Did Dumbledore Make a Horcrux?

How does a wizard learn about the existence and properties of Horcruxes? Who knows what they are, how to make them, what they can do? What wizard would make a Horcrux? Under what circumstances? And for what reasons? And why are they so evil? Hermione is working very hard to answer these questions. As Hogwarts virtual library search-engine, she is coming up empty – no answers to these questions can be found at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry so far.

tomriddle

Fifty years ago, Tom Riddle, while still a student at Hogwarts, somehow learned of Horcruxes. How he did this is something of a mystery since Tom has no wizarding family, no connection with anyone in the wizarding world outside of Hogwarts (that we know of), and attended a school where Horcruxes were a banned subject, where Dumbledore at the time was, as Slughorn explains, (HBP, US version p. 499) “particularly fierce about it…” (“it” being the ban on Horcruxes). And yet by the end of Book 6, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, we believe that Tom Riddle-turned-Voldemort had probably divided his soul into seven parts and created six external Horcruxes in his lifetime.

How do we learn of the Voldemort Horcruxes?

Through Dumbledore’s suspicions.

Dumbledore is the only wizard who suspected that Voldemort created Horcruxes. When the Avada Kedavra curse Voldemort used against Harry backfired and diminished Voldemort, Dumbledore suspected that Voldemort had made a Horcrux. Then Tom Riddle’s diary came along in Chamber of Secrets and Dumbledore’s theory gained some support. No mere memory, the being in Tom Riddle’s diary began to come to life and behave like a Horcrux, restoring Voldemort to life.

But then Tom Riddle’s diary was destroyed when Harry stabbed it with the poison basilisk fang, and Voldemort did not perish. So here Dumbledore must have begun to realize that either he was wrong about his theory that Voldemort had made a Horcrux or that there may have been more than one Horcrux. What an astounding idea this must have seemed! And in Book 6 when Harry returned from the graveyard and reported what Voldemort told his followers at the end of Goblet of Fire about having gone further than any other wizard, Dumbledore believed that this information provided support for the possibility that Voldemort may have been using Horcruxes, but had been using more than one of them. Remember, it wasn’t until Harry finagled that bit of memory from Slughorn (in HBP) that we got any confirmation at all of Dumbledore’s Horcrux theory. Slughorn’s memory shows the first hard evidence linking Voldemort with the Horcruxes.

But Dumbledore suspected the possibility of a Horcrux from the beginning. Why? Why suspect a Horcrux? Was it because he was familiar with the concept? Was it because he had already created one?

Dumbledore create something as evil as a Horcrux! Impossible!

Or is it? (Hmmm, perhaps I should write for the Quibbler…)

Here’s a thought: perhaps it is not the Horcrux itself that is evil, but killing someone in order to create a Horcrux that is evil. Slughorn explains that the Horcrux is created: “By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use this damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion (of his soul in a Horcrux)” (HBP p. 498).

Killing rips the soul apart. This is important: Killing rips the soul apart — whether one makes a Horcrux or not. The evil act is in the killing. If a wizard had killed another person, regardless of his intent, the ripping of the soul would have occurred.

There are three possible forms of intent involved in the act of killing. The first is malice, the desire to inflict harm and affect a killing. We usually associate this with anger or hatred and Muggle and Wizard societies both punish this type of act. The second form of intent is self-preservation. Here the person who affects the murder is justified in doing so because he, his family, his friends or even his society as a whole are in danger from the person who is about to be killed. In this case the killer is not punished by society. And the third form of intent is actually lack-of-intent. This is the case when a person or persons are killed inadvertently, or accidentally. In the Muggle world this is sometimes punished, sometimes not. If the killer’s lack of due diligence caused the death(s) — as in drunken driving — we tend to punish it, even though it was not intended by the killer. If the killer shows due diligence — and someone simply jumps out onto the road in front of a moving car — we tend not to punish the killer.

I do believe that killing under any of the three forms of intent causes damage to the soul. Maybe there is no blame to be laid, no guilt to be levied, but there would still be great anguish to the soul of someone who realizes he has taken a life. Whether through malice, self-defense, or completely by accident, the person who kills is diminished in some way by having taken a life. I believe this is the damage to the soul. It is not a punishment by society, but a natural result of destroying life. And I think this damage occurs no matter how good or evil the person who affects the killing is as a person. In fact, it is easy to imagine that the anguish of a good person who is pressed to kill is far greater than that of someone who feels no loss at ending someone’s life.

The damage to the soul would be irreversible. And here a wizard could use this damage “to his advantage (by) encasing the torn portion in a Horcrux.” Creating a Horcrux, in and of itself, is not evil. It is the murder that precedes the Horcrux creation that causes the soul to be ripped apart that is evil. Killing is, as Slughorn explains, “the supreme act of evil.” The evil is done. And then you have a damaged soul. Encasing your now-damaged soul in a Horcrux neither extends nor eradicates the evil born of the murder. A Horcrux is simply a container for that already-damaged portion of the soul.

