Horcruxes?[]
Do you think that these portraits are some form of a horcrux? Since they appear to have the memories and personalities of the person featured, they must have some part of the person's soul in them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.111.41.251 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 July 2009.
- Nope. According to JKR there are several ways of imprinting one's personalities and memories after the death of that someone. Examples of that are the Marauders Map, ghosts and yes, portraits. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 20:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, items can magically have memories and personalities imprinted on them, but in no way are these Horcruxes. Horcruxes are an exact type of dark object that contain literal fragments of an individual's split soul, for the purpose of making that individual (a dark wizard) immortal. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Film Portraits[]
I don´t own the DVD. Are there other Portraits in the film that are not featured in the book, aside from the Unidentified Head, Slytherin, Swott, Skndenberg, Wilkins, Vulpus and Scamander? Possibly the other founders?--Rodolphus 11:40, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
Hogwarts Founders[]
I am compelled to ask why Salazar Slytherin has a portrait listed in this article, but the other founders (Godric Gryffindor, Rowena Ravenclaw, and Helga Hufflepuff) are not? Is this simply a mistake or do they really not have portraits in there? --Nitrous X 16:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Die in office to have a Portrait?[]
This notion comes from an interview JKR gave in 2007. A transcript from The Leaky Cauldron is here and the full quote of interest is:
- Q: Is Severus Snape’s portrait in the headmaster’s office?
- JKR: Some have been asking why hasn’t the portrait appeared immediately. It doesn’t. The reason is that the perception in the castle itself and everyone who was in the castle, because Snape kept his secret so well was that he abandoned his post. So all the portraits you see in the headmaster’s study are all headmasters and mistresses who died, it’s like British royals. You only get good press if you die in office. Abdication is not acceptable, particularly if you marry and [sic] American. I’m kidding! [laughter] I digress. I know, because I thought this one through, because it was very important to me, I know Harry would have insisted that Snape’s portrait was on that wall, right beside Dumbledore’s. [Applause.]
I believe Jo was joking that you have to die in office to have a portrait and that other Headmasters that served their post well and did not abandon it like Snape, but may have retired for instance, would be included in the Headmasters Office. Other people's thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:46, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed.--Rodolphus (talk) 14:53, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
Headmasters must die in office to get a portrait on the wall, as shown here: 2007 Accio Quote! Bloomsbury Chat:
Laura Trego: Was the absence of snapes portrait in the headmasters office in the last scene innocent or deliberate
J.K. Rowling: It was deliberate. Snape had effectively abandoned his post before dying, so he had not merited inclusion in these august circles. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:11, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wish Jo had said more about this in that interview (but don't I always). To me it says that you can't abandon your post, but not that you "must" die in office. That is "before dying, Snape abandonoed his post" not "you cannot leave the post before you die". Are there other ways to leave the role of Headmaster (retirement, appointing a successor, being recalled by the governors, etc) that would not be abandoning the post?
- As a matter of canon policy, would the 30 July 2007 Bloomsbury chat be superceded by the 20 October 2007 Carnegie Hall Q&A? is Jo revising her previous statements? (And is her answer any clearer?) --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:32, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
Her answer is no clearer -- she says the same thing both times; Snape didn't get a picture in the office as he left office in a manner other than dying. Both times she says "abandoned his/their post". In the Bloomsbury one she says he "abandoned his post before dying" and in the October one she says that he didn't get a picture because he "abandoned his post". To me, that implies you only get an image in the office if you die, as Headmaster, still in the role and your deputy succeeds you -- like with Dumbledore and McGonagall in Half-Blood Prince. It also fits with Dippett; he died in 57, Dumbledore succeeded him and Dippett got a portrait on the wall because he died in office. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:38, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think she says the same thing twice at all. Again, my read is that Jo was joking when she said you have to die in office, and it's the fact that Snape abandoned his post is his why he didn't automatically get a portrait in the office, but not that you have to always die in office. Given that McGonagall is no longer Headmistress by 2017 (“McGonagall was really getting on a bit”) it seems to imply that she left office without dying? Do you think her portrait is not in the headmaster's office under these circumstances?
- As there are two headmasters Mordicus Egg and Brutus Scrimgeour whose timelines suggest they have to serve between Phineas Nigellus Black and Armando Dippet, before they go on to write the books they are famous for, there appears to be a suggestion that people can serve as Headmaster and leave the post to do other work and still get a portrait in the headmaster's office.
