Flight? Wouldn't that 'flight' thing just a non-verbal self-'Wigardium Leviosa', very hard to accomplish without being an advanced wizard?--Kirochi 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly not. In Quidditch Through the Ages (real), it notes that no spell exists to make a wizard truly fly. Until Voldemort does it in Deathly Hallows, it is unheard of. - Cavalier One 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, right (same person speaking than above, my nickname's Kirochi). But does Wingardium Leviosa work on living beings, such as Humans? Kennilworthy Whisp could just have meant that none has ever tried it on himself, let alone without a wand and non-verbally.--Kirochi
Quidditch Through the Ages (real) lists the following methods of flying without a broom - transfiguration into a flying animal (although you lose you Human self in the process), and being an Animagus and turning into a flying animal. Wizards can perform levitation spells to hover approx. five feet off the ground, and this may be Wingardium Leviosa or a variation such as Levicorpus. To my knowledge, Wingardium Leviosa has never been used in such a fashion in the books - in Deathly Hallows, when he sees Hagrid falling, Harry tries to Summon him rather than levitate him. - Cavalier One 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Quirrel does it in the Philosopher's Stone, but then again, it may be due to his connection with Voldemort (sort of like Harry speaking Parseltongue). Happychickenvermin 03:05, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how the flight is possible I fail to see how it would matter as flight hardly is a magic that causes harm, even if it is a practice of Voldemort. You see, if Voldemort were to pick boogers out of his now non-existent nose that would be gross - but not evil. I'm also fairly sure that he eats and sleeps every now and then, but neither eating or sleeping is evil for that. It just might be that the evil bastard managed to invent some disturbingly useful piece of magic inbetween murdering muggles and muggle-borns. Aryllia 08:16, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Antonin Dolohov's Curse

I added the curse Dolohov used in the Battle of the Department of Mysteries to the list of Dark curses. It seems to cause significant internal injury - this is the passage about Hermione's suffering of it from the last chapter of OotP:

She winced slightly and put a hand to her ribs. The curse Dolohov had used on her, though less effective than it would have been had he been able to say the incantation aloud, had nevertheless caused, in Madam Pomfrey's words, `quite enough damage to be going on with'. Hermione was having to take ten different types of potion every day...

That implies that Hermione suffered considerable internal damage from the curse - and it was weaker than it normally would have been, if said aloud. She also seems to be suffering mild pain, even though Harry notes that she is "improving greatly". Also, when Dolohov first uses it on her:

Dolohov grinned. With his free hand, he pointed from the prophecy still clutched in Harry's hand, to himself, then at Hermione. Though he could no longer speak, his meaning could not have been clearer: Give me the prophecy, or you get the same as her…
"Like you won't kill us all anyway, the moment I hand it over!" said Harry.

That implies that the curse is potentially fatal. We don't see it any other time either, so I doubt it has a different, less nasty use. 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Dark Magic?

This article and Dark Magic overlap a great deal, but this one seems to be more comprehensive. I think the two should be merged, unless there is an actual difference between the two, which should be made clearer. Oread 03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Did not Harry Potter and Delores Umbridge practice dark magic?

I added earlier that both did, but it was removed.

Harry Potter cast Crucio twice (once on Bellatrix Lestrange, once on Amycus Carrow) and Sectumsempra twice (once on Draco Malfoy, once on Severus Snape).

Delores Umbridge almost cast Crucio once (on Harry), released dementors on Harry in London, and had Harry write with a quill that literally drained blood from his hand and caused a scar on the back of his hand of what he was writing ("I must not tell lies").

I am fairly sure these incidents are both in the books and movies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nochthikus (talkcontribs).

Yes they did. But you cannot say that the sporadic use of one or two curses over the course of one's entire life is "practising" the Dark Arts. They used it, but didn't practise them. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Seth that occasionally using Dark Magic doesn't make someone a practitioner of the Dark Arts. After all, people are only human, and they're bound to make mistakes sometimes, acting out of anger, fear, necessity, or a well-meaning but misguided desire to help. It's kind of like how Snape isn't a pure-blood supremacist because he called Lily a "Mudblood" once in a moment of vulnerability. However, while I don't think Harry's three Crucios make him a Dark wizard (the second Crucio was aimed at, and blocked by, Snape in HBP28), I'm less sure about Umbridge. Harry used Crucio in anger, and Imperio out of necessity, but Umbridge used the blood quill in a much more calculated and self-serving manner. Starstuff (Owl me!) 08:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Logical fallacies and missing evidence

"The Dark Arts are generally regarded as corrupting those who use them." --

'Are regarded' - by whom and where? In general Fantasy literature? I don't remember anyone in HP Canon 'regarding' them as such. That they are 'addicting' and 'corrupting' seems to be Fanon invented.

