7 Heavenly Virtues: Temperance

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 29895

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Peg Kerr <pkerr06 at a...> wrote:

> The sixth Heavenly Virtue is Temperance. 
> Temperance is the fifth of the seven heavenly virtues, 

I clipped the above lines from two different places in Peg's post. 
...............

> The first definition offered by my Oxford English dictionary reads:
> the practice or habit of restraining oneself in provocation, 
> passion, desire, etc., rational self-restraint. Related concepts
> for purposes of this discussion include moderation, 

everything in moderation, including moderation 

> restraint, self-mastery, frugality, sobriety.

To me, the OED could have replaced that definition with a photo of 
(adult) Lupin. Temperance = Lupin, Lupin = Temperance. That amused me 
because I remember Lupin as the main case in the post on Lust, and 
the following indicates that Peg remembers it, too:

> But when Remus' friends, Sirius, James, and Peter learned to become
> Animagi to keep him company, the restraint which protected Remus 
> from others was abandoned.  Remus wandered at will.  It is only 
> later, when Remus is an adult, that he realizes the danger to which
> he had subjected  other people by evading the restraints which 
> Dumbledore had set up for him during his time of monthly 
> transformation.
...............
> 
> [Note in passing: the word "Temperance" has particular cultural 
> baggage in my country, the United States of America.  The 
> Temperance Movement was the name of the anti-alcohol movement in
> the United States, which culminated in the Eighteenth Amendment to 
> our Constitution, outlawing intoxicating liquors in the early 20th 
> century.  

I think Britain also had the Temperance Movement, and the notion of 
Temperance as tee-totalling: never touching one drop of alcoholic 
beverage. But that is not a temperate behavior: it is immoderate in 
the direction of asceticism. Tee-totallling is good for some people, 
but as a policy for a whole country, or even city, it falls into the 
statement Peg made below:

> But that is not all that Temperance does: it must also be applied
> to guard against excessive zeal in things that start out for the 
> good, to keep them from spinning out of control.
.................

changing my subject to the specifics of Barty Crouch

> Hermione figures out quite quickly, however, from his treatment of 
> his house elf, that there is something that is not quite right 
> about Mr. Crouch.  Ron scoffs at her suspicions, but as Sirius says
> later, "If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at 
> how he treats his inferiors, not his equals."  Mr. Crouch shows no 
> restraint, no mercy toward Winky.  Mr. Crouch's dismissal of his 
> house elf provides telling insight into his character.

Hermione was right that there was something wrong about Mr Crouch,
but she was wrong about what it was. [Cool JKR misdirection: Winky 
was described as moving as if someone were trying to drag her back, 
and Hermione immediately declared that she was moving so laboriously 
because she was struggling against her habitual slavedom.] But I'm 
not disagreeing with Sirius's advice, just that it wasn't relevant. 
In this case, the relevant advice would be "look at how he treats his 
co-conspirators and accomplices" (or "is there honor among thieves?").

In private life, Winky had wrapped Barty around her finger ... at 
least, SHE persuaded HIM to let Junior attend the World Cup final. 
Which resulted in the escape of Junior, which would have resulted in 
the immediate disgrace and perhaps conviction to Azkaban of Barty if 
discovered, so he not only had a reason to be angry at her, he might 
have just been putting on a act to avoid discovery.

> What, then, is Mr. Crouch's passion which he is failing to restrain
> or moderate?  As the (false) Moody says, Barty Crouch, Sr. is 
> obsessed with catching Dark Wizards.  A desire for justice should 
> be a virtue, but Mr. Crouch allows his passion to tempt him into
> the fatal mistake of allowing the ends to justify the means.  His 
> principles, Sirius remarks, might have been good in the beginning,
> but apparently he lost sight of them.  He started eliminating 
> protections in the justice systems, allowing the Unforgivable
> curses to be used against suspects and accused wizards like Sirius 
> to be sent to prison without trial.  Mr. Crouch's  refusal to 
> moderate his passion for justice means ironically that justice is 
> muddled and twisted, 

Yes, but the cause of Barty's death, and the whole tragedy of GoF 
including Cedric's death, is that One Time that Barty did moderate
his passion for justice. 

> to the point that he sends his own son to Azkaban, not because he 
> was convinced that he was guilty, but to make an example of him.  
> The downfall of both the father and son at Voldemort's hands 
> resulted from the chain of events which proceeded from that 
> decision.

Barty was right to send his own son to Azkaban: we now know that the 
boy was a monster, guilty as hell, a public danger. I expect the jury 
believed it, too; probably they didn't vote "guilty" just to please 
Barty. The problem is that Barty relented, moderated his passion for 
justice, and showed mercy to his dying wife and Junior, and violated 
both justice and law by helping Junior escape from Azkaban. (Will 
wizarding historians ever learn that Sirius was not the ONLY person 
to ever escape from Azkaban?)

On the one hand, we have Barty's rigidity, cruelty, and 'fighting 
fire with fire', that were rightly condemned by characters we like. 
We don't actually have any solid evidence that those disgusting 
characteristics caused any harm. He sent his own son to Azkaban -- the 
boy should have been sent to Azkaban. He sent the innocent and heroic 
Sirius to Azkaban without trial -- but the fairest trial in 
the wizarding world would have sent Sirius to Azkaban. Dumbledore 
himself testified (maybe in a deposition, as there was no trial) that 
Sirius had been the Potters' Secret Keeper. Who would have believed 
his wild tale of Peter having been Secret Keeper and traitor and 
having faked his own death?

On the other hand, we have Barty showing love for his wife and son, 
showing mercy, listening to and being persuaded by his House Elf: 
behavior that was recommended for him by those characters we like. 
Nothing but bad came out of it.

JKR hasn't made me doubt my liberal belief in the rights of people 
accused of crimes, and the need to temper justice with mercy. What's 
more, she hasn't made me doubt that she has those same beliefs. But 
she has left me puzzling over this issue.
................

> It is peculiar to think about the Mirror of Erised in the course of
> writing this essay, because I think perhaps I need to listen to
> Dumbledore's warning myself.  In fact, I wonder whether I might not
> be a howling hypocrite in writing this essay at all.  What would 
> Dumbledore say to me?  I have not gotten out of bed to look in the 
> Mirror of Erised three nights in a row, but I have gone to see the 
> Harry Potter movie four times in the last week.  Is it time for him
> to remind me not to dwell in dreams, rather than real life?  

Did seeing the movie cut into your sleep, as sneaking out to the 
Mirror cut into Harry's sleep? (That he should have been sleeping 
suggests new and different riffs on 'not to dwell in dreams'.) 

> Are we not all, in this group, a bit excessive in our obsession
> with Harry Potter?  Do we need more temperance?

Probably. But, y'know, there's that cliche about no one ever said on 
their death bed that they wished they had made more money or spent 
more hours at the office, but rather they always say they wish they'd 
spent more time with their families. I DO NOT believe that that 
saying is literally true, but I do appreciate it as a test of the 
value of activities.