Machiavelli's Half-Blood Prince

Discussion for Machiavelli's Half-Blood Prince (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-texan01.shtml) by B.J. Texan.

I think this is a really good editorial. I can't see how Snape could be good if he chooses to kill someone and I believe he simply acts so as to further his own interests.

that idea would be a great end to the series

I think that it is very possible that JKR was thinking of Machiavelli's The Prince when she made up Snape because he definitely seems like he is working just for himself. That was a very well-written editorial and a great idea.

Congrats on such a well written essay, first off. I also wonder how far JKR will take the paralells within Machiavelli's Prince to Snape. We do know, from experience and as mentioned in the essay that JKR enjoys to use references from classical literature. What interests me though, is how she never uses it to the full extent meaning that Snape may not actually triumph in the end. He has, however, as the essay says, done so up to this point, but I think that may have been enough for JKR. If she takes the paralels all the way, though, it would be quite interesting.

I really enjoyed this editorial. I have to admit that I am not at all familiar with Machiavelli's The Prince, but it certainly seems that it is similar to Snape's actions. The most convincing part to me was the part with Severus the General. If that's a coincidence, I'll eat my arm! Wonderful job on your editorial!

Bravo! What a wonderful theory. I've always thought Snape as being rather diabolical, but your essay certainly puts that into boldface for us all now!

We spent a fair amount of time discussing The Prince in a couple of my classes in high school, so I'm slightly ashamed that I didn't even consider the parallels to Snape before! I appreciated the ample support you gave your arguments through excerpts from both Machiavelli and JKR's writing. I had been holding out hope for Snape's goodness, but I think you may have just convinced me otherwise. Excellent job--you write very well, and quite persuasively! Kudos!

Outstanding editorial. Excellent parallels and thorough explanations. I have to agree with muggleclaw from above. I too had been holding out hope for Snape's ultimate goodness. Not now. At one point in my own mental wanderings, I had considered the possibility that Snape would walk away an ambiguous survivor of the conflict. This editorial has cast an entirely new light on my view. Once Voldemort is gone, a new dark lord must arise. Evil is never truly defeated, only forstalled temporarily. So, perhaps Snape will withdraw, for a time, leaving the threat of his return at some future date.

excellent thought nononsense!! - evil is always around, either seen or unseen - unseen evil has been the basis of some of the best literature - I seem to side (a bit) with the 'snape is evil' folks - I just got my copy of machiavelli out - since I haven't read it since college (during the stone age) this should prove interesting - great editorial

I'm in the GoodSnape camp, but I found your editorial well researched and well written. Your analysis of Snape's actions balancing Voldemort and Dumbledore is a credible one, but I don't know that giving Snape the name "Severus" means that Jo intends him to be a replica of the Roman general any more than Fawkes is intended to be Guy (but if the Phoenix blows up Parliament--or gets involved with Natalie Portman--I will recant).

I love all the effort and time its apparent you spent on this! It raises some excellent points, I believe firmly that Snape is playing both sides, and is totally in control of his own destiny
-Petey

Wow! I hadn't made the parallels to "The Prince" either. Don't let JKR see this editorial, she'll have an attack..

Severus Snape.... Emporer of Evil.

OMT

great editorial.

Absolutely ingenious. Your theory makes sense to me as no other theory related to Snape have ever had.

I really liked this editorial. It made a lot of sense, and actually helped me to figure out what i think is going on with snape more than any of the others that i have read.

I second Shewoman -- historical and literary parallels, especially when they are that glaring, are to be taken with a grain of salt. I believe that the references to The Prince and to Emperor Severus are perfectly valid in some ways. However, as much as they are useful, they can be a hundred times more deceptive... In "Spinner's End," Snape uses a combination of truths, partial truths, and lies in his effort to put an end to Bellatrix's doubts. Snape's creator, JKR, uses her cunning in pretty much the same way and comes up with the most delicious red herrings (yum...smelly...:lol: ).

I agree with many of the comparisons to Machiavelli's ideal prince, but I disagree with the interpretation. Snape is a "lion" and a "fox," but that does not mean that he is cruel or that he uses his intelligence to pursue a hidden, evil agenda. The lion in Snape resembles the lion in Harry -- brave, proud, and quite scary when he's been angered. The lion in Snape assures a quiet classroom and gallons of sweat over difficult essays. The lion in Snape demands, and deserves, respect. The fox is that gift of cunning which allows him to say that "the Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when someone is lying to him" (italics mine)...

Machiavelli's prince is essentially amoral because -- well, because he's a prince: as you say in your essay, he's got his own power and the stability of the people to take care of. I don't see Snape as either immoral or amoral, but at the same time I can see how Machiavelli's principles apply to him to a certain extent: he does indeed know how "not to be good"... except, he does it out of concern for the Other. The fact that he killed Dumbledore makes him a "Prince" because likely nobody else would have been able to carry out Dumbledore's request (with the exception of Harry, to some degree, for we saw what Harry did in the cave -- he pretty much initiated the dreadful but inevitable "sacrifice of the old," and in my opinion he is no less responsible than Snape is...or maybe even more so).

We could instead have Snape die on the tower with comforting thoughts of his own "goodness" and "innocence" -- and have Dumbledore, and quite possibly many other people, die soon after Severus. That would be Snape "the commoner" or "the everyday man." But Snape didn't do that. He chose the difficult, self-sacrificial path of "the beast" -- when he had to, when he was asked to, when there was no other way -- and that's what makes him "royal" in a way Lord Voldemort will never be.

As for Machiavelli's favorite historical character, Septimius Severus, and the Albinus/Niger story in particular -- I think the parallel is an anti-parallel... At the very least, it's an "anti-parallel" to how the famous 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon viewed Severus. My favorite theory (it was discussed on another thread) is that Rowling is using "Gibbon" imagery to kick that Gibbon out of the way. In OotP -- that is, before the death of Sirius Black, or "Niger" -- Harry turned upside down his portrait which looked like a gibbon. In HBP, right before Dumbledore's death (Albus, or "Albinus"), Gibbon the Death Eater was killed by a stray curse. This is only speculation, but it's neat. :) Rowling undoubtedly uses historical parallels, but she adds a spin to them -- like she does with a lot of the mythology she borrows... with everything she "borrows," in fact. The Machiavellian parallel works, but as a sort of weird 'reflection' rather than a literal reenactment of history or of Machiavelli's personal philosophy. The power-greedy, dark Severus is just the reflection of Snape in Harry's eyes... but reflections go no deeper than the surface...

Snape's nickname "The Half-Blood Prince" is brilliant and alludes to a number of well-known books and ideas (and fairy tales, too) -- not just The Prince. If Machiavelli is taken too literally, that leaves no room for all those other allusions. It also takes away the beauty of the difference between the "Half-Blood Prince" and "Lord Voldemort." "Prince," inasmuch as it's neither a hereditary title nor a made-up name, has in fact some very positive connotations. For one, a prince succeeds to the throne after the king's death -- I don't think the "king" in our case is the Dark "Lord"; I think it's the one who is a king in spirit and character: Dumbledore.

excellent editorial the best i've read...curious to know what people think snapes will do if he survives with both Voldemort and AD dead.Will he be evil? Or will he rule in prosperity as was what seemed to be suggested by *** editorial.

The only flaw I think is that we no nothing of AD's past except for very minute details...thus he may have ventured into darkness before discovering the power of love. The only things we know are that he impressed Marchbank at his OWL/NEWT exams and that he discovered the use of dragons blood. He could easily have been reborn from evil like snapes(if snapes is this way).

Excellent editorial, BJ Texan. I think using Machiavelli to understand Snape is a great idea. I enjoyed the historical references; the Albinus (Albus), Severus, Niger (Dark Lord) parallel is striking. I also thought the observation about the fox was great. I bet you are right about Snape's patronus. I tend to hope there is a possibility for redemption for Snape though, that he is driven not just by amoral thirst for power, but also some emotional grudges that maybe could be at least partially resolved.

he does indeed know how "not to be good"... except, he does it out of concern for the Other. The fact that he killed Dumbledore makes him a "Prince" because likely nobody else would have been able to carry out Dumbledore's request (with the exception of Harry, to some degree, for we saw what Harry did in the cave -- he pretty much initiated the dreadful but inevitable "sacrifice of the old," and in my opinion he is no less responsible than Snape is...or maybe even more so).

You're making some pretty wide assumptions in this comment. First, "Dumbledore's request" that you mention never actually happened in the book and takes quite a lot of stretching and assuming to come up with. So, I don't think Snape can be called a "Prince" because he was so noble to carry out Dumbledore's mythical request to have Snape murder him. This becomes especially evident when you remeber that Snape gave himself the nickname of "Half-Blood Prince" out of his own intellectual arrogance and pure-blood mania. Not exactly noble princely motivations.

Additionally, your suggestion that Harry is just as responsible for Dumbledore's death as Snape, who murdered him, reveals the motivation for so many people in the fandom trying to make a guilty Snape innocent. It looks like you are trying to put Harry and Snape on the same moral level in order to create some weird sort of gray mish-mash with no good or evil characters. But the supposition that Harry and Snape are on the same moral ground is ridiculous when put in the context of the story and shows that JKR, while providing flaws for all of her characters, has still shown us that there are good guys who have made good choices and bad guys who have made bad choices in this story.

So, while the parallels I made might not be literal they are certainly not wrong because I overlooked Snape's good intentions because he has none. He has shown and will continue to show that his only motivation is his own advancement in power and influence.

Now many people have suggested that Snape might have requested the Dark Lord to spare Lily because of a secret love for her; however, I suggest a scenario that fits right in with Machiavelli's ideal prince. What if Snape asked LV to spare Lily because Snape respects the power of Love, that the Dark Lord knows not, and knew it would rebound and incapacitate LV? This would allow Snape's other master, Dumbledore, to train the one that would finally defeat LV for good and clear the road for Snape's rise to power.

-From the editorial


The problem with this theory, that Snape set up Voldemort for some kind of fall, is that the Avada Kadavra had never been repulsed before. Ever. Snape had no idea that it would happen, and even if he somehow guessed it might happen, would he be willing to take that kind of chance? I just don't think so. I fall into the Snape felt something for Lily camp simply because there is no other logial explanation for how events came out.

Ever since that fateful scene at the thunderstruck tower, I've believed that Snape is on his own side. Before that, I thought he was a terrible person but, in the end, on the "right" side. However, I do not believe that Dumbledore asked him to murder him. Dumbledore would never ask someone to murder another, to split his soul. Snape could have chosen to act differently; he could have found a way to get himself, Dumbledore and Malfoy out of there without being killed. He seems to have made up his mind before arriving at the tower about what he was going to do. He came up from behind; he could have attacked the DE's from behind and taken Dumbledore and Draco. Of course, this would have meant irreversibly aligning himself with Dumbledore instead of Voldemort. However, he did not. He CHOSE to kill Dumbledore. It is our choices that define us.

BJTexan -- When I wrote "Dumbledore's request," I was referring to "Severus...please" and to nothing more.

As for the nickname, we have absolutely no evidence that Snape chose to call himself "the Half-Blood Prince" because of arrogance or pure-blood bigotry. In fact, that is only what Harry thinks about him after discovering his real identity. Prior to that, he was very passionate about defending the Prince and came up with a surprisingly lucid argument: why would 'the Prince' (only Harry and co. abbreviate it like this!:-) refer to himself as "half-blood" if he wanted to play up his pure-blood side? Can you imagine Voldemort calling himself "the Half-Blood King" or "the Half-Blood Gaunt"?? :D He would cringe at the mere mention of that word, let alone accept it in his name...

I'm from Bulgaria. Imagine that I'm half Bulgarian, half African, but that I'm really prejudiced against Black people, worship white Bulgarians, and call for white Bulgarian world domination. Would I ever call myself "The Mulatto Bulgarian"?... Snape's nickname reveals the Muggle heritage in a very blatant way.

We've discussed the "Half-Blood Prince" thing on the "Development of Snape's character" thread, and here are some additional ideas we came up with... you won't agree with them, of course, but I hope you won't see them as completely ridiculous either:
--unlike Riddle's, Snape's nickname is a pun on his very real family name (while "Voldemort" and "Lord" are false)
--again, unlike Voldy, Snape doesn't seem to have used the name in public... we have no evidence of either Death Eaters (Bella, Narcissa) or other guys (Lupin) knowing about it
--it is a private joke -- dark humor about himself -- a Prince who has absolutely nothing... (but is still a Prince and not a Snivellus! I see the nickname as a cry of revolt, a "label against labels")
--Snape keeps his father's name.

It looks like you are trying to put Harry and Snape on the same moral level

Yep, I think that's what I'm trying to do... (blasphemy!!;-) I think Snape is a "good guy" who made one very bad choice in the past and is not going to repeat it ever again. The theme of redemption is important and people do change, regardless of whether Harry wants to acknowledge that or not. Harry is still not fully mature, and we cannot reasonably expect him to understand everything. I see him at the moment as a "good guy" who runs the danger of making a bad choice... but not because he followed Dumbledore's orders and weakened him in the cave... rather, he runs the danger of sliding down the path of hatred and vengeance. Not exactly the way to vanquish Voldemort. What Snape has been trying to tell him is, "Don't be like your father," and "Don't be like the young, angry version of me"...

But I'll stop here because I really don't want to turn this into yet another discussion of Snape's loyalties!

I don't think that parallels with history or other works of literature can prove anything about Snape... people must have made their minds prior to that. Because exactly how you read the literary reference will depend on your preexisting notions of the character.

In the case of the cold-hearted Machiavellian Prince: is he a truthful replica of Snape? Or is he a partial replica of Snape?

Is he the real Snape? Or is he the reflection of Snape in Harry's eyes?

I think that your editorial provides a very fruitful, original topic to debate the above questions...

Snape could have chosen to act differently; he could have found a way to get himself, Dumbledore and Malfoy out of there without being killed.

He could have chosen to act differently... at the cost of several lives, including his own. When he entered the room and heard the Death Eater's comment, it was crystal clear that Draco had failed and the vow was in effect. Had Snape not killed Dumbledore, he would have probably dropped dead. After the fight with the ring horcrux, Snape had helped Dumbledore survive and get away with only a very bad hand injury... This time, Dumbledore's condition was horrific... with a dead Snape and several bloodthirsty Death Eaters around (including none other than Greyback), Dumbledore's fate would have been sealed. And then -- the Malfoys' fate, too. And surely there'd be a few more victims from Hogwarts, with no one to urge the attackers to retreat as quickly as possible... they seemed rather to enjoy it -- cursing people, setting Hagrid's hut on fire, Crucio-ing Harry, and so on.