We know, from Albus Dumbledore’s chocolate frog card (Philosopher’s Stone, UK edition, p. 77), that “Dumbledore is particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindlewald in 1945, for the discovery of the twelve uses of dragon’s blood and his work on alchemy with his partner Nicolas Flamel.” So, in 1945 Dumbledore defeated the evil wizard Grindlewald. How might he have “defeated” Grindlewald? Did he need to kill him as perhaps Harry needs to kill Voldemort? There is no mention of Grindlewald in Azkaban. I suspect that the defeat did involve a killing.

If Dumbledore had killed Grindlewald, then perhaps Dumbledore might have created a Horcrux. Not necessarily an evil Horcrux, but the product of opportunity rather than the product of an evil act. Dumbledore is a very intelligent, logical being. If the killing of Grindlewald was necessary, then the possibility of creating a Horcrux might be a logical follow-up. And if the killing was a positive event eliminating evil from the wizard world, then perhaps Dumbledore’s Horcrux — though borne through dark magic — would not be an evil thing. Not creating a Horcrux would not have changed his need to kill Grindlewald.

Why would Dumbledore even consider making a Horcrux? In Book 1, McGonagall has a conversation with Dumbledore in which she points out that he knows all of the Dark Magic, but that she believes he chooses not to use any of it. Perhaps he has had good reason to use Dark Magic for some positive purposes. And remember, Dumbledore’s old friend, Nicholas Flamel, sought eternal life with the Philosopher’s Stone. Why is it hard to suppose that Dumbledore may have sought eternal life as well? A different means to that end, yes, but still with a goal to the same end.

But would Dumbledore have committed this supreme act of evil? If Dumbledore has committed a killing, he would have to have a damaged soul. The damage done by killing another is absolute. Does Dumbledore have a damaged soul? Having a soul like Harry’s that is “untarnished and whole” (p. 511) is certainly wonderful but may not be something that every witch and wizard can claim. Dumbledore is 150 years old and has been battling evil in the wizarding world for quite some time. Is it possible that his soul is still untarnished and whole? That he has never harmed another witch or wizard, evil or otherwise? I think not. Only youth has such purity and innocence. As people go through life, wizards and Muggles alike, we are confronted with difficult choices and obstacles, points in our lives at which there is no easy answer.

So let’s assume Dumbledore did need to finish Grindlewald to remove his evil influence from the world. What Horcrux would hold Dumbledore’s damaged bit of soul? Gryffindor’s Sword perhaps? One of the many silvery spindly objects in his office? I don’t think so. I think Dumbledore’s Horcrux is the phoenix Fawkes.

Isn’t it most interesting that Dumbledore suspected that Nagini was one of Voldemort’s Horcruxes? We know Voldemort to be a friendless person who collects inanimate artifacts and objects for his Horcrux keepers. Why would Dumbledore think that Voldemort might choose Nagini to guard a portion of his soul? Why suppose that a wizard would choose any animal as a Horcrux, unless of course you had already done the very same thing yourself.

There is no comparison between Nagini and Fawkes as viable soul-keepers, or Horcruxes. Nagini is a snake, a magical creature with questionable moral values. Fawkes is a magical creature known for extreme loyalty, the ability to heal wounds and transport very heavy loads for long distances. Fawkes seems to be all positive attributes. And even more importantly: Nagini can be destroyed. Fawkes, a phoenix, cannot be killed. He will continue to rise anew from the ashes, reborn to continue on. Fawkes is an excellent choice for a Horcrux. Fawkes will live forever.

All right, so let’s say we allow the assumption that Dumbledore has made a Horcrux. And let’s go on to the next step and allow that Harry discovers it. This is, by the way, quite necessary since the Harry Potter stories are all told from Harry’s point of view and we would certainly not know of the Horcrux unless Harry knew of it as well. How would this Horcrux work itself into the story in Book 7? What would be the value and difficulty of discovering that Dumbledore had created a Horcrux?

The value is easy to spot. There is then the possibility that Dumbledore isn’t gone for good. He may have died physically, but he could be reborn through the use of his Horcrux. This is, for everyone except Voldemort and the Death Eaters, a very uplifting possibility. Dumbledore’s abrupt departure from the quest to destroy Voldemort at the close of Book 6 is quite disturbing. It is as though, after so many, many years of his research and discovery to identify Voldemort’s weakness(es), Dumbledore simply vanishes.

What if Harry is not the only one to learn of Fawkes’s role as a Horcrux? Then what? Who else might be trying to recover Fawkes at the same time as Harry?

The most likely wizard to join Harry in the pursuit of Fawkes would be — Severus Snape. Somehow, Snape will know that Fawkes was Dumbledore’s Horcrux and will be trying to get Fawkes. Harry will discover this. Not knowing whether Snape is good or evil, we won’t know whether Snape should get Fawkes or not. Hermione will tell us we should trust Dumbledore’s faith in Snape; Harry will be convinced Snape is up to something evil. It is possible Snape is supposed to acquire Fawkes, that Dumbledore wants him to, and that Snape was aware — at the moment of the Avada Kedavra curse on top of the tower — that there would be further steps to having Dumbledore return to make sure that Voldemort was vanquished.

