Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 175150

Mike wrote:
> <snip>
> -Sirius' Assessment from GoF-
> 
> Many have brought up Sirius, what he thought of the UCs. But Sirius
brought up the UCs as one of several things he had against Crouch. 
And let's not forget the passage that sent Sirius down the road to 
discuss Crouch. 
> 
> "Sirius face darkened. He suddenly looked as menacing as he had the
 night when Harry had first met him, the night when Harry still 
believed Sirius to be a murderer.
> 
> 'Oh I know Crouch all right,' he said quietly.'He was the one who 
gave the order for me to be sent to Azkaban -- without a trial.'"
> 
> This is obviously personal to Sirius. This sets the stage for his 
comments about Crouch.
> 
> Later Sirius enumerates Crouch's shortcomings - authorized the
Aurors powers to kill, handing people over to the dementors without a
trial and authorized the UCs.
> 
> Yes, Sirius' assessment of Crouch was spot on. But does that speak
to his hatred of Crouch rather than his moral assessment of the UCs?
And didn't he include more than the UCs as a basis for his expression
of revulsion, particularly including how others had received the same
treatment that he got vis-a-vis Azkaban? The thing that caused him to
 become quite repulsive a page earlier?
> 
> Certainly Sirius doesn't approve of the UCs, that's why he included
them in his list of Crouch's detractions. <snip>

Carol responds:
Thank you, Mike, for quoting canon. I feel as if I'm back at HPfGu
instead of in the middle of a namecalling match, with each side
hurling unsupported generalizations at the other in so many different
threads. 

I don't want to take a stand on the Crucio argument because I agree
with you on some points and with Lee on others (notably the etymology
of the curse). I do want to say, though, that Sirius Black is mistaken
on at least one key point regarding Mr. Crouch, so he's not just
(understandably) prejudiced against Crouch for sending him to Azkaban
without a trial, he's not seeing him clearly because of his limited
perspective. (Unlike Harry and the reader, he doesn't see him in the
the forest or hear the full story from the Veritaserumed Barty Jr.)

Black, who knows only part of the story and thinks that Barty Jr. died
in Azkaban (and thinks that Barty Sr. is sneaking into Snape's
office), uses Mr. Crouch's sending his own son to Azkaban with only a
show trial as evidence of his ruthlessness:

"Crouch let his son off? I thought you had the measure of him,
Hermione <snip> Crouch's fatherly affection stretched just far enough
to give him a trial, and by all accounts, it wasn't much more than an
excuse to show how much he hated the boy. . . . then he sent him
straight to Azkaban" (GoF am. ed. 528). He tells HRH that the boy died
in Azkaban and that Crouch never came for his body (really his wife's)
 and that the result was a "big drop in [Crouch's] popularity. Once
the boy had died, people started feeling more sympathetic toward the
son and started asking how a nice young lad from a good family had
gone so badly astray. The conclusion was that his father never cared
much for him" (529-30). 

But Black (and the "people" he cites as his authorities) is mistaken.
As shown by "The Madness of Mr. Crouch," Mr. Crouch did love his son
and was proud of him. Addressing the tree he thinks is Percy, the mad
Mr. Crouch says, "Yes, my son has recently gained twelve O.W.L.s, most
satisfactory, yes, thank you, very proud indeed" (556). He seems to be
bringing up an old memory (not lying or inventing something that
didn't happen). And even his attempt to keep his Death Eater son (who
clearly *was* guilty of helping the Lestranges Crucio the Longbottoms
into insanity, as his conduct toward Neville reveals) under the
Imperius Curse appears to be a misguided act of love. The repentant
Crouch Sr. and his unrepentant Death Eater son make an interesting
contrast, and it's clear to me at least which is the more ruthless. 

One more point regarding Sirius Black and Unforgiveable Curses: he
doesn't seem to condemn the real Mad-Eye Moody for (presumably) using
the Killing Curse to kill Evan Rosier, Wilkes, and whoever else he
couldn't bring in alive. He praises him for only killing when he had
to (532).

In short, I agree with Mike that what appears to be Sirius Black's
blanket condemnation of the Unforgiveable Curses on moral grounds is
actually a partially mistaken judgment of Barty Crouch Sr. as
ruthless, power-hungry, and willing to turn his own son over to the
Dementors to cement his bid for power. But the son, pleading tearfully
for mercy from his father, turns out to be much more ruthless than his
father ever was.

> Mike:
> Well, I never took Latin and I don't know Arabic. But JKR gave many
spells names with origins in these two languages and at the same time
told us that she was using her *own* bastardized interpretations.

Carol:
Only one from Arabic that I know of. the rest are "dog Latin" but
recognizable to anyone with a knowledge of latin roots. I *wouldn't*
disregard the etymologies. Crucio is the torture curse, both in its
etymology and in the uses to which it is put in the books. Read the
descriptions when Harry is suffering from it or Mr. Ollivander's and
Wormtails' pleas to excuse them for giving information as the result
of it or hermione's screams as Bellatrix tortures her in DH. So on
this point I agree with Lee.

Mike:
I don't hold with your non-canonical "I torture" in place of "Crucio".
Although I understand it is your interpretation. I have still not been
convinced that what Harry did was "torture". What  Bella did to the
Longbottoms, that was torture.

Carol:
It may be noncanonical, but it's certainly correct Latin and JKR chose
it for that reason, just as "imperius" comes from "imperius"
(command). What Carrow does to Harry in HBP and LV to Harry in GoF and
Bella to Neville in OoP and LV to Avery in OoP and Bella to Hermione
in DH is also torture even though it isn't sufficiently prolonged to
drive them to insanity.

Mike:
> 
> Carol explained to me that "Sectumsempra" means "cut ever". So if
you don't have Snape's specific countercurse you are not going to
stopper this cut. Yet Molly staunched the blood flow for George in DH,
and I feel confident that she never asked Snape for the countercurse.
So it seems the fanciful Latin name was not strictly translated. In
any case, there seems to be several possible translations, of which 
torture is only one. <snip>

Carol:
Actually, it means "cut always," but "cut ever" will do. (Compare
"Semper fidelis," "always faithful," which leads me to the Fidelius
Charm, breached when Pettigrew *broke faith* by betraying the secret
to LV and not when the Potters were killed. And, yes, I can support
this reading with canon.) At any rate, I don't think we can safely
ignore etymology in the HP books.

As for Sectumsempra, it doesn't mean "*bleed* always," so Molly can
stop the bleeding. What she can't do is replace the ear that was
sliced off ('cut always") through Dark magic. (Had Snape's target DE
not swerved at the sound of the spell, it's likely he would have lost
his hand.)

Since Snape, and only Snape, appears to know the countercurse to
Sectumsempra (as you say, it's unlikely he'd have taught it to Molly,
and she certainly isn't almost singing to George as Snape is to Draco
in HBP), it's possible--just possible--that he, unlike Molly, could
have restored George's ear. If anyone could, it would be the
paradoxical Severus Snape.

An aside: Does anyone think that Harry's lament in the second chapter
of DH that he's never learned to heal cuts magically relates to
Snape's death wounds? If not, what does it foreshadow?

Carol, who agrees with Mike that we seem to have misread JKR's moral
stance on the Unforgiveables but with Lee that Crucio is, indeed, the
torture curse and nothing else