(But I didn't resist the temptation not to debate too much on that...)

---
ETA:

I just wanted to add that in any event, the label "new Dark Lord" is too strong... I think that the following JKR quote (from the Melissa/Emerson interview, July 16, 2005) suggests that Rowling probably would not be going in that direction:

JKR: ...it's when people devote hours of their time to proving that Snape is a vampire that I feel it's time to step in, because there's really nothing in the canon that supports that.

ES: It's when you look for those things —

JKR: Yeah, it's after the 15th rereading when you have spots in front of your eyes that you start seeing clues about Snape being the Lord of Darkness. So, there are things I shut down just because I think, well, don't waste your time, there's better stuff to be debating, and even if it's wrong, it will probably lead you somewhere interesting. That's my rough theory anyway.

Loved your editorial BJ Texan.

I'm in 'the jury's still out' camp when it comes to Snape but I would not be surprised in the slightest if your theory came to be. Snape is a true Slytherin - his motives are driven by his own wants and desires.

As for the redemptive qualities of Snape - here's a except from an interview with Jo where that topic was brought up:


There’s an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape
JKR: He, um, there’s so much I wish I could say to you, and I can’t because it would ruin. I promise you, whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I’m slightly stunned that you’ve said that and you’ll find out why I’m so stunned if you read Book 7. That’s all I’m going to say.

Jo also warns of the problem many girls have of thinking they can tame the 'bad boy'......aka Draco Malfoy and Severus Snape. A phenomena that she has utilized beautifully to her advantage with her portrayals of these characters (and probably emphasised even more by the movie portrayals of Snape and Draco by Alan Rickman and Tom Felton respectively).

Whose side Snape will be on in the end is still unclear. What I believe is very, very clear, however, is that Snape is only doing what is good for Snape.... and as BJ Texan has surmised beautifully here - like Machiavelli's Prince - the question of what is right and what is wrong does not come into it!

I agree with Aluna that Fenrir (Ugh!) and the other deatheaters would have finished off Dumbledore and probably Draco (we know how Fenrir likes to get his fangs into young people). That would have been more torturous and horrible and once Dumbledore was dead Harry would probably have been discovered and finished off too. So, evil though Snape may be, he did a favour in a way by killing Dumbledore and taking over the attack therefore saving Harry and Draco, and himself too, come to think of it. Dumbledore was weak and possibly dying anyway and therefore quite defenseless even without his wand and as Snape couldn't try to save him with all the deatheaters looking on he had to finish him off humanely as possible.
Of course this is only speculation, but if Snape were really evil and on Voldemort's side wouldn't he have captured Harry and taken him to Voldie so Voldie could finish him off himself?
Time will tell when the last book comes out so I guess we'll all have to try and be patient and wait til then to find out which of all our theories (if any) are correct.
I think part of the Machiavelli Prince story may have some bearing but maybe not all of it. It may be merged with another Myth/Legend/Fairytale we haven't yet thought of.

Firstly thanks for the history lesson, it was very informative!

This was a very well written editorial and you argued your points very well. Ultimately JKR can write Snape as either a hero or a villian in book 7, the clues she has set up in HBP can take him either way. In the end it is up to her and we just have to trust her, as I'm sure we all do. However I think that you have identified some of her sources, it just depends how far she follows history

I was incredibly impressed by this editorial - one of the best written that I've read, and well supported both by HP canon and by Machiavelli too. I have my fingers crossed that you're wrong (simply because I don't want to make poor Harry face a new Dark Lord after defeating the old one!), but I actually wouldn't be surprised if you were right...certainly a twist!
Just with the parallel to General Severus - could it be read in reverse as well, in that Snape is offering his friendship to LV, and kills DD first before turning on LV? I agree that he's already played that card with DD, like you said, but he could be a double traitor...he'd certainly be only working for himself then.

- Sarah

This is probably the best editorial I have ever read on Mugglenet. I am in the "Snape is out for himself camp" so I guess you are preaching to the converted there.

However I am still a bit opened minded about Snape purely because JKR likes red herrings. It kind of reminds me about the recent finding of the new Book of Judas. Was his betrayal based on a order?

Very very good job!

Great editorial:clap: ! I must admit I am one of those who has never heard of this book "the prince" or of the author. (shame on me :no: )

When reading your explanation and especially in the part I quote here below, I kept on hearing this little bell in my head. The name Niger made me think of someone else: Nagina.

"From this story, we see all of Severus' ferocity and cunning. Additionally, the way this situation mirrors the situation of Severus Snape is quite eerie. Snape also has two main rivals, Albus (=Albinus) and LV (=Niger or black/evil). Also, we know Snape offered Albus friendship by turning to the Order and then sent LV to his "death" on his information on the prophecy. Then, just like the historical Severus, Snape betrays the trust of Albus/Albinus and murders him."

What I thought of was that Snape may be the one to kill Nagina. Thereby weakening Voldy (if Nagina is a horcrux) and thus helping Harry in killing LV.

Snape may count on being much stronger then Harry and therefor not seeing Harry as a treath. If he helps Harry to destroy Voldy, he will take the power as soon as Voldy is death. Just like you said.

Cheers,

Excellent editorial. I don't agree with every point you made, but you beefed up the references to Macchiavelli with so much evidence, I'm going to cite your editorial a lot in the future. I'm actually surprised that you seem to be the first to put the most important pointers together, because in summary, they prove beyond a doubt that Snape is meant to be a Macchiavellian character through and through.

I don't agree with your conclusion and the predictions about Snape's role in book 7, however. Jo seemed to find the idea that Snape would be the ueber-villain a bit funny in the interview with Melissa and Emerson.
JKR: Yeah, it's after the 15th rereading when you have spots in front of your eyes that you start seeing clues about Snape being the Lord of Darkness. So, there are things I shut down just because I think, well, don't waste your time, there's better stuff to be debating, and even if it's wrong, it will probably lead you somewhere interesting. That's my rough theory anyway.

I'm no expert in political theory, but I think Macchiavelli's principles have been challenged a lot - not just from a moralistic pov, but also their sheer effectiveness. The basic objection is that it's not a good long-term strategy, because people will eventually realize that you're not a reliable partner/ally. This happens to fit in nicely with my own view of Snape's character. I think he would really like to be the next Dark Lord, and imo his values are Macchiavellian (just look at what he calls weaknesses), but he's not going to manage it. The Unbreakable Vow was a huge tactical mistake. He was trying to strengthen his support basis among the other Death Eaters, especially the Malfoys, but Bellatrix and Narcissa didn't take his word for it that he's really going to help them. That's why they asked him to make a dangerous, binding vow, which subsequently limited his options and might even be his undoing (There's some textual evidence to support this: the fox - symbolizing Snape - being killed by Bellatrix in an off-hand manner, the title of the chapter 'Spinner's End' which could refer to the end of Snape's career as a spinner of webs/intrigues, in the vow scene the second tongue of flame is described as a chain - a symbol of enslavement perhaps, while the final tongue is described as a rope or a fiery snake - I take the rope as a symbol of the hangman's rope, the snake as a symbol of Voldemort; although I'm not entirely sure about the meaning of the latter; maybe Snape's third vow ultimately is in Voldemort's best interests).

In a way, the Unbreakable Vow is a direct result of his allies' lack of trust, so Snape's unreliability is already a huge problem for him. The only one who trusted him was Dumbledore, and he has to emphasize this fact a lot, because the other Order members only choose to trust him because Dumbledore vouched for him.
The problem with this theory, that Snape set up Voldemort for some kind of fall, is that the Avada Kadavra had never been repulsed before. Ever. Snape had no idea that it would happen, and even if he somehow guessed it might happen, would he be willing to take that kind of chance? I just don't think so. I fall into the Snape felt something for Lily camp simply because there is no other logial explanation for how events came out.
I agree. Well, not with the Snape loved Lily theory, but the first part. It is very unlikely that anybody could have figured out what would happen in Godric's Hollow. Not even as an off-chance good enough to place a risky bet on.

Great editorial, but I have a thought that I would like others to discuss/ponder:

"He who is the cause of another's greatness is himself undone."
(Machiavelli pg. 8)

This one gives me pause because as Snape is making his escape, he is 'schooling' Harry about closing his mind and controlling his emotions. Could it be that these comments will enable Harry to overcome the Voldemort and, subsequently, Snape?

best editorial i ve ever read on this page(i ve read all since the release of hbp), congratulations and thanks for sharing

This one gives me pause because as Snape is making his escape, he is 'schooling' Harry about closing his mind and controlling his emotions. Could it be that these comments will enable Harry to overcome the Voldemort and, subsequently, Snape?

Well...is he really teaching Harry to close his mind???

It did not seem to work out well. Did Snape really want to teach Harry the subject? Ofcourse we read the events through Harry's eyes, however would Snape not have tried to be more patient with Harry if he really meant to get the message across.

Snape can be "nice" as we see how he treats Malfoy.. (ofcourse this still being Harry's point of view)

Being nice usually helps to get a message across..

Just think about it.

Cheers,

Renata

:D Fabulous editorial. There is certainly a similarity to be observed. Bravo:clap: I lean towards the idea Snape is out for Snape. Is it a coincidence the group of murauders are being picked off ? :eyebrows: There are hints Snape allowed James to die and Sirus to stay in prison. He very well may have planted the seed with Sirius to go to MoM. Information was leaked out that Lupin is a werewolf. So at the very least he is using his position to get even. Following the path of the Fox he can not be held directly responsible. I am however not convinced that Snape's intentions are Evil in the larger picture. Time will tell.

Wow. I'm impressed.

This is a great angle to look at Snape! I'm not so sure if Snape will rise as a new Dark Lord (if that should happen too, the book would be longer than OOTP for sure), but we'll see...
Very convincing!

I for one was going with the idea that we are never going to really know what side Snape is on. Although I am highly impressed with this editorial. It sure makes sense now on why Peter is with Snape, doesn't peter hang with whom ever he thinks is the biggest bully on the playground?

That is a very interesting idea on the Fox. We were discussing the importance if any, of the fox in that scene with BElla and Cissy, on a thread.
It also makes me think that we may have another twist to the prophecy. How many Dark LOrds have there been and to come? what makes us so sure that the Dark Lord mentioned in the Prophecy is LV? I know DD's thinks so and that is what he tells Harry, but if Snape is playing everyone, it could add up to him instead.
I am going to have to rethink my Snape Theories now.... gee thanks... And I was supposed to clean house today... oh darn! LOL

It also makes me think that we may have another twist to the prophecy. How many Dark LOrds have there been and to come? what makes us so sure that the Dark Lord mentioned in the Prophecy is LV? I know DD's thinks so and that is what he tells Harry, but if Snape is playing everyone, it could add up to him instead.
I am going to have to rethink my Snape Theories now.... gee thanks... And I was supposed to clean house today... oh darn! LOL

:drool: OOOH how delicious. I can see it now; Voldemort defeated and Snape as the DARK LORD of the prophacy that Harry defeats. :wow: What a twist :whistle: Please elaborate.I LOVE IT.

The links between Machiavelli, and Snape are old news to those who frequent the DevSev thread. Three or four months old actually. In fact there are many other parralels with the Prince in literature which were covered extensively on that amazing thread. So congratulations on being the last to pick up on this.

Overall, this editorial proposes the rather tired idea that Snape is out for himself, and that he is somehow planing to usurp the position held by the Dark Lord. :td:

The books do not scan when read with this in mind, but if this somewhat convoluted read of things makes you comfortable......

Great editorial, but I have a thought that I would like others to discuss/ponder:

"He who is the cause of another's greatness is himself undone."

I think that quote really shows the main problem with Macchiavelli's philosophy: He doesn't believe at all in the win-win principle, on any levels. Even if he recommends the prince to be seen as religious, virtuous and all the rest of it, it's meant to be a show. The whole system is an intellectual rejection of the idea of altruism, it's seen as stupidity, a weakness. And that's not at all good advice, because it basically requires the one and only person on top to manipulate everybody else. But in order to efficiently manipulate people, you've got to always be in control of the situation, and that's not possible, imo.

The Macchiavellian type is a prime example of the hybris of the intellect. In the absence of real morality, they judge people on whether or not they're useful or dangerous to them, or whether they don't matter at all. That determines how they treat them. One of the biggest mistakes a Macchiavellian character can make is to treat someone as insignificant who might pose a real danger to them. And people who put so much emphasis on the rational side of humanity, while at the same time they despise traits like loyalty, real principles, love... are bound to make errors of judgement in that respect.

If you apply that to Snape, it'd make sense for him to really think that Harry is a mediocre wizard. That's one of the reasons why I'm sure he was simply taunting him in 'Flight of the Prince' (among others; the basic objection I got with the teaching interpretation is that it doesn't make sense; Snape's had ample opportunity to teach Occlumency and non-verbal spells to Harry already).

The links between Machiavelli, and Snape are old news to those who frequent the DevSev thread. Three or four months old actually. In fact there are many other parralels with the Prince in literature which were covered extensively on that amazing thread. So congratulations on being the last to pick up on this.

Overall, this editorial proposes the rather tired idea that Snape is out for himself, and that he is somehow planing to usurp the position held by the Dark Lord. :td:

The books do not scan when read with this in mind, but if this somewhat convoluted read of things makes you comfortable......
Well, you can't really expect people to read the stuff on the DevSev, or as I prefer to call it, the Sirius-bashing thread. It's one of those threads where the most outlandishly biased ideas go unchallenged because you need to have your mind already made up to participate in the discussion.:p

The various references to Macchiavelli's prince are indeed not that new, but I haven't seen an analysis so far where they're explored in detail and taken seriously at the same time. If you can provide a better one, why don't you post the link?

Brilliant!

I don't even care if JKR will write the end as you mention it. This editorial is probably in my top-5, even if JKR decides that Snape's "reign" is to live another day than become minister of Magic.

