CHAPDISC: DH25, Shell Cottage

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 184010

Carol earlier:
> > Griphook himself is certainly no "fluffy bunny." He's tricky and
treacherous, and his view that Goblinmade works, paid for by Wizards,
belong to the Goblin who made them is preposterous. If I paint your
portrait (pretending that I can do so) and you pay me for it, you own
the portrait. I *might* own the reproduction rights, depending on what
society I live in, but not the portrait itself. 
> 
Montavilla47:
> I think this would depend on the original contract.  I mean, I can
buy a car or I can lease it (or rent) it.  If I buy it, it's mine.  If
I rent or lease, it remains the property of the owner, but I have the
 rights to it for certain amount of time.  Maybe it was only for life
that Godric Gryffindor leased the sword.  We don't really know, do we?

Carol again:
True. We don't. However, we don't see any leases in the HP books and
we do see items bought and sold. We also have Bill's pointed remark to
Griphook when Griphook says that the tiara was made by Goblins: "And
paid for by Wizards." Since the sword of Gryffindor was clearly made
for him to his specifications, it's a safe bet that he didn't steal
it. Since the possibility of his having leased the sword for life
isn't raised, even by Griphook, who wants his claim as a goblin to be
accepted, I'd say that leasing is almost as unlikely as stealing.

Also, of course, who is Griphook to claim it for the Goblins in
general? He doesn't claim to be a descendant of the original maker.
Why does he think that *he* has any more right to it than any other
Goblin (or whichever Wizard owns the sword)? We don't see Gyrffindor's
will. If he was childless, he probably willed it to the school, for
the use of Gryffindors in peril. (Was the Sorting Hat arrangement his
or Dumbledore's? we're never told.)

Montavilla47: 
> I wonder why there is this question given about the sword.  It's not
only Griphook that Harry has a conflict with.  Scrimgeour refuses to
hand the sword over to Harry when Dumbledore wills it to him, on the
principle that the sword belongs to the *school* and that Dumbledore
had no  right to it after his death. <snip>

Carol:
I'd say that Scrimgeour, who seems to be quite familiar with WW law,
is probably right. 

Montavilla47:
> All Harry needs to tell him is that he needs the sword to accomplish
that, and Griphook would probably lend it to him for the duration of
the war. <snip>

Carol:
But would he trust Harry? I doubt it, myself. (Besides, that
reasonable compromise would make things too easy for Harry! <smile>)

Carol earlier:
> > I don't think that Godric Gryffindor stole the sword that bears
his name. It clearly was made for him to his specifications. As stated
earlier, the fact that it comes to worthy Gryffindors under conditions
of need and valor shows that it does *not* belong to the Goblins.
> 
> Montavilla47:
> I really don't understand why the coming of the sword proves that it
belongs to anyone.  Hermione was able to summon the books about
Horcruxes, but they didn't belong to her.  It seemed to me  that it
wasn't the sword doing the coming, but the Sorting Hat that was
fetching it in the CoS and with Neville.

Carol responds:
But you can't Summon the Sword of Gryffindor, as Harry finds out when
he tries to retrieve it from the bottom of the pool (no Sorting Hat
involved). Portrait!DD tells Snape that it "can only be taken under
conditions of need and valor" (DH am. ed. 680), and Snape sets up his
test to meet those conditions (which are actually better met by Ron,
chivalrously saving Harry, than by Harry himself). 

Moreover, we don't know that the Sorting Hat necessarily Summoned the
Sword, which had been taken by Griphook and must have been in his
possession. The Sword itself may have sensed Neville's need and come
to him through the hat when *it* was summoned. (Of course, *Voldemort*
could not have pulled it out of the Hat. Only a worthy Gryffindor
could have done so.)

Scrimgeour, who describes the way the Sword works and explains why it
didn't belong to Dumbledore, says nothing about the Sorting Hat:

"According to reliable historical sources, the sword may *present
itself* to any worthy Gryffindor. That does not make it the exclusive
property of Mr. Potter, whatever Dumbledore may have decided" ( 129,
my italics).

