ForumThe Always Snape Community: Potterverse MiscellaneaHarry Potter Meta/AnalysisSectumsempra: Invincible Weapon o …

You need to log in to create posts and topics.

Sectumsempra: Invincible Weapon or Invisible Penknife?

#1 · May 5, 2023, 3:39 pm

Quote from Naaga on May 5, 2023, 3:39 pm
Sectumsempra - invincible weapon or invisible penknife?

Much of our understanding of Snape as a teenager depends on whether Sirius is right about his having been heavily interested in the Dark Arts, whether that actually means that he was performing openly evil acts, and what we can understand from his signature-use of Sectumsempra. Did he invent this spell or merely use it, and is it an obviously over-the-top, vicious weapon or a reasonable means of defence?

If the Latin is to be taken literally, "Sectumsempra" means something like "to amputate every time", "to cut every time" or "to wound every time". However, JK Rowling's use of Latin in spells is erratic. In the Tickling Charm Rictusempra, which makes people laugh convulsively, the "sempra" bit appears to mean "all the time" rather than "every time". So Sectumsempra may mean something like "always cuts" or "cut always", depending on how precise the Latin is.

It was found written in the margin of schoolboy-Snape's Advanced Potion-Making book with the note "for enemies". We do not know whether young Severus invented the spell himself, or only learned it and wrote it down.

The evidence that Snape actually invented Sectumsempra is that the name can be rendered loosely as "Sever Forever" (that is, as a play on the name Severus); that it was written down in his Potions book and that during the running battle at the end of HBP he accuses Harry of using his own spells, plural, against him when Harry tries to use both Sectumsempra and Levicorpus - although it is Levicorpus which prompts this accusation.

You dare use my own spells against me, Potter? It was I who invented them' [HBP ch. #28; p. 563]

On the other hand, although it is written down in his book it seems to have no workings-out or instructions with it, as his other spells do. Harry certainly assumes that it was a spell which the Half-Blood Prince had learned, rather than one he had invented, which he would hardly do if there were workings-out with it: he may or may not have been right about that, but it raises the possibility that JKR herself intended it to be a spell Snape had got from elsewhere.

He had just found an incantation (Sectumsempra!) scrawled in a margin above the intriguing words 'For Enemies', [HBP ch. #21; p. 419]

[cut] he noticed the corner of a page folded down; turning to it, he saw the Sectumsempra spell, captioned 'For Enemies', that he had marked a few weeks previously. [HBP ch. #24; p. 484]

What had the Prince been thinking to copy such a spell into his book? [HBP ch. #24; p. 491]

'Will you stop harping on about the book!' snapped Harry. 'The Prince only copied it out! It's not like he was advising anyone to use it! For all we know, he was making a note of something that had been used against him!' [HBP ch. #24; p. 495]

When we see Snape use what certainly appears to be Sectumsempra to defend himself from James during the underpants incident, he casts it non-verbally, so the Marauders don't hear what the spell is called, and yet in DH Lupin identifies a spell cast by Snape as Sectumsempra and says it was always a speciality of his: yet, he says nothing to suggest that Snape actually invented the spell. It sounds as if Sectumsempra is known to Lupin in a general way: hence, it may be a spell which Snape used rather than one which he invented.

That's not absolute proof, of course, because Lupin knew Levicorpus by name yet didn't know Snape had invented it, or didn't admit to knowing. But it does mean that it's perfectly possible Snape didn't invent Sectumsempra: just took it up because of the coincidence of the name.

If he didn't invent it, why would he accuse Harry of using spells of his own invention, plural, against him? Perhaps because even though he got it from elsewhere he had adapted it for his own use. Or perhaps in the heat of the moment he is speaking loosely. He knows Harry tried to use Levicorpus (although we don't know how he knows, since it's a non-verbal spell - perhaps Harry's lips move!) against him, and that's a spell which he invented. He knows Harry tried to use Sectumsempra against him, and it's certainly his in the sense of being his signature-spell and coming from his notes. He almost certainly knows Harry used his Langlock spell on Filch (twice). People don't always speak 100% accurately, and perhaps 'You dare use my own spells against me, Potter?' was just easier to say than 'You dare use one of my own spells against me, and use another of them against Filch, and use a spell which, even though I didn't invent it, I still regard as mine against me, Potter?'

Alternatively, he might just be speaking in anticipation. Harry has just tried to use two spells from Snape's book, at least one of which Snape invented, so Snape may simply be warning him off from trying any more in the next few minutes.

What kind of a spell is Sectumsempra?

"Sectumsempra" means something like "to cut every time" or "to amputate every time". We learn in DH that if it is used to actually cut a body part off, that body part can't be replaced. That could be taken to mean that Sectumsempra is an especially vicious curse which was specifically designed to amputate body parts in a way which prevents their regrowth. However, it seems from Remus's comments on George's injury that this is common to all amputations which result from a curse, of any kind:

'[cut] there's no chance of replacing his ear, not when it's been cursed off --' [DH ch. #05; p. 64]

It's possible that Remus was going to say "...not when it's been cursed off with Sectumsempra", and was interrupted: but if that was what JK intended, you'd think she'd at least have left a "with" or a "by" on the end of that partial sentence. Molly then goes on to say:

'I can't make it grow back, not when it's been removed by Dark Magic.' [DH ch. #05; p. 66]

So, we can say that Sectumsempra is a curse, because any amputations caused by it are permanent; but we can be quite certain that permanent amputation is not a special, unique feature of Sectumsempra. Molly's comment could be taken to mean that the spell which removed George's ear must be definitely Dark, although Remus's comment implies that any curse would do the same, and we know some curses are taught at Hogwarts: Locomotor mortis seems to be taught in class, since they all recognise it in first year and Draco is openly looking for somebody to practise it on, and Petrificus totalus and Reductor are readily available in the library.

Confusingly, we are told that Eloise Midgen cursed her own nose off and it was able to be re-attached. Assuming that the term "cursed" is being used accurately here, this could be evidence that not all curses cause permanent amputation, but only those curses classified as "Dark" (which would mean Sectumsempra was Dark). On the other hand, we have seen Madam Pomfrey deal efficiently with some pretty serious injuries, and yet she was able to re-attach Eloise's nose only with difficulty ("in the end"), and rather badly. So we can at least say that probably all curses that can cause amputation tend to cause permanent amputation, unless you are very skilled and lucky.

'Like poor Eloise Midgen,' said Hannah Abbott, a Hufflepuff, in a hushed voice. 'She tried to curse [her pimples] off.'
'Silly girl,' said Professor Sprout, shaking her head. 'But Madam Pomfrey fixed her nose back on in the end.' [GoF ch. #13; p.173]

       'Well -- you know,' said Ron, shrugging. 'I'd rather go alone than with -- with Eloise Midgen, say.'
'Her acne’s loads better lately -- and she’s really nice!'
'Her nose is off-centre,' said Ron. [GoF ch. #22; p.344]

In addition, Rowling has said the following about magical healing:

I decided that, broadly speaking, wizards would have the power to correct or override 'mundane' nature, but not 'magical' nature. Therefore, a wizard could catch anything a Muggle might catch, but he could cure all of it; he would also comfortably survive a scorpion sting that might kill a Muggle, whereas he might die if bitten by a Venomous Tentacula. Similarly, bones broken in non-magical accidents such as falls or fist fights can be mended by magic, but the consequences of curses or backfiring magic could be serious, permanent or life-threatening. This is the reason that Gilderoy Lockhart, victim of his own mangled Memory Charm, has permanent amnesia, why the poor Longbottoms remain permanently damaged by magical torture, and why Mad-Eye Moody had to resort to a wooden leg and a magical eye when the originals were irreparably damaged in a wizards' battle; Luna Lovegood's mother, Pandora, died when one of her own experimental spells went wrong, and Bill Weasley is irreversibly scarred after his meeting with Fenrir Greyback.

That "... the consequences of curses ... could be ... permanent" seems to confirm that any curse which causes amputation will tend to cause permanent amputation.

The definition of what is and isn't considered Dark Magic is never explained: often it just seems to mean "a curse I don't approve of". Even "curse" has never been satisfactorily defined, but we can certainly say that not all curses are regarded as evil, since some appear to be on the Hogwarts curriculum, and are certainly performed without censure

It's possible that when Molly said the injury was due to Dark Magic she meant something clearly bad, not the sort of curse which would ever be taught at Hogwarts, and Remus was going to say "...not when it's been cursed off with Sectumsempra". But since there seems no reason why JK should set out deliberately to obscure this point if she were trying to make it, it's at least as likely that Remus meant what we heard him say - that any curse which caused an amputation would have the same effect, including the ones sanctioned by the school - and Molly was speaking sloppily and using "Dark Magic" as a synonym for "curse". [It is more likely that Molly is speaking sloppily than that Remus is, because Remus is knowledgeable enough about DADA to teach it.]