Furthermore: How would Dumbledore have protected Fawkes from Voldemort? Surely Dumbledore would have foreseen that someone on the Dark Side might have discovered Fawkes’s value as a Horcrux. How might he have provided protection for Fawkes? Perhaps in was in the same way he protected the Philosopher’s Stone. Remember the protection Dumbledore placed on the Stone in the Mirror of Erised? “You see, only one who wanted to find the Stone — find it, but not use it — would be able to get it…” (PS p.217) Perhaps Harry will need to want to recover Fawkes, but not activate Dumbledore’s Horcrux in order to gain Fawkes.

Maybe when Harry discovers that Dumbledore has a Horcrux — Fawkes — a choice has to be made about bringing Dumbledore back or going on without Dumbledore’s help. What if the choice was there and Harry has to decide whether to rely on Dumbledore’s help or to move on as a now-adult wizard (Harry comes of age at the start of Book 7 on July 31) and accept his role as The Chosen One? A choice between what is right and what is easy, perhaps.

Somehow, I have found it hard to believe that Dumbledore would so easily leave the battle with Voldemort. Dumbledore has spent many years researching Voldemort’s background and looking for ways to finish him. Why would he bow out so easily, before he could see his work brought to closure? Completed by Harry, yes, but brought to closure.

And the wording of Professor Trelawney’s prophecy is curious, as well, “one cannot live while the other survives…” If Harry, himself, does not directly cause Voldemort’s death, Harry will retain his pure, untarnished, virgin soul. He will remain in many ways childlike and pure. Is this desirable? Or does Harry need to pass through a gauntlet of sorts to become an adult? Perhaps Harry must kill Voldemort to become an adult. Perhaps this is a painful process that must be done. Harry came awfully close to damaging his soul with the Septumsempra curse on Malfoy. It is not impossible to believe that Harry will have to suffer the consequences of his anger and hatred toward Voldemort (and maybe Snape). As a minor (under the age of 17) Harry still has a pure untarnished soul. But is it realistic to expect that this will continue throughout his adult life? I think not. Life is not that simple.

Meanwhile, there is one other important player in this search: Hagrid. Rubeus Hagrid, Keeper of Keys and Grounds at Hogwarts, is our resident expert in Magical Creatures. That’s Fawkes, a magical creature. Hagrid will know how to recover and capture Fawkes (just like Hagrid knew how to lull Fluffy to sleep) because Dumbledore would have told him. Dumbledore tells Professor McGonagall in Book 1, “I would trust Hagrid with my life,” and he has. Dumbledore has shared with Hagrid Fawkes’s secret.

So while we know there will be a search going on for Voldemort’s Horcruxes in Book 7, we may learn that a parallel search will commence for Dumbledore’s Horcrux, Fawkes.

I really do believe that Dumbledore does have a Horcrux. The Horcrux is Fawkes, his soul mate, literally. And Hagrid is the Secret keeper of the Horcrux secret.

Hagrid will likely die protecting this information. And what does that mean? Hopefully we’ll find out soon, because J.K. chose this topic as one of the three FAQ questions she would like to answer on her web site: What happens to a Secret after the Secret keeper dies? I don’t think this is of terribly vital importance to 12 Grimmauld Place, but I do think it will matter even more when it comes to losing Hagrid.

We learn of the existence of Horcruxes out of the blue in Book 6 of the seven book series. No mention of them in any of the thousands of pages preceding Half-Blood Prince in Books 1 through 5. Will we learn in Book 7 that there is another Horcrux? Dumbledore’s Horcrux?

Share this article:
Jan-Marie Spanard
Jan-Marie Spanard

Jan-Marie Spanard is a visual artist who tends to notice many of the small details in light, color, language, people's expressions, coins in the parking lot, and life in general. She says she is over-educated (with two masters degrees and a PhD) and has read each of J.K.'s Harry books at least a half-dozen times (so far).

Articles: 1
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

341 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Silvea Kartama
Silvea Kartama
17 years ago

I think I found a flaw in your Horcrux theory. I was “sleuthing” the second book and I noticed something Dobby said during his first encounter with Harry.

“Dobby bowed his head.

‘Albus Dumbledore is the greatest headmaster Hogwarts has ever had. Dobby knows it, sir. Dobby has heard Dumbledore’s powers rival those of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named at the height of his strength. But, sir” — Dobby’s voice dropped to an urgent whisper — “there are powers Dumbledore doesn’t…powers no decent wizard…'”

Not only does this rival the Horcrux theory, it also hints that Dobby knows about Voldemort’s Horcruxes. You might want to look into it; or you might not; but I thought I’d alert you to this. ^_^ -silvea-

Amy Wilde-Taylor
Amy Wilde-Taylor
17 years ago

I was hoping Jan-Marie would address Dumbledore’s appearance in the head master portrait. For me, this squelched my hopes that it was all a rouse. He appears in a portrait like the other deceased headmasters, therefore he is deceased. I haven’t read the entire website, so maybe the answer that disproves my ‘proof’ is in another article I haven’t read, but please, prove me wrong! I, like many others, can’t deal with the loss of Dumbledore.
Thanks,
Amy

neal randall
neal randall
17 years ago

this theory makes perfect sense through all of the books
I myself agreed with this

Marcia
Marcia
17 years ago

Amy
It is answered on the main article Dumbledore is Not Dead.
I myself read that whole thing and added the phoenix horcrux idea to the comments before reading this article. My sister and I came up with this same theory on our own and it fits all the clues.Dumbledore is only mostly dead.
About the portraits, if you don’t want to go over there, the article points out that all JKR says about the portraits is that they are of “past” headmasters and headmistresses, not merely deceased heads. I also bring up the chocolate frog cards–famous witches and wizards show up in those all the time without being dead….