- In reviewing the previous threads about this, there seems to be a strong attachment to the "must die in office" view so there may not be much room for discussion. If this is still the case, I would suggest that maybe we put this to a vote or find some other means of finding a some common consensus among those of us who care? If we cannot agree with a common interpretation, I would suggest that we have to put these differing interpretations in the "Behind the scenes" as discussion of the issue instead of being stated as a clear uncontested fact. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:05, June 4, 2016 (UTC)
- Alas, I do believe that McGonagall doesn't have a portrait -- J.K. Rowling does mention "abandon[ed their/his/her] post" in both, implying that if you leave the post without dying, then you do not warrant having a portrait on the wall. As far as I can see there's nothing that suggests that Mordicus and Brutus served between Phineas and Armando (especially as I believe the timeline is Phineas ?-1925, Armando 1925 - 1957, Dumbledore 1957 - 1996.) Yeah, put it to a vote over it, as to whether they do or don't. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:03, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
- Although we know Armando Dippet follows Phineas Nigellus Black we don't know if he immediately follows him (Black dies 1925, Dippet first appears 1943). Both Mordicus Egg and Brutus Scrimgeour are confirmed headmasters via their portraits in the headmaster office, but Mordicus published a book in 1963 and Brutus wrote a review blurb for Quidditch Through the Ages first published in 1952. We know that they can't serve between Dippet and Dumbledore (stated as successors), so they have to serve before Dippet and still be alive later to do their other work.
- I really doubt that JKR would create a system where long serving and loyal headmasters like McGonagall doesn't have a portrait because of retirement. In short, I think you're over extending "not abandoning the post" to mean "never leaving before death". I'll leave this for a few days and then see if we can round up some other opinions for a vote. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:18, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
Given that "leaving before death" is abandoning the post (You're giving it up so someone else can take over and abandoning it for yourself) it means exactly the same thing. And, tbh, McGonagall might be a new case; Snape had a portrait put in because Harry made it so, the same might happen here...
I'm fairly sure, tbh, that Mordicus and Brutus come before Phineas. It makes the most logical sense, otherwise you have Phineas, Mordicus/Brutus (interchangeable, we don't know an order, most likely Brutus first, given the year of his book publishing!), then Dippet and then Dumbledore. It makes more sense if it's Phineas: ? - 1925 Dippet 1925 - 1957 Dumbledore: 1957 - 1997 and Mordicus and Brutus come before. And, in all honesty, all we know is that the book was published in his name and that Brutus's review came out in 1952. Books can spend years in editing, writing, etc, so it's easily possible that they were posthumous, etc. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:44, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
- Do we have any evidence that Dippet started in 1925?
- Mordicus and Brutus may come before Phineas but how are you fairly sure of this? If it is true it means Egg's book is published many decades after his death (if he has to die in office before the term of PN Black). And similarly Quidditch Through the Ages would need to have been started before PN Black's term so that Brutus could call it "The definitive work on the origins and history of Quidditch. Highly recommended", but then not published till 1952? This seems most unlikely, but not impossible of course.
- "leaving before death" is abandoning the post - this is where we disagree in a way that is probably unresolvable, so best to to get other interpretations. Like I said, the most likely outcome on these differing views will be to put both in the BTS section so future readers can use their own judgement on how to interpret this (as, unless you have new evidence, we are deep into speculation territory on many details). Thanks - always fun to delve deep into the nuances of the History of Magic timeline! --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:02, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
I'm not understanding why you disagree? Anything other than death is abandoning the post...--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:24, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
- Abandon has the connotation of betrayal, whereas other ways of leaving the post, such as retirement, do not. Snape betrayed Hogwarts with his departure which is why his portrait did not automatically appear. If McGonagall was "getting up there in years" and retired, this is not betraying Hogwarts, but rather ending a very long term of deeply loyal service to Hogwarts and well deserving of a headmaster's portrait. I cannot conceive of JKR creating a system that would not honor and celebrate the service of Minerva McGonagall, but that is of course my out-of-universe interpretation.
- The fact is we only have 2 headmasters with Dumbledore and Snape that we know how they left office. It may be that Dippet retired and made way for Dumbledore, or that Mordicus or Brutus served short terms between Black and Dippet and before moving onto other work. Without more evidence, there really is no way to know. Perhaps we'll hear something more about this in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) as it's set one year after Black's death so there must be a new headmaster at Hogwarts (although the changeover may have happened before his death as well ;).