There are other references which suggest that Dark Magic injuries are especially hard to heal. When Bill is injured by Greyback, Lupin says:

'Those are cursed wounds. They are unlikely ever to heal fully,' [HBP ch. #29; p. 572]

That could be taken to mean that any wound made by a curse will never heal, but so far as we know these wounds made by Greyback weren't made by curses at all - they are physical tooth or nail marks. I take "cursed wound", as opposed to "curse wound", to mean the wound itself, which was made by a Dark creature (false!Moody refers to 'Dark creatures -- [cut] Boggarts, Red Caps, Hinkypunks, Grindylows, Kappas and werewolves'), has something actively cursed about it. Moody's extensive scars, for example, were presumably caused by curses, but there's no suggestion that they are still suppurating.

Harry, who is meant to be a DADA expert, commenting on the ruin of his parents' house, says:

'Maybe it's like the injuries from Dark Magic and you can't repair the damage?' [DH ch. #17; p. 271]

which strongly suggests that it's the involvement of Dark Magic in the wound itself which makes it hard to heal.

And of course we have the evidence of Dumbledore's arm, attacked by the curse which Tom Riddle placed on his father's ring. The curse we are told could not be halted, but only confined to his hand "for the time being".

So, we know that any "Dark" curse which can cause amputation will do so permanently, and this may well also be true of curses which are considered "Light" enough to be on the Hogwarts curriculum, such as Locomotor mortis. Nor is this even very noteworthy, because although regeneration of amputated parts may be possible in some cases, it certainly isn't the case that magic can always regenerate a lost part, unless it's been cursed off. The outgoing Care of Magical Creatures master, Professor Kettleburn, had lost two and a half limbs and they had presumably been torn or bitten, not cursed off.

We also have evidence that injuries from curses or creatures classed as "Dark" are very hard to heal, and that this goes further than just not being able to replace amputated body-parts. Bill has not suffered an amputation, he has lesions on his face: but we are told that these wounds probably won't heal properly because they are cursed. Yet, from what we are told they weren't made with a wand - they are physical injuries directly inflicted by a Dark creature.

Some people have interpreted the fact that Snape used a "counter-curse" to heal Draco after Harry cut him as meaning that even simple, non-severing wounds made with Sectumsempra won't ever heal unless you know a specific and obscure counter-spell: that is, that they behave somewhat like Bill's cursed wounds.

Pushing Harry roughly aside, [Snape] knelt over Malfoy, drew his wand and traced it over the deep wounds Harry's curse had made, muttering an incantation that sounded almost like song. The flow of blood seemed to ease; Snape wiped the residue from Malfoy's face and repeated his spell. Now the wounds seemed to be knitting.
[cut] When Snape had performed his counter-curse for the third time, he half-lifted Malfoy into a standing position. [HBP ch. #24; p. 489]

The evidence in the books as to whether or not counter-curses and counter-jinxes are specific counters to specific spells is conflicting. On the one hand we have:

Hermione managed to shatter it with a well-placed Jelly-Legs Jinx. Harry wobbled around the room for ten minutes afterwards before she had looked up the counter-jinx. [GoF ch. #31; p. 529]

       He groped for the potion book and riffled through it in a panic, trying to find the right page; at last he located it and deciphered one cramped word underneath the spell: praying that this was the counter-jinx, Harry thought Liberacorpus! with all his might. [HBP ch. #12; p.225]

On the other hand we find:

       'He says that counter-jinxes are improperly named,' said Hermione promptly. 'He says "counter-jinx" is just a name people give their jinxes when they want to make them sound more acceptable.' [OotP ch. #15; p.283]

       'If there is an attack,' said Dumbledore, 'I give you permission to use any counter-jinx or -curse that might occur to you.' [HBP ch. #04; p.59]

That certainly sounds as though counter-spells are spells in their own right, which may just happen to counteract the effect of another spell. And although it did take Snape three passes with the "counter-curse" to heal Draco, his doing so is later directly compared with the way Dumbledore heals his own purely physical knife-wound in the Horcrux cave, which suggests that Snape's "counter-curse" was probably just a straightforward healing spell for closing cuts:

       'I rather think,' said Dumbledore, putting his uninjured hand inside his robes and drawing out a short silver knife of the kind Harry used to chop potion ingredients, 'that we are required to make payment to pass.'
[cut] [literally, in this case]
'You are very kind, Harry,' said Dumbledore, now passing the tip of his wand over the deep cut he had made in his own arm, so that it healed instantly, just as Snape had healed Malfoy's wounds. [HBP ch. #26; p. 522/523]

That is, the healing of the wounds caused by Sectumsempra is specifically likened to the healing of a wound caused by an ordinary, physical knife. Nor is it the case that Sectumsempra results in abnormal scarring. Snape tells Draco that his wounds won't scar so long as they are treated promptly with dittany, a standard wizarding treatment for wounds which seems to be a magically-enhanced version of a traditional Muggle remedy [see footnote for details], and which we see used both on the venom-free bite which Nagini gives Harry at Godric's Hollow, and on the burns and scalds the trio sustain during the raid on Gringotts. Molly seems to close George's wound with little difficulty, and Draco's wounds are specifically contrasted with the unhealing scars which Bill suffers after being attacked by Greyback.

Harry looked over Hermione's shoulder and saw an unrecognisable face lying on Bill's pillow, so badly slashed and ripped that he looked grotesque. Madam Pomfrey was dabbing at his wounds with some harsh-smelling green ointment. Harry remembered how Snape had mended Malfoy's Sectumsempra wounds so easily with his wand.
[cut]
'No, I don't think that Bill will be a true werewolf,' said Lupin, 'but that does not mean that there won't be some contamination. Those are cursed wounds. They are unlikely ever to heal fully,' [HBP ch. #29; p. 572]

Yes, Bill's wounds are ragged, having been created by human (sort-of) teeth or nails, so you'd expect them to be a bit harder to heal than a straightforward cut. But according to Lupin - who for several reasons ought to know what he's talking about - it's the cursed-wound aspect which will make them very hard to heal, and Harry mentally contrasts that with Sectumsempra. All of this strongly indicates that aside from the no-regrowth-after-amputation aspect, Sectumsempra creates normal, readily healable cuts which are in contrast with Bill's cursed, abnormal wounds.

We also see that George's severed ear bleeds ferociously - as wounds on and around the scalp generally do - and the fact that the blood is scarlet means a significant arteriole has been cut. Yet Molly, unaided as far as Harry knows, is able to stop the bleeding in about twenty minutes, and the resulting wound is described as "clean". There's a hole there because George's earhole is now laid bare to the world but there's no suggestion the wound is still bleeding, or even raw and painful, since George gropes at it just for amusement. We're not given any reason to think that Molly is a top-level, expert healer, nor that she would know some secret counter-curse otherwise known only to Snape, so this is more evidence that apart from the amputation aspect, Sectumsempra wounds heal cleanly and readily.

[cut] Lupin was supporting George, who was unconscious and whose face was covered in blood.
[cut] one of George's ears was missing. The side of his head and neck were drenched in wet, shockingly scarlet blood. [DH ch.#05; p.62]

'[cut] it was all I could do to keep George on the broom after he was injured, he was losing so much blood.' [cut]
[cut] Mrs Weasley had staunched the bleeding now, and by the lamplight Harry saw a clean, gaping hole where George's ear had been. [DH ch.#05; p.66]

'How do you feel, Georgie?' whispered Mrs Weasley.
George's fingers groped for the side of his head.
'Saint-like,' he murmured. [DH ch.#05; p.67]

It appears, then, that wounds caused by truly Dark magic shouldn't heal at all, or at best should scar badly. Yet even though Harry cut Draco very badly, Snape reckoned he shouldn't be scarred at all, and the method he recommended to prevent scarring was simply dittany, not some huge piece of magic. We also see, during the underpants incident, that Severus cut James's face with what looks like Sectumsempra, and yet Sirius never suggested Severus had scarred James for life - which you'd think he would comment on if he had - nor did Harry notice a scar in later photographs of his father.

Therefore, we cannot be certain that the fact that Sectumsempra is a curse and can cause permanent amputation means that it is especially Dark. If anything, the fact that wounds caused by Sectumsempra but which stop short of amputation can be healed without leaving a mark is evidence that it isn't very Dark. The logic seems to be: not all curses are classed as Dark; all curses which can cause amputation are liable to cause permanent amputation; curses which can cause physical wounds and which are classed as Dark cause unhealable wounds or permanent scarring even from injuries which stop short of amputation; Sectumsempra causes permanent amputation but does not otherwise cause permanent scarring or unhealing wounds; Sectumsempra is a curse, but not a Dark curse.

