Nature of Patronus - Snape's Messenger Patronus

[Richard]

No: HPFGUIDX 182620

bboyminn wrote:

> Well, I think there is one thing the people are forgetting, and
> that is, very likely, many people have the same Patronus. I
> mean, there are only just so many realistically available animals
> in the world. Many people are bound to have a Dog Patronus, 
> but just as every real dog is different, so to would every
> dog Patronus be different. 
> 
> The same with a Stag, I find it hard to believe that Harry is 
> the only person in the world with a Stag Patronus. So, while
> people may have known Snape and Lily both had Doe patronus's
> I don't think that would have been anything other than a mild
> point of curiosity.

Richard here:

I think the point is good, but you also have to consider that there 
are only so many wizards in the Potter-verse, and not all of them are 
capable of producing corporial patronuses.  The fact that Harry was 
able to produce one was of considerable interest to his DADA OWL 
examiner.  It does not seem from canon that we should expect vast 
overlap, if this is the case, and I recall no evidence that the 
casting of them was taught at Hogwarts as a portion of normal DADA 
curriculum.

A counter-argument is that Harry was able to teach the DA members how 
to produce corporial patronuses ... though we are lead to believe 
that he was an exceptional teacher, too.

bboyminn wrote:

> Also, consider that amoung the Marauders, unless they were 
> blind and stupid, they must have realized there was something
> between Snape and Lily. Exactly what that 'something' was I
> don't think was clear, but James and Sirius meet Lily and
> Snape together on the first train ride to Hogwarts. Snape
> maintained his friendship will Lily until it became clear
> that Snape was 'hanging with a rough crowd' and Lily couldn't
> accept that.

Richard here:

I take it as a given that they knew that there HAD BEEN something 
there, but did they know what Snape's patronus was PRIOR to Lily's 
death?  And most male deer are antlerless at least some of the time, 
which means that, barring some close examination, others might assume 
a deer patronus of Snape's was male and interestingly antlerless 
(thus "asexual," "impotent," a "gelding" or otherwise "deformed" much 
as they see Snape).

bboyminn wrote:

> Further, if Snape's Patronus CHANGED to a Doe, would that mean
> he was incapable of casting his original Patronus if he will 
> it to be so? By that I mean, if he spontaneously casts a
> Patronus, it comes out a Doe, but if he consciously and
> willfully cast his Patronus, he can force it to be his original. 

> So, two points, I don't think it's uncommon to find individuals
> with similar patronuses. It would be a curious event, but not
> an unheard of.  Next, if a Partonus can change, does that 
> imply some possibility that a person can willfully cast a
> Patronus in more than one form? Keep in mind that Snape was
> a brilliant wizard who was extremely knowledgeable in magic
> spells. 
> 

Richard here:

It seems to me (and I do mean "seems," as there isn't a lot of canon 
on the topic) that one's patronus is a reflection of one's "heart" or 
character, and not subject to willful alteration.  Snape's heart is 
lost to Lily, and he at least appears incapable of producing a 
patronus that reflects that fact.

We are also told that one must concentrate on one's happy memories in 
order to produce a patronus at all, and it would seem an interference 
to think of anything else, such as alterations to one's patronus and 
its corporial manifestation, while trying to produce one.  Sure, we 
have people of considerable power generating them apparently at will, 
but this is one of the areas where I think JKR lost a bit of the 
thread of her own story ... or left out detail in order to proceed 
with the tale.

In the end we have the tale, and in that tale we are not told much 
that would be of interest to many of us ... such as whether Harry 
knew what his mother's patronus was.  Barring JKR telling us, I don't 
see a resolution to this.