- All JKR's quote says is that you can't abandon the post, not that you can never leave it before death. I think my reading of this aligns with the common use of the word abandon, as distinguished from other means of leaving office, but am open to seeing how some other people read this text as well. Cheers--Ironyak1 (talk) 01:45, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
According to Google (01:50am, 06/06/2016), the definitions of "abandon" are: "cease to support or look after" and "give up completely (a practice or a course of action)". The second one is the most important as headmasters "give up being headmaster [their practice!)". Thus, abandon is anything but death. That, to me, implies it's death or no portrait. I think, given the definition, that's crystal clear...
As well as this, Cambridge English Dictionary (01:54am, 06/06/2016) online has the definition of "abandon" as "to leave a place, thing, or person, usually for ever". So, basically, if they leave in any way other than death, the headmaster does not get a portrait.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:54, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
- I've put up a post at Forum:Headmaster must die in office to have a portrait? to see if anyone else is interested in chiming in. Hopefully they'll read what we've been through already here, but regardless, let's see if anyone else has a fresh perspective. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:28, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
Pleasure -- you're one of the few people I've had a discussion with and did not hate after the discussion was over. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:31, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
Well, Fantastic Beasts may give an answer; if Newt reveals that Professor Black expelled him, then we know Black was there until 1925 and then Dippet took over; if he reveals that Professor Dippet expelled him, then we know that Black retired and got a portrait anyway, shortly after he died. It'll answer it in that way. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:07, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
Memories?[]
"Traditionally, a headmaster or headmistress is painted before their death. Once the portrait is completed, the headmaster or headmistress in question keeps it under lock and key, regularly visiting it in its cupboard (if so desired) to teach it to act and behave exactly like themselves, and imparting all kinds of useful memories and pieces of knowledge that may then be shared through the centuries with their successors in office."
Seen as how the degree to which they can interact with the people looking at them depends not on the skill of the painter, but on the power of the witch or wizard painted, we already know that there is a unique connection between a painted portrait and its living counterpart. Now, the thing about teaching the portrait to act and behave exactly like themselves, that's clear cut. As is the thing about imparting knowledge, as that seem to referring to just sitting down and telling one's painted counterpart about one's life, but imparting memories? Sounds like a witch or wizard can extract memories from their heads like they do to put in a Pensive and can place it in their portrait, and that the painted headmaster or headmistress retains it as if it was its own. This is also consistent with the Cursed Child, where Dumbledore's portrait describes itself as being "paint and memory."
I think this deserves a reference in the article somewhere. Tfoc (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I mean it could just as easily mean verbally telling the portrait about memories from your life. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 15:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Then "imparting knowledge" would be a redundant. Tfoc (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not really. Imparting knowledge about stuff, information, distinct from imparting memories of events, of his life. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 16:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
If you want to be overly schematic about it, you could make a case for that, I suppose, but knowledge would include what the verbal dissemination of life experiences. To impart memories, however, that's something we know wizards do. Why assume that's being all metaphorical when it describes something we both see happen in the books, and is hinted at having happened by Dumbledore's portrait in CC? Tfoc (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just the words "imparting memories" and "paint and memory" are not in my opinion even nearly enough to definitively infer that wizards take memories from their heads and put it into the portrait pensieve-style. One, this is not how these memories have been shown to work, they just go in the pensieve and you watch it back like a video in VR, no piece of canon has shown them being put into something else then that thing suddenly has those memories. And two, has it ever been explicitly stated in canon that the subject of the painting casts any kind of magic onto it in any way during when they are with the painting teaching it how to act like them? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 17:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Not unless you take the phrasing at face value instead of dismissing the mention of something wizards is known to do, namely extract memories from their head and place them elsewhere, (be it in a Pensive or in a flask or, in this case, apparently in a portrait.) At the very least, I'd say the connection between wizard and painting, the phrasing on WW and the implied confirmation from Dumbledore's portrait in CC, all culminates in what I for one see as merits for a BTS section, at the very least. Tfoc (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- "instead of dismissing the mention of something wizards is known to do" Memory extraction isn't explicitly mentioned in the sources which you cite, so yes I will dismiss it. Good enough for a BTS mention maybe, but to use in references as you originally suggested, certainly not. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 19:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, I didn't suggest to use it as a reference, I was always talking about BTS, the elaboration was just so you would know that the implication wasn't made up or something. Secondly, memory extraction would have been a necessary precondition for a memory to be imparted in the portrait, and enough of a truism to not strictly speaking warrant a mention. Rowling don't regard her fan base as a bunch of idiots who can't put two and two together. Sort of like the the desk in Dumbledore's office. We don't know from whence it came or how long it's been there, but we don't need to be told it stands where it stands because someone put it there. Tfoc (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps I misunderstood "I think this deserves a reference in the article somewhere."