As for the nickname, we have absolutely no evidence that Snape chose to call himself "the Half-Blood Prince" because of arrogance or pure-blood bigotry. In fact, that is only what Harry thinks about him after discovering his real identity. Prior to that, he was very passionate about defending the Prince and came up with a surprisingly lucid argument: why would 'the Prince' (only Harry and co. abbreviate it like this!:-) refer to himself as "half-blood" if he wanted to play up his pure-blood side? Can you imagine Voldemort calling himself "the Half-Blood King" or "the Half-Blood Gaunt"?? He would cringe at the mere mention of that word, let alone accept it in his name...
When Snape chose the term 'Half-Blood Prince' as a nickname, he could already have been aware of the fact that Voldemort was a half-blood himself, and yet all the pure-blood supremacists licked the dust from his shoes. If Snape wasn't well accepted inside Slytherin house because of his blood-status, the choice of this nickname could also indicate a certain measure of defiance against people like Bellatrix Black or the Malfoys. If Snape found out that Riddle was Voldemort's real name, it can't have been that difficult to get some background information on him (from people like Slughorn e.g.). He could have found solace and hope in the idea that the Dark Lord must see the prejudices he himself has to suffer from as a stupid principle and hence a weakness that can be used to exploit all those influential people. I wouldn't be surprised if a perceived similarity with Voldemort was one of the reasons Snape chose to join the Death Eaters in the first place.

Good editorial, but I disagree with its conclusions. I feel it is shaky ground to try and explain the characters in Harry Potter books based on other books, especially when there are so many clues already hidden in the HP books themselves. I have no doubt JKR is familiar with Machiavelli, but it would be rather disappointing if any character were to be drawn so directly from any external source - and anyway, Voldemort is surely a better candidate for The Prince? For one thing, we know that he seeks power and believes that "there is no good or evil, only power and those too weak to seek it". With Snape, his motivation is a lot less clear, and certainly hunger for power does not seem to be his driving principle (I am sure he could achieve a loftier position than a teacher at Hogwarts, and even there we do not see him angling for detuty headmaster's job for example).

If we try to predict what Snape will do next, we should look for clues in the books themselves. And, red herings notwithstanding, the clues are clear. If you look carefully you will see that all the books so far follow the same structural principle: all important events are previewed and explained well before they happen, so that when an important event does occur, the reader can follow it without any problem. Think for example of the Mirror of Erised, which Harry discovers well in advance and learns how to use, before it finally plays its vital plot role. Or when Harry and the Weasleys use the portkey to travel to the World Cup so that we understand what happens when Harry and Cedric touch the Trivizard Cup and get transported to the graveyard. At the same time, there is very little extraneous information - there simply isn't space to go into stuff that in not material to the plot.

So, rather than looking to other books for parallels, we should look at the things that JKR has already set up (especially in Book 6) that have yet to play a plot role. I see at least three such "loaded guns", of which one in my opinion has to do with Snape. I refer of course to the Unbreakable Vow. Why do we need the UV in book six? From the plot point of view, we don't: Snape would have looked after Draco just as well without the vow, because he is Snape's friend's son, because Darco is Snape's student (and Snape looks after students' safety, even Harry's), and, finally, because Dumbledore has told him to. Nor does the vow make any sense as an explanation of Snape's killing Dumbledore: the fact that his own life was at stake does not make him less of a traitor from the Order's point of view (they all would have died for Dumbledore). So why does JKR introduce the concept of the Unbreakable Vow, and with such detail? We actually learn than three people are involved in the contract (which is also extraneous to the plot so far), that you die if you break it, etc. The only possible reason for all this is if the Vow play a key plot role in the final book, and I would suggest that this role is that Snape has concluded an Unbreakable Vow with Dumbledore to fight against Voldemort. That explains why Dumbledore would trust him. (Note that this vow would not stop Snape from killing Dumbledore as long as it was done to continue Snape's struggle against Voldemort). That also explains why we need three people to be present at the making of the Vow: with Dumbledore dead, who would believe Snape such a vow ever existed, so he would need a reliable witness if he tries to re-establish his relationship with the Order (and that is crucial for defeating Voldemort). I think that witness is Aberforth, he just fits the role (Dumbledore's brother, Order member, yet we have never heard him talk, and other Order members keep little contact with him, so we just don't know what he might know)

So you see, looking at the text of the HP books I come to quite the opposite conclusion to that of the editorial, but I guess we'll have to wwait and see what happens.

In case you are wondering, the other two "loaded guns" I have notices are Slughorn's memory and Harry inheriting Kreature. The hole to do with Slughorn's poorly modified memory can have only one point, namely, to demonstrate that memories cannot be modified and can be used as objective evidence. This about it: the plot would not have changed at all if Slughorn had simply refused to give Dumbledore his memory to begin with. Yet Slughorn is a powerful wizard, so if he cannot modify his memory convincingly, it's probably impossible. So, Harry will know that he can fully rely on the information he extracts from the Pensieve when he looks fr Horcruxes in Book 7. Perhaps that would be another method confirming Snape's allegiance to the cause of defeting Voldemort. As for Kreature, if his only plot role (in the last two books I mean) were to establish that the house had passed on to Harry, we should never see him again. Yet Harry sends him to Hogwarts and even tries to employ him - even though he already has a much more willing and effective assistant in Dobby! Clearly, we'll see him again - and probably not just because he's hidden the locket, but because he knows a lot of other information that Harry needs to discover. Especially in RAB is indeed Regulus Black - remember that other so far useless bit of information about only one wizard being able to cross the lake, and Harry not counting because he is not an adult wizard? I bet elves don't count either.

Anyway, sorry it was a bit long, and I did enjoy the editorial, I just object to placing too much importance on external parallels. The whole logic of the seven books is that everything should make sense from the point of view of the internal logic of the story, and that shoud give us clues enough to guess at the final installment.

The connections between Machiavelli and people in the wizarding world at Hogwarts is much broader than Severus Snape -- it's all of the Slytherins, as the Sorting Hat tells it in one of it's rhymes (Slytherins will use any means to achieve their ends).
And I think Severus Snape is far more complex than Machiavelli's Prince. Severus, I believe, has a very deep well of emotion (that includes longing for love) that he very carefully controls. But he doesn't control his thoughts and feelings to attain power. He does this to protect himself. He's led a very abused life.

No, I think there's quite a bit more to Severus than a desire for power. Now Malfoy, Draco Malfoy, there's a boy who would love to take The Prince out of the library and do some studying!

This was a well-written essay with a clear theme, but there have been other essays about Machiavelli from people here on the forums that I think hit the mark more closely - for instance Auror Williamson's wonderful essay comparing Cornelius Fudge to Machiavelli in the book The Plot Thickens - and written when he was about 14 years old. :tu: :)

Fudge, to me, will always be the true Machiavellian ~ ruthless, out for himself, afraid of losing his power, and trying to get rid of Dumbledore by doing nothing about the next rise of Voldemort.

As for my other points, I'll just quote Aluna, who summed up my own feelings perfectly:

I agree with many of the comparisons to Machiavelli's ideal prince, but I disagree with the interpretation. Snape is a "lion" and a "fox," but that does not mean that he is cruel or that he uses his intelligence to pursue a hidden, evil agenda. The lion in Snape resembles the lion in Harry -- brave, proud, and quite scary when he's been angered. The lion in Snape assures a quiet classroom and gallons of sweat over difficult essays. The lion in Snape demands, and deserves, respect. The fox is that gift of cunning which allows him to say that "the Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when someone is lying to him" (italics mine)...
The symbolism of the fox is that he is a survivor even in harsh circumstances, as is the fox killed ruthlessly by Bella Lestrange in Chapter 2.

Foxes are not always negative in literature, as you can see by reading my signature from Exupery's The Little Prince, which I think is closer to the philosophy of Harry Potter than anything Machiavelli wrote.

I was reminded of this again while watching the dvd of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe - a book JKR has read and enjoyed as a child. The fox is mistrusted by the followers of Aslan because he is "almost a wolf." But that is deceptive. He is able to fool the wolves because he is almost one of them, but not quite, and he helps the children and the beavers escape by being a decoy and spreading some mistruths.

As for Machiavelli's favorite historical character, Septimius Severus, and the Albinus/Niger story in particular -- I think the parallel is an anti-parallel... At the very least, it's an "anti-parallel" to how the famous 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon viewed Severus. My favorite theory (it was discussed on another thread) is that Rowling is using "Gibbon" imagery to kick that Gibbon out of the way. In OotP -- that is, before the death of Sirius Black, or "Niger" -- Harry turned upside down his portrait which looked like a gibbon. In HBP, right before Dumbledore's death (Albus, or "Albinus"), Gibbon the Death Eater was killed by a stray curse. This is only speculation, but it's neat. Rowling undoubtedly uses historical parallels, but she adds a spin to them -- like she does with a lot of the mythology she borrows... with everything she "borrows," in fact. The Machiavellian parallel works, but as a sort of weird 'reflection' rather than a literal reenactment of history or of Machiavelli's personal philosophy. The power-greedy, dark Severus is just the reflection of Snape in Harry's eyes... but reflections go no deeper than the surface...
Again, not trusting your eyes is the theme of the fox in The Little Prince (a book which is called "Regulus" in French, because "Regulus" means "Little King" in Latin - thus giving us another Prince reference with R. A. B.)

Harry jumps to the conclusion that Snape and Voldemort are interchangeable bad guys, making the false comparison that "Prince" is a "title" that Snape has taken on to "play up the Pureblood side."

But Harry is wrong, as Harry often is.

Prince is a family name - a wizarding name, true - but Snape isn't "self-titled." If anything, his name for himself is self-derision with the term Half-Blood in front of it.

And Snape has kept his Muggle Father's name, which is a quantum leap from Voldemort, who killed his father and grandfather, and framed his uncle for murder. There is no canon that Snape did that, and if he did, why would he keep his father's name? Barty Crouch is another character who has let his mother die in prison for him, killed his own father, and become the opposite of everything his father believed in. Why would JKR need to use Snape to show that point again?

Snape's nickname "The Half-Blood Prince" is brilliant and alludes to a number of well-known books and ideas (and fairy tales, too) -- not just The Prince. If Machiavelli is taken too literally, that leaves no room for all those other allusions. It also takes away the beauty of the difference between the "Half-Blood Prince" and "Lord Voldemort." "Prince," inasmuch as it's neither a hereditary title nor a made-up name, has in fact some very positive connotations. For one, a prince succeeds to the throne after the king's death -- I don't think the "king" in our case is the Dark "Lord"; I think it's the one who is a king in spirit and character: Dumbledore.
That's one thing this essay did for me - it reminded me of all the other "Prince" references in many other books that are just as well-known to JKR:

The Prince and the Pauper by Mark Twain, in which a Prince learns not to inflict suffering on others, and the Pauper has luxury for the first time in his life. Even the sound of the title sounds like "Prince and the Potter."

The Little Prince by Antoine du St. Exupery, in which a Prince loves a flower (ahem, . . . fill in your favorite flower - lily, narcissa, whatever), has conversations with a snake and a fox. A book full of simple truth worthy of Dumbledore.

The Fairy Tales of E. Nesbit - JKR's favorite writer and the one she claims to be closest to, because of Nesbit's unsentimental view of children.
Complete Works of E. Nesbit Here (http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/search?author=edith+nesbit&amode=words)

In the book, The Magic World (http://www.forgottenfutures.com/game/ff8/mworld.htm), check out the story Septimus Septimusson, about a boy who saves a Princess from blindness.

And I have to say, that though E. Nesbit's stories are not "classical" in the sense of Machiavelli, they are full of truths about the way the world really works. At the end, of Septimus Septimusson, the King says that "Sep" should be his son now, and instead the boy introduces him to his real father, an old fisherman. Then the story ends on a very Rowlingesque note:



So they all went back by way of the foreign country where Sep had found his Princess, and they called on the old lord. He had lost his hump, and they easily persuaded him to come with them.

'You can help me reign if you like, or we have a nice book or two in the palace library,' said the Mussel King.

'Thank you,' said the old lord, 'I'll come and be your librarian if I may. Reigning isn't at all in my line.'

Then they went on to Sep's father-in-law, and when he saw how happy they all were together he said:

'Bless my beard but I've half a mind to come with you.'

'Come along,' said the Mussel King, 'you shall help me reign if you like . . . or. . . .'

'No, thank you,' said the other King very quickly, 'I've had enough of reigning. My kingdom can buy a President and be a republic if it likes. I'm going to catch butterflies.'

And so he does, most happily, up to this very minute.

And Sep and his dear Princess are as happy as they deserve to be. Some people say we are all as happy as we deserve to be - but I am not sure.


Also check out "The Princess and the Hedge Pig" in which a Baker's Boy is a "prince in disguise," which could be told at the age of nine.

Finally, we can't avoid comparisons with "Prince Caspian" by C. S. Lewis, whose character also shows up "Voyage of the Dawn Treader." Prince Caspian is Prince without a country, who is trying to get back to the old magic of Narnia. The whole theme of the book, much like The Little Prince, is having faith in "things you can't see," much like Luna Lovegood. In fact the character of "Lucy Pevensie" is the embodiment of hope and faith in that book.

That's enough for now, but I guess I made my point. :) There isn't just one source for the idea of a Half-Blood Prince.

This is a very good editorial. Kinda goes along with PN's statement in OoTP that Slytherins will always save themselves first.

Is the book you reference something that could be checked out of the Library? Sounds like some interesting reading.

It's one of those threads where the most outlandishly biased ideas go unchallenged because you need to have your mind already made up to participate in the discussion.:p


But -- otherwise you get stuck with Evil Snape/Good Snape/Out for Himself... for the rest of your life! Alright, I meant until 2007. Boring. :p

I daresay people are able to come up with some pretty cool stuff (call it biased) once they've agreed on at least the basics... And sometimes friendly discussions are a lot more productive than fiercely antagonistic ones. Hence the success of "Dev of Sev" and "Snape: the Bad." Of course, "Snape's Betrayal" is hugely popular, too, but it doesn't suit everybody's taste for months and months on. Plus, I have yet to see an example of a person who was converted by 'the Other Side.'

One problem I see with being overly enthusiastic about Machiavelli's macabre aspects is that one risks to miss the other 'Prince' references that are out there. If one were able to predict Snape's future path solely by reading Machiavelli, there would be little reason for JKR to be as proud of her book title as she claims to be. My feeling is that Rowling has an extremely high personal standard for multiple layers in a name or a title... if she's very, very pleased with herself, then beware!...all of us!

