29

I went through the last book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, yesterday and a question popped in my mind: Does Death, the supposed creator of the Deathly Hallows, really exist in the Harry Potter universe? Dumbledore thought otherwise and I am with the same school of thought. By the way who created the deathly Hallows actually?

Update:

1) Why were the brothers so sure that the hooded figure was death(couldn't it be a more powerful wizard playing with them)

2) Couldn't, Beedle and the brothers create this story?

Narusan
  • 577
  • 5
  • 14
Tom Lynd
  • 3,708
  • 4
  • 35
  • 52
  • What do you mean by “death”? Do you mean the figure who supposedly created the Deathly Hallows, or the end of life? – alexwlchan Apr 22 '14 at 12:55
  • 3
    @alexwlchan Pretty sure they mean Death (with a capital D), the supposed creator of the Deathly Hallows. At the very end when Harry is talking to Dumbledore in "King's Cross" Dumbledore says he doesn't think it was actually Death who created them, that was just part of the mythology that formed around them. – Anthony Grist Apr 22 '14 at 12:57
  • @AnthonyGrist: ah, okay. Re-reading the question, that make sense. My bad. – alexwlchan Apr 22 '14 at 12:58
  • @alexchan feel free to edit my question if you think phrasing is too bad – Tom Lynd Apr 22 '14 at 12:59
  • We don't know, and sadly Rowling probably intends to keep it that way. – Saturn Apr 22 '14 at 13:14
  • Dumbledore's phrasing in the King's Cross chapter is pretty ambiguous (annoying, but not entirely unsurprising), but it sort of suggests he thinks Death exists, he just wasn't the creator of the Hallows. However, that sort of hinges on a stray capital D in a sentence and one other thing he said, and I'm not confident enough in my e-books accuracy to base an answer on that. – Anthony Grist Apr 22 '14 at 13:17
  • Somebody has capitalised the D in the question title, which was the only thing confusing me. – alexwlchan Apr 22 '14 at 13:20
  • It's interesting how the Death never really occured as a person in books, but there is a certain place for it in a magic universe. Mind horcruxes (Dark Lord) and archway (Sirius) – madfriend Apr 22 '14 at 13:30
  • There is no evidence to suggest that the brothers had anything to do with the creation of the story at all. – Dave Johnson Apr 22 '14 at 13:54
  • And there's no evidence that Death didn't exist either other than the tale by Beedle. – DoctorWho22 Apr 22 '14 at 13:56
  • By death what do you mean? the hooded figure? – Tom Lynd Apr 22 '14 at 13:59
  • 3
    Oh for... Death with a capital D is almost always the anthropomorphic figure, death with a small d is the cessation of life. – JohnP Apr 22 '14 at 14:31
  • 1
    Guys, if you are curious as to Tom's reason to believe that Death cannot exist, you can refer to this brief chat we had: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/14067/discussion-between-tom-lynd-and-voldemort – Saturn Apr 22 '14 at 15:25
  • 14
    @Voldemort "And if they downvote you, then they must explain why. And if they don't explain why, we can report them for trolling." No you can't. There is absolutely no requirement to explain downvotes. – Anthony Grist Apr 22 '14 at 15:33
  • @AnthonyGrist: Admittedly I was just being friendly lol, however, explaining downvotes is definitely a great thing to improve everything on the site. I can hardly see a reason not to explain a downvote. – Saturn Apr 22 '14 at 15:38
  • If Death were real in the HP universe, I feel as though Harry would have met it at least once... Even more so if all it takes for Death to appear is to 'cheat' is. – Kapler May 12 '14 at 17:37
  • As everyone knows, Death as an anthropomorphic entity only exists on planets that are flat, and are carried through space on the backs of four elephants, walking around on the back of a giant turtle. – RDFozz Sep 12 '17 at 20:48

3 Answers3

42

There is no proof whatsoever that Death exists in Harry Potter as a character.