Elizabeth
Elizabeth
17 years ago

I definetly agree with this theory, in fact, at Dumbledore’s “funeral” Harry thought he saw a pheonix rising out of the tomb, I believe this is Dumbledore’s Horcrux.

Matt
Matt
17 years ago

Here’s another possibility- the potion Dumbledore drank, which caused him what seemed like emotional anguish, was some sort of distilled remorse/responsibility for Voldemort’s many crimes which tore Dumbledore’s soul when he experienced it. Dumbledore survives in a horcrux- maybe Harry himself, maybe the crystal goblet in Voldemort’s cave. Maybe the seemingly-worthless locket.

Support: on the tower, during the conversation with Malfoy, Malfoy says that Rosmerta reported that Dumbledore went out for a drink. Dumbledore says that he did indeed have a drink, and that he did come back, “after a fashion.” That doesn’t sound like something someone who’d torn his soul years before would say, it does sound like something someone who recently did so might say. It implies that his basic nature was altered or diminished by the potion.

rosemary rimmer-clay
rosemary rimmer-clay
17 years ago

Well, maybe Dumbledore is himself the true villain of the piece and has ‘gone underground’ (literally) to carry on plotting Harry’s demise! (He hasn’t been that successful at protecting Harry from the things that go bump in the night, thus far!)
Think the unthinkable! I also think Harry is for the chop in the final moments of the final book…but as to how, and who…the author is good at laying false trails so I expect we won’t find out until the final page!

Dave Haber
Dave Haber
17 years ago

Wow, Rosemary, you just sent shivers down my spine! I think it’s unlikely, but I never considered that unthinkable possibility!

Jan-Marie Spanard
Jan-Marie Spanard
17 years ago

To Amy- (I was hoping Jan-Marie would address Dumbledore’s appearance in the head master portrait.)
JKR has said that the portraits are of ‘past headmasters and headmistresses’ and has made no statement about whether they were dead or not.
However, I do believe Dumbledore’s body is currently dead (as was Voldemort’s after his Avada Kedavra spell rebounded on him from baby Harry). And I do believe that Dumbledore is currently on the ‘next adventure’ that he foresaw after physical death had occurred. In fact, Voldemort has already described his experience of this adventure (…was ripped from my body…etc)
If we want Dumbledore to regain his body, by activating his horcrux, we’re going to need some help. From someone who knows how to do this spell/potion. Someone who has already done it: Wormtail. Thank goodness he owes Harry a life debt!

Will!
Will!
17 years ago

On the subject of the horcrux, is it possible that harry is a horocrux belonging to voldermort?

Kevin
Kevin
17 years ago

Though i have my doubts that Dumbledore is dead, I do not think Dumbledore made a Horcrux just to avoid death.
For one, in the Sorcerer’s Stone:
“To a well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.”
Though in the current state of affairs, Dumbledore might have wanted to stay alive for others sakes, when Dumbledore made the statement, Voldemort had not regained his body.
So for this prediction, the quote means that Dumbledore, at least before Lord Voldemort returned, had no desire to seek eternal life- therefore he had no reason to make a horcrux.

sheetal
sheetal
17 years ago

oh the possibility of dumbledore’s horcrux is very evident in the books but the point is how can he come back to life without the use of evil dark arts. because if we go back to chamber of secrets, tom riddle would come back to life only when ginny dies and in goblet of fire too he came back to life only through the use of those dark arts. and harry doesn’t know how to use that horcrux (fawkes, that is if he finds it)to bring dumbledore back to life…any answers?

Dave Haber
Dave Haber
17 years ago

I don’t remember in which book it says this, but I’m pretty sure it is established that the no-apparation enchantment on Hogwarts is an ancient one, possibly put on the castle by the founders themselves. It’s for the student’s protection.

Kevin
Kevin
17 years ago

Hogwarts. A History
(i can just see the look of diapointment on Hermione’s face)

Mistral
Mistral
17 years ago

Regrettably we cannot have HOGWARTS, A HISTORY (like your humour Kevin) yet, but if we look up Chapter Nine GRIM DEFEAT in PoA, we find the explanation of Apparition just as Dave said.

We all know that Dumbledore added some more protection to the school. Now if he should be �still alive� the extra protection is still working, but Snape was still able to disapparate because the enchantments end at the castle gates. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Kevin
Kevin
17 years ago

I’d wager that what ever spells or enchantments DD created would be added to the schools protections on a more permanent basis…

I’d be surprised if even DD could alter the defences of Hogwarts on his own..
I imagin he would have enlisted the aid of the staff(including snape) to protect the students.