Here are a few other suggestions we could throw in...most of them at least as popular as The Prince:

-princes and princesses in fairy tales -- waking people up; being awaken (we're still waiting to see some development with the Draught of Living Death); frogs/Beasts/Nutcrackers/weird-creature-you-name-it turning into handsome princes

-Prince Siddhartha (the Buddha) and Wilde's "Happy Prince" about opening their eyes to the reality beyond the walls of their pleasure palaces; providing anonymous help (in the case of "The Happy Prince")

-The Little Prince -- more of a general reference to the book; I see a lot of parallels between the Little Prince and Harry in particular (and I do see Snape as that fox), but I think they're too outlandish to post here

-The Prince and the Pauper -- The Prince and the Potter being a pun on it (inversion of identities--the rich boy and the poor boy--James and Snape)

-a not very famous one... but JKR seems to like Ray Bradbury...: Truffaut's film Fahrenheit 451 and a very ragged "book person" who shakes hands with Montag and tells him, "I am The Prince by Machiavelli. As you can see, you can't judge a book by its cover." (Isn't the Prince's book -- and its cover -- a central metaphor in HBP?)

-Prince William (no, scratch that:-)

From various sources, I've collected about ten different meanings for "Severus Snape" as well; all of them are quite logical, but none of them, with the exception of Emperor Severus (his 18th-century assessment by Gibbon, especially), suggest a necessarily bad person...

PS Oh, I can't believe!!! Silver ink, you're here and you just posted about the fox! Wait, I have to read it...

---
ETA:
altap: Excellent post!

Wow, this editorial is brilliant. My brother actually came up with a very similiar theory before book six came out, but we never posted it online. Too bad. But I'm kind of glad someone else came up with it. If Snape is really the bad guy of the piece, all I can say is: Poor, poor, poor Harry. He's toast.

I think this is a good editorial. Even those who loathe Snape cannot help but see that he has "played" both sides all along--both for and against Voldemort and Dumbledore, to suit his own purpose. And I do believe that Snape THNIKS he is smarter than Voldemort, and could easily believe that Snape has it in mind to overthrow Voldemort if he gets the chance.
I was leaning toward Snape's patronus being a spider, since he does live in Spinner's end and some references to spiders have been associated with him, but I hardly think how knowing he is a spider would "give things away" which is why Jo hasnt revealed it yet. But a fox would be a more revealing choice, as you say.
the only thing that kind of sets this theory back is that Snape still seems to be protective of Harry, and he has to be redeemed in the end, Im almost possitive of that because of all of the hints Jo has laid out.

But -- otherwise you get stuck with Evil Snape/Good Snape/Out for Himself... for the rest of your life! Alright, I meant until 2007. Boring.

I daresay people are able to come up with some pretty cool stuff (call it biased) once they've agreed on at least the basics... And sometimes friendly discussions are a lot more productive than fiercely antagonistic ones. Hence the success of "Dev of Sev" and "Snape: the Bad." Of course, "Snape's Betrayal" is hugely popular, too, but it doesn't suit everybody's taste for months and months on. Plus, I have yet to see an example of a person who was converted by 'the Other Side.'

Yeah, well, nobody likes to be converted. You got a point that the Snape discussion as a whole is so factionalized (is that a word?) that it is almost necessary to agree on a few basics in order to get some in-depth discussion going. But imo that's a very bad sign, because there's the danger that those basic assumptions turn into accepted truths in the in-group and the evidence against them gets explained away, neglected, ridiculed and so on. It's not a very productive situation. I can honestly say that my interpretation of Snape as a character changed a lot during the last few months through discussions on this forum. But my basic view of his position on the good/bad/out for himself scale wasn't affedted that much. As a matter of fact, I came to the conclusion that that question is very much over-rated, because in the heat of that debate other - equally possible interpretations - never had a chance and questions worth asking were only timidly asked and soon forgotten. For example: I haven't seen many theories that really ask the question whether Snape actually knows what he's doing. Most of the time, it's simply taken for granted that Snape is somebody who is in control of his actions, functioning according to plan. That's something that is not related to the question of his ultimate allegiance, therefore it doesn't make good fodder in a pitched battle about his placement in heaven or hell. Hence, that aspect is very much neglected. Personally, I think it's a highly relevant question, imo it's the key to his character that he's someone severely out of tune with his own emotions. And someone with a very skewed view on what the really important things in life are. He's a great mixture of tragic, despicable, sad, ridiculous and surreal elements. That's why I don't like the front lines on the Snape debate: they're missing the point. Snape's real loyalties are so irrelevant (that's a very Macchiavellian feature btw, just to stay on topic).

Hmm... I don't know. It seems to me that those kind of questions do get asked and answered a lot on the 'partial' threads (at least on Dev of Sev, I'm not really familiar with the other one)... precisely because people agree on the question of Snape's loyalties. But I admit that there are some disadvantages to only sticking with your group of people -- that's why I came over here today, haha.

But, for the record, I can't see how Snape's loyalties are irrelevent. Quite the contrary, they are at the heart of the story -- and are important in the context of Harry's coming-to-age. To me, it boils down to "Is Harry right to hate and disrespect Snape?" and, "Does this novel have a 100% reliable narrator?"

The reason I don't buy Amoral!Snape or Machiavellian!Snape is because I don't see just what Snape's motivations would be, based on his character as laid out in all six books. I don't think Snape drifts around like a paper boat... I believe him very focused and very strongly motivated to bring Voldemort down. But of course, it's hard to argue if we're not analyzing a specific scene.

I can honestly say that my interpretation of Snape as a character changed a lot during the last few months through discussions on this forum. But my basic view of his position on the good/bad/out for himself scale wasn't affedted that much.

Yeah, same for me. I believe my understanding of his character gained a lot of depth... and now I have an entire notebook filled with notes, and lots of it is on Snape :). I really like Dev of Sev, even just reading it -- sorry to hear that you don't. :( And I believe that whenever a 'doubter' like you shows up, s/he doesn't get kicked out; people do offer argumentation and don't yell at each other. I really like that. But I got completely off topic... *hides* ;-)

But, for the record, I can't see how Snape's loyalties are irrelevent. Quite the contrary, they are at the heart of the story -- and are important in the context of Harry's coming-to-age. To me, it boils down to "Is Harry right to hate and disrespect Snape?" and, "Does this novel have a 100% reliable narrator?"

The reason I don't buy Amoral!Snape or Machiavellian!Snape is because I don't see just what Snape's motivations would be, based on his character as laid out in all six books. I don't think Snape drifts around like a paper boat... I believe him very focused and very strongly motivated to bring Voldemort down. But of course, it's hard to argue if we're not analyzing a specific scene.
The assumption that Snape's true motivations are going to be important to the plot is one of the things that are taken for granted, but never proved. It's perfectly possible that his technical role in the plot is done with, but the significance of his role in the overall pictue has yet to be put into perspective.

I can't see Harry killing Voldemort early in the book, he has been the villian for 7 years he can not just die half way through book 7. I like the ideas however, maybe voldemort and Snape will end up fighting eachother and Snape will help Harry defeat Voldemort only to move himself higher up. And then Snape will turn against Harry, this too follows the story Machiavelli brings up, turning to help someone defeat someone else, and then turning on that person, however i do not feel that this time Severus will prevail.

I truly enjoyed this editorial as one of the most innovative there have been on Mugglenet in a awhile. There wasn't a lot of ridiculous thoery and it paid close attention to canon.
I also believe that this editorial is credible because it relies on a source that Jo almost definitely read or is familiar with. This wouldn't be the first time she makes an allusion to an out side soure. She frequently uses mythology and Shakespeare and such so I can see Machiavelli fitting in.

It has long been my opinion that Snape is out for himself, and is essentially using Harry to defeat Voldemort. This editorial makes me feel even more sure about this. I have read bits and pieces of The Prince, and the analysis in this editorial seems sound. The story of the general was such a good bit of research. The idea that the very end of the story will be Harry fighting Snape, not Voldemort would be absolutely brilliant! Great editorial!

My feeling is that Rowling has an extremely high personal standard for multiple layers in a name or a title... if she's very, very pleased with herself, then beware!...all of us!
:lol: I know I'm scared! :scared:

Here are a few other suggestions we could throw in...most of them at least as popular as The Prince:

-princes and princesses in fairy tales -- waking people up; being awaken (we're still waiting to see some development with the Draught of Living Death); frogs/Beasts/Nutcrackers/weird-creature-you-name-it turning into handsome princes
Yep - see my previous post about E. Nesbit. :agree:
-Prince Siddhartha (the Buddha) and Wilde's "Happy Prince" about opening their eyes to the reality beyond the walls of their pleasure palaces; providing anonymous help (in the case of "The Happy Prince")
Good ones! :)

There is also the really old story called "The Little Lame Prince," by Dinah Mulock, in which a Prince is dropped as a child and crippled. His name is "Dolor" and his mother's name is Princess Dolorez! :scared:
Story Text (http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/MulLitt.html)

-The Little Prince -- more of a general reference to the book; I see a lot of parallels between the Little Prince and Harry in particular (and I do see Snape as that fox), but I think they're too outlandish to post here

-The Prince and the Pauper -- The Prince and the Potter being a pun on it (inversion of identities--the rich boy and the poor boy--James and Snape)
I totally agree - see my last post! :) Although I did write down some of the outlandish things about The Little Prince.

The other thing about The Prince and the Pauper is the little twist on the story. Snape - a half-blood who comes from a humble background - is the Prince, though his clothes are gray, he is a Prince, not a Pauper. James is the "rare treasure" and only child of his Pureblood Parents, yet he is not the Prince.

The parallel of Snape is Harry - the cupboard boy wearing Vernon's old socks, who has never had anything till he came to Hogwarts. Draco is the "Pampered Prince," and the parallel to only-child pureblood James.

I think JKR is playing with all that.

-a not very famous one... but JKR seems to like Ray Bradbury...: Truffaut's film Fahrenheit 451 and a very ragged "book person" who shakes hands with Montag and tells him, "I am The Prince by Machiavelli. As you can see, you can't judge a book by its cover." (Isn't the Prince's book -- and its cover -- a central metaphor in HBP?)
Great Catch, Aluna! :) For those who haven't read Farenheit 451, books have been banned in the future, and each person tries to memorize one book - Snape obviously has memorized his Potions Book, written by "The Prince."

Recently, JKR wrote a list of "Ten Books Every Child Should Read" - and here is her list:

http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/services/education/youthlit/readalert/index.php/2006/02/03/the-full-lists/

J. K. ROWLING
Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
David Copperfield by Charles Dickens
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Tale of Two Bad Mice by Beatrix Potter
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
Hamlet by William Shakespeare

I see from that we can add "Prince Hamlet." :lol: "Hamlet" at "Hogwarts."

Also, Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights has often been compared to Snape, and the story is set in Yorkshire where the Bronte sisters grew up in Haworth, a milltown similar to Spinner's End.

Quote from Wuthering Heights ~ Chapter 7:

Oh, Heathcliff, you are showing a poor spirit! Come to the glass, and I'll let you see what you should wish. Do you mark those two lines between your eyes; and those thick brows, that, instead of rising arched, sink in the middle; and that couple of black fiends, so deeply buried, who never open their windows boldly, but lurk glinting under them, like devil's spies? . . .

And now that we've done washing, and combing, and sulking - tell me whether you don't think yourself rather handsome? I'll tell you, I do. You're fit for a prince in disguise. Who knows but your father was Emperor of China, and your mother an Indian queen, each of them able to buy up, with one week's income, Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange together? And you were kidnapped by wicked sailors and brought to England. Were I in your place, I would frame high notions of my birth;

From various sources, I've collected about ten different meanings for "Severus Snape" as well; all of them are quite logical, but none of them, with the exception of Emperor Severus (his 18th-century assessment by Gibbon, especially), suggest a necessarily bad person...
Yes, all those "Saint Severuses" - another uninteresting thing we talk about on Dev of Sev. :rolleyes:



http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saints0i.htm

SEVERUS of Avranches

Patronage
against fever; against migraine; drapers; fever; hatmakers; hatters; migraine; milliners; silk workers; weavers; wool manufacturers; wool weavers (spinners, perhaps?)

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saints54.htm

Saint Severinus

Also known as Severino

Memorial 8 January (Snape's Birthday ~ Jan 9th)

Profile
Roman nobility. Gave away his wealth to live as a hermit in the Egyptian desert. Though he loved the quiet and contemplative life, he felt a call to evangelize, and he followed it.

http://www.forgottenfutures.com/game/ff8/mworld.htm

"Septimus Septimusson" by E. Nesbit

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14395/14395-h/14395-h.htm#CHAPTER_I

Novel: Septimus by John Locke

The story begins in a house in Nunsmere, Surrey. A young widow named Zora later meets a man named "Mordaunt Prince" who is described thusly:

Zora rose in protest. "The whole human race is man-mad! Even mother. I think everybody is detestable!"

The maid announced "Mr. Mordaunt Prince," and a handsome man with finely cut, dark features and black hair parted in the middle and brushed tightly back over the head, entered the room.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8sept10h.htm

Novel: Septimius Felton, or The Elixer of Life by Nathaniel Hawthorne, which concerns a hopeless love triangle between a bookish, Puritanical boy named Septimus, a girl named Rose and her boyfriend, Robert Hagburn. There is also a gypsy/seer type named Sibyll Dacy.

. . . As for Septimius, let him alone a moment or two, and then they would see him, with his head bent down, brooding, brooding, his eyes fixed on some chip, some stone, some common plant, any commonest thing, as if it were the clew and index to some mystery; . . .

Septimius entered his house, and turning to the right sat down in his study, where, before the fireplace, stood the table with books and papers. On the shelves around the low-studded walls were more books, few in number but of an erudite appearance, many of them having descended to him from learned ancestors . . . and poor Septimius spent the rest of the day, as was his wont, poring over his books, in which all the meanings seemed dead and mouldy, and like pressed leaves (some of which dropped out of the books as he opened them)



PS Oh, I can't believe!!! Silver ink, you're here and you just posted about the fox! Wait, I have to read it...
We are certainly on the same wavelength, Aluna! Synchronized Posting! :)

Really insightful editorial. I enjoyed it immensely. Sure gives us something else to ponder with Snape concerned.

silver ink pot, you're an endless source of information. I haven't read Wuthering Heights yet, although it's been on my list for quite a while. :blush: I saw the movie some years ago.

Roman nobility. Gave away his wealth to live as a hermit in the Egyptian desert.

It is just eerie that the Egyptian desert is mentioned because I've been nurturing some related thoughts lately... I'll let them brew for a while, though.