- Anyway, as I have already said, it could just as easily mean verbally telling the portrait about memories from your life, we have just as much reason to think it means that as we do to think it means memory extraction pensieve-style, it's not explicit enough. Though, again, has it ever been explicitly stated in canon that the subject of the painting casts any kind of magic onto it in any way during when they are with the painting teaching it how to act like them? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 20:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- You right, I should have been more specific. To answer your question, though:
Well... According to the article, magic is involved in the creation of the portrait, but not from the person that the portrait depicts.
"When a magical portrait is taken, the witch or wizard artist will naturally use enchantments to ensure that the painting will be able to move in the usual way. The portrait will be able to use some of the subject’s favourite phrases and imitate their general demeanour" and that most portraits, like the Fat Lady and Sir Cadogan, would not be able to have a "particularly in-depth discussion about more complex aspects of their lives: they are literally and metaphorically two-dimensional. They are only representations of the living subjects as seen by the artist. And then the article draws a sharp distinction between those portraits and the ones in the headmaster office; many of which was kept in the cupboard you know and taught to "act and behave exactly like themselves", which would go above and beyond the sort of surface-level mimicry the painter imbued it with. And, of course, since the living counterparts shared with it knowledge from their lives, as seen by Dumbledore having filled in his portrait on a significant amount of information about Voldemort, Snape's role as a double-agent, what the Deathly Hallows were, a ton of information about Harry and his quest to end Voldemort, etc, etc, a headmaster portrait by contrast would be able to carry out an in-depth discussion about more complex aspects of their lives. And that leads us back to what Dumbledore's portrait said in the Cursed Child about being "paint and memory." He was more than paint on canvas bewitched as to be able to move and behave like Dumbledore as perceived by the painter, he was paint and memory. Not as as fully realised as ghosts, perhaps, but Rowling did say in an interview that there's a reason why the portraits in Dumbledore's office was the only place where the portraits really ever were depicted to have a properly meaningful interaction with people. The idea was that former Heads of Hogwarts left behind "a faint imprint of themselves They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant." It's clear from this description that they still left behind more of themselves than paint on canvas that they had conversed with for a bit before it was hung up on the wall. Which Dumbledore's portrait seems to have indirectly confirmed. Tfoc (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Still nowhere near enough to state that it means the wispy liquid-like stuff that you put in a pensieve. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 09:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
It is more than sufficient, actually, but I can see you've made up your mind on the matter regardless. Why so many of you insist on having J.K. Rowling and other recognised contributors overexplain things to the point of talking down to you before you accept what they say is canon is canon, I'll never understand... Tfoc (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's called a Canon Policy. Things have to be explicit. Or do I really need to give you the dictionary definition of speculation? No matter how plausible a theory may be, it is still speculation until Rowling confirms it. And this whole pensieve-like memory thing, it is too specific a thing to state as canon without confirmation IMO; do we know of any object other than a pensieve that accepts or can be imbued somehow with these liquid-like wispy memories pulled from one's head (Other than storage phials obviously)? And like I said, we have just as much reason to think 'imparting memories' means this as we do to think it means verbally telling the portrait about memories; and of these two possible meanings, we can't exactly confirm one without completely ruling out the other, which I'm not sure we can, so for now at least, these unconfirmed possibilities remain just that. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You could give me the dictionary definition of speculation, Sirius, but it'd be a waste of your time since the word isn't applicable here. The fact of the matter is that it is not called a Canon Policy, it's called being stubborn. And the reason for that, chief, is that there is explicit, and then there is something being shoved down our throats, and people are so fond of dismissively waving away things your not personally, subjectively convinced of as "speculation" and "assumption" that I'm half-expecting someone to confront me with the problem of hard-solipsism if I ever mention how much I enjoy long walks in the sunshine. And it won't matter how many times you assert that "we have just as much reason to think 'imparting memories' means this as we do to think it means verbally telling the portrait about memories;" - or how many times I point out just how and why that's factually incorrect, because it would seem that if my name is attached to a post on a talk page, dismissing it is something that's done as a rule of thumb. And it's getting kind of old; even though I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge you've been significantly less guilty of this than some others I could have name. Anyway, since your mind is made up, I'll just call it quits right here and stop wasting both of our times. Tfoc (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- The word is very much applicable here because that is exactly what you are doing, and I am as tired of explaining why as you are of explaining that you have somehow proven my statements factually incorrect (which you haven't). Also you didn't even need to mention that last bit. The bit about other users. There was simply no need for that, not least because it is not significant or relevant to this discussion. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 20:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for making my point for me. Discussion ended. Tfoc (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)