Against this, Snape himself called Sectumsempra "such Dark magic" when Harry slashed Draco. But it's not clear whether he knew at once which spell Harry had used - Sectumsempra can hardly be the only cutting spell in existence - and he also called the Marauder's Map "plainly full of Dark Magic", on the basis of it having insulted him. This suggests that he may call things "Dark" in order to be melodramatic - or that the term can be applied to quite mild things. In the second part of this essay I examine what we can derive from canon about what the various terms used to describe combat spells actually mean, and show that "Dark" has at least two meanings, and possibly several. One of the possible meanings is "illegal" and another is "dangerous", so Snape may mean that Harry's reckless uncontrolled use of the spell - the specific piece of magic he has just performed - is Dark, rather than that the spell is Dark whenever and however used.

We certainly cannot assume that Sectumsempra was invented in order to cause permanent amputation. Indeed, we can assume that it wasn't, since this seems to be a common feature of all curses which can cause traumatic injury, and therefore there would be no reason to invent a special spell for it.

The name "Sectumsempra", therefore, almost certainly doesn't mean "amputate permanently", since that is a feature which is apparently common to many curses. It would be like inventing a revolutionary new pen and then calling it "makes marks on paper". Nor is it likely to mean "to amputate every time" - for the same reason, and also because it patently doesn't amputate every time.

We see it [probably] used by Snape on James; by Harry on Draco; by Harry on several Inferi and by Snape on George. We also have Lupin's statement that "Sectumsempra was always a speciality of Snape's." How does Lupin know this?

We know from Sirius that Snape had so little of a reputation as a Death Eater that there wasn't even any definite rumour at the time that he was one, so he wasn't stalking around Britain carving people up. He'd hardly have been using it as a teacher, unless it was as a chopping-knife, and although there's some evidence that Snape has carried out a few daring rescues in his time (he tells Dumbledore that since changing sides, he has watched people die only if he couldn't save them) and it's just about possible Lupin was involved in that, the most likely time and place for Lupin to have seen Snape "always" using Sectumsempra was at school. If so, he evidently didn't do anything drastic enough with it to get expelled - or even to get into serious trouble, as far as we are ever told - so, again, if he used it on people he used it to nick them, possibly within the confines of a duelling club, not carve them up.

We've seen Sectumsempra used four times, one of them on multiple subjects (the Inferi), and we know that Snape must have used it several more times in order to establish it as his speciality, but as far as we know it only causes an amputation once in all those incidents (and that of a body-part not containing bone). It may be that JKR herself meant the name to mean "to amputate every time", but if so the spell is seriously misnamed, and we have to look at what else it could reasonably mean.

It could be that Sectumsempra "cuts every time" in the sense that whenever it's used it draws blood from someone (whether or not they're the intended target); like the cursed swords beloved of fantasy, which once drawn cannot be re-sheathed until they've tasted blood. It's the sort of sinister-yet-romantic idea which might appeal to the sort of Gothy kid who would call himself the Half-Blood Prince, especially if he read a lot of Swords'n'Sorcery novels, and it would explain how adult!Snape managed to cut George's ear off by accident.

Another possible interpretation is that it simply means "the knife which never needs sharpening" - bearing in mind JK Rowling's propensity for bad puns based on British product-names (Spell-o-tape, Ethelred the Ever-Ready etc.) and the fact that Staysharp is a famous brand of kitchen knife. As such, it might have been intended as a weapon from the first, or it might originally have been a household tool which Severus later re-designated "for enemies": perhaps, indeed, a kitchen or Potions-lab. knife, or a literal penknife for trimming quill pens (real feather quills need to be re-cut every couple of pages).

We do know Sectumsempra equates to a knife rather than a sword or an axe, unless it were a very lightweight sword. It's true that Harry thinks that it cuts Draco as if it were a sword, but that seems to be because it cuts him in a long sweeping slash from a distance, rather than because of the nature of the injuries - that, or Harry has no idea what a sword would do.

Draco was unarmoured, and whilst thick folds of cloth will slow a sword down, he was cut across his bare face and his chest, where his robes should be lying pretty flat. Harry swung at Draco with Sectumsempra in a panic, with all his considerable force. The resultant cuts are described as "deep" and they required three passes to heal them, which probably means they went right through skin and into muscle; but Draco was not disembowelled, beheaded or cut in half, nor so far as we can tell were any of his bones cloven or snapped, nor - despite being cut across the chest - was there any rush of clear fluid indicating that the membranes around his lungs had been breached, so the cuts were nothing like as deep as they would have been if made with a sword - unless it was a very light sword, or the very tip of a sword at the edge of its range, which would cause similar injuries to a knife anyway.

[Or unless it was very blunt, of course. A blunt sword would do less damage because Draco's robes would impede it - but there seems no reason why a magic blade should be blunt, especially when we see it give James a razor-flick, not a bruising tear.]

Of course, you could inflict these sort of comparatively shallow injuries with even a very big sword if you used just the tip if it, and that may be what Harry is thinking of - that he cut Draco from several feet away as if he had slashed across him with the far point of a sword he held in his hand. But we see that Sectumsempra can be used from considerably more than an arm-plus-sword's length away - it's very unlikey that Snape was only five feet away from the target when he aimed at a Death Eater and hit George, for example, unless he's a spectacularly bad shot - so the fact that it makes shallow cuts when used at about a sword's length away is not because the target is too far away to hit "properly". If it was designed to make the sort of wounds you make when you belt someone with a sword at close quarters, it could presumably do so at a distance too: and if it only makes knife (or sword-point) wounds when it is operating over the partial width of a bathroom - well within its range - then it almost certainly does so at close quarters too.

'SECTUMSEMPRA!' bellowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand wildly.
Blood spurted from Malfoy's face and chest as though he had been slashed with an invisible sword. He staggered backwards and collapsed on to the waterlogged floor with a great splash, his wand falling from his limp right hand.
'No --' gasped Harry.
Slipping and staggering, Harry got to his feet and plunged towards Malfoy, whose face was now shining scarlet, his white hands scrabbling at his blood-soaked chest.
'No -- I didn't --'
Harry did not know what he was saying; he fell to his knees beside Malfoy, who was shaking uncontrollably in a pool of his own blood. Moaning Myrtle let out a deafening scream.
'MURDER! MURDER IN THE BATHROOM! MURDER!'
The door banged open behind Harry and he looked up, terrified: Snape had burst into the room, his face livid. Pushing Harry roughly aside, he knelt over Malfoy, drew his wand and traced it over the deep wounds Harry's curse had made, muttering an incantation that sounded almost like song. The flow of blood seemed to ease; Snape wiped the residue from Malfoy's face and repeated his spell. Now the wounds seemed to be knitting.
[cut] When Snape had performed his counter-curse for the third time, he half-lifted Malfoy into a standing position.
'You need the hospital wing. There may be a certain amount of scarring, but if you take dittany immediately we might avoid even that ... come ...' [cut]
[cut] [Harry] stood up slowly, shaking, and looked down at the wet floor. There were bloodstains floating like crimson flowers across its surface. [HBP ch. #24; p. 489/490]

Initially Harry sees a lot of blood coming from Draco, but a little blood goes a long way, and when he gazes at the scene after Draco has been removed - which is probably less than three minutes after he was cut - he sees water on the floor with some blots of blood floating in it: not a sea of blood. Blood is said to spurt from the wounds at the first blow but after that the text speaks of a "flow" of blood, and there's nothing in the description to suggest a spurting arterial wound. Draco was still able to walk as soon as he was healed, without being given Blood-Replenishing Potion, and he did not show any signs of physiological (as opposed to psychological) shock due to blood-loss: which again suggests he hadn't lost a huge amount of blood, and his wounds were not terribly deep.

[Violent shaking can be a symptom of physiological shock, but of septic shock (physiological shock due to overhwhelming infection), not of haemorrhagic shock (physiological shock due to bleeding) or hypovolemic shock (physiological shock due to a severe fall in circulatory volume, usually due to bleeding but can be due to e.g. fluid-loss from burns). It has been suggested that Draco's shaking might have been due to hypoxia - oxygen-starvation of the brain - caused by blood-loss; but the convulsions of hypoxia occur after the brain has been starved of oxygen for more than five minutes, and Draco's shaking was immediate. They should also be preceded by unconsciousness, and there's no sign that Draco lost consciousness to any significant extent: he goes from scrabbling at his chest to being up and walking with no sign of Snape having to wake him up in between. Ergo, the shaking was due to psychological, not physiological shock.]