Novel: Septimius Felton, or The Elixer of Life by Nathaniel Hawthorne, which concerns a hopeless love triangle between a bookish, Puritanical boy named Septimus, a girl named Rose and her boyfriend, Robert Hagburn. There is also a gypsy/seer type named Sibyll Dacy.


:tu: I do believe Rowling has made several winks to Nathaniel Hawthorne... he was from Salem, after all! :) In The Blithedale Romance, there's an old man called Moodie who wears a patch over his eye. In The House of the Seven Gables, there's an old maid by the name of Hepzibah Pyncheon who we watch in her pathetic attempts to beautify herself, like Hepzibah Smith from HBP. She also belongs to a distinguished family and is nostalgic about the "aristocratic" past... she welcomes a guest, her cousin Phoebe, and she shows her some family treasures like tea cups encrusted with the family crest!...

Also, the central theme in The House of the Seven Gables is very similar to the one in JKR's favorite children's book, The Little White Horse by Elizabeth Goudge...

From The House of the Seven Gables, ch. I:

"If so, we are left to dispose of the awful query, whether each inheritor of the property -- conscious of wrong, and failing to rectify it -- did not commit anew the great guilt of his ancestor, and incur all its original responsibilities."

ch. XV:

"Alas, Cousin Jaffrey, this hard and grasping spirit has run in our blood these two hundred years. You are but doing over again, in another shape, what your ancestor before you did, and sending down to your posterity the curse inherited from him!"

compare to The Little White Horse:

"...it is a fact that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children -- until the children undo what their fathers did."

And from ch. XI of The House of the Seven Gables:

"For, what other dungeon is so dark as one's own heart!"

From ch. 1, about the family against who the Pyncheons had wronged:

"So long as any of the race were to be found, they had been marked out from other men...by an hereditary character of reserve. (...) It was this indefinable peculiarity, perhaps, that, by insulating them from human aid, kept them always so unfortunate in life. It certainly operated to prolong in their case...those feelings of repugnance and and superstitious terror with which the people of the town, even after awakening from their frenzy, continued to regard the memory of the reputed witches."

There's also a sentence in The Little White Horse which reminds me of the fox in The Little Prince:

"All the best things are seen first of all at a far distance."

(here's what the fox says):

"What must I do, to tame you?" asked the Little Prince.
"You must be very patient," replied the fox. "First you will sit down at a little distance from me -- like that -- in the grass. I shall look at you out of the corner of my eye, and you will say nothing. Words are the source of misunderstandings. But you will sit a little closer to me, every day..."

I noticed that Mugglenet tonight is calling Snape a "truly evil" character, along with Draco. :( Hmm - that's a bit premature, isn't it? How do they know that?

And what happens if they are just wrong? :huh:

It has long been my opinion that Snape is out for himself, and is essentially using Harry to defeat Voldemort. This editorial makes me feel even more sure about this.
I wish someone could tell me exactly what Snape is going to get out of any of this? What, for instance, did he get from showing Fudge his scar in GoF? That had nothing to do with Harry - how would it help Snape to show Fudge the identifying mark of every DE?

If I thought that Snape wanted to spend more time with Peter, Bella, the Carrows, Fenrir Greyback, and the Big Blonde DE, then it might all make sense.

But if Harry kills Voldemort, then Snape will have to kill Harry to seize power. Harry has alot of friends - Snape will have to kill them too. Then he will have to somehow be accepted by the rest of Wizarding World, even though he has killed Dumbledore and Harry Potter. What will he do? Mass Obliviation? Will he turn all the good guys into slaves in the catacombs of Gringotts? What will that serve?

And will the Purebloods accept him as a leader? He's a Half-Blood Prince, don't forget, not a Pureblood Prince.

I just don't see the logic there.

Great Stuff, Aluna! :clap: I should read The Blythedale Romance - Hawthorne is one of my favorite writers.

Thanks for all the quotes from The Little White Horse, too - I was about to go searching through the bookshelf for my copy, but you saved me the trouble.

I will mention that there is a character called "Loveday" in that book, too. :) There is also a dog that is actually a lion, some cats that are like humans, a hare that is "like a friend," and a unicorn, of course.

I noticed that Mugglenet tonight is calling Snape a "truly evil" character, along with Draco. Hmm - that's a bit premature, isn't it? How do they know that?
What on earth?! Where is this located?

I'm still not 100% sure what I think of this editorial. Comparing Snape to Machiavelli's The Prince is interesting, but if you really study The Prince, I just don't think it fits.

The qoutes used from The Prince seem to support the argument made in the editorial very well, and the editorial itself seemed well written. But I have a BA degree in Political Science, and have read the Prince multiple times, even taken an entire class devoted to studying it. And I just can't agree with comparing Snape to the Prince, except maybe on a very superficial level.

I agree that there are certain parts of the Prince that can be related to Harry Potter. But I think they relate much more, on the whole, to Voldemort, than to Snape.
For of men one can, in general, say this: They are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain. As long as you serve their interests, they are devoted to you. They promise you their blood, their possessions, their lives, and their children...so long as you have no need of them. But as soon as you need help, they turn against you.

This seems to me to relate much more to Voldemort and his death eaters than to anything else in Harry Potter.

I agree that Machavelli state in The Prince that (in summary) the ends justify the means, a man must be able to do both good and bad, and must posses virtu (basically flexability- the ability to handle change) and Snape is capable of these things.

But there are two qoutes from the Prince that stand out to me that simply dismisses the ability to compare the Prince to Snape.

So you should seem compassionate, trustworthy, sympathetic, honest and religious, and indeed be all these things. chapter 18

and
"...that a ruler must take care...to avoid those things that will make him an object of hatred or contempt." chapter 19

Now, when has Snape ever acted compassionate or sympathetic? Snapes actions have made in an object of hatred and contempt in both the death eaters AND the order.

As for the comparison of the general Severus mentioned in The Prince, and Severus Snape - I just don't think the analogy works. First of all, Severus had himself declared emporer by the senate and killed the old one. So to compare this to HP, Snape would either have to take over as the new Voldemort, with the support of the death eaters, or take over Hogwarts. Snape did niether. When Voldemort fell after attacking Harry, Snape chose to stay under Dumbledores protection. He did not try and rally the death eaters around him.

I know this is getting long, and I'm really going to stop soon..

The best way I would compare The Prince to Harry Potter is what Dumbledore says to Harry in HBP.
Voldemort himself created his worst enemy, just as tyrants everywhere do!

All dictators bring about their own demise, they create the enemies themselves, through their oppression. This is what the Prince is about, how to gain and maintain power. But in the end Machiavelli says that you should really leave people who are used to being free alone. "He who becomes the ruler of a city that is used to living under its own laws...Niether the passage of time, nor good treatment will make its citizens forget their previous liberty....there is more desire for revenge. The memory of their former freedom gives them no rest, no peace." chapter 5


and I'm really going to stop here

What on earth?! Where is this located?

On the Mugglenet main page, Here (http://www.mugglenet.com/), in the article about JKR's comments about weight. The point was that Snape and Draco are thin but evil. :grumble:

On the Mugglenet main page, Here, in the article about JKR's comments about weight. The point was that Snape and Draco are thin but evil.
:sigh: Thanks for that, SIP.

I'll comment on the essay later :)

exellent editorial I agree completely,except the part about Snape being the next Dark Lord.it's just not..right. Oh well we shall see

Wouldn't it be a total cliche for this "dark" guy in black to become the next "Dark Lord?" I just don't see how a writer as sophisticated as JKR could be so trite.

I agree that Machavelli state in The Prince that (in summary) the ends justify the means, a man must be able to do both good and bad, and must posses virtu (basically flexability- the ability to handle change) and Snape is capable of these things.
That's the level where the comparison to Macchiavelli's value system really works. Imo, it's meant to be a means of characterization and not so much a hint about the plot. He's just someone who'll score very high on a MACH-IV test.

Now, when has Snape ever acted compassionate or sympathetic? Snapes actions have made in an object of hatred and contempt in both the death eaters AND the order.
You don't necessarily have to be good at living up to your own standards. I see him as a wanna-be anyway.

As for the comparison of the general Severus mentioned in The Prince, and Severus Snape - I just don't think the analogy works. First of all, Severus had himself declared emporer by the senate and killed the old one. So to compare this to HP, Snape would either have to take over as the new Voldemort, with the support of the death eaters, or take over Hogwarts. Snape did niether. When Voldemort fell after attacking Harry, Snape chose to stay under Dumbledores protection. He did not try and rally the death eaters around him.
I agree somewhat, but I doubt it very much that Jo would base her plot so much on the story of some Roman dictator anyway. It's significant however, that Snape is called Severus. There aren't that many Severus around (@ sip: Severin is not the same name, and Septimus is a very common Roman name). Macchiavelli's using this story as an example in The Prince is the most prominent reference to a Severus. If Jo calls a character with questionable allegiances Severus, we have a very obvious allusion that cannot be ignored in a literary analysis.

All dictators bring about their own demise, they create the enemies themselves, through their oppression. This is what the Prince is about, how to gain and maintain power. But in the end Machiavelli says that you should really leave people who are used to being free alone.
Yeah, but that advice shows that notions like freedom in itself are irrelevant to Macchiavelli. That's the reason why his work isn't only seen as a political theory, but also as an ethical one.

I'm going to have to praise you and agree with you. This seems like the most likely Snape-analysis to me. I believe JKR is very historically-savvy. In my world history class this year we learned about the Inquisitions held in the Crusade-period by Christians. The Inquisition was where heretics (or people who spoke out against the Church) were questions and almost always found guilty and killed. In an Inquisition someone turns you in (Marietta) and you are questioned in front of a counsel (Fudge, Umbridge, etc) and are decided the proper punishment. As we know, in the Order of the Phoenix, Umbridge made an Inquisitor Squad that kept Umbridge in full reign over the kids at Hogwarts. Harry was taken in for questioning. Due to this fact, I do not doubt for a moment that JKR wouldn't parallel Machiavelli's writing (since it is so major). We also learned about this in class, especially 'it is far safer to be feared than loved' which I see Snape in 100%.

Nice touch on the fox and the coincidences with Albian = Albus. Then I also noted the parallel with the lion = Gryffindor and the cunning (fox) = Slytherin. Bravo!

I've always felt that Snape was out for himself. I have made previous posts on the similarities with Machiavelli's The Prince. So I agree with your editorial and I agree that Snape wants to be the new Dark Lord.

What I am not certain Jo will follow through with the whole story. I'm not certain that Snape will help Harry defeat LV and have a final confrontation with Harry.

Excellent article! I especially thought it was interesting about the fox...:huh:

I thought the editorial was good. The comparison of the historical General Severus figure plays nicely with the character Snape. The fox as his patronus is a very viable idea. Your thesis was researched and presented pretty well. However, I also agree with other posters that there are many contrary points that can be made. Slytherins do exemplify the Machiavellian thesis--ambitious to the point of using any means to get what they want. I actually had posted before HBP came out that I thought perhaps Snape, out for himself, would help Harry kill LV, but then turn on Harry. But it now seems too predictable of a twist. I don't believe, like some others have posted, that JKR would "borrow" a character such as General Severus from The Prince, so completely . In fact, it may just be another red herring--it seems too obvious using a character of the same name.

JKR purposely weaves Snape as an enigma. First we see him as being cold and cruel through Harry's first years. Suddenly, in OOTP we see a different Severus--one that was treated cruely by an abusive father, and taunted by school mates. We feel some sympathy for the character, and wonder if he could have a redemptive quality. Next a sudden shift back to Snape, the ultimate evil betrayer. JKR is setting us up for a remarkable twist--something that will be totally unexpected, just as she did in book 6.

It does appear that a great deal of the story is about Harry and Snape, and at some point the two characters will have to reconcile. I think Snape's greatest weakness is in underestimating Harry. Harry's weakness may lie in not realizing just how complex Snape is, as compared to LV who is rather two dimensional. I am sure that the final reconciliation will be very interesting and surprising indeed.

That was quite an interesting article. Unfortunately, I have not read The Prince, but from what I've seen here, there are definitely parallels between Snape and the book. I loved what you said about the fox and I'm hoping [being on the good!Snape side] that it isn't true. Still, kudos to you! The article was very well written and it made me think a little bit.

Libbylane, I agree, JK is definitely going to put a twist in this story that will most likely shock us all. Hopefully, it won't be exactly parallel to The Prince. If it is, I will be upset. :nc:

Great work, excellent editorial and well supported, however I must beg to differ for I do not believe JKR would simply base a major plot point on something previously written. I agree that there are unbelievable parallels, however if in the end it does turn out to be the same, I for one, would be somewhat disappointed.

But I must say your editorial does raise a few questions and maybe even answer some “grey” bits of Snape’s story. A job well done!!
:tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu:

Fantastic editorial; as much as I don't like the idea of Snape becoming the new Dark Lord at the end, it does seem to make sense. I have never read The Prince but from how you describe it, there do seem to be some strong parallels.

My only doubt is whether JK would follow the theme of the Albinus, Niger, Severus thing exactly because if she did, it would be possible to work out the end of seven, as you just have.

To quote Aluna from a previous post
There's also a sentence in The Little White Horse which reminds me of the fox in The Little Prince:

"All the best things are seen first of all at a far distance."

