15

Albus Dumbledore and J.K. Rowling have two different opinions on that. Let us start with the books.

SECTION 1: Albus Dumbledore

Albus Dumbledore clearly tells us, that Nagini was created by killing an old Muggle male:

" (...) I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death. As we know, he failed. After an interval of some years, however, he used Nagini to kill an old Muggle man, and it might then have occurred to him to turn her into his last Horcrux. She underlines the Slytherin connection, which enhances Lord Voldemorts mystique; I think he is perhaps as fond of her as he can be of anything; he certainly likes to keep her close, and he seems to have an unusual amount of control over her, even for a Parselmouth."

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince; 23rd Chapter; Albus Dumbledore

I'm just wondering: who is the old Muggle man who had to be killed? As far as I understand it, he tried to make Harry's death his 7th Horcrux. But then he was defeated because of Lilly Potters sacrifice. He needs a wand to use powerful magical spells:

"I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost (...) Nevertheless, I was as powerless as the weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself . . . for I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me required the use of a wand. . . ."

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire; Chapter 33 (The Death Eaters); Voldemort talking to his Death Eaters.

So, as far as I see it, he had to make the Horcrux while he was Quirrel or after he used black magic to create an interim body.

So I took on the Priori Incantatem section:

"(...)then something much larger began to blossom from Voldemort’s wand tip, a great, grayish something, that looked as though it were made of the solidest, densest smoke. . . . It was a head . . . now a chest and arms . . . the torso of Cedric Diggory (...) More screams of pain from the wand . . . and then something else emerged from its tip . . . the dense shadow of a second head, quickly followed by arms and torso . . . an old man (...) “He was a real wizard, then?” the old man said (...) The shadow of Bertha Jorkins (arrived) (...) The smoky shadow of a young woman with long hair fell to the ground as Bertha had done, straightened up, and looked at him . . . and Harry, his arms shaking madly now, looked back into the ghostly face of his mother. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire; Chapter 34 (Priori Incantatem); Voldemort and Harry Potter in a battle

So the order of death by Voldemorts wand started with the last:

  • Cedric Diggory
  • Old Muggle Man
  • Bertha Jorkins
  • Harry's Parents
  • etc.

So I guess that he old Muggle man (first quote) is Frank Bryce:

"Frank Bryce was the Riddles’ gardener. He lived alone in a rundown cottage on the grounds of the Riddle House. Frank had come back from the war with a very stiff leg and a great dislike of crowds and loud noises, and had been working for the Riddles ever since (...) Wormtail beckoned Frank into the room (...) And then the chair was facing Frank, and he saw what was sitting in it. (...) he never heard the words the thing in the chair spoke as it raised a wand. There was a flash of green light, a rushing sound, and Frank Bryce crumpled. He was dead before he hit the floor."

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire; Chapter 1 (The Riddle House); Voldemort killing Frank Bryce

So is it possible - or even certain - that the Frank Bryce is the man who was killed to make Nagini a Horcrux?

SECTION 2: J.K. Rowling

J. K. Rowling, on the other hand, tells us that Nagini became a Horcrux after killing Bertha Jorkins:

J.K. Rowling: The diary – Moaning Myrtle. The cup – Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner. The locket – a Muggle tramp. Nagini – Bertha Jorkins (Voldemort could use a wand once he regained a rudimentary body, as long as the victim was subdued).

Bertha Jorkins is not old, not a Muggle and not a male. While man also can refer to a human on English, she would still not be an old Muggle.

SECTION 1: Conclusion and Final Question

Albus Dumbledore and J.K. Rowling tell us two different things. While Dumbledore might have been wrong on this, he sounds very sure; in the 6th book, he point out where he is sure and factual and where he guess. I am very sure that Albus Dumbledore is right on this.

Bertha Jorkins, on the other hand, won't make sense at all! While he killed her, he still hadn't a body yet (it was first summoned some time after he killed Bertha Jorkins). And it wasn't Nagini killing her. Not to mention that it would take very long time to prepare to create a body for Tom Riddle; and as far as I know, you have to be very fast with banning your soul into an object, else it will just find the next living thing (like Harry) to live off.

So, who was killed to create the Nagini Horcrux?