Later on in HBP we see Harry use Sectumsempra to defend himself against Inferi. Given that he is fighting for his own and Dumbledore's life, we can reasonably assume that he used the spell as hard as he could, and this time he knew he was trying to cut with it - yet again, the cuts seem to be comparatively shallow and cause no amputations, so far as we are told.

Still slashing at the air with his wand, Harry yelled, 'Sectumsempra! SECTUMSEMPRA!'
But though gashes appeared in their sodden rags and their icy skin, they had no blood to spill: they walked on, unfeeling, their shrunken hands outstretched towards him, and as he backed away still further he felt arms enclose him from behind, thin, fleshless arms cold as death [HBP ch. #26; p. 538]

We are told that the things have "thin, fleshless arms", so there isn't even much in the way of padding for the spell to cut into before it hits bone - and yet all it seems to cut is skin and cloth. Harry's expectation, and possibly the author's, seems to be that if the spell worked properly on Inferi it would bleed them - not chop them up.

We also see Snape use a slicing hex on James in the bullying scene in OotP. It's not absolutely clear that this is Sectumsempra since he produces it non-verbally, but JKR's purpose in that scene was presumably to establish a link between Snape and slicing hexes which would later been seen to have been a clue to the identity of the Half-Blood Prince, and Lupin says Sectumsempra was always a speciality of Snape's - so it would be very strange if he just happened to be using a completely different hex here. And again, although it gashes James's cheek it doesn't slice his cheek right open, or damage bone, so here too the action of Sectumsempra is that of a fairly short-bladed knife - albeit a knife which can be projected several feet.

It has been suggested that Snape meant to do James a mortal injury with a slashing, sword-like spell and simply missed. But apart from the fact that we are told that he aimed straight at James, James was more or less in a line between Snape and Lily, so if Snape had been taking a great hack at James with a spell of which he was in uncertain control, he would have put Lily in danger. Since we know he will risk death or Azkaban rather than knowingly endanger Lily, we must assume that he was in complete control of his slicing hex and knew it, and that it did just what it was meant to do.

We do see Snape aim it at a Death Eater's wand-hand in an attempt to protect Remus, but we aren't told whether he thought it would amputate the hand, or just slash it badly enough to make the target drop his wand. On the whole I would suggest he just meant to slash it. Cutting the guy's hand off would get Snape into more trouble if the spell was traced to him, and would attract attention from Muggles below: and whilst the real Death Eaters might not care about that, Snape was very angry when Harry and Ron attracted Muggle attention by allowing the flying Ford Anglia to be seen.

This incident also re-confirms that when Snape gave James a little flick with Sectumsempra, that was exactly what he meant to do. The incident of George's ear shows that if Sectumsempra misses its intended target it keeps going until it hits something else, as a thrown knife would do. If Snape had aimed a heavy shot at James, missed him and only barely clipped him when he had intended serious injury, the rest of the spell would have kept going until it hit something else - and since Snape was on the ground, aiming at somebody standing, the shot wouldn't have just gone into the ground. But there's no suggestion of anyone or anything else being hit, or of any spell-energy crackling into the sky. Ergo, the spell did what he meant it to do.

So, we can say that Sectumsempra is a curse, but we can also say with reasonable confidence that it's probably not a Dark curse, except in the mild sense of being illicit or potentially dangerous. It cuts quite shallowly, even when used with considerable force, and can be dialed back to give just a little flicking wound. It was not designed specifically to cause permanent amputation - which is a feature common to all curses which can cause amputation at all.

Indeed, it may well have been designed not to cause amputation. We see Harry take a great swing at Draco and at several Inferi, and we have no evidence that the invisible blade cut into bone in either case: in the case of the Inferi we are specifically told that the wounds cut their skin, with no mention of anything deeper, despite them having little or no fleshy padding between skin and bone. This suggests that Sectumsempra may have some sort of built-in safety feature to prevent it from cutting bone. That would make sense if its main use was as a laboratory or kitchen chopping-knife: a limitation to prevent it from cutting bone would protect the user, and one to prevent it from cutting anything above a certain hardness would protect the chopping-board.

Its name, "to cut [or amputate] every time", or perhaps "cut always" if JKR is using "sempra" in the sense in which she uses it in "Rictusempra", therefore does not mean "cuts bits off permanently" but something else, possibly "the knife which never needs sharpening". As such, it may well have originated as a tool, and only been re-designated as a weapon after young Severus felt that his life was actually in danger from the Marauders. For reasons explained in the main essay But Snape is just nasty, right?, there is canon evidence that werewolves are immune to spells which create magical effects, such as Petrificus totalus, but can be affected by spells which have a directly physical influence, such as conjured manacles - or, arguably, magically-created physical wounds. Sectumsempra was found written in a book we know Severus was using in fifth year, when he had every reason to think he might be attacked by a werewolf.

Nor would it be the only example of a tool being able to cut humans. Diffindo is a standard severing spell which we see Harry using to split open Cedric's schoolbag, to attempt to free Ron from the brain-tentacles, to split ice and even to remove a book-cover, yet in DH Hermione's hand shakes as she is trying to cut Ron free of a rope, and the spell slices open his jeans and makes a deep cut in his knee. Clearly, you could use this standard spell as a weapon if you wanted to, and it seems at least as injurious as Sectumsempra, yet no-one suggests that Diffindo is Dark Magic. It's the use Severus puts Sectumsempra to, and the fact that he designates it "for enemies", which makes it seem more sinister than Diffindo. So why use Sectumsempra instead of Diffindo? On the face of it, it certainly looks as if it may be because Sectumsempra is easier to control (Snape gives James a tiny little controlled flick, Hermione gashes Ron by accident) and has built-in safety features. Also, perhaps, Sectumsempra cuts more reliably and it is in this sense that it is designed "to cut always", since we see that when using Diffindo Harry fails to cut the brain-tentacles.

We can say, therefore, that young Severus was a boy who was willing to carry a knife, and to use it. He had serious reason to think his life might be in danger but we also see him use it when his life was not in danger (when he cut James), albeit that he was under attack.

On the other hand, the person he cut was part of a gang who had threatened his life before, so it was understandable that he might feel panicked by this fresh attack even though it was less dangerous. The injury we see him inflict is very minor, and since he was aiming straight at the target it seems he intended it to be minor. Even though Sectumsempra is a blade which can be projected at a distance and which potentially can cause amputation, there are good reasons to think that it has built-in safety features which prevent it from cutting bone: so in terms of aggression it's equivalent to carrying a penknife or a small razor, rather than a Bowie or Stanley knife, and there is at least some suggestion that Severus only started "carrying" that knife after he had cause to think his life was in danger from someone who was immune to most other forms of defence.

Footnote: dittany in Muggle medicine

The name "dittany" refers to three herbs: Cunila origanoides, a.k.a. C. mariana, called in English Common Dittany or Stone Mint; Dictamnus albus, called White Dittany or Burning Bush, and Origanum dictamnus or Dittany of Crete. Common Dittany can be used to make an antiseptic and a tea for treating headaches and fevers; White Dittany has similar properties and is also used in Chinese medicine to treat disorders of the skin and the gut; and Dittany of Crete is not much used nowadays but has a long medical history in the Classical world, and was probably the inspiration for JKR's use of dittany in the books..

Herbalpedia has this to say about Dittany of Crete:

Mentioned in Charlemagne’s list of herbs, dittany was popular in medieval times as a medicinal herb. Hippocrates recommended it for stomach and digestive system diseases, rheumatism, arthritis and used it to regulate menses, to tone and heal. The species name dictamnus is derived from the mountain Dicte on the island of Crete, one of the mountains on the island where dittany of Crete grows. "Dittany" in the common name is also derived from this. In ancient times dittany of Crete was famous for its alleged property of expelling weapons imbedded in soldiers. Wild goats were reputed to seek out the plant after being struck by arrows; the goats were thought to eat the plant, and the arrows would fall out immediately. Shepherds saw this and would then ingest and later make compresses of the leaves to heal open wounds. In the tale of the Trojan wars by Virgil, the hero Aeneas was severely wounded by a deeply imbedded arrow that could not be extricated. His mother Venus went to Mount Ida on the island of Crete and retrieved some dittany of Crete, which was applied to the wound, causing the arrow to drop out and the wound to cure immediately. In ancient times it was believed that a snake would allow itself to be burned to death rather than cross the path of dittany of Crete. The locals called it also "eronda" which means love for its aphrodisiac properties. Popular in Minoan Crete and Ancient Greece, it was considered a highly therapeutic plant.