As far as I can tell, DD’s spells stopped PEOPLE from flying in and out of the Hogwarts’ grounds…
I have to believe there are other enchantments in place to keep beasts out..
picture a rampaging dragon interupting exams…

and if I was going to hide a horcrux somewhere on the grounds,
I’d leave it with the Centaurs…

Jacob Stewart
Jacob Stewart
17 years ago

Kevin, you have a good point with the centaurs. Anyways, I remember hearing that J.K wanted the statue of Salazar Slytherin designed in a certain way because it would become important later in the series. Is this correct? Does anybody have any idea?

Kevin
Kevin
17 years ago

I bet there would be a lot of clues attached to any of the fouders statues….
does any one remember ever hearing anything about the founders having thier portraits in the headmaster/mistress’ office?
They would have to be there wouldn’t they?

Anonymous
Anonymous
17 years ago

In regaurd to your theory about the horcrux, it does not seem possible. Not only is the act of killing evil, It is PERMANANTLY removing a part of your soul that is evil. Also you are forgetting DD own veiw on death. In the first book it states that “To the well organised mind death is like going to sleep…..”

Sharon
Sharon
17 years ago

I have a question I have not been able to find an answer for yet. In GoF, Voldemort is “reborn” again in the cemetery with help from “scabbers”. Wouldn’t he have to have used one of his Horcrux’ then? If so, then either his ancestors bone or Harry’s Blood would have been it (both were used in the spell) right?

Dave Haber
Dave Haber
17 years ago

I think you’re thinking about horcruxes wrong. I don’t think six horcruxes means you can come back to life six times.

I think having horcruxes around allows you to come back whenever you want. A horcrux is part of your immortal soul. I think as long as it’s around, you can come back, you are, in essence, immortal. So, they’re not “used up” when you come back. Their presence allows you to come back.

Normally, having one horcrux would be fine for most evil people. However, Valuemart has taken out insurance in effect, having six horcruxes, the possibility of them all being destroyed is lesser, so he’s always assured of having immortality.

Make sense?

Mistral
Mistral
17 years ago

Thanks Dave, for that exellent comment on Horcruxes.

Jacob. You wanted to know if anybody had any idea if Jo said something about the statue of Salazar Slytherin.

I checked her interviews but as far as I know she said nothing particularly about that statue…but I found that there’s one thing in Chamber, actually, that Jo indicated will play later in the series. You can watch her interview with STEVE KLOVES from February 2003, on the second disc from CHAMBER of SECRETS.

This could mean that we, or better Harry, will RETURN to the Chamber as some of you have speculated.

About the Centaurs, no way that they would hide a Horcrux for anybody. They avoid wizards and it would have been beneath Voldemort to mingle with beasts!

angie
angie
17 years ago

ok, crazy idea here, but could dumbledore have been godric gryffindor? like he’s kinda like a pheonix, dieing and being reborn after living a normal lifespan? also, how does dumbledore know how bad life with a horcrux is unless he has experienced it? it’s not like he interviewed voldemort or something. another thing, how does slughorn know so much about horcruxes? any comments are welcome. and to aditi, i think i read it on jkr’s website, that harry didn’t see the horcruxes when he first got to hogwarts because he was too young when his parents died to understand death, and because the first time he saw death and understood it was when cedric died, that’s when he started seeing the thestrals. one more thing: where exactly in the fifth book does it talk about that locket? i went about crazy looking for it, and couldn’t find it.

Mistral
Mistral
17 years ago

Angie.
Before you go crazy, (I know that feeling when I am searching something in the HP books) you will find your answer about the LOCKET in OotP Chapter six THE NOBLE AND MOST ANCIENT HOUSE OF BLACK US hardcover, page 116.

You bring up very interesting questions. Dumbledore being Godric Gryffindor I don�t know, though it has also crossed my mind once. Dumbledore and Fawkes being one and the same sounds possible but then, we have to explain how it is, that we see them together in the headmaster�s office!

You ask why Dumbledore seems to know how life would be with having Horcurxes? I guess a great wizard like him, being hundred and fifty years old, would have known and seen a hundred times more than the rest of the wizarding-world. Professor McGonagall when talking with Dumbledore about Voldemort�s powe�sr said, in the first Chapter of in SS: �Only because you�re too � well-noble to use them.�

It is Slughorn who tells Tom Riddle that Dumbledore�s �particularly fierce about� the students not knowing anything about horcruxes, since it was a banned subject! Wow, a bit odd is it not, Dumbledore not even being the Headmaster at that time!

Maybe in that forbidden section in the library or in the Room of Requirement Dumbledore found out earlier in his life that wizards in the middle ages had tried their luck with Horcruxes. I wouldn�t be surprised to learn that Dumbledore at one time or more used a Time-Turner to get answers.