Amabile Scientius
  • 1,565
  • 3
  • 14
  • 22
  • Yeah the gardener is who I was thinking. I couldn't remember his name, but I think you got it right. – Escoce Apr 01 '16 at 16:29
  • I was thinking Frank as well... but he was killed with Avada Kedavra not Nagini. On the flip side Bertha Jorkins was killed by Nagini but is not an old muggle man! Dumbledore could be wrong about how the last Horcrux was created though... – Skooba Apr 01 '16 at 16:36
  • 2
    @Skooba that's what makes him a candidate, voldemorte performed the murder needed to make nagini a horcrux. The diary, locket, cup, ring and diadem certainly didn't murder anyone, at least not before they became horcruxes. – Escoce Apr 01 '16 at 16:38
  • 1
    Frank Bryce, the Riddle's gardener. – ibid Apr 01 '16 at 16:57
  • Well, my question is clearly not a duplicate. My question is about who was used to make Nagini a Horcrux, while the link to the "duplicate" asks if you have to kill humans to make a Horcrux. So well, they are CONNECTED, but clearly not a duplicate. – Amabile Scientius Apr 01 '16 at 20:49
  • @Randal'Thor: I'm not sure if it's even a duplicate of that. This question includes the answer found in that other question as part of it's premise. What this question is really asking, I think, is which source is more canon: the books or an answer from a Q&A given by JKR? And then it follows up with asking who actually died. – Ellesedil Apr 01 '16 at 21:23
  • @Ellesedil There's a question somewhere on the site about different levels of canonicity in the Potterverse. Also re the Priori Incantatem argument, I'm fairly sure JKR messed up the order of the dead people in that scene and has said as much in an interview. – Rand al'Thor Apr 01 '16 at 21:25
  • @Randal'Thor: Great. Then, can we close as duplicate with a link to two questions? http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/117948/which-harry-potter-works-are-considered-canon and http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/23006/who-did-voldemort-kill-to-create-the-horcruxes? Their pow-err, answers combined answers this question. Or, should we leave this open and properly answer it? – Ellesedil Apr 01 '16 at 21:34
  • @Randal'Thor: I converted my question here into a proper meta question. – Ellesedil Apr 01 '16 at 21:45
  • @Ellesedil I saw, and upvoted it. – Rand al'Thor Apr 01 '16 at 21:46
  • 2
    I'm not sure why it's even a question. We have in-universe speculation vs. the author's explicit statement. There's not even a contradiction. – Kevin Apr 04 '16 at 17:02
  • Closing this as a dupe, its a 100% dupe no matter how you look at it. Word of god is word of god, whether you agree with it or not. sorry bud. – Himarm Jan 04 '17 at 14:44
  • 1
    Sorry to be late to the party but I don't understand the confusion about Frank. JKR and Dumbledore can agree. Dumbledore said that Voldemort used Nagini to kill an old Muggle man, not that he used the old Muggle man to create Nagini. That murder inspired Voldemort to make Nagini a Horcrux, which he did when he killed Bertha. (I agree that the phrase "used Nagini" is used loosely. Actually he learned of Frank's presence from Nagini and then killed her himself.) – Bishop Apr 17 '17 at 19:20
  • 1
    This has been the most thorough question of an apparent, um, plot hole, I've seen on here. Naturally, Superfans (FYI: I usually count myself as one) rush to brush it away. JK Rowling has said time and time again that she makes mistakes, but somehow that's the only thing her Superfans will not take as gospel. The Questioner has laid out the issue explicitly only to have his question marked as a dupe (it most certainly is not). Why are people so determined to be obtuse? JKR said information given by Dumbledore & Hermione ought to be considered as correct. Now, apparently, Dumbledore is wrong. – Mermish Essence Sep 02 '17 at 21:29
  • @Randal'Thor She didn't mess up the sequence; the American publisher suggested to her that it was wrong and she was rather (my words here) overwhelmed/overworked/exhausted and agreed it was a mistake. Then she realised later that the mistake was the publisher (or editor?) and so it was corrected. – Pryftan Sep 28 '17 at 00:37
  • And Dumbledore himself says that he's not perfect; in fact because he's cleverer than most people when he makes a mistake they tend to be much worse. So he guessed the Horcrux was from the wrong person; that's just how humans are: imperfect and unable to know everything. It's as @Kevin says it's not even a contradiction. It's not the only mistake Dumbledore made and characters in all sort of books make mistakes too. – Pryftan Sep 28 '17 at 00:40

2 Answers2

5

Bertha Jorkins, on the other hand, won't make sense at all! While he killed her, he still hadn't a body yet (it was first summoned some time after he killed Bertha Jorkins). And it wasn't Nagini killing her. Not to mention that it would take very long time to prepare to create a body for Tom Riddle; and as far as I know, you have to be very fast with banning your soul into an object, else it will just find the next living thing (like Harry) to live off.

Why wouldn't Bertha make sense? As far as I know, Voldemort had the rudimentary, baby-like body before Wormtail stumbled across Bertha Jorkins. That means that both Bertha and Frank Bryce were killed between Voldemort returning to a physical form and regaining a new, adult body at the end of Goblet of Fire. If you accept that he's capable of creating a Horcrux when killing Frank Bryce then you also have to accept that he was capable of doing so when killing Bertha Jorkins.