Sectumsempra - invincible weapon or invisible penknife?

Much of our understanding of Snape as a teenager depends on whether Sirius is right about his having been heavily interested in the Dark Arts, whether that actually means that he was performing openly evil acts, and what we can understand from his signature-use of Sectumsempra. Did he invent this spell or merely use it, and is it an obviously over-the-top, vicious weapon or a reasonable means of defence?

If the Latin is to be taken literally, "Sectumsempra" means something like "to amputate every time", "to cut every time" or "to wound every time". However, JK Rowling's use of Latin in spells is erratic. In the Tickling Charm Rictusempra, which makes people laugh convulsively, the "sempra" bit appears to mean "all the time" rather than "every time". So Sectumsempra may mean something like "always cuts" or "cut always", depending on how precise the Latin is.

It was found written in the margin of schoolboy-Snape's Advanced Potion-Making book with the note "for enemies". We do not know whether young Severus invented the spell himself, or only learned it and wrote it down.

The evidence that Snape actually invented Sectumsempra is that the name can be rendered loosely as "Sever Forever" (that is, as a play on the name Severus); that it was written down in his Potions book and that during the running battle at the end of HBP he accuses Harry of using his own spells, plural, against him when Harry tries to use both Sectumsempra and Levicorpus - although it is Levicorpus which prompts this accusation.

You dare use my own spells against me, Potter? It was I who invented them' [HBP ch. #28; p. 563]

On the other hand, although it is written down in his book it seems to have no workings-out or instructions with it, as his other spells do. Harry certainly assumes that it was a spell which the Half-Blood Prince had learned, rather than one he had invented, which he would hardly do if there were workings-out with it: he may or may not have been right about that, but it raises the possibility that JKR herself intended it to be a spell Snape had got from elsewhere.

He had just found an incantation (Sectumsempra!) scrawled in a margin above the intriguing words 'For Enemies', [HBP ch. #21; p. 419]

[cut] he noticed the corner of a page folded down; turning to it, he saw the Sectumsempra spell, captioned 'For Enemies', that he had marked a few weeks previously. [HBP ch. #24; p. 484]

What had the Prince been thinking to copy such a spell into his book? [HBP ch. #24; p. 491]

'Will you stop harping on about the book!' snapped Harry. 'The Prince only copied it out! It's not like he was advising anyone to use it! For all we know, he was making a note of something that had been used against him!' [HBP ch. #24; p. 495]

When we see Snape use what certainly appears to be Sectumsempra to defend himself from James during the underpants incident, he casts it non-verbally, so the Marauders don't hear what the spell is called, and yet in DH Lupin identifies a spell cast by Snape as Sectumsempra and says it was always a speciality of his: yet, he says nothing to suggest that Snape actually invented the spell. It sounds as if Sectumsempra is known to Lupin in a general way: hence, it may be a spell which Snape used rather than one which he invented.

That's not absolute proof, of course, because Lupin knew Levicorpus by name yet didn't know Snape had invented it, or didn't admit to knowing. But it does mean that it's perfectly possible Snape didn't invent Sectumsempra: just took it up because of the coincidence of the name.

If he didn't invent it, why would he accuse Harry of using spells of his own invention, plural, against him? Perhaps because even though he got it from elsewhere he had adapted it for his own use. Or perhaps in the heat of the moment he is speaking loosely. He knows Harry tried to use Levicorpus (although we don't know how he knows, since it's a non-verbal spell - perhaps Harry's lips move!) against him, and that's a spell which he invented. He knows Harry tried to use Sectumsempra against him, and it's certainly his in the sense of being his signature-spell and coming from his notes. He almost certainly knows Harry used his Langlock spell on Filch (twice). People don't always speak 100% accurately, and perhaps 'You dare use my own spells against me, Potter?' was just easier to say than 'You dare use one of my own spells against me, and use another of them against Filch, and use a spell which, even though I didn't invent it, I still regard as mine against me, Potter?'

Alternatively, he might just be speaking in anticipation. Harry has just tried to use two spells from Snape's book, at least one of which Snape invented, so Snape may simply be warning him off from trying any more in the next few minutes.

What kind of a spell is Sectumsempra?

"Sectumsempra" means something like "to cut every time" or "to amputate every time". We learn in DH that if it is used to actually cut a body part off, that body part can't be replaced. That could be taken to mean that Sectumsempra is an especially vicious curse which was specifically designed to amputate body parts in a way which prevents their regrowth. However, it seems from Remus's comments on George's injury that this is common to all amputations which result from a curse, of any kind:

'[cut] there's no chance of replacing his ear, not when it's been cursed off --' [DH ch. #05; p. 64]

It's possible that Remus was going to say "...not when it's been cursed off with Sectumsempra", and was interrupted: but if that was what JK intended, you'd think she'd at least have left a "with" or a "by" on the end of that partial sentence. Molly then goes on to say:

'I can't make it grow back, not when it's been removed by Dark Magic.' [DH ch. #05; p. 66]

So, we can say that Sectumsempra is a curse, because any amputations caused by it are permanent; but we can be quite certain that permanent amputation is not a special, unique feature of Sectumsempra. Molly's comment could be taken to mean that the spell which removed George's ear must be definitely Dark, although Remus's comment implies that any curse would do the same, and we know some curses are taught at Hogwarts: Locomotor mortis seems to be taught in class, since they all recognise it in first year and Draco is openly looking for somebody to practise it on, and Petrificus totalus and Reductor are readily available in the library.

Confusingly, we are told that Eloise Midgen cursed her own nose off and it was able to be re-attached. Assuming that the term "cursed" is being used accurately here, this could be evidence that not all curses cause permanent amputation, but only those curses classified as "Dark" (which would mean Sectumsempra was Dark). On the other hand, we have seen Madam Pomfrey deal efficiently with some pretty serious injuries, and yet she was able to re-attach Eloise's nose only with difficulty ("in the end"), and rather badly. So we can at least say that probably all curses that can cause amputation tend to cause permanent amputation, unless you are very skilled and lucky.

'Like poor Eloise Midgen,' said Hannah Abbott, a Hufflepuff, in a hushed voice. 'She tried to curse [her pimples] off.'
'Silly girl,' said Professor Sprout, shaking her head. 'But Madam Pomfrey fixed her nose back on in the end.' [GoF ch. #13; p.173]

'Well -- you know,' said Ron, shrugging. 'I'd rather go alone than with -- with Eloise Midgen, say.'
'Her acne’s loads better lately -- and she’s really nice!'
'Her nose is off-centre,' said Ron. [GoF ch. #22; p.344]

In addition, Rowling has said the following about magical healing:

I decided that, broadly speaking, wizards would have the power to correct or override 'mundane' nature, but not 'magical' nature. Therefore, a wizard could catch anything a Muggle might catch, but he could cure all of it; he would also comfortably survive a scorpion sting that might kill a Muggle, whereas he might die if bitten by a Venomous Tentacula. Similarly, bones broken in non-magical accidents such as falls or fist fights can be mended by magic, but the consequences of curses or backfiring magic could be serious, permanent or life-threatening. This is the reason that Gilderoy Lockhart, victim of his own mangled Memory Charm, has permanent amnesia, why the poor Longbottoms remain permanently damaged by magical torture, and why Mad-Eye Moody had to resort to a wooden leg and a magical eye when the originals were irreparably damaged in a wizards' battle; Luna Lovegood's mother, Pandora, died when one of her own experimental spells went wrong, and Bill Weasley is irreversibly scarred after his meeting with Fenrir Greyback.

That "... the consequences of curses ... could be ... permanent" seems to confirm that any curse which causes amputation will tend to cause permanent amputation.

The definition of what is and isn't considered Dark Magic is never explained: often it just seems to mean "a curse I don't approve of". Even "curse" has never been satisfactorily defined, but we can certainly say that not all curses are regarded as evil, since some appear to be on the Hogwarts curriculum, and are certainly performed without censure

It's possible that when Molly said the injury was due to Dark Magic she meant something clearly bad, not the sort of curse which would ever be taught at Hogwarts, and Remus was going to say "...not when it's been cursed off with Sectumsempra". But since there seems no reason why JK should set out deliberately to obscure this point if she were trying to make it, it's at least as likely that Remus meant what we heard him say - that any curse which caused an amputation would have the same effect, including the ones sanctioned by the school - and Molly was speaking sloppily and using "Dark Magic" as a synonym for "curse". [It is more likely that Molly is speaking sloppily than that Remus is, because Remus is knowledgeable enough about DADA to teach it.]