  1. The only time Death is mentioned is in a folk fable, collected with OTHER made-up fables into a fiction book called "Tales of Beedles the Bard".

    To assume that Death existed in Potterverse merely because of that is equivalent to assuming Snow White or Seven Dwarves existed in our universe based on reading Brothers Grimm book.

    Or, for a Potter in-universe example, look at Lockhart's books.

    Granted, there's no proof Death doesn't exist; but Occam's Razor says that option should be rejected in favor of a more rational one.

  2. The artifacts which are attributed to be "made" by death are not a good proof either:

    • Albus Dumbledore, the most noted, wise and learned wizard in-Universe, explicitly states that this is unlikely.

      “So it’s true?” asked Harry. “All of it? The Peverell brothers—”
      “—were the three brothers of the tale,” said Dumbledore, nodding.
      “Oh yes, I think so. Whether they met Death on a lonely road . . . I think it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted, dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects. The story of them being Death’s own Hallows seems to me the sort of legend that might have sprung up around such creations.

    • The artifacts themselves can clearly be explained as "feasible" according to in-universe rules:

      • Invisibility cloak: it's not really "more perfect" than other cloaks. Yes, it doesn't get damaged with time - but neither do many other magical objects, like Hogwarts itself. Yes, it conceals other people aside from the owner, but it's not really THAT much of a "magical" leap from hiding only the owner.

        It doesn't have any other differences from "normal" invisibility cloaks, and there's zero in-universe evidence that it hides the owner from "Death" (the only reason Harry survived wasn't the cloak - which he wasn't wearing anyway - it was the fact that Voldemort took Harry's blood into his body).

      • The Elder Wand isn't shown to exhibit any supernatural abilities outside the fable. The only known time its owner dueled using the wand where the wand mattered, the owner LOST (Gellert Grindewald vs Dumbledore).

        What must strike any intelligent witch or wizard on studying the so-called history of the Elder Wand is that every man who claims to have owned it has insisted that it is “unbeatable”, when the known facts of its passage through many owners’ hands demonstrate that not only has it been beaten hundreds of times, but that it also attracts trouble as Grumble the Grubby Goat attracted flies. (Albus Dumbledore's comments in his copy of Tales of Beadle the Bard)

        The only "special" ability of the wand was to repair Harry Potter's wand that Olliewander pronounced unfixable. Hardly something worth assuming that the object was made by Death.

      • "Resurrection" stone. Its effects are similar to Priori Incantatum, and thus again don't require any supernatural "Death" magic as explanation.