(here's what the fox says):

"What must I do, to tame you?" asked the Little Prince.
"You must be very patient," replied the fox. "First you will sit down at a little distance from me -- like that -- in the grass. I shall look at you out of the corner of my eye, and you will say nothing. Words are the source of misunderstandings. But you will sit a little closer to me, every day..."
Maybe this could be Snape telling Harry a way to gain his trust and then he could either help Harry (which is what many readers want to happen) or lure him into a trap and finish him off after Harry has vanquished Voldemort somehow thereby eliminating one of Snape's rivals for power.
That is an interesting slant to the story if Snape's partonus is indeed a fox. Then again if it is a spider as someone else suggested (shades of Spinners End) then we could use the Nursery Rhyme "Will you come into my parlour said the spider (Snape or Voldemort) to the fly (Harry) and that could be fatal for Harry if he were to fall for some sort of trickery and enter a trap (unless he had some sort of surprise backup his adverseries didn't know about).

to start- fascinating. i'm becoming quite interested in machiaveillian literature (whilst knowing zilch about it) through a level english, and this just harry potter parallel adds another dimension... although its all pretty vile really.
as far as the snape theory, i both love and hate it. it's all supported with canon, i can't fault you there, and i've long between convinced that snape serves himself not any master, especially as i read half blood prince again (i just noticed that in 'spinner's end', where snape avows he knows LV's plans, he could just be using leglimensia, rather than really having been confided in by Voldemort) The fox episode is interesting, although we could easily say the death of the fox forecasts that snape WON'T reign for long. and the parallels with the life of emperor severus are also stronger than i'd realised. yet i have two problems with this prediction
1) would JK really leave us- forever- with another 'Dark Lord'? i can't believe it, although in some ways it would fit so much better than a fully happy (well resolved, coz i swear harry will die) ending. maybe Snape will reign for some time during the book, i thought initially, but that would be the biggest plot twist ever, if he and not Voldemort were the final showdown. or maybe he will become a Prince, and have dark power, but a very different type of dark power to Voldemort's- machiavellian power- but that will still leave a non-resolved ending. or he could gain power and reform, but that doesn't fit the theory or the plot or anything.
2) much as harry potter is supported by literary and human history, i don't remember anywhere where the similarities are so transparent (not transparent- that takes credit from your editorial- so strong) as these would become were this theory totally accurate. i do think that there is a temptation to use every book ever read as a parallel for harry potter and for every accurate parallel there is one, i'm sure, taken to extremes. JKR was probably inspired by most of the books we parallel harry potter with, but not in all cases to the extent we try to imagine!
no credit from the author of the editorial though-my 2) was a general moan rather than a specific one i fear- fantastic work. keep it up!

This was a well-researched and well-written editorial, but I have a hard time buying the conclusion.

The main sticking point for me is that The Prince is a discussion of how to get and hold political power. Whatever Snape's motivations and loyalties, that doesn't seem to resonate very well with his character. Snape is no politician. He has no followers or subjects, and has never sought to get any. He has neither land nor money nor status nor influence with which to buy others' loyalties. The only party he could bring to any "alliance" is himself. His interactions with Fudge at the end of POA and GOF show a public clumsiness and lack of self control that would never do for a Machiavellian "prince".

Snape might be an evil git, or he might be a quintuple agent, or he might just be a good guy forced into bad situations. But he'll never be the wizarding equivalent of Medici!

I have never been able to make my mind up about Snape. I can read an editorial or one of the threads and totally agree with what is written but then I read something else that is the total oppisite and see points to that argument. I don't like being on the fence. I do like the thought that he has a fox patronus though but I don't see how Dumbledore could believe in him with that as his patronus.

The main sticking point for me is that The Prince is a discussion of how to get and hold political power. Whatever Snape's motivations and loyalties, that doesn't seem to resonate very well with his character. Snape is no politician. He has no followers or subjects, and has never sought to get any. He has neither land nor money nor status nor influence with which to buy others' loyalties. The only party he could bring to any "alliance" is himself. His interactions with Fudge at the end of POA and GOF show a public clumsiness and lack of self control that would never do for a Machiavellian "prince".
Unlike Tom Riddle, no one would have ever suggested that Snape go into politics when he grew up. For one thing, he was unpopular, while most politicians have to have a following.

Snape doesn't care what anyone thinks of him - and that's much more like Dumbledore and Harry, than Fudge.

Snape might be an evil git, or he might be a quintuple agent, or he might just be a good guy forced into bad situations. But he'll never be the wizarding equivalent of Medici!
But he does know a thing or two about poisoning. :) Of course, he is also an expert at making Antidotes, which he spends all of GoF "forcing" the kids to learn (as Harry sees it at the time).

Like many others before me, I was intrigued by the editorial, which was well-written indeed, but just reading it, I came to different conclusions than the author, and racking my brains about what I've learnt about Machiavelli, my doubts became stronger still.

I don't have my philosophy encyclopedia at hand, but from what I remember, Machiavelli was in a somewhat brittle situation when writing it. He had fallen from grace with the powerful ones and wished to get back on their good side. That would fit Snape in some ways, his whole situation. It is of most vital importance for him to be in Voldemort's good books. It's not only vital for him, but for the entire Order of the Phoenix, because Snape is their only source in that camp. Doing something that will be universally seen as the textbook exemple of amorality (killing Dumbledore/writing Il Principe) to get back where he must be - yeah, that situation applies for the author and the literal character as well.

But Snape isn't hungry for power. For example - Slughorn had his Slug Club while being Head of Slytherin still. He had the club not out of pure altruism, to support talented children, but to be close to the powerful, rich and famous. Snape didn't maintain that tradition. Of course, he was in no position to assist his students with their political carreers or so, but he could have had a club nonetheless, for those he thought to be promising, be nice with them, give them extra-support, pass on his remarkable knowledge. And once those kids had gained social status, he could have hoped for them to have not forgotten their old mentor. Snape did no such thing, even with his students, he didn't make a single try to be their leader in any other way than his position as their Head of House required.

He doesn't try to ingratiate himself with either order, too. He doesn't give a hoot about what the Weasleys etc might think about him (and if you're a clever schemer, you do care what others think of you). He doesn't try to flatter himself into Bella's good graces either. On the whole - Snape appears like a man who tries to keep himself alive in the first place, which is no crime in itself, and seeing how important he is for the good guys, he cannot be replaced. Voldemort would have little trouble to find someone else in Hogwarts (student or teacher, he could promise them a share of power or simply blackmail them by using their families like he did in the end with Draco). The Order of the Phoenix however has no chance at all to find a substitute for Snape.

Great Post, Fleur de Mal! :tu: :agree: Well said.

I just found an interesting passage in Machiavelli, about an evil tyrant who was "born of a potter" :



http://www.princeton.edu/~ferguson/adw/prince.shtml

Machiavelli also advocates the use of evil to acquire a principality. He gives the example of Agathocles of Syracuse as proof that this works and will enable you to rule the land peaceably through fear:

"Born of a potter, this one always had an iniquitous life throughout his years: nonetheless, he accomplished his iniquities with such virtue of spirit and of body that, having joined the militia, he rose through its ranks to become praetor of Syracuse. Being established in rank, and having decided to become prince and to keep with violence and without obligation to others what had been conceded him by agreement... ...one morning he convened the people and the senate of Syracuse, as if he had had to deliberate things pertinent to the republic; and at a preordained nod he had all the senators and richest of the people killed by his soldiers. Once they were killed he occupied and held the principality of that city without any civil controversy."

It's interesting that such a slaughter is admired by Prince Machiavelli, but Agathocles was "born of a Potter." Perhaps we should be looking at Pureblood James as Machiavelli rather than Half-Blood Snape. James was popular, rather sneaky with Dumbledore, willing to do illegal things to help his friend, yet he still became Head Boy in spite of the Werewolf Incident in which Snape was almost killed. That sounds more like a politician to me, rather than Snape.

There is some Owl folklore about Agathocles:

Carthage: the city was captured by Agathocles of Syracuse (Southern Italy) in 310 BC. Afterward, he released Owls over his troops and they settled on their shields and helmets, signifying victory in battle

But Snape isn't hungry for power. For example - Slughorn had his Slug Club while being Head of Slytherin still. He had the club not out of pure altruism, to support talented children, but to be close to the powerful, rich and famous. Snape didn't maintain that tradition. Of course, he was in no position to assist his students with their political carreers or so, but he could have had a club nonetheless, for those he thought to be promising, be nice with them, give them extra-support, pass on his remarkable knowledge. And once those kids had gained social status, he could have hoped for them to have not forgotten their old mentor. Snape did no such thing, even with his students, he didn't make a single try to be their leader in any other way than his position as their Head of House required.
Hm, he favored his own house unfairly however, and quite blatantly. That could be seen as an attempt to build up his own Sevvy-club of well-connected people. Well-connected in another sense of course. It's possible to interpret the Unbreakable Vow as an attempt to ingratiate himself further with the Malfoys, too. Assuming that was the case, his attempts would have to be seen as worse than unsuccessful, because Draco was supposed to accept his help, be grateful for it and let Snape handle the planning. Instead he endangered Snape's life (Snape did look afraid at Sluggy's Christmas party), caused a lot of trouble for him and treated him like an inferior.


BTW: All those Ministry people fit the type of Macchiavellian leaders to the point of being caricatures. Maybe they're the real point of reference in regard to Snape's true colours (or the absence of any).
I've been wondering about the reason why an insignificant detail like the seating arrangements at breakfast before Dumbledore's funeral were mentioned. There's the golden throne of the headmaster, which McGonagall doesn't occupy out of respect, and the fact that 'Scrimgeour had unceremoniously taken over Snape's empty chair' (The White Tomb, quote from memory only). This could be a clue that they're at some level interchangeable.

The Harry Potter series has been compared to a large variety of literature. And when small pieces of the HP story are compared to pieces of the various literature, the comparisons are valid. But there is not a piece of literature that will guide us to JK Rowling's ultimate conclusion. She has a unique story here.

But parts of the editorial are valid. The conclusion is not.

But Snape isn't hungry for power. [. . .] I agree and disagree. I don't think Snape wants power in a Prince way, now that I think of it. The way he is treating his fellow Death Eaters does not seem to prepare the way for him to replace Voldemort and rule them (EDIT: see more below). Same goes for the way he has been treating the good guys. But power, I do think he wants. I think Snape's obsession with the Dark Arts is a quest for power. And I always felt that his good treatment of Draco was political, to get Lucius on his side. I just think that a little bit like Slughorn he likes to have the "back seat" where there is "more room to stretch." Except not exactly like that: he wants to remain in the shadows, the better to manipulate events, unseen. He is the web spinner.

On the other hand, I noticed symbolic evidence of modesty on Snape's part which was interesting. It's in the body language. Dumbledore holds his hands with palms together and fingers pointed upwards, which according to some signifies a belief in personal superiority. On the other hand, when Snape faces Narcissa and Bellatrix, he sits back against his chair with his arms and hands resting on the chair's arms. This seems to me a symbol of equality. I just found that very interesting.

EDIT: However, Snape does use a mixture of contempt worthy of Voldemort with some winning gracious acts; he accepts to take the Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa; he also satisfies Bellatrix when he tells Narcissa to hold her tongue; and he has delicately suggested to Bellatrix that he might be able to defeat the Dark Lord: when he questions her belief that he would be able to hoodwink the best Legillimens in the world; I feel he only praised Voldemort so much the better to attract attention to his power that can defeat that power; when Bellatrix looks sufficiently shaken, he does "not insist" (or he'd lose the desired effect of just a little doubt...)

BTW: All those Ministry people fit the type of Macchiavellian leaders to the point of being caricatures. Maybe they're the real point of reference in regard to Snape's true colours (or the absence of any).


I agree. If you want to see Machiavelli in Harry Potter, people like Fudge, Umbridge and Scrimegeor all seem to have read The Prince in their Muggle Studies classes, although they implement it with varying degrees of effectiveness.

The point is that Snape's behavior bears no resemblence to theirs, and we have no reason to think that he shares their goals of political power and authority. If Snape wants any kind of "power", it's the individual magical skill and knowledge that he undeniably posesses. He may wield that personal power to intimidate others, but he doesn't try to leverage it into any kind of political power.

The Prince happens to be one of my all-time favorite pieces of philosophy, so I think that this is certainly one of the more brilliant editorials to come out of Mugglenet.

Although it totally doesn't fit with my views (I'm in the Snape-is-good camp), it's one of the few articles I've read that utilizes an outside source like it should. Most that use the technique have the air of a simple coincidence. However much I disagree with your article, I have to admit you use The Prince to excellent effect (or is it affect?).

Could probably say more, but my brain has turned off due to lack of sleep, so... :clap:

ok I thought this editorial was really good even if it turns out to be false. I was reading this editorial when I found a link for BJ Texan's previous editorial about how Borgin might be RAB. I thought that editorial was great as well so I decided to look up Borgin to see if it meant anything. It doesn't, but I did get a match for Borgia, which is very close. So I clicked that and this is what came up..."Italian family, influential from the 14th to the 16th century, that included the son and daughter of Pope Alexander VI. Cesare (1475?–1507), a religious, military, and political leader, was the model for Machiavelli's The Prince. Lucrezia (1489–1519), the Duchess of Ferrara, was a patron of learning and the arts." The emphasis of course being on THE PRINCE. I thought it was very interesting how it kinda tied the two editorials together. Perhaps Borgin will play a larger role in HP if it continues to somewhat model the Prince.

Well, I certainly like this editorial. I've been arguing for a long time that Snape cannot possibly be anything but evil. It is not easy trying to convince those who have put him on the level of a semi-god. His vindictive treatment of his students was a controlled outlet of his true nature. I've felt for a long time that Snape knows more about the prophecy than we have been led to believe. He certainly knows that only Harry can defeat Voldemort and that is why he 'saved' him in Book 1 - because he needed Harry to completely remove Voldemort from the scene - to leave the way clear for his own coming to power. It is for the same reason that he spared him at the end of Book 6. Snape does not believe that Harry is of any threat to him - he feels that when the time comes, he will be able to defeat Harry without any problems whatsoever - he must already be savouring the sweet taste of revenge on his old nemesis, James and Co.
I like the idea of the fox at the beginning of Bk 6 being either Snape's patronus (perhaps he's found a way of using it as a spy) or Snape himself as an animagus. I had never thought of it before but it seems like a very feasible idea. Personally, before Book 6, I always thought that Snape was carrying out his spying as an animagus bat, not as himself, because of all the bat references. But Bk 6 shot that down in the second chapter.

I'm not sure I understand - why do you assume that Snape was 'in his animagus form' as that fox that Bellatrix killed? Not five minutes later, he opened his front door - if he had been that fox, he couldn't have... get my point?

A fox could have made it home before the two women got there. They would follow a road or path whereas an animal could have cut across the land. It doesn's take a long time to transform, so it is not impossible for it to have been Snape.

Belsito: I don't think that is possible. Bella did an Avada Kedavra curse on the fox - she killed it plain and simple, and then checked to make sure it was dead.

That scene is to show that she is afraid of being followed, because she is a fugitive from Azkaban. If the creature had been an animgus, it might have turned back into a human upon death, but either way - it was dead.

The book says the fox was coming down to the river for a drink of water, so it couldn't have been a patronus, which is like a flash of light. It was a real fox.