There are other references which suggest that Dark Magic injuries are especially hard to heal. When Bill is injured by Greyback, Lupin says:

'Those are cursed wounds. They are unlikely ever to heal fully,' [HBP ch. #29; p. 572]

That could be taken to mean that any wound made by a curse will never heal, but so far as we know these wounds made by Greyback weren't made by curses at all - they are physical tooth or nail marks. I take "cursed wound", as opposed to "curse wound", to mean the wound itself, which was made by a Dark creature (false!Moody refers to 'Dark creatures -- [cut] Boggarts, Red Caps, Hinkypunks, Grindylows, Kappas and werewolves'), has something actively cursed about it. Moody's extensive scars, for example, were presumably caused by curses, but there's no suggestion that they are still suppurating.

Harry, who is meant to be a DADA expert, commenting on the ruin of his parents' house, says:

'Maybe it's like the injuries from Dark Magic and you can't repair the damage?' [DH ch. #17; p. 271]

which strongly suggests that it's the involvement of Dark Magic in the wound itself which makes it hard to heal.

And of course we have the evidence of Dumbledore's arm, attacked by the curse which Tom Riddle placed on his father's ring. The curse we are told could not be halted, but only confined to his hand "for the time being".

So, we know that any "Dark" curse which can cause amputation will do so permanently, and this may well also be true of curses which are considered "Light" enough to be on the Hogwarts curriculum, such as Locomotor mortis. Nor is this even very noteworthy, because although regeneration of amputated parts may be possible in some cases, it certainly isn't the case that magic can always regenerate a lost part, unless it's been cursed off. The outgoing Care of Magical Creatures master, Professor Kettleburn, had lost two and a half limbs and they had presumably been torn or bitten, not cursed off.

We also have evidence that injuries from curses or creatures classed as "Dark" are very hard to heal, and that this goes further than just not being able to replace amputated body-parts. Bill has not suffered an amputation, he has lesions on his face: but we are told that these wounds probably won't heal properly because they are cursed. Yet, from what we are told they weren't made with a wand - they are physical injuries directly inflicted by a Dark creature.

Some people have interpreted the fact that Snape used a "counter-curse" to heal Draco after Harry cut him as meaning that even simple, non-severing wounds made with Sectumsempra won't ever heal unless you know a specific and obscure counter-spell: that is, that they behave somewhat like Bill's cursed wounds.

Pushing Harry roughly aside, [Snape] knelt over Malfoy, drew his wand and traced it over the deep wounds Harry's curse had made, muttering an incantation that sounded almost like song. The flow of blood seemed to ease; Snape wiped the residue from Malfoy's face and repeated his spell. Now the wounds seemed to be knitting.
[cut] When Snape had performed his counter-curse for the third time, he half-lifted Malfoy into a standing position. [HBP ch. #24; p. 489]

The evidence in the books as to whether or not counter-curses and counter-jinxes are specific counters to specific spells is conflicting. On the one hand we have:

Hermione managed to shatter it with a well-placed Jelly-Legs Jinx. Harry wobbled around the room for ten minutes afterwards before she had looked up the counter-jinx. [GoF ch. #31; p. 529]

He groped for the potion book and riffled through it in a panic, trying to find the right page; at last he located it and deciphered one cramped word underneath the spell: praying that this was the counter-jinx, Harry thought Liberacorpus! with all his might. [HBP ch. #12; p.225]

On the other hand we find:

'He says that counter-jinxes are improperly named,' said Hermione promptly. 'He says "counter-jinx" is just a name people give their jinxes when they want to make them sound more acceptable.' [OotP ch. #15; p.283]

'If there is an attack,' said Dumbledore, 'I give you permission to use any counter-jinx or -curse that might occur to you.' [HBP ch. #04; p.59]

That certainly sounds as though counter-spells are spells in their own right, which may just happen to counteract the effect of another spell. And although it did take Snape three passes with the "counter-curse" to heal Draco, his doing so is later directly compared with the way Dumbledore heals his own purely physical knife-wound in the Horcrux cave, which suggests that Snape's "counter-curse" was probably just a straightforward healing spell for closing cuts:

'I rather think,' said Dumbledore, putting his uninjured hand inside his robes and drawing out a short silver knife of the kind Harry used to chop potion ingredients, 'that we are required to make payment to pass.'
[cut] [literally, in this case]
'You are very kind, Harry,' said Dumbledore, now passing the tip of his wand over the deep cut he had made in his own arm, so that it healed instantly, just as Snape had healed Malfoy's wounds. [HBP ch. #26; p. 522/523]

That is, the healing of the wounds caused by Sectumsempra is specifically likened to the healing of a wound caused by an ordinary, physical knife. Nor is it the case that Sectumsempra results in abnormal scarring. Snape tells Draco that his wounds won't scar so long as they are treated promptly with dittany, a standard wizarding treatment for wounds which seems to be a magically-enhanced version of a traditional Muggle remedy [see footnote for details], and which we see used both on the venom-free bite which Nagini gives Harry at Godric's Hollow, and on the burns and scalds the trio sustain during the raid on Gringotts. Molly seems to close George's wound with little difficulty, and Draco's wounds are specifically contrasted with the unhealing scars which Bill suffers after being attacked by Greyback.

Harry looked over Hermione's shoulder and saw an unrecognisable face lying on Bill's pillow, so badly slashed and ripped that he looked grotesque. Madam Pomfrey was dabbing at his wounds with some harsh-smelling green ointment. Harry remembered how Snape had mended Malfoy's Sectumsempra wounds so easily with his wand.
[cut]
'No, I don't think that Bill will be a true werewolf,' said Lupin, 'but that does not mean that there won't be some contamination. Those are cursed wounds. They are unlikely ever to heal fully,' [HBP ch. #29; p. 572]

Yes, Bill's wounds are ragged, having been created by human (sort-of) teeth or nails, so you'd expect them to be a bit harder to heal than a straightforward cut. But according to Lupin - who for several reasons ought to know what he's talking about - it's the cursed-wound aspect which will make them very hard to heal, and Harry mentally contrasts that with Sectumsempra. All of this strongly indicates that aside from the no-regrowth-after-amputation aspect, Sectumsempra creates normal, readily healable cuts which are in contrast with Bill's cursed, abnormal wounds.

We also see that George's severed ear bleeds ferociously - as wounds on and around the scalp generally do - and the fact that the blood is scarlet means a significant arteriole has been cut. Yet Molly, unaided as far as Harry knows, is able to stop the bleeding in about twenty minutes, and the resulting wound is described as "clean". There's a hole there because George's earhole is now laid bare to the world but there's no suggestion the wound is still bleeding, or even raw and painful, since George gropes at it just for amusement. We're not given any reason to think that Molly is a top-level, expert healer, nor that she would know some secret counter-curse otherwise known only to Snape, so this is more evidence that apart from the amputation aspect, Sectumsempra wounds heal cleanly and readily.

[cut] Lupin was supporting George, who was unconscious and whose face was covered in blood.
[cut] one of George's ears was missing. The side of his head and neck were drenched in wet, shockingly scarlet blood. [DH ch.#05; p.62]

'[cut] it was all I could do to keep George on the broom after he was injured, he was losing so much blood.' [cut]
[cut] Mrs Weasley had staunched the bleeding now, and by the lamplight Harry saw a clean, gaping hole where George's ear had been. [DH ch.#05; p.66]

'How do you feel, Georgie?' whispered Mrs Weasley.
George's fingers groped for the side of his head.
'Saint-like,' he murmured. [DH ch.#05; p.67]

It appears, then, that wounds caused by truly Dark magic shouldn't heal at all, or at best should scar badly. Yet even though Harry cut Draco very badly, Snape reckoned he shouldn't be scarred at all, and the method he recommended to prevent scarring was simply dittany, not some huge piece of magic. We also see, during the underpants incident, that Severus cut James's face with what looks like Sectumsempra, and yet Sirius never suggested Severus had scarred James for life - which you'd think he would comment on if he had - nor did Harry notice a scar in later photographs of his father.

Therefore, we cannot be certain that the fact that Sectumsempra is a curse and can cause permanent amputation means that it is especially Dark. If anything, the fact that wounds caused by Sectumsempra but which stop short of amputation can be healed without leaving a mark is evidence that it isn't very Dark. The logic seems to be: not all curses are classed as Dark; all curses which can cause amputation are liable to cause permanent amputation; curses which can cause physical wounds and which are classed as Dark cause unhealable wounds or permanent scarring even from injuries which stop short of amputation; Sectumsempra causes permanent amputation but does not otherwise cause permanent scarring or unhealing wounds; Sectumsempra is a curse, but not a Dark curse.