DJClayworth
  • 10,111
  • 3
  • 37
  • 54
DVK-on-Ahch-To
  • 342,451
  • 162
  • 1,520
  • 2,066
  • 2
    Doesn't Occam's razor actually suggest that the among competing hypothesis, the one with the fewer assumptions is the one that's should be selected? – DoctorWho22 May 16 '14 at 13:09
  • 11
    @DoctorWho22 - exactly. And "Death being a real character" is a pretty huge assumption (as opposed to a fairly unambitious one of "there were 3 skilled wizards" - heck, there were wizards who created Room of Requirement, after all). – DVK-on-Ahch-To May 16 '14 at 13:15
  • Fewer assumptions doesn't not equal big assumptions, especially considering the fact that magic exists in that world as a common force. Granted it is a big assumption, but as we said never side has any concrete proof. – DoctorWho22 May 16 '14 at 13:27
  • 8
    @DoctorWho22, Occam's razor may be described as "fewest", but really could be described "least" amount of assumption, or the simplest solution. A lot of things could be explained by extreme assumptions that are still technically few in number, but that doesn't really cut it. – Paul Draper Sep 20 '14 at 05:26
  • 1
    I don't know, I feel as though in a series where magic is a force that is prominent and natural, it isn't really a stretch to say that there may be a physical manifestation of Death. – DoctorWho22 Sep 22 '14 at 20:12
  • »The only known time its owner dueled using the wand where the wand mattered, the owner LOST« — Not so sure about that. I’d say the wand mattered in the final battle between Harry and Voldemort as well. If Harry hadn’t been the master of the Elder Wand then, I doubt he’d have been able to counter Voldemort’s Avada Kedavra using someone else’s wand. Also, as this answer speculates, we don’t actually know that Grindelwald was the master of the Elder Wand when he duelled Dumbledore. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Sep 03 '15 at 13:35
  • @JanusBahsJacquet - Since the owner wasn't holding the wand, that doesn't tell us anything about "Death Stick" properties of the wand. The "rightful" owner didn't use it; and the "holder" lost – DVK-on-Ahch-To Sep 03 '15 at 13:39
  • Still, the actual, bare-fact descriptions of the other two hallows in the tales are both quite accurate: the Invisibility Cloak completely hides you and anyone else under it, and the Resurrection Stone brings back a sentient, but ghost-like imprint of someone dead, though that imprint doesn’t truly belong here on earth. The description of the Elder Wand is a bit vaguer, but the closest we get is that it a) is very powerful and b) “must always win duels for its owner”. The fact that it can repair Harry’s wand where no other wand seemingly could makes it quite likely that at least the first → – Janus Bahs Jacquet Sep 03 '15 at 13:49
  • → of these is true, and I see little evidence that the second is not also accurate enough. If it hadn’t been, like I said, Harry would not likely have survived his final duel with Voldemort: the odds in that duel were stacked quite squarely against him, except for his mastery of the Elder Wand. The text does describe it as “flying through the air towards the master it would not kill, who had come to take full possession of it at last”. I don’t see why the master actually holding the wand would have any influence on the outcome of the duel. Its master won; its holder lost. If the answer → – Janus Bahs Jacquet Sep 03 '15 at 13:54
  • → I linked to above it accurate (and I personally believe it could well be), that would simply be history repeating itself: the master of the Elder Wand defeating its physical holder in a duel. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Sep 03 '15 at 13:55
  • 1
    'It doesn't have any other differences from "normal" invisibility cloaks,'

    Not true. When the trio arrive in Hogsmeade the Death Eaters try to summon the cloak but because it was a Hallow they couldn't; that's when they decide to use dementors: it wasn't the soul of Harry Voldemort wanted but his life. Hence why Harry used the Patronus and then Aberforth saved them with his claiming he had let his cat out. And it's not just that the other cloaks get damaged but they lose their magic, I thought?

     – Pryftan Jul 14 '17 at 21:23
  • The Elder Wand's power was used (through Harry's normal wand) to defend him during the Battle of Seven Potters in the books. His wand acted seemingly of its own accord to aim, and to cast defensive spells. I'd say there is significant power in being the Master of the Elder Wand. – Jeff Sep 12 '17 at 17:00
  • 3
    "Or, for a Potter in-universe example, look at Lockhart's books." The creatures Lockhart wrote about defeating were real, though. It just wasn't Lockhart that defeated them. – JAB Sep 12 '17 at 17:13
  • "that option should be rejected in favor of a more rational one" I'm not sure rationality matters in a land of magic :) – CCJ Mar 16 '21 at 01:17
  • I think the Dumbledore "quote" isn't very helpful in this argument: that conversation took place after Harry was hit by the killing curse around a year after Dumbledore's death, so it's either Harry's hallucination, or the conversation took place in the afterlife itself (yet Dumbledore doesn't deny Death's existence, just says it's more likely that the brothers made the Deathly Hallows themselves). – Crow T Robot Mar 17 '21 at 12:29
4

Death himself might possibly exist because supposedly Beedle the Bard witnessed The Peverell brothers defy Death. After seeing the brothers cross a treacherous river using magic they were confronted by Death who then gave them the Deathly Hallows.

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Death_(being)

The being known as Death is the embodiment of the universal phenomenon marking the end of physical life, and may or may not literally exist. The best–known account of the entity is known as "The Tale of the Three Brothers", and was made famous Beedle the Bard. According to this story, he was the one who witnessed the three Peverell brothers defy him by successfully crossing a deadly and dangerous river using magic.