There's also no canon evidence that suggests you have to be very fast to create a Horcrux. Murder splits your soul, and only true remorse is capable of putting your soul back together; if the only requirements for making a Horcrux are that your soul is split (so there's a fragment to bind to the object) and that you perform the necessary spell, then provided you don't heal your soul by experiencing true remorse for your actions there's no reason you'd be limited in how much time you have.

While an argument could be made for Frank Bryce, and Dumbledore certainly thought that was the case, Word of God has to trump what a character who is ultimately guessing says. Bertha Jorkins was the person Voldemort killed to turn Nagini into a Horcrux.

As an aside, the situation with Harry is different. For a start, he's not a true Horcrux, he's just Horcrux-like in the sense that he was housing a piece of Voldemort's soul. He wasn't created using the requisite Horcrux spell nor was he imbued with any of the defensive magic that is normally applied to a Horcrux (because it's not a good idea to just leave something that contains a piece of your soul around undefended). Voldemort's soul latched onto him because his soul was fragmented and no longer had a physical shell to contain it (his body having been destroyed when his Avada Kedavra curse failed to kill Harry).

Anthony Grist
  • 42,429
  • 16
  • 157
  • 178
  • Going against your answer: The fact that JKR says info given by Dumbledore & Hermione are to be considered as being factual. 2nd, Voldemort did NOT have rudimentary body when Peter got to him. He said as much that he couldn't use a wand without a body and that Wormtail helped. How can a spirit kill a unicorn for its blood & milk a snake for its venom? Third, Harry was indeed a Horcrux, per the book. By the time Voldemort killed Harry's parents, a piece of what remains of his maimed & unstable soul latched onto the only living thing in the house. The other piece was the Spirit Voldemort itself. – Mermish Essence Sep 02 '17 at 21:47
  • @MermishEssence 1. Provide a quote for JKR having said that the information (what information?) is factual. It contradicts what she's said elsewhere about who Voldemort killed to make each Horcrux. 2. I didn't say Voldemort had a body when Peter got to him. I said Voldemort had a body when Peter found Bertha Jorkins - those two things didn't happen at exactly the same time, there was time for Voldemort to regain his rudimentary body by the time he'd need to kill Bertha. 3. Harry was not a true Horcrux, as stated by JKR - that's Word of God canon so I would consider it not up for debate. – Anthony Grist Sep 02 '17 at 22:19
  • Well, one by one then, shall we?: Maura: How come voldemort was no longer employing occlumency against harry, as he was in the 6th book

    J.K. Rowling: He is losing control, and unable to prevent Harry seeing into his mind. The connection between them is never fully understood by Voldemort, who does not know that Harry is a Horcrux. (http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/07/30/j-k-rowling-web-chat-transcript/)

     – Mermish Essence Sep 04 '17 at 05:38
  • Another one: Lizo: Steve, Hermione is a character that you have said is one of your favorites. Has that made her easier to write?

    JKR: Absolutely right, I find that all the time in the book, if you need to tell your readers something just put it in her. There are only 2 characters that you can put it convincingly into their dialogue. 1 is Hermione, the other is Dumbledore. In both cases you accept, it's plausible that they have, well Dumbledore knows pretty much everything anyway, but that Hermione has read it somewhere... http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2003/0302-newsround-mzimba.htm

     – Mermish Essence Sep 04 '17 at 05:49
  • Thirdly (not in order): Voldemort: His filthy little friends told him there was a place, deep in an Albanian forest, that they avoided, where small animals like themselves had met their deaths by a dark shadow that possessed them. . . . “But his journey back to me was not smooth, was it, Wormtail? For, hungry one night, on the edge of the very forest where he had hoped to find me, he foolishly stopped at an inn for some food . . . and who should he meet there, but one Bertha Jorkins... Book 4, Chapter 23: The Death Eaters. (As Dumbledore, and later, Fudge, say, there's nothing like evidence) – Mermish Essence Sep 04 '17 at 05:59
  • Here's another related answer to your first point: JKR: "Dumbledore often speaks for me." [Read the exact quote from the Chamber of Secrets DVD, 2003] If JKR needs to tell the readers something, she lets Hermione or Dumbledore say it. http://www.accio-quote.org/themes/dumbledore.htm So you'll forgive those of us who feel a bit hard done by when there's obvious tension in what we hear the "Word of God" says. But feel free to make more counterpoints. I look forward to categorically address them, of course. – Mermish Essence Sep 04 '17 at 06:16
0

So your question certainly has a lot of detail to it, which is great. I was actually under the impression that Voldemort actually unintentionally did make his 6th and intentionally last horcrux out of Harry by killing his mother first. By Voldemort not knowing he already made a 6th horcrux is one of the reasons for his doom by making a 7th, which is I recall Slughorn explained to Tom Riddle would spread out a soul too thin and fragmented.

But to answer your question directly, yes I believe it was frank Bryce the Gardner who was the murder victim needed to make nagini the last horcrux.