"After engaging in them extensively for many years, even Tom Marvolo Riddle's appearance demonstrated his corruption — he lost his former handsomeness, eventually taking on serpentine physical qualities and red eyes" --

At the very least, this is questionable. Yes, he looked changed, and yes, he *probably* used Dark Magic, but does that necessarily have to mean that the two parts are correlated? To offer an alternate explanation, I always assumed that it were the Horcruxes he made that changed his appearance. That *assumption* would work just as well. There's no hard evidence to make *either* more than an assumption.

"Albus Dumbledore, in particular, suggested that engaging in the Dark Arts was damaging to the soul; for instance, he told Severus Snape that Draco Malfoy's soul was "not yet so damaged" that he would be capable of murder, and that if he did go through with murder, his soul would be "ripped apart"" --

He did not suggest that! He repeats what we already knew, that *killing* damages your soul, the idea behind the Horcrux magic. That has nothing to do with the Dark Arts in general!

"This suggests that using very Dark magic, such as the Killing Curse, damages an individual's soul." --

That's a logical fallacy. 'Because a is part of b, and a is x, it means that the entirety of b is x as well.' It's hasty generalisation; we don't know nearly enough Dark Arts spells and how they work to conclude that *every* use of Dark Magic damages the soul, just because one(!) particular spell does.

"Powerful Dark spells also require malicious intent in order to be successful. To cast the Cruciatus Curse, for instance, one must truly desire to cause pain in and of itself, according to Bellatrix Lestrange" --

Same here. Just because the Cruciatus curse needs the desire to cause pain to work efficiently, does not mean that every other spell needs malicious intent as well. For that matter, when Harry successfully cast the Sectumsempra on Draco, he had no actual intent at all -- because he didn't even know what the spell would do.

"Injuries caused by Dark magic never fully heal, such as George Weasley's ear after it was cut off by a Sectumsempra he was struck with during the Battle over Little Whinging" --


In general, that article could work if it was made clear that these are all assumptions, some more likely, others less so. However, stating it as facts and absolutes ("Injuries caused by Dark magic never fully heal"), as well as using interpretations of quotes as opposed to the quotes themselves as evidence, is simply not any acceptable kind way to either present an argument or write an article for a lexicon. -- 16:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most of what you mentioned are assumptions, but it is heavily implied in the series. For example, every practicioner of the Dark Arts is a rotten human being and when Snape turned good Dumbledore implied that he also had to give up the DA. As for the bit about the malicious intent, well again it is strongly implied that all DM works in this way. Bellatrix even says "You have to mean them." Magic in HP is heavily governed by emotion and intent, so presumably, Dark Magic requires an intent to do serious damage and exert your own power over that of another sentient being. However, it shoud say "limbs removed by DM never fully heal," as that was the specific wording in DH and indeed Hermione fully recovered Dolohov's curse. Squall L. 08:20, April 26, 2012 (UTC)Squall L.


Could this article be given the "class infobox" as it is taught at Durmstrang, and briefly at Hogwarts? Jayce DarkmarkAvada KedavraCrucioImperio 12:03, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should. Or possibly create a seperate article Dark Arts (class)? Sirius tells Harry at the fireplace that Karkaroff himself taght the Dark Arts in Durmstrang.--Rodolphus 14:17, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Dark Witch?

Given that she practiced the Dark Arts, supported the Voldemort controlled Ministry, and was imprisoned for Crimes against Muggle-borns, shouldn't she be considered a Dark Witch? --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 03:05, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

She didn't practise the Dark Arts. So, no.

Bellatrix Lestrange's Curse

Didn't Bellatrix Lestrange use a curse to kill Sirius Black? It's not listed here, or even on the list of spells. 16:35, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

She used an unknown spell. It is likely that it isn't listed, b/c there isn't an article for it. --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 17:12, November 30, 2010 (UTC)


Do Bellatrix Lestrange's and Antonin Dolohov's curses get you a life sentence in Azkaban? (They kill people, don't they) And what about if you put someone under the imperius curse to break an imperius curse they are already on, or use the cruciatus curse for 1 second like Harry did to Bella? How about if you use the Killing curse or another fatal curse or an unforgivable curse on a bad guy? (You don't get sent to jail in the muggle world if you shoot a bad guy and kill him) How about during a duel or during a battle. It is apparently not that bad, since Aurors were allowed to use the unforgivable curses on possible Death Eaters. 16:41, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

We don't know if Bella used a or some other spell. As for Dolohov, it is likely that few people ever saw it, so it widely known enough to be made unforgivable. It seems to me, that the good guys never aimed to kill in the story. Also, under very special circumstances, one might be given a reprieve. Also, Harry's curse on Bella had no witnesses, thus, no one knew he did it; therefore, he was not punished. Also, under Voldemort's reign it is likely that the spells were no longer illegal. Thanks, --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 17:15, November 30, 2010 (UTC)


During the First Wizarding War, Aurors were allowed to use the Unforgivable curses on possible suspects, but could they actually kill them? Also if they could, could they use any other curse that killed, and could they use any curse they wanted. What happened if the person ended up being innocent. And could anyone use it on possible suspects? And did they get to use it whenever they wanted? 16:45, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't believe Aurors would kill other than in self-defense. They would probably also use the Unforgivables sparingly, as well. --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 17:17, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

How do we know Regulus Black practiced the dark arts?

