Talk:Patronus Charm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Dumbledore.jpg This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B
This article has been rated as Class B on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
For more information and how you can help, click Show →
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

McG's Patronus confusion (Hope I'm doing this right, it's my first time I'm doing anything but reading on wikipedia :o) Anyway: "It seems that her Patronus was her animagus form in triplicate, but this is not entirely clear in Deathly Hallows." -erm...this *is* actually pretty clear as she is holding three wands in her hand when casting that spell - like anyone else, normally she only has ONE patronus, so could someone please cut out that sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.178.137 (talk) 20:33, August 27, 2007 (UTC)


the incantation Expecto patronum (meaning I call/summon the protector)

OK, such scant Latin as I ever had is now largely forgotten, but this doesn't seem quite right. "Expecto" certainly doesn't mean "I call/summon", which would be "accio", or maybe "advoco". In fact - and I certainly stand to be corrected here - "expecto" isn't quite Latin at all, unless it maybe means "I cough up". Perhaps what is wanted here is "exspecto", from "ex" (out) and "spectare" (to look at), meaning "I look out for", or slightly idiomatically, "I anticipate" or "I long for" Securiger 07:38, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, my translation of the incantation into English was not based on any knowledge of mine in Latin, because I do not have any worth mentioning (although I am able to translate some words by intuitively drawing parallels to modern ones). My entry was based on the book's Greek translation of the incantation, "Kalo ton prostati" whose simplest adaptation in English is "I call/summon the protector". It might be that the Greek translators did not make an accurate translation of the incantation. Your suggestion makes sense, but I can't know whether it's correct or not.Sinistro 22:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My Latin is not very good either, certainly not good enough to pontificate. But looking at the list of spells in Harry Potter it's clear that a lot of them are dog Latin. It might be useful to create a page called Latin in Harry Potter and solicit contributions from both Potter fans and Latin scholars. The latter may be enticed by reports (e.g. [1]) that Rowling's books have caused a surge in Latin enrollments. Securiger 17:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to Lewis & Short, one of the canonical English-Latin dictionaries, expecto is a relatively common variant of exspecto, as Securiger points out; the definition allows it to mean "require" or "have need of" (but only poetically - the examples cited are from Virgil). The more typical meaning is either something like "hope for" or something like "await" or "expect". But dog Latin (I'm thinking particularly of Hiberno-Latin) can use unusual, poetic, or erudite forms of a Latin word.

In addition, the appropriate plural of patronus is patroni; the page should be updated to reflect that.

--MatthewDBA 19:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Update -- I just checked with Lewis & Short again based on something tickling the back of my mind; there is no Latin word having a form 'pecto'. In the ablative case (as it would follow the preposition ex, meaning 'out') the Latin word pectus, meaning 'chest' or 'heart', would take the form pectore, not pecto. So I think we're going to have to drop the ex pecto explanation. If this is okay, I'll fix it. --MatthewDBA 13:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just looking at the picture included in the article, Patronus.jpg, and I feel it should be pointed out that the third movie, where that picture was taken from, wasn't true to the book, it shows the patronus as more of a literal shield instead of the stag. Thoughts? -- GregAsche 05:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

No. I've already edited that observation out of both this article and the article on the film. In both the book and the movie, there is only one corporeal Patronus, and that is cast by future Harry at the end. Every other time, it's a shapeless silver whisp. The only Patronus related deviation from the book is the perspective, which I've noted in the article on the film. I think we should replace the picture with a screenshot of the stag. --MrBawn 12:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
maybe mention that a weak, ineffective patronus will be wispy rather than corporeal. 216.237.179.238 21:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's there: "Patronii summoned by less capable Witches or Wizards (or those who are under duress) are momentary formless bursts of silvery mist, or poorly-defined forms which quickly dissipate. Properly formed (or corporeal) patronii ..." Beowulf314159 22:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] ex pecto patronum

