Did Dumbledore himself take the Sword of Gryffindor under conditions of "need and valor"?

Question

In Chapter 33 (The Prince's Tale) of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, it is revealed that the Sword of Gryffindor "must" be taken under conditions of "need and valor", and that kind of explains why it was placed in the frozen lake, rather than just having it placed outside their tent.

"Now, Severus, the sword! Do not forget that it must be taken under conditions of need and valor."

We also know, from the same chapter, that Dumbledore himself used the sword to destroy the ring Horcrux.

"Marvolo Gaunt's ring lay on the desk before Dumbledore. It was cracked; the sword of Gryffindor lay beside it."

This begs the question of whether Dumbledore himself had to receive the sword under said conditions in order to be able to use it on the ring; or is he excluded from that requirement by being the Headmaster, by knowing advanced magic or something like that?

Two points to clarify:

1. I take the "must" part to implicitly mean "in order to use it" or be its "true master". Snape could obviously "carry" it, for instance , but maybe wasn't able to use it properly? (Then again, he was the Headmaster at that time, so maybe he could use it as well if we assume the above).

2. Harry himself had already received the sword once under said conditions, so does this imply that one needs to "renew" his "worthiness" of the sword? This in turn implies that (if we don't assume Headmaster privilege) Dumbledore would need to have "renewed his worthiness" sometime between the end of book two and the beginning of book six, even if he had shown valor at an earlier episode of his life. (I realize that it was Ron and then Neville who ended up using it, both indeed exhibiting valor, but that really wasn't the intended plan).

Answer 1

Dumbledore is talking c**p. There are no preconditions for passing the sword between wizards.

It's arguable that need and valour are needed for one to receive the sword. However, the sword could only be presented in these circumstances by the Sorting Hat. In all the other occasions that the sword changed hands, need and valour didn't enter the equation at all.

Let's look at the only two instances in canon where the sword 'presented itself' to people. Firstly, Harry takes it from the Sorting Hat in the Chamber of Secrets.

"Help me!...help me!..." Harry thought, his eyes screwed tight under the hat. "Please help me!"
[...]
Something very hard and heavy thudded onto the top of Harry's head, almost knocking him out. Stars winking in front of his eyes, he grabbed the top of the Hat to pull it off and felt something long and hard beneath it.
A gleaming silver sword had appeared inside the Hat, its handle glittering with rubies the size of eggs.
_{(Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 17, The Heir of Slytherin).}

Secondly, Neville takes it from the Sorting Hat at the Battle of Hogwarts.

In one swift, fluid motion Neville broke free of the Body-Bind Curse upon him; the flaming hat fell off him and he drew from its depths something silver, with a glittering, rubied handle-
_{(Deathly Hallows, Chapter 36, The Flaw in the Plan).}

Were Harry and Neville both in conditions of need here? If the risk of being eaten by a wounded Basilisk or burned alive count as situations of need then yep. Did they express valour? Certainly. Neville had just given Voldemort the defiant "I'll never join you" speech whereas Harry had said that Dumbledore was a greater wizard than Voldemort. Rejecting the supervillain demands some courage. Harry also calls for help from the Sorting Hat; Neville may have done the same.

Now compare this to the other known instances of the sword changing hands in canon:

• Harry giving the sword to Dumbledore.
• Dumbledore (surreptitiously) passing the sword onto Snape.
• Snape giving the sword to Harry.
• Griphook taking the sword from Harry.

None of these instances display "need and valour". Indeed, with Griphook I'd more accurately describe his actions as displaying 'treachery and cowardice'. The reason why the recipients above don't need to display courage to get the sword is because they are being given it by another wizard, not presented with it by the Sorting Hat. Without the presence of the Sorting Hat, the sword could change hands just as any other magical item could.

In the specific case of Dumbledore which was asked for in the question, no, he didn't take the sword under conditions of need and valour. Harry seems to have just left the sword in his study in The Chamber of Secrets and Dumbledore took it upon himself to place it in his study.

"And did you kill a Basilisk with that sword in Dumbledore's office?" demanded Terry Boot.
_{(Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 16, In the Hog's Head).}

As for Snape giving the sword to Harry, Snape obviously hid the sword in such a way that Harry would have to do something (kinda) heroic to retrieve it. This was quite unnecessary. He did it on the instruction of Dumbledore, as the quote in the question states. But Dumbledore was, intentionally or not, misleading Snape about the need for valour. It's quite logical to say that if Dumbledore didn't take the sword from Harry in courageous circumstances then Harry hardly needed to show any additional courage when taking it back. Indeed, Harry basically thought as much at the time.

Where 'chivalry' entered into this, he thought ruefully, he was not entirely sure, unless it counted as chivalrous that he was not calling for Hermione to do it in his stead.
_{(Deathly Hallows, Chapter 19, The Silver Doe).}

So Harry's dive is unnecessary. Although he and Ron do show bravery in retrieving the sword, others (including Dumbledore) took possession of the sword without showing any bravery whatsoever.

Conclusion: no, Dumbledore didn't display need or valour. And he didn't need to.

Answer 2

The way I see it, it needs only to be found under conditions of need and valor. Otherwise, Dumbledore would have no reason to take it from Harry at the end of Chamber of Secrets. Also, he would have no reason to give it to Harry in his will. Hermione's opinion as stated in Deathly Hallows:

"It belongs to Harry!" said Hermione hotly. "It chose him, he was the one who found it, it came to him out of the Sorting Hat--"

Dumbledore and Hermione agree that Harry does not need to find the sword again under conditions of need and valor. Usually when that happens, they're right. Also notice that once the sword has been found under conditions of need and valor, it does not vanish and wait for more need and valor. It stays there. What probably happened was Dumbledore took the sword, not under conditions of need and valor, but off of his wall.

Answer 3

Looks like the 'need and valour' thing have something to do with using not having. Harry said to Ron:

"Because you got the sword out of the pool. I think it's supposed to be you". He was not being kind or generous... Dumbledore had at least taught Harry something about certain kinds of magic...

So though Harry could take the sword from Ron he kinda knew that it would work better for Ron this time. I'm sure Harry still would be able to use the sword, but maybe with less success? Maybe Dumbledore himself felt that the sword doesn't behave when he was breaking the ring?

It makes sense actually. If we assume it is the sword who chooses the true Griffindor to present itself (not the Sorting Hat), then we have a magical object with a spark of awareness. It may magically help to those who is worthy and resist to those who just took the sword without earning it with their valor. That's why a twelve-year old child was able to kill a huge Basilisk and Ron was able to break the locket even though he was pretty corrupted by it - the sword kinda guided them in their missions. And Dumbledore still could use it even without showing any need and valor as such.

So technically Harry could use the sword even if Snape would just put it at their tent's entrance, but Dumbledore wanted to ensure that sword would provide additional protection and power.