Wandless magic -- is is Dark in here or is it me?

[ssk7882]

No: HPFGUIDX 43019

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:

> And remember that the Darkest spell we've seen in the books so 
> far -- the one that resurrected Voldemort in the graveyard -- 
> involves a potion.  But it also involves a certain amount of wand-
> waving and an incantation.  It seems like some sort of combination 
> of Potions and traditional spell-casting.  Which does seem to 
> suggest that Potions and Dark Arts are closely related somehow.

In fact, most of the Dark Arts that we've actually seen in the books
don't seem to require a wand, do they?

We don't know precisely what all of that "Dark Arts stuff" that
Lucius Malfoy has hidden under that trapdoor of his is, but the
items that have either been mentioned or that we know came from
his stash include poisons (wandless) and Riddle's Diary (an
enchanted object).  Creating the diary may have involved a wand;
we just don't know.  Activating it obviously does not.

Although we know that there do exist "dark" books -- or at least,
I infer as much from the existence of a restricted section in 
Hogwarts' library -- the items that the text mentions as on display in B&Bs all seem to be magical artifacts and enchanted items: the hand of glory, the enchanted necklace.  No books are mentioned.

The Weasley admonition against seemingly self-aware magical items
strikes me as highly significant here.  The Marauder's Map seems to have a mind of its own; so does the Sorting Hat.  Are these items "Dark?"  Well...maybe not.  But they certainly are *suspicious,* aren't they?  Was there anyone here who upon reading PoA for the first time, did *not* get a thrill of dire apprehension when Snape asked Lupin whether Harry might not have received the Map "direct from the manufacturers themselves?"  

Voldemort activates his followers' Dark Marks by touching Wormtail's
mark with his finger, not with his wand.  He managed to possess
Quirrell without his wand.  Was Quirrell's wand required?  Somehow
I really doubt it.  Similarly, we don't know precisely what was
required for him to become embodied in the ugly baby form.  Potion
ingredients are specified; wands and incantations are not.  Again,
I somehow feel doubtful that a wand was involved at all.

Divination also appears to be a completely wandless art.  Neither
the less efficacious skills that Trelawney teaches to her students
nor the one act of True Seership we have seen her exhibit involve wand or incantation.  I've hypothesized elsewhere (message #35373) that Divination itself may be itself a suspect art.

My gut feeling here (admittedly on the basis of very little in the
way of canonical proof) is that the sort of magic that does not
require a wand is primarily *old* magic, magic that predates the
ritualized formulae developed by the Wizarding World.  There is
a mythopoetic quality to many of the wandless magics that exist
in the WW, yet which are not outlawed classified as inherently "Dark."  People transforming into animal forms which reflect a part of their inherent essence, people foreseeing the future, potions brewed up in cauldrons, magical artifacts which continue to reflect their creators' personalities long after their creators have moved on...these are the magics of myth and of fairy tale.  They are *old* magics, older than the spell-casting of the ceremonial magician, with his Latinate incantations and his carefully formulated gestures.
Old magics may well be suspect within the WW simply by virtue of being less controllable, less predictable -- and far less well-understood.

Into the category of "old" magic, though, I would also have to
group the "ancient" magics which Dumbledore cites in tones of
reverence.  The bond of the life-debt.  The protective power of sacrificial maternal love.  

Both of which are evidently wandless.

Neither of which is Dark.


-- Elkins