I stand corrected. I had completely forgotten that they killed the fox. Unless Snape too has a horcrux (I shudder to think it), he would have died if his animagus died. Snape must know about Voldemort's horcruxes because he helped heal Dumbledore when he was hit by the curse on the ring. But the question is: did he tell Voldemort that Dumbledore had destroyed one of his horcuxes or not? If Snape wants Voldemort out of the way eventually, he probably didn't. And is it possible that Snape created a horcrux of his own when he killed Dumbledore? I know this is off topic but it has just come to me that Snape might consider having a horcrux of his own though I do not know why he should lengthen, even by one day, the miserable life he's leading.

though I do not know why he should lengthen, even by one day, the miserable life he's leading.
that's exactly what I've thought. Wanting to prolongue one's life unnaturally somehow indicates that this life is happy in the first place, and if one thing, Snape doesn't strike me to be a happy person.

Brilliant editorial! I hadn't thought of Machiavelli's The Prince, but it does fit with the way Snape operates. I love the way you've drawn parallels between Severus Snape and Emperor Severus. The great thing about editorials like this is they make you discover facets and depths to HP that you wouldn't think of on your own. (I wouldn't, anyway.)

I doubt that Snape will become a new dark lord though. Not that he couldn't; I think he is smart and powerful enough to do so. But there's only one book left. How could there be enough room in one book to deal with a whole new dark lord? Plus I don't think he's quite that nasty.

JKR might have deliberately made Severus Snape similar to Emperor Severus, but that doesn't mean she'll recreate the emperor's story completely. After all, she doesn't want people to be able to guess the ending.

The links between Machiavelli, and Snape are old news to those who frequent the DevSev thread. Three or four months old actually. In fact there are many other parralels with the Prince in literature which were covered extensively on that amazing thread. So congratulations on being the last to pick up on this.

Could you post a link to that thread? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Raven
The links between Machiavelli, and Snape are old news to those who frequent the DevSev thread. Three or four months old actually. In fact there are many other parralels with the Prince in literature which were covered extensively on that amazing thread. So congratulations on being the last to pick up on this.

Could you post a link to that thread? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.
"Dev of Sev" is short for "Development of Snape's Character throuh HBP." It is in History of Magic, but has been closed by the moderators for the time being.

"Dev of Sev" is short for "Development of Snape's Character throuh HBP." It is in History of Magic, but has been closed by the moderators for the time being.
How come it was closed? I had a quick look at it and it didn't look as if people were insulting each other or anything. Unless I missed the pages where that was happening.

This was so well done! Congratulations! This was an excellent editorial, and it finally summarized all the disquieting thoughts I have had about Snape, and ties them together into a pattern that finally makes sense. I think your notion at the end, that the final encounter will be between Harry and Snape is spot on, too.

Good for you!

Cheers!
--
Leo.

I loved the editorial -- who knows what the outcome of Book 7 will be, but it's fun to speculate nonetheless. A well-written editorial.

B.J. Texan (the editorial's author) speculates that Snape could become a new Dark Lord, following a path similar to Severus' (the Emperor) career progression. If Snape ends up in charge, would he be a Dark Lord? Nah, I doubt that JKR would do anything as obvious or trite as that. If we follow the path set by the real Severus' career, we could conclude that Snape will end up as Minister of Magic. Seriously. Before you start sending me hate mail or contacting a psychoanalyst on my behalf, read on…

It is true that the real Severus was a nasty piece of work. However, once he became emperor, he kept the Roman army happy via a 50% increase in pay, permitting active army members to be married, and providing better opportunities for promotion within the military. In those days, keeping the soldiers on your side was vital, or you were dead.

He also had some virtues that "astonished and stupefied" (per Machiavilli) the Roman citizenry. He was a good administrator, nurtured the development of legal reasoning and jurisprudence, and reinforced the police to reduce petty crimes and fires in Rome. (This info is from a brief overview of the emperor, available at http://www.roman-emperors.org/sepsev.htm).

At any rate, let’s look at Snape now. We can all agree that he is a nasty piece of work. If, as B. J. Texan proposes, he successfully manages to knock both major obstacles (LV and Dumbledore, parallels to Albinus & Nigrinus) out of the way, he gets to be in charge. Dark Lord? No – he would have a long and prosperous rule, by reinstating order, improving day-to-day conditions, and keep the law enforcement organization content. A perfect type of administration following a time of upheaval. So, Severus Snape may still prove to be a competent leader and administrator, despite being a total jerk.

Do I really think this will happen? Nope. But the speculation is still entertaining. That’s what editorials and forums are for, isn’t it?

Incidentally, the real Severus died in York (in England). If we want to go way out on a limb, perhaps Snape is a descendent? Hmm…

dmz: Great post! I like the way you think about Septimus Severus! :)

Also, Severus had two sons - Caracalla and Geta - and they did not get along. They definitely remind me of Harry and Draco. Caracalla's name means "hooded cloak," and was sort of a nickname for the type of clothing he wore all the time.

So I don't think the life of Severus is literally coming true in these books, but JKR is having fun with all of it!

I do think the fact that Septimus Severus died in York is significant. According to alot of posters here from Yorkshire, they knew from the description of Spinner's End that it was in Yorkshire - the towering smokestack, the "spinning" street name, and the fact that everything is closed down. There is a great literary tradition in Yorkshire also: the Bronte Sisters who wrote Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights grew up there and wrote about the moors. Poet Ted Hughes also called Yorkshire home, and came from the village of Mytholmroyd. He wrote a famous poem about writing called "The Thought Fox," and of course, we see a fox near Spinner's End.

http://www.poemhunter.com/p/m/poem.asp?poet=6616&poem=31435

This is a picture of Hebden Bridge, a town near Ted Hughes' hometown. I think this looks like Spinner's End:

http://www.iknow-yorkshire.co.uk/tourist_pictures/hebden_bridge_02.jpg

Oh...My...God...
You have just erased any doubt that I may have had about the nature of Severus Snape. What you wrote makes WAY too much sense to deny. Being an educated person and having studied many things having to do with the Medici, including Machiavelli's writings, I am embarrassed at not having seen the parallels before! Thanks for the enlightenment. Well done!
I don't think she will follow the formula strictly to the letter, but I am now convinced that Snape is out to do what benefits Snape. However, I think what will benefit Snape in the end may benefit others in the process. I don't think that we will ever be able to put a "good"/"evil" stamp on our enigmatic Professor. He will always be a mystery.

Terrific editorial! What do I think? Specifically about the The Prince compared to our HBP Prince? Ah the pondering, the sweat beading on my forehead... here goes :)

While I have read (studied) The Prince, there's also an emphasis on Machiavellian tendencies specifically used by psychologists and pyschiatrists in their work. They analyze the personalities of those patients they describe as Machiavellian into 2 groups:

High Mac= Here's someone who believes that everbody is out for themselves. Such statements made by those personalities in this group include "Me? Depend on someone? That's frankly stupid." or "What's in this for me?" Personalities in this class have an almost emotionally disengaged way of dealing with other people, and will use whatever serves their purpose to get you to do something for them. Emotionally, they don't trust a soul and power to them is far more important than anything else

Low Mac= Passive and submissive, often better at dealing with others because they do accept that people are can honest and can be trusted. However, they are too agreeable and most likely will overcommit themselves and their actions and most of the time, without a clear understanding of the outcome.

No doubt there's some Snape traits in those descriptions, however my view is not to confuse the Machiavellian label with another personality trait, cynicism. Cynics view situations the way they REALLY are, rather than delude themselves about the others perceive it to be. Thus, they make their decisions and actions based on reality (a perception a cynic might have about a situation which is often closer to the truth than colleagues or peers might perceive.) It isn't such a bad thing unless a cynic has an execessive cynical view of their contributions in a world that's meaningless, fake, and shallow.

Using these as examples, I recognize some of each one of their descriptions in Snape. That said, those can also be coupled with these descriptions from Aristole used for describing drama or a character in Greek tragedies:

Hubris - Above the fates, excessive pride and arrogance in one's self.

Which begets:

Hamartia - One makes a fatal mistake made on incomplete knowledge, a tragic flaw, because hubris is so abundant in the character he/she can't possibly be wrong.

Which eventually leads to:

Anagonorisis: A change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined for good or bad fortune.

Oh yes indeed. These same terms were used in describing other works, such as McBeth and Halmet, just to name a few and no doubt to describe Snape's part in this whole plot, can't it?

Wow.
Every now and then when I'm reading an editorial I feel a sickening lurch in my stomach because I suspect that the author's theory is probably correct and I've just accidentally spoiled the next book for myself. This editorial is such an occasion- well done!

Using these as examples, I recognize some of each one of their descriptions in Snape. That said, those can also be coupled with these descriptions from Aristole used for describing drama or a character in Greek tragedies:

Hubris - Above the fates, excessive pride and arrogance in one's self.

Which begets:

Hamartia - One makes a fatal mistake made on incomplete knowledge, a tragic flaw, because hubris is so abundant in the character he/she can't possibly be wrong.

Which eventually leads to:

Anagonorisis: A change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined for good or bad fortune.

Oh yes indeed. These same terms were used in describing other works, such as McBeth and Halmet, just to name a few and no doubt to describe Snape's part in this whole plot, can't it?
Taking the Vow might be seen as a "tragic flaw" in the sense of Arthurian Tragedy in which a knight makes a vow to a lady - it's a chivalrous thing to do, and not really anything that proves Snape is "out for himself" or "passive." It is actually a selfless thing to do, when you consider the definition of an "Unbreakable Vow." As Ron says so plainly: "You can't break an Unbreakable Vow."

The consequence is death, a consequence Peter Pettigrew wasn't willing to face for his best friends in the world as Secret Keeper. To me, he is the Machiavellian character, more than Snape.

And as far as Hamartia and Hubris go - alot of "heroic" characters have those flaws. Sirius Black is the best example in the books. He thinks he is always right and that he cannot fail. He decides not to be the Potter's SK, and instead becomes the "decoy" to lure Voldemort away from both Peter and the Potters. Years later, even though he has been imprisoned for 12 years, he still thinks it is the Perfect Bluff. But it wasn't. It failed, and that is the tragedy of the Potters and Sirius Black. James and Sirius were both tragic heroes. James for trusting his family's fate to his best friends instead of Dumbledore, and believing the worst about Lupin instead of suspecting Peter. It's not his "fault," but his "flaw."

JKR has said that Lupin also has a "flaw," in that he "cuts his friends too much slack."

Sirius has the "saving people thingy" flaw till the day he dies. He also underestimates the ability of Bella to kill him, and acts as if they are in dueling practice. He overestimates himself, and that is Hamartia and Hubris.

Dumbledore was able to see through Tom Riddle's Machiavellian ways, and denied him a teaching job at Hogwarts. How could Snape fool him, if Tom Riddle couldn't? There is no canon that Snape is just "out for himself." If that were true, he would be in a much better position than he is in now - on the run from the order, and still having to protect Draco from all sides.

Snape is actually not "good enough" to be thought of as a Tragic Hero, by the following definition:

http://www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger/pages/whatis.htm

What is a Tragedy?

. . . It concerns the fall of a person whose character is good, believable, and consistent.

The fall is caused in part by some error or frailty in the protagonist and not by a vice or depravity. The Greek term for error or frailty is hamartia, which is sometimes translated as "tragic flaw." The idea of hamartia is that any human being might make mistakes, regardless of social station. We, as an audience of normally imperfect human beings, can thus identify with the hero or heroine, and sympathize with his or her predicament.

If the disaster were brought about by evil or viciousness, instead of feeling pity we would be happy to see a villain destroyed. On the other hand, if the protagonist were a pure soul, without fault, then we would be indignant at the fall of an innocent person, but would be unable to involve ourselves completely with the character. Thus, the tragic hero is a character the audience easily identifies with: neither evil nor saintly but somewhere in between, possessing virtues and faults, a character who makes crucial mistakes that begin the process of the tragic fall.

BJ Texan -

This is absolutely brilliant !! I have no idea how I could have missed this editorial until now but I am truly in awe !

Being an old softy I had hoped that Snape would find redemption but it would appear that there is little hope for that. Funny - when my brother was here last Septmeber we talked the HP series which he has so far refused to read although he really likes the movies. His comment was that the books showed a world that would never actually exist as no one with the amount of power of a wizard would be able to resist using that power on the muggles and other lessor wizards. Cynical way of looking at human beings but I guess, unfortunately, not too far off the mark.

I guess now the question to you is - do you think good will triumph over evil - after all the Severus you speak of did rule for many years.

I for one vote for good , but then as I said before I'm an old softy.

Plainly, your brother must have heard of Gyge's Ring.

AS for the editorial, I have to disagree. It is certainly clever, and the Prince reference is almost certainly intentional. But what it means is not so clear.

Even BJ's example shows the Roman Severus playing false with freindship. But Snape shows his hostility to Harry from the first opportunity. If Snape was Machiavelli's Prince, he would not only protect Harry, to insure he would face Voldemort, but he would make Harry think that he was his best friend. He has done the opposite. Voldemort would no doubt approve, because it is just the sort of thing He would have done.

Likewise, rather than waiting for Harry to vanquish Voldemort, Snape has apparently gone off to Voldemort before this battle. By apparently killing Dumbledore, Snape has made himself Harry's target. Will Harry face Snape or Voldemort first? Can Snape be certain of manipulating that? If Harry forces Snape to kill him, it will wreck his plan. (And if Harry is a threat to Voldemort, can Snape be truly confident that Harry poses no real threat to him?)Snape will be without his best weapon against Voldemort, and will incur Voldemort's wrath for not leaving Harry for him, and, with Harry gone, Voldemort will be sizing up who is most likely to pose a threat to him.

It just seems to me that if Snape is meant to be Machiavellian, then he hasn't read the book properly. I think it may actually be more likely that the point was to get us to compare Snape to Machievelli's Prince, and see where they differ. Many people have previously claimed that Snape is just out for himself, that he doesn't care who wins, just so long as he is on the winning side. Perhaps JKR anticipated this view of Snape, if she didn't encourage it. And perhaps the Prince reference is meant to show its error.

If BJ's theory is correct, it almost seems that Dumbledore must have figured out Snape's plan, and set him up. Because if he had any kind of a choice, killing Dumbledore was one of the last things he wanted to do just then. ANd it seems he must have had a choice. Because he could have used Draco. Dumbledore could get to Draco when they were alone. But Snape knows Draco at least as well. It seems unlikely that Snape could not push his buttons, as he did Sirius', and provoke him to do as Voldemort ordered.That he did not suggests to me that Snape chose to do what he appeared to do, from blasting Dumbledore, to fleeing through the school rather than using those brooms.And that suggests that it was not pure self-interest which was driving him.

