6

How did Tom Riddle, upon being denied the position of teacher for Defence Against the Dark Arts, actually go about cursing it? Did he just whip out his wand and say “Positionus Cursus”? Did he dip the job listing in a potion? Did he cast a spell on the classroom where it was held?

Are there any clues about how Tom Riddle went about cursing the Defence Against the Dark Arts position?

Thunderforge
  • 51,516
  • 43
  • 212
  • 431

2 Answers2

7

We don’t know - it’s never said.

Though the curse on the Defense Against the Dark Arts post is mentioned several times, and it’s made clear it’s there because of the Dark Lord being refused the post himself, it’s never explained exactly how the curse was cast on it.

“Was he after the Defence Against the Dark Arts job again, sir? He didn’t say …’

‘Oh, he definitely wanted the Defence Against the Dark Arts job,’ said Dumbledore. ‘The aftermath of our little meeting proved that. You see, we have never been able to keep a Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher for longer than a year since I refused the post to Lord Voldemort.”
- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 20 (Lord Voldemort’s Request)

It is confirmed that there was indeed a curse, and the departure of the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher each year wasn’t a coincidence, because JKR stated that the jinx on the teaching post broke because the Dark Lord was dead.

MV: Do you-- do Ron and Hermione or Harry ever return to Hogwarts in any capacity?

JKR: Well, I can well imagine Harry returning to give the odd talk on-- on Defense Against the Dark Arts. And-- I-- and, of course, the jinx is broken now because Voldemort's gone. Now they can keep a good Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher from here on in. So that aspect of the-of the wizarding education is now provided for.
- Today Show interview (July 26, 2007)

However, we don’t know anything about how the Dark Lord actually put the curse on the post. It’s also possible that he didn’t intentionally or knowingly curse the Defense Against the Dark Arts teaching post, but that his anger at not getting it caused ‘instinctive’ magic to curse it without him actually trying to. Even skilled wizards can cause things to happen through instinctive magic, especially in situations where their emotions are extreme.

“Do it! You have no idea of the danger we are in!’ shrieked Bellatrix: she looked frightening, mad; a thin stream of fire issued from her wand and burned a hole in the carpet.”
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 23 (Malfoy Manor)

That would explain why he’s so willing to put his servants (Quirrell, Barty Crouch Jr., and Amycus Carrow) in the position, and why he never used a similar curse again on any other position like Headmaster of Hogwarts or the Aurors.

Community
  • 1
Obsidia
  • 105,547
  • 18
  • 451
  • 493
-1

He probably didn't.

As I have argued in several answers, most lengthily here, there was no curse. In fact, your question is one of the lines of evidence that there was no curse, as there is simply no known way to curse a "position".

Alex
  • 44,709
  • 7
  • 159
  • 202
  • 3
    Problem, though, is that your lengthy answer doesn't provide any actual proof that the post was not actually cursed. You simply cite a lack of evidence: that we know is not the same thing as evidence of lack. In your defence, everything I've read in these questions is vague at best hyperbole at worse. – elemtilas Jul 04 '19 at 22:37
  • @elemtilas While a major thrust of my answer was the lack of evidence for the curse, I did cite several passages to actively demonstrate that there was not a curse. Whether my arguments are correct and ironclad or not, I didn't simply state that there was no curse merely because there's no evidence of a curse. – Alex Jul 04 '19 at 22:48
  • These answers contradict essentially all the available evidence in the books, and the author's own statements, to push a theory that's not necessary to explain anything. – Adamant Jul 05 '19 at 00:32
  • You particularly have to either outright ignore that Hogwarts hasn't been able to retain a Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher for decades, which started right after Voldemort was rejected despite most other teachers being quite senior, or assert that it's random chance, and you still have to ignore Dumbledore's own knowledge of curses and Rowling's own explanations of the supposed discrepancy (which itself turns merely on whether a turn of phrase seems natural). – Adamant Jul 05 '19 at 00:38
  • 1
    @Adamant You don't have to ignore that Hogwarts hasn't been able to retain teachers. You just have to realize that a correlation between a certain event and the inability to retain teachers does not prove that the event caused the inability. As for Dumbledore's knowledge, he never even said that there was a curse. As for Rowling's statements.... well, I'll admit that I ignore them. – Alex Jul 05 '19 at 00:46
  • In a world where it's very possible for a vengeful rejected applicant to curse a position, 27 or more departures after one year in a position where the average tenure seems to be decades, starting right after said rejection, can very plausibly be attributed to said curse. – Adamant Jul 05 '19 at 00:48
  • @Adamant Who says it's very possible for a vengeful rejected applicant to curse a position? That was actually part of my argument that there was no curse. – Alex Jul 05 '19 at 00:50
  • Dumbledore, probably the foremost witch or wizard in the world, clearly sees it as possible. You have to ignore the clear implication in his statement to deny that. – Adamant Jul 05 '19 at 00:51
  • 1
    @Adamant Maybe Dumbledore meant that Voldemort set up a fund to pay off every teacher to leave after a year. Or maybe Dumbledore believed in some sort of Karma that was paying him back for refusing Voldemort the position. Or any number of other far-fetched possibilities. The point is that the only thing we know for sure is that Dumbledore associated the inability to retain teachers with refusing Voldemort the job, but we don't know how or why. – Alex Jul 05 '19 at 00:57
  • Wow, your statement is such a stretch. If your alternatives to the plain and obvious interpretation are Voldemort paying off teachers while he's dead, which doesn't explain any of the departures we see, or Dumbledore believing that the universe is on Voldemort's side and punishing him for denying him the position, which is quite out of his character. There's one obvious interpretation of his statement, the one the author has confirmed they meant, and ignoring it is fanfiction without the effort. – Adamant Jul 05 '19 at 00:57
  • 1
    @Adamant And positing a nebulous curse that we've never hear of that somehow affects an intangible position causing each holder of that position to leave the job for completely unrelated reasons is also a stretch. The only difference is that in addition to being a stretch it also seems to contradict the implications of other parts of the books. – Alex Jul 05 '19 at 01:01
  • We do hear of the curse. You just dismiss every reference to it, based basically on some odd turns of phrase in the first book (which at best indicate that Rowling hadn't conceived of the idea yet). – Adamant Jul 05 '19 at 01:02
  • 1
    @Adamant The ones we see were unrelated. Quirrel left because Voldemort caused his death; Lockhart left because he lost his mind; Lupin left because he was exposed; Moody/Crouch Jr. left because he lost his soul (and was anyway only contracted for one year); Umbridge left because Dumbledore never wanted her in the first place, and after what happened she probably didn't want to come back anyway; Snape left because he was promoted; Carrow left because he was a Death Eater and his side lost the war. – Alex Jul 05 '19 at 01:04
  • And yet you theorize that Voldemort's fund paid them all off. ;) That's the nature of the curse; if it caused everyone to contract a specific disease or something, it would be much less insidious and probably easily dealt with. This is a book about magic. Suppositions about what's possible or likely in the real world are not applicable. Spells affect fuzzy concepts like life and death and food and money, and you have a problem with the fuzzy concept of a job position? – Adamant Jul 05 '19 at 01:06
  • @Adamant Voldemort's fund didn't need to pay them off because they left anyway. The fund only had to pay off people up until Quirrel. Basically, bad hiring choices is not evidence of a curse. – Alex Jul 05 '19 at 01:07
  • Again, while you're writing a decent Fifty Shades of Gray-style realistic AU, it flies in the face of the actual series. – Adamant Jul 05 '19 at 01:10
  • @Adamant Sorry you don't like it. – Alex Jul 05 '19 at 01:14