Rowling plays with spellings all over the place. She doesn't stick to any known language when naming spells, hexes, jinxes, or curses, she gives them names that sound mystical and may have interesting etymologies. I've never seen it spelt other than expecto patronum in any of the first five books (just finished Order of the Phoenix last night). Bollixing the spelling all over the Wikipedia because of some irrational tumble into portmanteau etymology is silly. I'll give this a few days sink in and then start fixing it. 216.237.179.238 21:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Then you're really not paying that much attention to spelling, are you? There are at least 3 different spellings printed in the books - one of which may be an error (but which one?), and one which is probably a pun - just because of it's placement. Like you said, "Rowling plays with spellings all over the place". Even if this wasn't the case, you admit she just plays with language, and then you get annoyed with non-rigourous application of linguistic tools to her use of language?
Don't forget that dubious "repairs" can themselves be repaired. 70.48.47.20 05:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't locate more than one. Would you mind providing references? MatthewDBA
The adult edition uses the spelling "Exxpecto" in the title of the chapter Tom Lougheed 21:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complexity of the spell

I'm not quite sure how we can say that the Patronus Charm is "a complex spell which is simple in theory", as the article states. I can understand a spell being simple in theory, but difficult in practice, but this sentence seems (to me at least) to imply that it is both complex (in theory) and simple (in theory). I'm not even sure the spell should be called "complex" -- the word overlaps with, but doesn't coincide with, the meaning of "difficult". I don't have my Book 3 around, but the spell doesn't seem to be particularly complex -- that is, it doesn't seem to involve a series of visualizations, sequences of wand movements, or particular intonations of the incantation (as Wingardium Leviosa seems to). The main difficulty appears to be the intense concentration which even Harry had to practise somewhat. I think we should just rephrase that sentence as "The Patronus Charm is simple in theory [perhaps 'in its effect' would be more appropriate] but quite difficult to master." -- MatthewDBA 12:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is probably complex in that it needs the power of a trained mind behind it. Barty Crouch, Jr, under the guise of Mad-Eye Moody implied as much when he noted the class could try to use Avada Kedavera against him and all he'd get was a nosebleed at most. Harry was born with a talent for Defense Against the Dark Arts, and had a talented mind (in that area) behind his use of the spell. D.A. only performed the spell without frightening things like dementors around, though it was enough for most of them to make it work. Hermoine had trouble performing it in the ministry during DH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talk • contribs) 12:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patronus Theories

Until further evidence is given, I cannot prove this. However, there happens to be a great deal of evidence that says the Patronus takes a form integral to either the user or someone who was an important part of a life changing event. Harry's Patronus appears as a stag, while Tonks uses a Werewolf Patronus. These are examples of people who underwent such changes. In Harry's case, he might have the regular power of the Stag Patronus (that is, be born with it) due to the Patronum referring to 'Father' as much as to 'Guardian.' However, I can say with great certainty that Lupin is not the father of Tonks.

[edit] Tonks' Patronus

Was it specifically a werewolf, not just a wolf? I don't remember and don't have a copy of the book handy. Is that right? --BDD 08:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Cleaning"

I have no problems with people tidying up phrasing, improving layout, or correcting errors. When you start ripping out information and meaning that are not errors, because of personal editing styles, I will repair it as the vandalism it is.

In the the case of the opening of the artcle, Patronus means two things in the novels themselves. The removal of that paragraph "convieniently" decided to ignore the second meaning.

As for the other material that is pre-spoiler: The pages on the Harry Potter material are interconnected - as is much of the wikipedia. If you don't think the material is 100% relevant to the specific topic, you may be correct - but it may be relevant to series of interconnected articles as whole They are called linking paragraphs and facilitate the reader moving from related article to related article. If you don't want articles linked together, go scribble notes on post-its - you don't need Wikipedia. The material pre-spoiler is a breif synopsis and connections to other - related articles. The concept is called an abstract. After that, you get on to the "in-depth" discussion part. It's not a new concept. - Beowulf314159 05:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a truckload of edits that has been ripped out again. In all seriousness, it looks like someone got their feelings hurt that their work was improved on and ripped it all back out. Rephrasing things, fine - unilaterally taking information out - not fine. Beowulf314159 05:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. This would be a nice example of the differences in editing styles I mentioned not long ago. Let's see... if by ripping out you include this edit, I maintain that it does nothing but remove some redundancy, trim needlessly elaborate (and coming from me, that's saying something) descriptions. In the more likely case that you mean this one... I have to admit that you're right. That was rash of me and there was protectiveness of text involved that there shouldn't have. I'm sorry.

