2001), p. 76-77

6. Spilde, Ingrid, “Potters plass i virkeligheten” (Forskning.no, June 11th 2004) Translated from Norwegian (July 24th 2007)

7. Kreeft, Peter, Ph.D., C.S. Lewis for the Third Millennium (Ignatius, 1993), p. 22

8. Genesis 3:1, ESV. Som transaltions use the word “cunning.” I personally like “crafty” best, because it shows that the serpent tries to turn things upside down.

In the 23rd chapter of Half-Blood Prince, we learn about it from Slughorn (in Dumbledore’s pensieve):

“A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul.” (…) “Well, you split your soul, you see, and hide part of it in an object outside the body. Then, even if one’s body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged. But of course, existence in such a form… few would want it, Tom, very few. Death would be preferable.” (…) “Well, ou must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature.” “[You can do it by] an act of evil — the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart…”[1]

Rowling has manufactured the word “horcrux”[2] herself, but the concept is old. The concept of the “split soul” is a well known cliché (which is a good thing, just read my thoughts on “Stock responses” i this comment). One can find it in many folk tales, and in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. But the point is not that it is a cliché, but how Rowling uses it. Let’s take a look at the name.

John Granger points out that the word is

an interesting combination of Latin and French derivations. Hor-crux from the Latin would be “frightening or horrible” (horreo) and “cross” (crux); rather than finding the way to immortality in the lifesaving sacrifice of Christ, the Horcrux accomplishes the task through murder.[3]

It could also — as “Merlin” at the Muggle Matters blog points out[4] — point to the horror in combining (cruxing/crossing) to things which does not belong together; the soul and a material thing outside the body. As Merlin points out, “his soul was meant to be with his body.”

I believe that it points to both of these, bit I find John Granger’s interpretation most interesting as a Christian. The use of Horcruxes is a “frightening or horrible cross” a distorted cross, a way to not achieve everlasting life, but everlasting death. You see this clearly in the pronunciation of “Horecrux,” it sounds like “whore crux.” It is a distortion of the Cross, as a whore distorts sexuality. John Granger writes:

Rowling’s brilliant spin in this literary cliché… is to say the soul is “rent” by sin and “split” by the greatest of sins against love for others (their murder, physically or spiritually). Lord Voldemort, the arch villain, pursues immortality apart from God and the Cross by pouring his soul into physical objects apart from his body. In this, Voldemort is simultaneously a materialist and a dualist—an no longer human, as Dumbledore says, because he fails to understand the power of a human being who is whole, an integer of body and soul, and pure, which is to say, “not rent or split.”[5]

Christ, who sacrificed Himself for us, calls us to “deny [ourself], and take up [our] cross and follow [Him]” (Matt 16:24, NKJV). The Horcrux magic is about sacrificing others and exalting yourself — which in the long run lead to death. Christ said that “whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt 16:25-26, NKJV)

This magic is very dark. It requires the use of a a Unforgivable Curse, murder. And it is, as Slughorn pointed out, an action that goes against our very nature. odd Sverre Hove pointed this out in a interview with Vårt Land, a norwegian Christian newpaper. The interview is called (translated from norwegian) “Potter — a school in ethics.” There Hove points out that “[t]o live as a whole human being, is a good Christian ambition. [Rowing] indirectly getts out a warning by showing that the one who splits up his soul, becomes himself a tool for evil.”[6]

As John Granger points out,

Voldemort, fearing death, pursues personal immortality through his horrible Horcruxes. He creates reservoirs in material objects for the splinters of his soul that have separated from the whole in the act of murder. The Dark Lord is merely a cartoon of fallen man; he asserts and seeks his advantage before others (a shadow of murder) and invests himself in temporal things and ideas (modern idolatry and materialism) to flee death and imagine himself immortal. Such a self-focused, unloving existenceironically separates him from the love of others and ultimately from Love himself, who is our life and hope of genuine immortality. Fleeing a human death, Voldemort becomes its nonliving, inhuman incarnation.[7]

Dumbledore warns Harry of this, andv points out to the very thing that will conquer it; love. And this leads to self sacrifice, because “[g]reater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” (John 15:13, NKJV)

Notes & references:

1. Rowling, J.K., Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, adult edition (Bloomsbury, 2005), pp. 463-465

2. In the norwegian translation of Half-Blood Prince, “horcrux” is translated “malacrux.” I don’t really know why it was translated, it dosn’t make more sense for kids either way, but I find it interesting. “Mala” can be derived from lat. malitia, from malus, “bad.” Malitia is also the root word for the english word “malice”; “desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness.”