It sounds to me as if the magic is in the sword itself, not in the
Sorting Hat. And it sounds exactly like the sort of magic that Godric
Gryffindor, original owner of the sword, would have specified as one
of its properties. (Alternatively, he could have placed the spell on
it himself when he knew that he was dying and willed it to the school,
to be kept in the headmaster's office, or perhaps in the office of the
HoH of Gryffindor if the headmaster belonged to some other house. Just
speculating, of course.)

Montavilla47: 
> Which makes me wonder.  Why did the Hat only produce the Sword? 
Would it have summoned the Locket, if a Slytherin had needed it? 
Would it have brought the Cup for a Hufflepuff and the Tiara for a
Ravenclaw? <snip>

Carol:
I don't think that those items had any such spells on them. We don't
know what the locket and cup were originally used for, but the tiara
was used for enhancing intelligence, and it was *stolen* by
Ravenclaw's daughter. If it could come to any worthy Ravenclaw, via
the Sorting Hat or any other means, it would not have been missing for
a thousand years, hidden in a hollow tree in Albania. (That must have
been some sturdy, long-lived tree!) To state the obvious, the sword is
a weapon and the Gryffindor House virtue is courage, so it makes sense
that Gryffindor would have placed, or had the Goblin maker place, a
spell on it so that it would come to a courageous Gryffindor in need
of a weapon. I doubt if Helga Hufflepuff, for example, would have
thought to have her cup, whatever its magical properties, come to a
loyal Hufflepuff in need of a drink! Certainly, none of the artifacts
other than the sword would be much use in facing an enemy. The locket,
we know, was handed down through the family, as was the cup. I can
only guess that Gryffindor, unlike his three colleagues, didn't marry
and have children. (BTW, why couldn't Helena wait till her mother died
and willed her the tiara, assuming that she was an only child? Maybe
she thought she'd be disinherited?)

> Carol:
> > nevertheless, we see Harry forced by circumstances into making a
somewhat ethically iffy bargain--he intends to keep his promise to
give Griphook the Sword of Gryffindor as his reward, but only when
he's through with it. If Harry had named that condition, he'd have
been more honest, but Griphook might not have agreed to that
condition, and Harry couldn't take that chance. 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> But why not?  Why would Griphook want to keep from Harry something
that would help destroy Voldemort?  All Harry has to say to Griphook
is that he needs the sword to help defeat Voldemort and that he'll
give it to Griphook when Voldemort is gone.  
> 
> The only way that doesn't work is if:  
> a) Griphook doesn't believe Voldemort will ever be gone, or
> b) Griphook doesn't believe that Harry will survive Voldemort, or
> c) Griphook doesn't trust Harry to keep his word. <snip>

Carol responds:
You've answered your own question. I think, though, that it's
primarily c. Griphook doesn't trust any wizard, including Harry, as
indicated by his behavior once they've found the cup Horcrux. He grabs
the sword and runs away. What he doesn't realize is that neither he
nor the Goblins in general is the sword's true owner, as evidenced by
its coming to Neville, a "worthy Gryffindor" (to quote Scrimgeour)
"under conditions of need and valor" (to quote Portrait!DD).

Montavilla47:
> I suppose Griphook has no reason to think that Harry will survive
Voldemort, but there are plenty of witnesses around who can testify
about Harry's promise if that becomes an issue.  He could also ask for
a written contract. <snip>

Carol:
As I said before, I think the reason is primarily that Griphook
doesn't trust wizards. Also, I think that Aussie may be right in
thinking that the handshake creates a magically binding contract,
making it impossible for Harry to keep the sword. No need for a
written contract in those circumstances, whether Harry survives or
not. But even that sneaky tactic, if we're correct, can't do more than
take the sword from Harry and place it in Griphook's possession. It
can't make Griphook the sword's rightful owner or undo the magic that
binds it to come to a worthy Gryffindor at need. (Of course, as
Scrimgeour has already pointed out, Harry isn't the sword's owner,
either. And neither is Neville, who will probably return it to the
school at some point.

Carol, quite happy that Griphook was outmanouvered by a powerful
magical object, whether through its own will or that of Godric Gryffindor