Joyeeta
Joyeeta
17 years ago

Ok, I have a question. If Dumbledore really split his soul, it would certainly reflect on his physical appearance, wouldn’t it? Yes, I’ve read the comment that claims that his nose being crooked is proof, but i don’t think a change like that would manifest itself in something as seemingly benign as a crooked nose. I think it would be something more ghastly – a stretching of the skin, a blurring of the features. Not to the extent that Voldemort changed, but I’m sure there would have been at least something noticeable that someone would had noticed. How did Dumbledore intend to mask that change? Voldemort simply stayed out of the limelight until he was ready. But Dumbledore was always a highly public figure…he even headed the Wizengamot. Also, Harry saw Dumbledore at close proximity in different lights tons of times. Wouldn’t he have ever noticed if there was anything in the slightest bit unnatural about Dumbledore?

Also, I understand if Dumbledore would have had to kill Whats-His-Name to ‘defeat’ him, but the idea that he would use this killing to further his goals ( however noble they may be) does sound rather perverted to me. Its one thing to be pragmatic but quite another to use a murder’s impact on your soul to cold-bloodedly rip it into pieces. I think Dumbledore is above that.

But I have to admit that using Fawkes as a Horcrux does seem like a rather tempting idea

Ralph
Ralph
17 years ago

I would like to add some different perspective about immortality. The dark version is the Horcrux which actually symbolizes that you get immortal through humilating your own soul. That is also symbolized through the Ouroboros which is the snake which feeds on itself(eats its tail).
Dumbledore always emphasized how important loyality is in his kind of magic and that is symbolized by the phoenix. So maybe Dumbledore/Harry’s saying that he will always be at Hogwarts as long somebody is loyal to him is the real key. It’s the exact opposite to the dark way to immortality. You get immortal by the loyalty/love of others and in Dumbledore’s case not only in people’s memory but physical.
If you remember the scene where the Heads of the Houses and Harry discussed the burial of Dumbledore, Harry asked him to be buried at Hogwarts which has not happened before. In my opinion this loyality to Dumbledore sealed the magic of Dumbledore’s rebirth.
You shouldn’t also forget when Dumbledore said in the first book to McGonnagal that he would trust Hagrid with his life. Hagrid was the one which handled Dumbledore’s body. If all these signs don’t mean something it would be a break to the patterns Rowling used in her book writings.

Akshat
Akshat
17 years ago

In every HP book,people have believed in what Dumbledore has believed.So when Dumbledore’s story has come to an apparent end,i am sure that Snape is on the bright side.And if Snape is on the bright side then Dumbledore is surely not dead.So there are only two ways for this to be true,
1)He had created a Horcrux
2)The person killed was not Dumbledore
3)The curse was not Avada Kedavra and the covered body in the funeral was not a body at all.
The second possibility is not convincing,unless the “Dumbledore” killed was someone who was under Imperius curse and had a swig of Polyjuice Potion.
So for Dumbledore to have a Horcrux there are two possibilities,
a)He killed Grindelwald in his famous defeat and concealed a Horcrux in Fawkes or Gryffindor’s sword.(If anyone has some argument over it,read my third comment on Page.No.9)
b)As we all we all know Dumbledore has destroyed some of Riddle’s Horcruxes,that is an indirect form of killing,it is the most likely way to create a Horcrux without actually murdering someone.
The “other curse” theory does not seems to me as “realiable” as J.K.Rowling said that Dumbledore is dead for sure in an interview,she will surely not lie,so Dumbledore is ‘dead’ for sure,still i know he will come back by some means.

Maybe the moment he will return he wil not be “less human” like Tom Riddle as he has actually not killed anyone.

A part of me is saying that Dumbledore is dead as J.K.Rowling mentioned Dumbledore’s brother Aberforth in HP 5th(Moody tells Potter in Order’s HQ),that is not a extra information,most likely he would be as good and powerfull as Dumbledore and will come to the aid now when Dumbledore is dead.

Or J.K.Rowling will pull her out some time later out of the arch,Sirius’s death is too doubted,as all we know that he was hit by a “Jet of Light”,& not a green Jet of Light(Avada Kedavra is green),maybe he was just stunned and fell through the veil into the other world.

angie
angie
17 years ago

mistral,
ok, if dumbledore was godric gryffindor, it could explain why he is more attatched to hogwarts than any other headmaster ever has been; he helped create it! it could also explain why he knows so much about it. also why he had so much power at hogwarts before he was even headmaster. dumbledore might not actually be fawkes, but just like him in the fact that he can’t die, like a pheonix can’t. wow. i just thought of something: when harry takes his o.w.l.s, the tester says he tested dumbledore himself when he went through the tests. imagine how old he must be! ok, that was sorta random. when mcgonnagal says dumbledore’s to noble to use voldemort’s powers, it could be he’s not using them because he has used them before, and knows how bad they can be. if dumbledore had used time turners to get information, would he have to wait for however long he had gone back in time, or can you turn the time turners the other way and go into the future, or go back to your original time faster? that would suck: going back five years, and having to relive those five years, only in hiding! hmmm……

Jan-Marie
Jan-Marie
17 years ago

What’s most interesting about the interchange between Dumbledore and McGonagall in Chapter One, Book One, is that McGonagall says that Dumbledore is too noble to use the dark arts and Dumbledore… changes the subject. He jokes about not having blushed so much since Madame Pomfrey admired bis new ear muffs.