3. Granger, John, Looking for God in Harry Potter, updated second edition (Tyndale/Saltriver, 2006), pp. 187

4. Merlin, “X-Men 3, Harry Potter and the Imago Dei” (Muggle Matters, May 27th 2006.) (June 19th 2007)

5. Granger, John, Looking for God in Harry Potter, pp. 188.70

6. Rogstad, Britt, “Potter — en skole i etikk” (Vårt Land, November 18th 2005) (June 19th 2007) Translated from norwegian

7. Granger, John, Looking for God in Harry Potter, pp. 70

July 16th 2005, J.K. Rowling stated, in an interview with The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet, both Harry Potter fan sites, that she wanted the four houses of Hogwarts to “correspond roughly to the four elements. So Gryffindor is fire, Ravenclaw is air, Hufflepuff is earth, and Slytherin is water, hence the fact that their common room is under the lake. So again, it was this idea of harmony and balance, that you had four necessary components and by integrating them you would make a very strong place. But they remain fragmented, as we know.”

I also believe that they represent the four cardinal virtues; (1) justice, (2) wisdom/prudence, (3) courage/fortitude, and (4) temperance. In Philosopher’s Stone (chapter 7), the Sorting Hat sings a song, and says that,

You might belong in Gryffindor, where dwell the brave at heart, their daring nerve and chivalry set Gryffindors apart. You might belong in Hufflepuff, where they are just and loyal, those patient hufflepuffs are true and unafraid of toil. Or yet in wise old Ravenclaw, if you are ready mined, where those of wit and learning will always find their kind. Or perhaps in Slytherin you’ll make your real friends, those cunning folk use any means to achieve their ends.

The virtue of Gryffindor, as we see, is courage or fortitude, it houses “the brave at heart.” The virtue of Hufflepuff is justice, it houses the “just and loyal.” The virtue of Ravenclaw is wisdom or prudence, it houses the “ready minded” and “those of wit and learning.” But Slythering stands out. Their virtue should be temperance, but they put the emphasis on the opposite; ambition.

My thoughts is that in order to achieve the needed harmony, Slytherin must change. How one can do this, I don’t know — but the defeat of Voldemort, Salazar Slytherin’s heir, might have something to do with it.

What think ye?

Gen. 2:16-17 (ESV):

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Gen. 3:1-6 (ESV):

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

In Gnostic circles, where one often turns things upside down (the Serpent is God, Cain is good, Judas did Christ’s bidding, etc.), this is often interpretated as a Promethean myth. In Wikipedia, we can read that,

Zeus in his wrath denied men the secret of fire. Prometheus felt sorry for his creations, and watched as they shivered in the cold and winter’s nights. He decided to give his most loved creation a great gift that was a “good servant and bad master”. He took fire from the hearth of the gods by stealth and brought it to men in a hollow wand of fennel, or ferule that served him instead of a staff. He brought down the fire coal and gave it to man. He then showed them how to cook and stay warm. To punish Prometheus for this hubris (and all of mankind in the process), Zeus devised “such evil for them that they shall desire death rather than life, and Prometheus shall see their misery and be powerless to succor them. That shall be his keenest pang among the torments I will heap upon him.” Zeus could not just take fire back, because a god or goddess could not take away what the other had given.

Zeus was enraged because the giving of fire began an era of enlightenment for Man, and had Prometheus carried to Mount Caucasus, where an eagle (Often mistaken as a vulture) by the name of Ethon (offspring of the monsters Typhon and Echidna) would pick at his liver; it would grow back each day and the eagle would eat it again.(1)

If we take this approach to the Genesis story,(2) God seems to deny Man the knowledge of good and evil. But this, I believe, is not correct. Ethical knowledge, or “practical wisdom,” is not enough in itself, and this I believe is the core of the Genesis story. As I have explained before, Aristotle rated practical knowledge/wisdom after “scientific knowledge,” epistemology — knowledge of the truth for its own sake. And this is reflected in the Bible. We read in Hebrews 5:14 that “solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” How do we train our “powers of discernment”? Through knowledge of Truth, of Christ. In Luke 10:38–42, Christ said: “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.” (vv. 41-42)

The one necessary thing is to be close to the Lord. In the Genesis story, we see that Man tries to bypass this, having ethical knowledge (and of course deciding this for himself) without Truth, without God. Fr. Gregory Hallam (an Orthodox priest) writes:

We learn from this starting point that Adam was like a child, fully capable of growing up in obedience to his Heavenly Father and achieving immortality. We know that he ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in disobedience to God’s Word and suffered death as a result. We are not dealing here with the Promethean myth of Greek paganism in which Prometheus stole fire from the gods and paid the price for his audacity. The fruit itself was not placed in Eden with a permanent exclusion zone around it leaving humanity in state of infantile innocence. God’s intention was that Adam should grow up through obedience until he received the necessary spiritual maturity to handle such things. Like a child he had to be taught. But like many children and adults he would not be taught. He wanted to be autonomous; to be God-like without God and he thereby brought death down upon his head.

Man was born as a child, and needed to be brought up, educated. This should happen not only theoretically, but also practically. “For the things we have to learn before we can do them,” Aristotle writes, “we learn by doing them, e.g., men become builders by building and lyreplayers by playing the lyre; so to we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.” (Nicomachean Ethics, 2:1) And we also see this in the Harry Potter books.