Moving on, I'm still against the linking paragraph. First, interconnectedness is good, but the article has plenty of that already and the non-canonical spells and unforgivable curses articles have very little to do with the Patronus Charm. Second, it's in the most obtrusive place possible. If anywhere, the link to the list of spells belongs in a 'see also' section. My case against the two-item list in the introductory paragraph is weaker, but I think that the *hauled off computer, have to get back on that*

Oh, and you were right about animals in your comment in edit history. That was just an attack of stupidity on my part. --Kizor 22:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit to, and apologize for, jumping off the handle myself — I'm sorry about that. Yes - I mostly meant this one. There were some other minor things that you took out that I thought were meaningful: The uniqueness of the patroni, and the fact that the Patronus charm is usually difficult to cast because of duress, even though it's not always used against Dementors. If I was being suffocated by a Letifold, I doubt that I'd be having nice fluffy thoughts, even though there was no soul-sucking-despair radiating out of it.
I also have to admit that the signpost is overly obtrusive and ornate - and includes links that really don't have much to do with Patronus. I've changed the opening, keeping some connectivity, and eliminated the list. Tell me what you think?
As for editing down overly elaborate prose, that has my full blessing :) Fewer words is better — as long as neither information or functionality of the article is lost. Lord knows I ramble on for far to long most of the time.
Beowulf314159 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Think nothing of it, you had provocation. The opening looks much better now. I still don't like the list, but I can live with that. You're right about the minor things - I blame a neuron misfire for touching the former in the first place - and since the trim was lost I'll try another after a while. --Kizor 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muggle Mantra?

Is there any source to support the last line in this article? "It is also interesting to note that the phrase expecto patronum can be used even by Muggles as a sort of mantra to restore tranquility and peace of mind in moments of agitation and depression." I don't seem to remember this being referred to canonically.--Vercalos 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] etymology blah blah

Is the "It is wise to keep in mind the limits etymological speculation in the Harry Potter universe" blah blah really needed? In my opinion it wastes space.--Muhaha 18:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly very unwieldy and takes up a lot of space. --Kizor 18:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've taken it out. Night Gyr 02:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patroni?=

Since when is the plural of Patronus the word 'Patroni' ? The only plural mention is on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoneix, page 455, where Harry clearly says 'Patronuses'. I know that -us usually becomes -i when pluralized (as with Animagus, Animagi) but Patronus seems to be an exception.

Circa 100 B.C.? Rjgodoy (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

from the article: A rough translation of the incantation is thus "I summon my protector."

You really get "I summon my protector" even after that explanation? While what I'm about to say has little place on the article itself, I've always thought it to be a joke. Maybe "I summon my protector" is valid, but (in Harry's case anyway), I've always translated it as "I want my daddy!"

--- Vstarre 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree - unless someone can provide a source as to why "I watch for", "I await", "I expect", or (more rarely) "I require" should be translated to "I summon" by next week, I am going to edit that portion of the article. 207.69.137.20 17:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Known Patronuses

The Harry Potter Lexicon [1] mentions that Electronic Arts featured many Famous Wizard cards, including "Andros the Invincible" who "Alleged to have been the only known wizard to produce a Patronus the size of a giant."

Is this canonical enough to include in the list of known patronuses (patroni?)

EddieC Vito 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

the quote you provided only indicates the size - it could be a giant sized lion, a giant sized hawk, a giant sized mouse... all that quote proves is that the particular patronus was BIG but not that the patronus WAS a giant.