Against this, Snape himself called Sectumsempra "such Dark magic" when Harry slashed Draco. But it's not clear whether he knew at once which spell Harry had used - Sectumsempra can hardly be the only cutting spell in existence - and he also called the Marauder's Map "plainly full of Dark Magic", on the basis of it having insulted him. This suggests that he may call things "Dark" in order to be melodramatic - or that the term can be applied to quite mild things. In the second part of this essay I examine what we can derive from canon about what the various terms used to describe combat spells actually mean, and show that "Dark" has at least two meanings, and possibly several. One of the possible meanings is "illegal" and another is "dangerous", so Snape may mean that Harry's reckless uncontrolled use of the spell - the specific piece of magic he has just performed - is Dark, rather than that the spell is Dark whenever and however used.

We certainly cannot assume that Sectumsempra was invented in order to cause permanent amputation. Indeed, we can assume that it wasn't, since this seems to be a common feature of all curses which can cause traumatic injury, and therefore there would be no reason to invent a special spell for it.

The name "Sectumsempra", therefore, almost certainly doesn't mean "amputate permanently", since that is a feature which is apparently common to many curses. It would be like inventing a revolutionary new pen and then calling it "makes marks on paper". Nor is it likely to mean "to amputate every time" - for the same reason, and also because it patently doesn't amputate every time.

We see it [probably] used by Snape on James; by Harry on Draco; by Harry on several Inferi and by Snape on George. We also have Lupin's statement that "Sectumsempra was always a speciality of Snape's." How does Lupin know this?

We know from Sirius that Snape had so little of a reputation as a Death Eater that there wasn't even any definite rumour at the time that he was one, so he wasn't stalking around Britain carving people up. He'd hardly have been using it as a teacher, unless it was as a chopping-knife, and although there's some evidence that Snape has carried out a few daring rescues in his time (he tells Dumbledore that since changing sides, he has watched people die only if he couldn't save them) and it's just about possible Lupin was involved in that, the most likely time and place for Lupin to have seen Snape "always" using Sectumsempra was at school. If so, he evidently didn't do anything drastic enough with it to get expelled - or even to get into serious trouble, as far as we are ever told - so, again, if he used it on people he used it to nick them, possibly within the confines of a duelling club, not carve them up.

We've seen Sectumsempra used four times, one of them on multiple subjects (the Inferi), and we know that Snape must have used it several more times in order to establish it as his speciality, but as far as we know it only causes an amputation once in all those incidents (and that of a body-part not containing bone). It may be that JKR herself meant the name to mean "to amputate every time", but if so the spell is seriously misnamed, and we have to look at what else it could reasonably mean.

It could be that Sectumsempra "cuts every time" in the sense that whenever it's used it draws blood from someone (whether or not they're the intended target); like the cursed swords beloved of fantasy, which once drawn cannot be re-sheathed until they've tasted blood. It's the sort of sinister-yet-romantic idea which might appeal to the sort of Gothy kid who would call himself the Half-Blood Prince, especially if he read a lot of Swords'n'Sorcery novels, and it would explain how adult!Snape managed to cut George's ear off by accident.

Another possible interpretation is that it simply means "the knife which never needs sharpening" - bearing in mind JK Rowling's propensity for bad puns based on British product-names (Spell-o-tape, Ethelred the Ever-Ready etc.) and the fact that Staysharp is a famous brand of kitchen knife. As such, it might have been intended as a weapon from the first, or it might originally have been a household tool which Severus later re-designated "for enemies": perhaps, indeed, a kitchen or Potions-lab. knife, or a literal penknife for trimming quill pens (real feather quills need to be re-cut every couple of pages).

We do know Sectumsempra equates to a knife rather than a sword or an axe, unless it were a very lightweight sword. It's true that Harry thinks that it cuts Draco as if it were a sword, but that seems to be because it cuts him in a long sweeping slash from a distance, rather than because of the nature of the injuries - that, or Harry has no idea what a sword would do.

Draco was unarmoured, and whilst thick folds of cloth will slow a sword down, he was cut across his bare face and his chest, where his robes should be lying pretty flat. Harry swung at Draco with Sectumsempra in a panic, with all his considerable force. The resultant cuts are described as "deep" and they required three passes to heal them, which probably means they went right through skin and into muscle; but Draco was not disembowelled, beheaded or cut in half, nor so far as we can tell were any of his bones cloven or snapped, nor - despite being cut across the chest - was there any rush of clear fluid indicating that the membranes around his lungs had been breached, so the cuts were nothing like as deep as they would have been if made with a sword - unless it was a very light sword, or the very tip of a sword at the edge of its range, which would cause similar injuries to a knife anyway.

[Or unless it was very blunt, of course. A blunt sword would do less damage because Draco's robes would impede it - but there seems no reason why a magic blade should be blunt, especially when we see it give James a razor-flick, not a bruising tear.]

Of course, you could inflict these sort of comparatively shallow injuries with even a very big sword if you used just the tip if it, and that may be what Harry is thinking of - that he cut Draco from several feet away as if he had slashed across him with the far point of a sword he held in his hand. But we see that Sectumsempra can be used from considerably more than an arm-plus-sword's length away - it's very unlikey that Snape was only five feet away from the target when he aimed at a Death Eater and hit George, for example, unless he's a spectacularly bad shot - so the fact that it makes shallow cuts when used at about a sword's length away is not because the target is too far away to hit "properly". If it was designed to make the sort of wounds you make when you belt someone with a sword at close quarters, it could presumably do so at a distance too: and if it only makes knife (or sword-point) wounds when it is operating over the partial width of a bathroom - well within its range - then it almost certainly does so at close quarters too.

'SECTUMSEMPRA!' bellowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand wildly.
Blood spurted from Malfoy's face and chest as though he had been slashed with an invisible sword. He staggered backwards and collapsed on to the waterlogged floor with a great splash, his wand falling from his limp right hand.
'No --' gasped Harry.
Slipping and staggering, Harry got to his feet and plunged towards Malfoy, whose face was now shining scarlet, his white hands scrabbling at his blood-soaked chest.
'No -- I didn't --'
Harry did not know what he was saying; he fell to his knees beside Malfoy, who was shaking uncontrollably in a pool of his own blood. Moaning Myrtle let out a deafening scream.
'MURDER! MURDER IN THE BATHROOM! MURDER!'
The door banged open behind Harry and he looked up, terrified: Snape had burst into the room, his face livid. Pushing Harry roughly aside, he knelt over Malfoy, drew his wand and traced it over the deep wounds Harry's curse had made, muttering an incantation that sounded almost like song. The flow of blood seemed to ease; Snape wiped the residue from Malfoy's face and repeated his spell. Now the wounds seemed to be knitting.
[cut] When Snape had performed his counter-curse for the third time, he half-lifted Malfoy into a standing position.
'You need the hospital wing. There may be a certain amount of scarring, but if you take dittany immediately we might avoid even that ... come ...' [cut]
[cut] [Harry] stood up slowly, shaking, and looked down at the wet floor. There were bloodstains floating like crimson flowers across its surface. [HBP ch. #24; p. 489/490]

Initially Harry sees a lot of blood coming from Draco, but a little blood goes a long way, and when he gazes at the scene after Draco has been removed - which is probably less than three minutes after he was cut - he sees water on the floor with some blots of blood floating in it: not a sea of blood. Blood is said to spurt from the wounds at the first blow but after that the text speaks of a "flow" of blood, and there's nothing in the description to suggest a spurting arterial wound. Draco was still able to walk as soon as he was healed, without being given Blood-Replenishing Potion, and he did not show any signs of physiological (as opposed to psychological) shock due to blood-loss: which again suggests he hadn't lost a huge amount of blood, and his wounds were not terribly deep.

[Violent shaking can be a symptom of physiological shock, but of septic shock (physiological shock due to overhwhelming infection), not of haemorrhagic shock (physiological shock due to bleeding) or hypovolemic shock (physiological shock due to a severe fall in circulatory volume, usually due to bleeding but can be due to e.g. fluid-loss from burns). It has been suggested that Draco's shaking might have been due to hypoxia - oxygen-starvation of the brain - caused by blood-loss; but the convulsions of hypoxia occur after the brain has been starved of oxygen for more than five minutes, and Draco's shaking was immediate. They should also be preceded by unconsciousness, and there's no sign that Draco lost consciousness to any significant extent: he goes from scrabbling at his chest to being up and walking with no sign of Snape having to wake him up in between. Ergo, the shaking was due to psychological, not physiological shock.]

Later on in HBP we see Harry use Sectumsempra to defend himself against Inferi. Given that he is fighting for his own and Dumbledore's life, we can reasonably assume that he used the spell as hard as he could, and this time he knew he was trying to cut with it - yet again, the cuts seem to be comparatively shallow and cause no amputations, so far as we are told.