We meet a bunch of people with an innate ability — and ability not shared with most people.(3) These abilities are to be shaped through wisdom and knowledge. The main difference between the good and evil wizards in these books is not their ability to use the magical techniques, but what comes first — episteme or techne, wisdom through knowledge or power through technique.

These books is not about magic itself, but about making choices based on insight and wisdom. The fruit of the three of knowledge of good and evil is “solid food… for the mature,” and we need wisdom to be able to discern them from each other.

In “The River of Fire,” the keynote address delivered at the Orthodox Youth Conference sponsored in Washington, July 22-25, 1980, Alexandre Kalomiros explained that,

“The tree of knowledge itself,” says Theophilus of Antic, “was good, and its fruit was good. For it was not the tree, as some think, that had death in it, but the disobedience which had death in it; for there was nothing else in the fruit but knowledge alone, and knowledge is good when one uses it properly.” The Fathers teach us that the prohibition to taste the tree of knowledge was not absolute but temporary. Adam was a spiritual infant. Not all foods are good for infants. Some foods may even kill them although adults would find them wholesome. The tree of knowledge was planted by God for man. It was good and nourishing. But it was solid food, while Adam was able to digest only milk. (chapter IV)

Moral discernment, using your wisdom and insight in both ethical and practical situations, is a key point in Harry Potter. And it is a key point for us. I believe that Jared (a blogger) says it best:

Teaching our kids discernment is vastly more important than trying to ‘protect’ them from the world. That’s impossible, and unbiblical. If we don’t teach critical thinking, and allow students to recognize the difference between the wheat and the chaff, we’re failing our students.

God has graced us with intellect and an insatiable curiosity. Remove discernment from that equation, and you get…well, Richard Dawkins. Or Pat Robertson.

Notes:

1. There are some similaritries, because just as fire, morality, in relation to Truth, not to us, is a “good servant” and a “bad master.”

2. I do not believe that it reports actual history as we see it today. It is a myth, but a “true myth.”

3. Some claim that this is Gnostic, but gnosticism is about achieving some knowledge reserved by an elite. There is some elitist thinking in Harry Potter, especially in the evil wizards, but these books tries to combat this. As Dumbledore points out: “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” (Chamber of Secrets, HP2) I see this more as a similarity to X-Men.

Cited Works:

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross. Kitchener: Batoche Books, 1999. February 8th 2007. http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/aristotle/Ethics.pdf

As I have already pointed out, the magic of Harry Potter is a “scientific craft,” and must therefore be treated as such. Peter Kreeft explains that

Aristotle rated technique (technical knowledge, techne, know-how) as third on the hierarchy of values, after (1) knowledge of the truth for its own sake, and (2) practical knowledge, or knowledge for living, for acting. The modern world has simply turned this hierarchy exactly upside down, as it has turned man upside down. (Kreeft 1994, p. 22)

In this post, I will explore this concept, and show what the Harry Potter books are all about.

C.S. Lewis claimed that for “the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self‐discipline, and virtue.” For the modern “scientists” or “scientific magicians,”(1) he adds, “the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique.” (Lewis 1947, p. 77) I have argued that the magic in Harry Potter is a science, a craft, something to be handled with logic and reason. And the point is that as the magic is technological, so it must conform to truth and morality.

Let me explain. Aristotle points out that “scientific knowledge,” episteme, being the first on “the hierarchy of values,” should be followed by “practical wisdom,” phronesis, which should be followed by technical knowledge, techne. If a man owns a factory, and he sets reason and kowledge (of truth) — insight — first, followed by a moral backbone, he will most likely not only succeed, but also gain a good relationship to his workers. If he turns it upside down, her will most likely exploit his workers, and they will most likely revolt. The Russian 1917 October revolution did not happen because the factory owners were to kind.

Now, how does this relate to Harry Potter? In Harry (and Dumbledore), we see a wizard who conforms his soul to reality, not relying on magical technique, but on knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. In Voldemort we see a wizard who tries to subdue reality to his own wishes, denying the spiritual realm and splitting up his soul to “be in control.” He is a exaggerated version of Francis Bacon’s scientist, shouting “knowledge for power” while trying to conquer nature.(2)

So, the main point of Harry Potter is that we must choose rightly, not that we must have certain abilities. As Dumbledore points out: “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” (Chamber of Secrets, HP2)

Notes:

1. In the essay “On Fairy Stories” (pdf-file), Tolkien writes that Fairy stories “may perhaps most nearly be translated by Magic—but it is magic of a peculiar mood and power, at the furthest pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician.” (p. 4)

2. Read the last chapter of The Abolition of Man (Lewis 1947) for more on this. It is available online.

Cited Works:

• Kreeft, Peter (1994). C.S. Lewis for the Third Millennium. San Francisco: Ignatius. ISBN: 0-89870-523-1
• Lewis, C.S. (1947). The Abolition of Man(Riddell Memorial Lectures 1943). San Francisco: HarperCollins (2001). ISBN: 0-06-065294-2