I think this is a diversion. I think Dumbledore has used some bits of the Dark Magic that he knows, but doesn’t want to talk about it.

Another thought about that conversation with McGonagall. McGonagall has, at this point, been a teacher at Hogwarts for decades. Why does Dumbledore need to tell her, his second in command at Hogwarts — who must know him well by now, that he would trust Hagrid with his life. Why wouldn’t McGonagall know this by now? It’s a small school, staff-wise, and she should easily have picked up on this over the years.

Is Dumbledore saying this for McGonagall’s information, or does Dumbledore say this for our (the readers’) benefit? If McGonagall would already know this, it is said for our benefit. And if it is for our benefit, why is it important that we know that Dumbledore would trust Hargid with his life?

Akshat
Akshat
17 years ago

I dont know why are you all just trying to proove that Dumbledore killed Grindelwald and made a Horcrux when he has destroyed Tom Riddle’s Horcruxes,that is for sure an indirect form of killing and still it is not something bad as he has destroyed some intensely dark magical objects.

Kevin
Kevin
17 years ago

DD has a reputation for trusting people who others do not, or trusting more than perhaps he should…

I think he has just grown accostom to defending his trust and most likely just makes the comment in an off hand manner….or it could be his way of just ending or redirecting the conversation..
as if to say,”I’ve made up my mind and not even you can talk me out of it, my dear.”

Jan-Marie
Jan-Marie
17 years ago

Kevin – We are told that Dumbledore trusts others more than he should, but do we know this to be true? Who has Dumbledore trusted who wasn’t trustworthy? Which wizard, witch or muggle did Dumbledore trust wrongly?

Not Tom Riddle. Dumbledore gave him a second chance, but he never trusted him. Both Professor Dumbledore (Transfiguration teacher at the time) and Tom Riddle admitted that Dumbledore never really trusted Tom.

What about Snape? But Dumbledore gave Snape a second chance, just like he did Tom Riddle. And perhaps Snape did what Tom Riddle did not and proved himself trustworthy through that new opportunity to do so. We don’t know yet if Snape is someone who should have been trusted, although most readers on this site fall into the camp of trusting Snape on their own, with or without Dumbledore’s trusting him.

Observation of what Dumbldedore does and says — not what others say about him — shows that he gives others a second chance. But no where does he show blind trust in someone who is not trustworthy.

An interesting aspect of this is Dumbeldore’s instruction to Harry about sharing information on their search for the Horcruxes. Who does Dumbledore tell about this? Perhaps Snape. Maybe Hagrid? But certainly not Minerva McGonagall or any other Hogwarts teachers. No one from the Ministry knows. No one in the Order of the Phoenix knows. D suggets that Harry tell “Miss Granger and Mr Weasley” because they have earned Harry’s trust and Harry needs their friendship.

Everyone says Dumbledore trusts too much. But I don’t see any evidence of that in any of the six books so far. I think it’s a red herring.

Kevin
Kevin
17 years ago

I said he had the reputation for trusting to freely….
I didn’t say he deserved it….;-}

Bryan Goodfellow
Bryan Goodfellow
17 years ago

A D did not kill Grindelwald. He defeated him, but as he said to Voldemort in the OotP, “we both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom”. And Voldemort also knows “You do not seek to kill me?… above such brutality are you?” Why would D kill Grindelwald and not kill Voldemort? Dumbledore is so powerfull he does not need to use the dark arts. If he would, why not kill Voldemort. I am affraid he is dead. But not without reason, it is not the horcrux. D clearly sacrificed his life to safe Malfoy. As we know with Harry and his mother, this leaves a protection. And D saved Malfoys life. Now together with wormtail there are allready two deatheaters that have bond to Harry or D. The dark arts are never used by D, he has allways trusted in love.

Neil
Neil
17 years ago

Dumbledore’s physical appearance wouldn’t change because he made a horcrux. Making a horcrux isn’t evil, killing someone is the evil part. Dumbledore’s appearance didn’t change because he killed for the sake of the wizarding world, not just for the sake of killing, someone like Voldemort did.

Aditi
Aditi
17 years ago

Okay, this is out of the track here but I thought I should say it. I think the day that DD ‘seemingly’ died, the Bloody Baron had some role up in the Astronomy tower.

I don’t remember exactly which page but after the Felix episode with Sluggy, the Fat Lady tells Harry the password changed at midnight. Nearly Headless Nick comes along and tells Harry he’s off to complain to the Baron about Peeves and that DD is back. Harry asks where and Nick tells him that “he’s up groaning and clanking up on the Astronomy tower. Its a favorite pastime of his.”

I think the Avada Kedavra went through the Baron. Maybe like Casper he can make himself invisible. Since he was already dead, he couldn’t die again but DD was blasted back coz it made a significant impact but did not kill him. Deja Vu. Chamber of secrets?

Sela
Sela
17 years ago

Mistral,
you make a lot of sense! and thank you for that hint…angie and i have been trying to figure it out for a while now. i’ve read the book a lot and whenever i try to figure it out about the whole locket thing…and it doesn’t work. so, thanks again for your help.