Quotes from the book

“There were once three brothers who were traveling along a lonely, winding road at twilight. In time, the brothers reached a river too deep to wade through and too dangerous to swim across.. However, these brothers were learned in the magical arts, and so they simply waved their wands and made a bridge appear across the treacherous water. They were halfway across it when they found their path blocked by a hooded figure.

And Death spoke to them. He was angry that he had been cheated out of three new victims, for travelers usually drowned in the river. But Death was cunning. He pretended to congratulate the three brothers upon their magic and said that each had earned a prize for having been clever enough to evade him."

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter Twenty-One

Now the reason in this story that Death created the Hallows to begin with was to claim the wizards that cheated him from claiming them.

The oldest brother was claimed after he defeated a wizard in a duel then boasted in an inn, in which at night he was killed by somebody who wanted the wand.

"That very night, another wizard crept upon the oldest brother as he lay, wine-sodden, upon his bed. The theif took the wand and, for good measure, slit the oldest brother’s throat.

And so Death took the first brother for his own."

The second brother killed himself after discovering that though he could bring back the woman that he wanted to marry she was not supposed to be in this world and was cold and suffering.

"Yet she was sad and cold, separated from him as by a veil. Though she had returned to the mortal world, she did not truly belong there and suffered. Finally the second brother, driven mad with hopeless longing, killed himself so as truly to join her.

And so Death took the second brother for his own."

The last and youngest brother lived to old age because he hid from Death, then gave the cloak to his son and joined Death.

"But though Death searched for the third brother for many years, he was never able to find him. It was only when he had attained a great age that the youngest brother finally took off the Cloak of Invisibility and gave it to his son. And then he greeted Death as an old friend, and went with him gladly, and, equals, they departed this life.”

The only reason I think it might be plausible that Death exists is in this story each Brother was given an item that would eventually lead them to their death so that Death would claim them.

On the flip slide there is no concrete evidence that Death exists as a physical manifestation. The only thing that can be said is that Dumbledore thought that the brothers themselves created the artifacts and that the story was embellished.