How do we know Regulus practiced the dark arts?Abrawak 16:57, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as he was once a death eater, it is rightfully assumed. -- Ratneer Owl Me! 17:42, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Separate Page

I think the "Dark Spells" section needs its own page, with less description here and more there. At first I thought this subsection was sufficient but then I realised we have several separate ones for curses and the like and not one for the collective term used to refer to them, which doesn't make sense.Green Zubat 04:07, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

And another thing, the table we have of dark spells used isn;t really that, its a list of curses...why? That's what the curse page was for. Green Zubat 04:09, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
But Jinx, Hex, and Curse are all used and defined seperately in canon. When is "Dark Spell" ever used? 04:56, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
Well its used on this page, for a start. Besides, the usage of the term "dark" as an adjective for another word to describe its affiliation with this type of magic is canonical so it logically follows that spells which pertain to this type of magic may be termed "Dark Spells" (which - I'm guessing - is why it is used on the main Dark Arts page). And even aside form all that, this wiki uses non-canonical titles fr articles all the time (hence the existence of the "Are you a wizard or not?" template) so even if it wasn't a canonical title we could sitll use it and stick that on it.Green Zubat 05:21, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
But non-canon titles are only used when there is no known canon title. The other terms are canon, this isn't. 05:29, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
I agree is no known canon title for the general group to which jinxes, hexes & curses belong (for which purpose the term "Dark Spell" is being used) but that doesn't mean we can't use it. After all, it would be messier to have three separate pages for them than just one. Besides - as I already mentioned - its not a completely uncanonical term considering my comments earlier about the use of the word "dark" when applied adjectivally to words. In light of all this information I think we can safely use the termGreen Zubat 05:56, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Practitioners

I'm a little confused by the additions of Professor McGonagall and Narcissa Malfoy to the list of "known practitioners" of the Dark Arts. I can't remember Professor McGonagall using any specifically dark or Unforgiveable spells during the Battle of Hogwarts or at any other major conflict during the series. The only thing that strikes me is her warning to Slughorn about a duel to the death if he tried to help the Death Eaters, but she did not need to follow through. As for Narcissa, I know she married one Death Eater and raised another, but I don't recall any evidence that she actually practiced any dark spells. There is nothing to suggest that she is branded with the Dark Mark, since she only participates in the proceedings that occur at her house, and she is never shown participating in a duel. I think the most we can assume is that she is an unpleasant person with questionable acquaintences, but not necessarily a practitioner of the Dark Arts. Thoughts?

McGonagall used the Imperius Curse on the Carrows in Deathly Hallows. As for Narcissa, I believe our categorization of her as a Dark witch is merely based off Dobby's comment in Goblet of Fire that the Malfoys were all "bad dark wizards", presumably including Narcissa. I also assume she can probably use Dark Magic in the LEGO games, but that's just an assumption. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 19:03, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification on Professor McGonagall, I had forgotten about that scene. With respect to Narcissa, while I agree with the logic behind assuming Dobby's statement includes her with the rest of the family as being a practitioner of the Dark Arts, it's a lot easier to say "everyone is evil" rather than "well, everyone is evil, except for the one woman who is just mean but not actually evil." If there is evidence from the video games that Narcissa uses Dark magic than I am all for supporting her inclusion in this list, however as it stands I feel like the lack of evidence of her using Dark spells should outweigh a passing comment by Dobby. 01:07, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Ethical considerations

Under "Ethical Considerations" it says, "The only exception to [the fact that all dark magic can be concievably used for good] is the Horcrux, the creation of which is an entirely selfish act - taking a life in order to prolong one's own."

I'd reckon that, assuming you use Avada Kedavra for a "good" reason, and if it splits your soul, simply taking advantage of the opportunity to become immortal wouldn't necessarily be evil. This is also assuming that the ritual used to make a horcrux is simply disgusting like a rotting carcass (as it reportedly made an editor vomit when J.K. elaborated upon it) rather than morally disgusting.

Furthermore, if you then go on to do thousands of good things that you otherwise wouldn't have had time to do given a normal human lifespan, it's arguable that the creation of the horcrux was a good thing on the whole. 10:26, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

That is an interesting point of view. But I think that the 'use of Avada Kedavra for a "good" reason' would not split the soul, so that all could not happen.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 19:02, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+