Charlotte
Charlotte
17 years ago

I found something that I think is interesting, I don’t know if anyone brought it up and if you did I might have some new insight. Remember when we found that someone else had taken the necklase that they thought a Horcrux would be in but it had a note and the initials, well I was looking in my book for someone it could be and finally found in book five when Sirius and Harry were looking at the drapes and his relative had been blasted off because he went against voldemort and he had the first and last initial right so I was thinking if Harry could figure that out then he might be able to find a place to start as to where the other one might be but those are only my opinions.

Clair
Clair
17 years ago

Just a thought but we are not actually told at the end of Philosophers Stone that Quirrel has Died as a result of Harry, DD tells Harry that he arrived just in time to pull Quirrel off of him, but then what.. perhaps DD finished him of and we only have DD’s word that the stone was destroyed, perhaps it is now DD horcrux

Kevin
Kevin
17 years ago

DD could have done any thing with the sorceror’s stone at any time he wanted..
Quirrol(sp) was already dying, it was DD showing up and scaring off Morty that finished him off.

Mistral
Mistral
17 years ago

To Angie and Sela
I am glad that I was able to help with the locket. Isn�t it amazing how the HP books
Unite HARRY POTTER FANS all over the world?
This is also thanks to this great Website here. Thanks again to Dave who has made this possible and of course to JO who has written these amazing books.
Swish and flick;-) Mistral

Neil
Neil
17 years ago

Good thought Adiki because in the first book Harry, Ron, and Hermione are going to the third floor to retrieve the sorcerer’s stone and they run into Peeves. Harry pretends he’s the Bloody Baron to ward off Peeves and says the Baron has his reasons for being invisible. Maybe that’s a clue.

Derek
Derek
17 years ago

really, I do not see your argument as really all that convincing. one, Dumbledore wouldn’t do it. two, I was under the impression that creating a horcrux required the deaths of many people, not just one. Three, if indeed Fawkes was a Horcrux, does that mean the Harry and Voldemort’s wands both contain parts of Dumbledore’s soul.

Dave Haber
Dave Haber
17 years ago

Horcruxes are obviously very complex, but here are my thoughts on your comments:

1. Dumbledore wouldn’t do it. On this, we agree. I think you have to be really evil to make a horcrux.

2. Making a horcrux involves deaths of many people? Where did you get that from in the books? Only one murder is required, that rips your soul and allows you to place that ripped part of your soul in a horcrux.

3. It depends when Fawkes became the horcrux, doesn’t it? (Before or after feathers were taken from him to make the wands.) In any event, there’s no information we’ve ever been given to lead us to believe that if a living thing is the container of the horcrux, a small portion of that living thing neccessarily contains the horcrux soul fragment.

In any event, this just illustrates how complex horcruxes could be and how much we really don’t know about them.

Kevin
Kevin
17 years ago

Just as DD was able to become invisible with out a cloak, perhaps DD has other ways of extending his life..
not nessisarily making him immortal, but something more than just eatting right and exercising.

I strongly doubt that DD ever went so far as to create a horcrux, but I would not doubt that he has at least experimented with ways of increasing his “active” life.

Mia
Mia
17 years ago

First of all I’d like to say how much I’ve loved reading this site. There are so many amazing theories here that I would NEVER have thought about.

To begin with I loved the idea of Dumbledore having a Horcux in the form of Fawkes but as I read on I began to realise that it was more and more unlikely as- as everyone said Dumbledore wouldn’t choose that way to live, although I do believe he killed Grindlewade (sp?). I do also believe Fawkes plays a big part in DD’s death. Hagrid too as when I re-read the last few chapters it was also Hagrid who moved DD from the bottom of the tower. (It was atop the Lightning Stuck Tower that DD’s death occured not the Astronomy Tower btw). I do still think that something isn’t quite right about DD dying so quickly/easily and Snape too.

I think it’s Sirius that hasn’t died not DD. Again re-reading the last few chapters of HBP Harry “said” (you know what I mean!) that there had been no body of Sirius’ to bury. Plus Sirius would be able to give more information about RAB as it seems pretty likely that it’s his brother (then again with JKR you never really know!). I did also like the idea that it was THE locket from OftP but wouldn’t Harry even faintly remember seeing it there? Still could be likely though.

I’m sure I’ll have more to say later!

Dragon
Dragon
17 years ago

This may be like way out of the picture but could Dumbledore be an animagus or metamorphis?

Dragon
Dragon
17 years ago

When Luna Lovegood states that she can still see her mother across the veil, can’t harry see Dumbledore across the veil?

Nicole
Nicole
17 years ago

This theory makes perfect sense to me, and I hope (AND PRAY) that it is correct. I know that Jan-Marie addressed this when she spoke of Dumbledore defeating and perhaps killing the dark wizard Grindlewald, but I was just curious: could the destroying of the Sorceror’s Stone be considered the “murder” (I use that term for lack of a better one) of Nicolas Flamel? If the answer to that question is yes, then isn’t it possible that Dumbledore could have created his Horcrux soon after Book 1? Just a thought… =]

Akshat
Akshat
17 years ago

Does none of you want to agree on my point that destroying Voldemort’s horcrux is an indirect form of killing?