DoctorWho22
  • 12,449
  • 3
  • 42
  • 73
  • 4
    Dumbledore thought that it was a cock and bull story – Tom Lynd Apr 22 '14 at 13:23
  • Well the brothers did technically exist seeing as that it was mentioned in the half blood prince that the Peverell family was the ancestors of Marvolo Gaunt the maternal grandfather of Voldemort. Also Dumbledore just only believes they were made by the Peverell themselves, which might be possible. It's also possible that Beedle did in fact witness the Death figure. In the harry potter universe that has Magic as a fundemental supernatural law then it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Death might exist. – DoctorWho22 Apr 22 '14 at 13:25
  • 1
    But their story of death was a false one – Tom Lynd Apr 22 '14 at 13:26
  • As every fairy tale, it had a grain of fiction. – madfriend Apr 22 '14 at 13:27
  • Where does it state that the story was false? Just because Dumbledore says he doesn't believe it doesn't mean it's false. – DoctorWho22 Apr 22 '14 at 13:27
  • 3
    Apart from the brothers, nobody was the witness... – Tom Lynd Apr 22 '14 at 13:31
  • 1
    Well according to the Harry Potter Wikia for Death (being) it states.. Beedle the Bard witnesses it... "According to this story, he was the one who witnessed the three Peverell brothers defy him by successfully crossing a deadly and dangerous river using magic. If he indeed witness it, then it's possible that Death does exist. Either way there's no proof for either argument, I was just pointing out that it is possible that he did in fact exist. The reasoning if he did exist was he gave the artifacts to the brothers to collect their souls because they defied him. – DoctorWho22 Apr 22 '14 at 13:32
  • @DoctorWho22,please share the link. – Tom Lynd Apr 22 '14 at 13:39
  • Already did it's in the answer now – DoctorWho22 Apr 22 '14 at 13:39
  • Essentially there's no direct proof that he existed besides the story. It's plausible that either one is the "right answer", Dumbledore being the "logical" answer. And Death existing being the more supernatural / creepy answer. Only reason I stated that he might have existed was due to the tale itself. – DoctorWho22 Apr 22 '14 at 13:42
  • I have made an update – Tom Lynd Apr 22 '14 at 13:44
  • @TomLynd: We don't KNOW whether the Death story from Beedle the Bard is true or not. That's the whole point. You seem overly confident that it is indeed false, so you should probably tell us why exactly. Actually, you seem to be sure that Death doesn't exist, so you may as well answer your own question because we're all missing out. – Saturn Apr 22 '14 at 14:17
  • 3
    @Voldemort Dumbledore think so, and his guesses are almost always right,thats why – Tom Lynd Apr 22 '14 at 14:19
  • @TomLynd: You do realise that a) that's not a valid justification and b) Dumbledore's master plan to defeat Voldemort failed way before it even begun? Either way, if you believe it is indeed the answer, post it as an answer so it may be properly reviewed. – Saturn Apr 22 '14 at 14:19
  • @Voldemort,Snape's part succeded alongwith many others but neither of us have a sound proof,all the same the story of hooded figure seems illogical..(to me). – Tom Lynd Apr 22 '14 at 14:22
  • @TomLynd: Dumbledore explicitly tells Harry that the Snape part was an absolutely failure. They were lucky that Harry witnessed his death - that wasn't planned at all. In fact, Dumbledore's plan failed that Snape had to work something out with the portrait version. Secondly, if the only reason you believe Death doesn't exist is because "Dumbledore says so" then you need to recall that Dumbledore has done several mistakes and, more importantly, it does not guarantee anything whatsoever. – Saturn Apr 22 '14 at 14:26
  • let us continue this discussion in chat – Tom Lynd Apr 22 '14 at 14:27
  • 5
    Hogwarts does possibly exist because supposedly J.K. Rowling witnessed the events described there. Though my money is on her making it all up, as did Beedle the Bard (or more likely people who invented the tales that he collected ala Brothers Grimm) – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 22 '14 at 15:50
  • When did JK Rowling ever state that she actually witnessed the events? Also in a world where the magic is a constant supernatural force which has countless magical creatures, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that something like a manifestation of Death doesn't exist. – DoctorWho22 May 16 '14 at 13:05
  • 2
    I would just say that just because one character said that he thinks X character made up the story then it doesn't mean that the story might not be true. Hell look at all the people in Harry Potter who thought that Harry was crazy because he believed that Voldemort was still around.. – DoctorWho22 Sep 22 '14 at 20:24
  • Death himself might possibly exist because supposedly Beedle the Bard witnessed The Peverell brothers defy Death. Exactly what evidence do you have for that? What makes you believe he (or she?) witnessed it in person? The fact it was in twilight makes it less likely but even besides it's highly unlikely it's anything but a fairy story which means it's not real. But let's say it really did happen: how does that mean he witnessed it? Maybe one of the youngest brother had the story preserved for one example? – Pryftan May 15 '18 at 21:13
  • @DoctorWho22 They thought he was crazy because shortly after the story was told they were out of school and the entire summer the Ministry had been defaming Dumbledore and Harry including through propaganda. They didn't want to believe it so when they're given 'proof' it isn't real bias kicks in. – Pryftan May 15 '18 at 21:17
  • On the previous comment about Beedle being the one to witness it; I don't recall it from the tales themselves but I wouldn't trust Wiki blindly. Even so though the rest of my comment is valid (though perhaps less so with that in mind). – Pryftan May 15 '18 at 23:03
  • Dumbledore said he thought it was false. We know how honest Dumbledore is. – Adamant Dec 05 '18 at 03:16
2

Disclaimer: This is an addition rather than stating that Death exists or does not exist. From canon I don't think we can conclude that Death exists. However I just saw something interesting on Pottermore (it seems maybe the article is new or at least it is to me) and something about Dumbledore particularly.