Still slashing at the air with his wand, Harry yelled, 'Sectumsempra! SECTUMSEMPRA!'
But though gashes appeared in their sodden rags and their icy skin, they had no blood to spill: they walked on, unfeeling, their shrunken hands outstretched towards him, and as he backed away still further he felt arms enclose him from behind, thin, fleshless arms cold as death [HBP ch. #26; p. 538]

We are told that the things have "thin, fleshless arms", so there isn't even much in the way of padding for the spell to cut into before it hits bone - and yet all it seems to cut is skin and cloth. Harry's expectation, and possibly the author's, seems to be that if the spell worked properly on Inferi it would bleed them - not chop them up.

We also see Snape use a slicing hex on James in the bullying scene in OotP. It's not absolutely clear that this is Sectumsempra since he produces it non-verbally, but JKR's purpose in that scene was presumably to establish a link between Snape and slicing hexes which would later been seen to have been a clue to the identity of the Half-Blood Prince, and Lupin says Sectumsempra was always a speciality of Snape's - so it would be very strange if he just happened to be using a completely different hex here. And again, although it gashes James's cheek it doesn't slice his cheek right open, or damage bone, so here too the action of Sectumsempra is that of a fairly short-bladed knife - albeit a knife which can be projected several feet.

It has been suggested that Snape meant to do James a mortal injury with a slashing, sword-like spell and simply missed. But apart from the fact that we are told that he aimed straight at James, James was more or less in a line between Snape and Lily, so if Snape had been taking a great hack at James with a spell of which he was in uncertain control, he would have put Lily in danger. Since we know he will risk death or Azkaban rather than knowingly endanger Lily, we must assume that he was in complete control of his slicing hex and knew it, and that it did just what it was meant to do.

We do see Snape aim it at a Death Eater's wand-hand in an attempt to protect Remus, but we aren't told whether he thought it would amputate the hand, or just slash it badly enough to make the target drop his wand. On the whole I would suggest he just meant to slash it. Cutting the guy's hand off would get Snape into more trouble if the spell was traced to him, and would attract attention from Muggles below: and whilst the real Death Eaters might not care about that, Snape was very angry when Harry and Ron attracted Muggle attention by allowing the flying Ford Anglia to be seen.

This incident also re-confirms that when Snape gave James a little flick with Sectumsempra, that was exactly what he meant to do. The incident of George's ear shows that if Sectumsempra misses its intended target it keeps going until it hits something else, as a thrown knife would do. If Snape had aimed a heavy shot at James, missed him and only barely clipped him when he had intended serious injury, the rest of the spell would have kept going until it hit something else - and since Snape was on the ground, aiming at somebody standing, the shot wouldn't have just gone into the ground. But there's no suggestion of anyone or anything else being hit, or of any spell-energy crackling into the sky. Ergo, the spell did what he meant it to do.

So, we can say that Sectumsempra is a curse, but we can also say with reasonable confidence that it's probably not a Dark curse, except in the mild sense of being illicit or potentially dangerous. It cuts quite shallowly, even when used with considerable force, and can be dialed back to give just a little flicking wound. It was not designed specifically to cause permanent amputation - which is a feature common to all curses which can cause amputation at all.

Indeed, it may well have been designed not to cause amputation. We see Harry take a great swing at Draco and at several Inferi, and we have no evidence that the invisible blade cut into bone in either case: in the case of the Inferi we are specifically told that the wounds cut their skin, with no mention of anything deeper, despite them having little or no fleshy padding between skin and bone. This suggests that Sectumsempra may have some sort of built-in safety feature to prevent it from cutting bone. That would make sense if its main use was as a laboratory or kitchen chopping-knife: a limitation to prevent it from cutting bone would protect the user, and one to prevent it from cutting anything above a certain hardness would protect the chopping-board.

Its name, "to cut [or amputate] every time", or perhaps "cut always" if JKR is using "sempra" in the sense in which she uses it in "Rictusempra", therefore does not mean "cuts bits off permanently" but something else, possibly "the knife which never needs sharpening". As such, it may well have originated as a tool, and only been re-designated as a weapon after young Severus felt that his life was actually in danger from the Marauders. For reasons explained in the main essay But Snape is just nasty, right?, there is canon evidence that werewolves are immune to spells which create magical effects, such as Petrificus totalus, but can be affected by spells which have a directly physical influence, such as conjured manacles - or, arguably, magically-created physical wounds. Sectumsempra was found written in a book we know Severus was using in fifth year, when he had every reason to think he might be attacked by a werewolf.

Nor would it be the only example of a tool being able to cut humans. Diffindo is a standard severing spell which we see Harry using to split open Cedric's schoolbag, to attempt to free Ron from the brain-tentacles, to split ice and even to remove a book-cover, yet in DH Hermione's hand shakes as she is trying to cut Ron free of a rope, and the spell slices open his jeans and makes a deep cut in his knee. Clearly, you could use this standard spell as a weapon if you wanted to, and it seems at least as injurious as Sectumsempra, yet no-one suggests that Diffindo is Dark Magic. It's the use Severus puts Sectumsempra to, and the fact that he designates it "for enemies", which makes it seem more sinister than Diffindo. So why use Sectumsempra instead of Diffindo? On the face of it, it certainly looks as if it may be because Sectumsempra is easier to control (Snape gives James a tiny little controlled flick, Hermione gashes Ron by accident) and has built-in safety features. Also, perhaps, Sectumsempra cuts more reliably and it is in this sense that it is designed "to cut always", since we see that when using Diffindo Harry fails to cut the brain-tentacles.

We can say, therefore, that young Severus was a boy who was willing to carry a knife, and to use it. He had serious reason to think his life might be in danger but we also see him use it when his life was not in danger (when he cut James), albeit that he was under attack.

On the other hand, the person he cut was part of a gang who had threatened his life before, so it was understandable that he might feel panicked by this fresh attack even though it was less dangerous. The injury we see him inflict is very minor, and since he was aiming straight at the target it seems he intended it to be minor. Even though Sectumsempra is a blade which can be projected at a distance and which potentially can cause amputation, there are good reasons to think that it has built-in safety features which prevent it from cutting bone: so in terms of aggression it's equivalent to carrying a penknife or a small razor, rather than a Bowie or Stanley knife, and there is at least some suggestion that Severus only started "carrying" that knife after he had cause to think his life was in danger from someone who was immune to most other forms of defence.

Footnote: dittany in Muggle medicine

The name "dittany" refers to three herbs: Cunila origanoides, a.k.a. C. mariana, called in English Common Dittany or Stone Mint; Dictamnus albus, called White Dittany or Burning Bush, and Origanum dictamnus or Dittany of Crete. Common Dittany can be used to make an antiseptic and a tea for treating headaches and fevers; White Dittany has similar properties and is also used in Chinese medicine to treat disorders of the skin and the gut; and Dittany of Crete is not much used nowadays but has a long medical history in the Classical world, and was probably the inspiration for JKR's use of dittany in the books..

Herbalpedia has this to say about Dittany of Crete:

Mentioned in Charlemagne’s list of herbs, dittany was popular in medieval times as a medicinal herb. Hippocrates recommended it for stomach and digestive system diseases, rheumatism, arthritis and used it to regulate menses, to tone and heal. The species name dictamnus is derived from the mountain Dicte on the island of Crete, one of the mountains on the island where dittany of Crete grows. "Dittany" in the common name is also derived from this. In ancient times dittany of Crete was famous for its alleged property of expelling weapons imbedded in soldiers. Wild goats were reputed to seek out the plant after being struck by arrows; the goats were thought to eat the plant, and the arrows would fall out immediately. Shepherds saw this and would then ingest and later make compresses of the leaves to heal open wounds. In the tale of the Trojan wars by Virgil, the hero Aeneas was severely wounded by a deeply imbedded arrow that could not be extricated. His mother Venus went to Mount Ida on the island of Crete and retrieved some dittany of Crete, which was applied to the wound, causing the arrow to drop out and the wound to cure immediately. In ancient times it was believed that a snake would allow itself to be burned to death rather than cross the path of dittany of Crete. The locals called it also "eronda" which means love for its aphrodisiac properties. Popular in Minoan Crete and Ancient Greece, it was considered a highly therapeutic plant.

Heatherlly, The Gestalt Prince and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

Sectumsempra: Invincible Weapon or Invisible Penknife?

Sectumsempra - invincible weapon or invisible penknife?

Sectumsempra - invincible weapon or invisible penknife?

Recent Forum Posts

Contact/Follow

Switch Theme