Should any mention be made of the movie version of Ron's Patronus? It appears to be a Golden Retriever (maybe) or a similar breed of dog and not a Jack Russell Terrier. EDIT: Disregard my previous question, I guess I just need to have my eyes checked... Davi Williams 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voldemort's Patronus?

I know a snake sounds likely at first, but might it be a crow or raven? They're symbols of death, which would seem like the perfect manifestation of Voldemort; a sort of mocking of death. ---Thaigear 04:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Voldemort wouldn't be able to make a Patronus, it is anti-dark magic at its core. Voldemort represents dark magic more than anything else. So its very likely he can't make one. --72.144.49.20 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, He just needs a happy thought. Whether or not he would care to make a Patronus, giving his ineptitude for wanting happy thoughts and the fact that he can probably suppress the Dementors another way (My idea is that he would just kill them if they ever tried to Kiss him). Therequiembellishere 01:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Dementors aren't interested in death eaters, as they feed off of positive thoughts. A death eater would smell foul to a dementor as they love hateful, nasty thoughts. Voldemort would be like eating a rotting piece of meat with maggots in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talk • contribs) 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oops!

Sorry about the weird thing to the patronus list. i'm still not good at editing.

[edit] Mr. Weasly's Patronus

I know that the book has been supposedly leaked, but shouldn't the list of known Patronuses not include Mr. Weasly's because the book hasn't been offically released?

True, but it doesn't hurt to keep it here for reference so that it's easier to copy when it's been 'officially' confirmed. I'll add more as I continue reading my copy that arrived today:
  • Kingsley: Lynx
  • Arthur Weasley: Weasel
  • Lily Potter: Doe
  • Severus Snape: Doe
~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 01:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Luna's is a hare in the book, so we can note that as confirmed now. Why the hell is the table down at the bottom of the page? --Impossible 08:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Patronus.jpg

Image:Patronus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uniqueness

I'm removing the line "His statement is a contradicition to the shape of the Patronouses of Severus Snape and Lily Evans (both are Doe), as well as Harry and James Potter's patronus (both are stag)"... Lily and James are dead, so I'd assume their Patronuses are both fair game (no pun intended). Perhaps Snape chose to take up Lily's before anyone else, or his changed (like Tonks') when he fell in love, or after Lily's death. --Piroteknix 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lily's Patronus

Where exactly in DH does it say her patronus is a doe? I know Harry says that Snape's was a doe, the same as his mother's, but I can't find where Harry discovers his mother's was a doe in the first place. A chapter and brief description would be appreciated (I have the British edition, so different page numbers). Thanks Andymc 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well i think its because Snape's patronus is "Lily", in the way that Tonk's was Lupin. CHANDLERtalk 12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand Lily's connection with a doe, but where does it explicitly say that her patronus is a doe? Andymc 17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling noted in an interview (check mugglenet or leaky cauldron) that her patronus was, indeed, a doe.CaydenSelwyn 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While there is no implicit proof Harry knew his mother's patronus was a doe, it was a very educated guess, as Harry knew love changed the form of a patronus (witness: Tonks). She mirrored his father's animagus form in female form, while Snape mirrored Lily's completely. Most of the battle was verbal, with Harry clearly winning. He called Voldemort for what he was - Tom Riddle, informed Riddle of his mistakes, complete with evidence. The loyalty of Snape was one such piece of evidence. The entire bit was proof that Harry had "uniquely deadly weapons" to use against that were handed to him by Voldemort. Snape was actually much like the Dursley's, who, except for Dudley at the end, cared nothing for Harry but made a promise born in the blood of Lily Potter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"He called Voldemort for what he was - Tom Riddle," "It is the choices we make that make who we are" not what we are born. Voldemort was well and truly voldemort not tom riddle. 218.215.29.1 07:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry's Patronus

Not sure if this really has a big place, but shouldn't the strength of Harry's Patronus be noted? As it seems to be the only one in the HP world that's capable of causing mass retreats amongst Dementors, others can force one or two Dementors to back off of hold vast numbers back but Harry's always makes them scatter. Night Walker 14:48, 5 June 2008 (GMT +10).