There is apparently a theory about Death being Dumbledore. This is what Pottermore has to say:

Dumbledore is a huge part of J.K. Rowling’s favourite fan theory

When asked about her readers’ ideas, J.K. Rowling referred to the theory about the Peverell brothers, who, according to the legend, each received a Hallow for cheating death. The theory stands that Voldemort was the eldest brother, who was murdered after seeking power with the Elder Wand. Snape was the middle brother, who pined after a dead girl he once loved, and eventually died to join her; while Harry was considered to be the youngest brother, who greeted ‘Death as an old friend’. Since Dumbledore was the one waiting for Harry after the piece of Voldemort inside him was destroyed, one fan suggested that Dumbledore was Death in the tale. Referring to this concept after a fan asked her about her favourite theory, J.K. Rowling tweeted: ‘Dumbledore as death. It's a beautiful theory and it fits.’

So although it's not actually how she meant it to be it is a theory she thinks is beautiful and fits - despite the fact it would be post factum.

Okay but the question is does it work with Dumbledore for Severus and Voldemort too? Certainly it fits for Harry but what about Voldemort?

Voldemort tries to cheat Death (not thinking of Horcruxes here) by obtaining the Elder Wand but what happens? It's not properly won and taking it from the grave is sort of like being handed the wand as if it had no master before (only that in this case the Elder Wand did have a master - Harry - and by not being master Voldemort's curse would backfire on him). And whose grave is it? Dumbledore's. Of course at that point the Elder Wand had already changed loyalty but Dumbledore also spent years working on how to end Voldemort for all: that Voldemort would have Dumbledore killed (even though Dumbledore asked Severus to do so rather than Draco) and then think of using Dumbledore's last wand is as if Dumbledore brought about Voldemort's downfall - with Dumbledore's wand, the Elder Wand.

And what about Severus? Well of course he never held (I don't think so anyway) the Stone (only Hallow he's touched I believe is the Cloak and only temporarily when Harry left it outside the Whomping Willow in PoA) but certainly Severus pined after a girl (who would only live a few short years of adulthood, marry Severus's bully - but Severus still loved her 'Always'). Although in the tale the brother actually was to marry the woman but for an untimely death it could be said that Severus's tendency to Dark magic was not only the cause of Lily's death (indirectly) but also the cause of death of their friendship breaking apart. I can't quite put together how the Resurrection Stone applies here except that Severus would rather be dead; however he spends the rest of his life at great risk trying to take down Voldemort and simultaneously protect Harry as best he can. But if we think about Dumbledore being Death Severus died carrying out what Dumbledore demanded (and Severus also delayed the curse on the ring) and trying to make amends to his actions. It's not to say that Severus would rejoin Lily in that way (but who knows?) but he would at least no longer be tormented in the world. And being able to give Harry his memories meant he could finally show Harry how much he loved his mother and how complicated he was.

This doesn't imply that Death is real because Dumbledore wasn't alive at the time at the very least; but it's a nice way to imagine it and the imagination is what makes reading so wonderful and unique: we can interpret words whatever way we want and for fiction it needn't matter if one interpretation is correct as long as the reader enjoys it (try telling others that they're wrong is different however and it also contributes to taking away the magic of imaginations). And Rowling loves this theory, says its beautiful and even fits.

Community
  • 1
Pryftan
  • 1,159
  • 14
  • 10
  • 2
    As a side mention, the theory is unrelated to the question. It's about the analogy between the figures of Deathly Hallows and those mentioned in the tale. Even if Dumbledore is analogous to Death from the tale, that makes zero statement in either direction on whether Death exists as a character (except maybe "it's not supposed to matter"). – Egor Hans Mar 17 '21 at 09:43
  • @EgorHans Unrelated? Sure. Uninteresting? No. Maybe it'd be more useful as a comment but it's too long for a comment and it complements the answer. – Pryftan Jun 04 '23 at 20:31