Escoce
  • 4,414
  • 19
  • 27
  • 4
    HARRY IS NOT A HORCRUX!!!! -signed all HP Fanatics. – Skooba Apr 01 '16 at 16:42
  • That's interesting, there was a piece of voldy's soul within him, and Harry had to be killed first before voldy could. Sounds horcrux like to me. Maybe he wasn't a classic horcrux, but he held a fragment of voldy's soul, so that made him horcrux like and voldy's soul was split more than 7 ways. 8 fragments, himself plus 6 horcruxes plus Harry-not-a-horcrux. – Escoce Apr 01 '16 at 16:46
  • @Skooba -- Thank you for screaming in frustration what I was about to scream in frustration! Harry is indeed not a Horcrux. I believe Voldemort killed at least two Muggles that went on to become Horcrux fodder. Frank Bryce (as noted above), and an Albanian peasant. :) – Slytherincess Apr 01 '16 at 16:46
  • @Escoce read the answer here... http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/11530/how-did-harry-become-a-horcrux – Skooba Apr 01 '16 at 16:47
  • 1
    Yeah I read it, I still stand by it that he was an unintentional horcrux or horcrux like. Dumbledore says it, and even JK when saying he isn't a proper horcrux that he is still functionally the same. As far as him not being tainted by being a horcrux, I think a lot of Harry's trials were indeed about him struggling with his inner voldy, but he simply was capable of making his own choices despite the fact. All evidence, INCLUDING JK's statement against the fact still supports that Harry is indeed a horcrux, whether a proper one or not. – Escoce Apr 01 '16 at 16:52
  • @Escoce -- It takes more than having a piece of Voldemort's soul inside one's self to be a Horcrux. Not only does there have to be a murder, but there is a very specific spell that *must* be completed in order for an object to become a Horcrux (See Half-Blood Prince). The spell was not completed on Harry -- hence, Harry is *not* a Horcrux. Neither was Quirrell, although JKR calls both characters vessels that carried the ghost-like soul that was Voldemort prior to his return in Goblet of Fire. (Doesn't sound like a Horcrux to me) ;) – Slytherincess Apr 01 '16 at 16:53
  • @Slytherincess to INTENTIONALLY make one, yes. You must cast a spell to intentionally make a piece of glass vanish too, but Harry does it unintentionally in the first book. – Escoce Apr 01 '16 at 16:53
  • @Escoce -- You cannot accidentally make a Horcrux (unless you accidentally kill someone while chanting the Horcrux spell, which would be a ridiculous accident to say the least :P ) :) – Slytherincess Apr 01 '16 at 16:56
  • @Slytherincess I think you are plucking at straws there. Why do I have to be chanting the spell to have an accident. Did Harry chant a spell when the glass disappeared or did he make it happen spontaneously? – Escoce Apr 01 '16 at 16:58
  • @Escoce http://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/100105/51142 – CHEESE Apr 01 '16 at 17:19
  • @CHEESE still standing by my statement. Harry did have to go through a magical process to get rid of voldy's soul fragment. He died, went to kings cross, and left voldy soul behind and came back to the living. – Escoce Apr 01 '16 at 17:21
  • @Escoce But the soul was attatched to his soul, not his body, like a usual Horcrux. He is close, but very different. – CHEESE Apr 01 '16 at 17:23
  • @CHEESE it was functionally the same. Just because no one wants to call Harry a horcrux does not change the fact that he functionally was a horcrux whether a proper one or not. – Escoce Apr 01 '16 at 17:24
  • @Escoce Obviously it wasn't functionally the same, as the basilisk venom in CoS did not destroy the piece of soul – CHEESE Apr 01 '16 at 17:24
  • I have filled my station wagon with 1 ton of sand bags. It's not supposed to do that, you need a truck to carry that much sand, yet my station wagon still did it. It performed the function of s truck whether it was a truck or not. – Escoce Apr 01 '16 at 17:25
  • @CHEESE you are confusing function with symptom. It may not be symptomatically the same, or have the same vulnerabilities but functionally it did the same thing. Harry housed a piece of voldy's soul which needed to be eradicated in order for voldy to die. – Escoce Apr 01 '16 at 17:29
  • @Slytherincess Harry was indeed a Horcrux, per the book. By the time Voldemort killed Harry's parents, a piece of what remains of his maimed & unstable soul latched onto the only living thing in the house. The other piece was the Spirit Voldemort itself that fled. Remember Dumbledore said that Voldemort & Harry have been more closely linked than any other 2 wizards. Snape: the normal rules of magic don't apply to Harry. So no, his badly damaged soul didn't need a spell to encase itself in Harry, especially since it was Voldemort's intention to create a new Horcrux from Harry's murder anyway. – Mermish Essence Sep 02 '17 at 21:55