Fantastic editorial! Fantastic! I have believed that Snape was out for his own good, no one else's, for a while, but this editorial did a fantastic job of truly analyzing the books and comparing them to The Prince to show us just who Severus Snape is. I am greatly convinced by your editorial and agree with a lot of your points. I really like this theory. Great work.

I must say this is a truly great essay and I am convinced that you must be right! While going through my master’s studies at UCLA, the head of the Principal Leadership Institute, a really brilliant professor named Mr. Bruce Newlin (who I always called The Real Dumbledore), recommended we read The Prince. Most of us belonged to the Los Angeles Unified School District and it is a cutthroat bureaucracy where everyone is constantly worried about being stabbed in the back by someone who is trying to take his or her place. So it was very good advice, even though it strayed from the altruistic leadership theories we were taught.

I confess I hadn’t read The Prince until that year (2005). However, being in an organization such as the LAUSD, it was a valuable insight on the trappings of many principals’ rise to power and their methods of holding it once they were anointed with a principal position (and where does the word principal come from?). As a matter of fact, my current principal reminds me of Snape, but she is a woman.

Anyway, if Jo Rowling doesn’t have every intention of throwing this bit of a twist in, I will be shocked. All of your references add up and follow logically. The Roman Severus bit, the fact that we are confused about Snape’s true motives, and the fact that Harry implies that he will want to kill Snape if he sees him. “And if I meet Severus Snape along the way,” he added, “so much the better for me, so much the worse for him.” P. 651 American Hardcover, Special Edition.

I applaud your insight and am anxiously awaiting book seven! Ciao

What is a Tragedy?

. . . It concerns the fall of a person whose character is good, believable, and consistent.

The fall is caused in part by some error or frailty in the protagonist and not by a vice or depravity. The Greek term for error or frailty is hamartia, which is sometimes translated as "tragic flaw." The idea of hamartia is that any human being might make mistakes, regardless of social station. We, as an audience of normally imperfect human beings, can thus identify with the hero or heroine, and sympathize with his or her predicament. I really liked what silver ink pot said about Tragedy. And the one person that came to mind when reading this description was Dumbledore. He is the character who is good, believable and consistent, but falls by an error or frailty. JK Rowling talked about Dumbledore's weakness in her interview with Melissa and Emerson. He clearly made a mistake thinking that Snape would not kill him, and therefore, the tragedy.

Great Editorial. I see only one problem. You state that Snape in his actions reduces Dumbledore and Voldemort to mere pawns. I can't see that happening. Dumbledore is supposed to be the greatest wizard ever. There is no way Jo would turn him to the most gullible wizard of all times, by allowing him to be wholly fooled by Snape. This is the most compelling argument I've seen for a Snape who, if not being a good guy per se, at elast was doing Dumbledores bidding.

So, I don't think Snape can be called a "Prince" because he was so noble to carry out Dumbledore's mythical request to have Snape murder him. This becomes especially evident when you remeber that Snape gave himself the nickname of "Half-Blood Prince" out of his own intellectual arrogance and pure-blood mania. Not exactly noble princely motivations.


I am deeply in the "snape is good" camp, and i do believe that dumbledore requested that snape killed him. however, i am willing to admit that those are suppositions based on events that could have different implications (i.e. the conversation between snape and dumbledore that hagrid overhears can be taken either way). However, i also do not think that we can say for exactly what reason snape called himself the "half-blood prince." JKR never tells us. the idea that he created the name "out of his own intellectually arrogance and pure-blood mania" is an idea that we have seen through the harry filter. There are other characters in the books who are somewhat prejudiced against muggleborns, but are not evil (slughorn and sirius' parents, for example). Lupin, who knew snape probably better than anyone (that is still alive) in the series, was sincerely shocked when he found out what snape had done in the sixth book. and as far as your concern about making good and evil grey--i don't think that Jo is or will do that. If snape is good, he will be wholly good, and we will see how his actions fit into a pattern of behavior that opposes the dark lord from the time he stopped working for him. If he is wholly bad (which i admit is possible) then the parallel between himself and harry will diverge in book seven. remember that we have already seen several parallels between voldemort and harry, but that does not put them in the "grey area" morally. if snape is bad, those parallels will be similar to the ones between LV and Harry, if he is good, harry (well...both of them) will have to overcome their prejudices and see that they are really very similar and are working on the same side. (that's the end i'm going for!!!)

I am deeply in the "snape is good" camp, and i do believe that dumbledore requested that snape killed him. I don't know how this is viewed in JK Rowling's magical world, but I know that in the USA, asking someone to kill them is still considered a crime. It is wrong to kill someone, even if they ask you to do it.
However, i also do not think that we can say for exactly what reason snape called himself the "half-blood prince." JKR never tells us. the idea that he created the name "out of his own intellectually arrogance and pure-blood mania" is an idea that we have seen through the harry filter. Snape's mother's maiden name was Prince and his father was a muggle, hence the name Half-Blood Prince. It could be an absolutely innocent case of developing a nickname for oneself that helps to boost's someone's self-esteem.

Plainly, your brother must have heard of Gyge's Ring.

AS for the editorial, I have to disagree. It is certainly clever, and the Prince reference is almost certainly intentional. But what it means is not so clear.

Even BJ's example shows the Roman Severus playing false with freindship. But Snape shows his hostility to Harry from the first opportunity. If Snape was Machiavelli's Prince, he would not only protect Harry, to insure he would face Voldemort, but he would make Harry think that he was his best friend. He has done the opposite. Voldemort would no doubt approve, because it is just the sort of thing He would have done.

Likewise, rather than waiting for Harry to vanquish Voldemort, Snape has apparently gone off to Voldemort before this battle. By apparently killing Dumbledore, Snape has made himself Harry's target. Will Harry face Snape or Voldemort first? Can Snape be certain of manipulating that? If Harry forces Snape to kill him, it will wreck his plan. (And if Harry is a threat to Voldemort, can Snape be truly confident that Harry poses no real threat to him?)Snape will be without his best weapon against Voldemort, and will incur Voldemort's wrath for not leaving Harry for him, and, with Harry gone, Voldemort will be sizing up who is most likely to pose a threat to him.

It just seems to me that if Snape is meant to be Machiavellian, then he hasn't read the book properly. I think it may actually be more likely that the point was to get us to compare Snape to Machievelli's Prince, and see where they differ. Many people have previously claimed that Snape is just out for himself, that he doesn't care who wins, just so long as he is on the winning side. Perhaps JKR anticipated this view of Snape, if she didn't encourage it. And perhaps the Prince reference is meant to show its error.

If BJ's theory is correct, it almost seems that Dumbledore must have figured out Snape's plan, and set him up. Because if he had any kind of a choice, killing Dumbledore was one of the last things he wanted to do just then. ANd it seems he must have had a choice. Because he could have used Draco. Dumbledore could get to Draco when they were alone. But Snape knows Draco at least as well. It seems unlikely that Snape could not push his buttons, as he did Sirius', and provoke him to do as Voldemort ordered.That he did not suggests to me that Snape chose to do what he appeared to do, from blasting Dumbledore, to fleeing through the school rather than using those brooms.And that suggests that it was not pure self-interest which was driving him.

Phil
I am not so sure that snape had a choice as far as killing DD at this time. Afterall if draco didn't kill DD and the unbreakable vow was in effect he really didn't have a choice.

As for making an enemy of Harry, well unlike Machievelli's Prince Snape was still playing both ends against the middle. If you consider that had anyone but snape killed DD Harry would have been able to react more quickly than he did. I don't know how you felt when snape didn't "save the day" but it was pretty shocking to me and I have always felt snape was a snake. Still I think like harry I trusted DD to be right at least on such important things like snape's loyalty. If Harry had reacted quicker he mihgt have had to face all those death eaters alone ( that is assuming that the unbreakable curse would have killed snape and DD would be deead by the hand of one of the other death eaters.) It seems reasonable that even if snape attempted to save DD with as many death eaters in the tower room and no one able to see where harry was, it was likely that he would have been hit by flying curses. Harry could not even expect draco to help him. I admit harry has gotten himself out of a lot of scraps but there has always been others to help him one way or the other especially when the odds were sorely not in his favor.

I don't think that snape could have been harry's pal while say at #12 grimwalad place and then turn around and be nasty to him at school. It would have been too confusing to harry and too easy to slip up when thinking that no one could see them..

I think it may be difficult for snape to stay out of the way of harry, but I think he will definitely make an effort to do so - thereby leaving room for harry to take care of V. Then, well hopefully good will be the ultimate winner.

As for DD knowing of snape's plan - well if you look at the scenario from the point of view of DD knowing that he was dying then asking for snape to come fits perfectly well. DD was dying anyway from the potion he drank. If left alone harry would know that the he was the cause of DD's death. By calling snape to the tower to kill him, DD's death serves two purposes. 1 - it relieves harry of the knowledge that he not snape was the cause of DD's death, and 2- It alerts harry to who his enemies are and that includes snape as well as the others. There is also a third reason, - harry needed to see draco NOT kill DD and know what was driving draco. Perhaps harry';s long time foe will become if not a friend at least an ally.

Plainly- Sorry I must have been unclear. When I said Snape does the opposite of cultivating Harry's freindship, I meant from their very first Potions class. While Snape can be cruel to his students, he certainly goes to extremes for Harry ( though Neville certainly geys it as well; I wonder what that might imply). Assuming Snape is biding his time till Voldemort returned, I don't see why a Machiavellian Snape would not try to gain Harry's trust. even if he believes that being tough on him is important pedagogically, and he needs Harry to meet his potential to take out Voldemort for him, there would still be room for developing trust. Even if he just took Harry aside and told him that the teachers he learned the most from himself were the tough ones, and he follows that example, he would be in a better place to trade on Harry's trust.

As for Snape's choices, perhaps I looked at the question too narrowly. But I think that Snape probably would have been able to manuver Draco into AKing Dumbledore. Of course some would say that would actually violate the UV, because of the harm to Draco's soul, but that is beside the point, I think.

But the other choice of which I spoke was the fact that they went down through the tower, rather than taking the two brooms and avoiding the fight altogether. In that case, it seems that the safer move to protect Draco, and protect Snape, is to exit as quickly as possible. Going through the tower seems to serve mainly to lead the Deatheaters out of the school.

Plainly- Sorry I must have been unclear. When I said Snape does the opposite of cultivating Harry's freindship, I meant from their very first Potions class. While Snape can be cruel to his students, he certainly goes to extremes for Harry ( though Neville certainly geys it as well; I wonder what that might imply). Assuming Snape is biding his time till Voldemort returned, I don't see why a Machiavellian Snape would not try to gain Harry's trust. even if he believes that being tough on him is important pedagogically, and he needs Harry to meet his potential to take out Voldemort for him, there would still be room for developing trust. Even if he just took Harry aside and told him that the teachers he learned the most from himself were the tough ones, and he follows that example, he would be in a better place to trade on Harry's trust.

As for Snape's choices, perhaps I looked at the question too narrowly. But I think that Snape probably would have been able to manuver Draco into AKing Dumbledore. Of course some would say that would actually violate the UV, because of the harm to Draco's soul, but that is beside the point, I think.

But the other choice of which I spoke was the fact that they went down through the tower, rather than taking the two brooms and avoiding the fight altogether. In that case, it seems that the safer move to protect Draco, and protect Snape, is to exit as quickly as possible. Going through the tower seems to serve mainly to lead the Deatheaters out of the school.


Phil

Perhaps snape could have pulled off being "nice" to harry outside of school or even taken him aside as you suggest and still appear to the reat of the slytherins as aliegned with LV . But I think that harry's demeanor toward snape would give away that the relationship was something other than it appears on the surface. People speak volumes with body language and other non verbal clues. For snape to be nice especially when harry was younger would be very dangerous to both snape and harry, remember he wouldn't want to alienate any of the old death eaters by treating harry well or even civily. He ouwl dhave to treat him as other former death eaters do - like lucius malfoy for instance. As for Neville I think snape picks on any gryfindor who is vulnerable and Neville is. Personally I see this coming back to haunt him but then I see a final battle which includes the same six who twarted the death eaters in OotP doing the same in book seven - only this time they will be full wizards and will be harder to defeat.

As for leaving by way of the school rather than by broomstick, I can think of three possible reasons 1- to insusre that harry was not injured by the other death eaters in the building, afterall if he needs harry to kill off LV he would not want him killed by the death eaters inside while he escaped with draco - although it would have been faster to leave by broomstick snape didn't have to "fear" being injured, the Order members still thought he was one their side so they left him pass, and of course the death eaters weren't going to bother him as he was on their side, same goes for draco. 2- if he left leaving the death eaters inside hogwarts how would they get out of hogwarts? Remember snape had to magically open the gates when harry needed to get into hogwarts and DD had had to magically removed the protection in order to fly in , I would imagine that the death eaters would have to have someone magically open the gates. 3- snape would want to insure that the death eaters did damages any of the other students as they might run into a slytherin and injure him in error.

Plainly- Sorry I must have been unclear. When I said Snape does the opposite of cultivating Harry's freindship, I meant from their very first Potions class. While Snape can be cruel to his students, he certainly goes to extremes for Harry ( though Neville certainly geys it as well; I wonder what that might imply). Assuming Snape is biding his time till Voldemort returned, I don't see why a Machiavellian Snape would not try to gain Harry's trust. even if he believes that being tough on him is important pedagogically, and he needs Harry to meet his potential to take out Voldemort for him, there would still be room for developing trust. Even if he just took Harry aside and told him that the teachers he learned the most from himself were the tough ones, and he follows that example, he would be in a better place to trade on Harry's trust.

As for Snape's choices, perhaps I looked at the question too narrowly. But I think that Snape probably would have been able to manuver Draco into AKing Dumbledore. Of course some would say that would actually violate the UV, because of the harm to Draco's soul, but that is beside the point, I think.

But the other choice of which I spoke was the fact that they went down through the tower, rather than taking the two brooms and avoiding the fight altogether. In that case, it seems that the safer move to protect Draco, and protect Snape, is to exit as quickly as possible. Going through the tower seems to serve mainly to lead the Deatheaters out of the school.


Phil

Perhaps snape could have pulled off being "nice" to harry outside of school or even taken him aside as you suggest and still appear to the reat of the slytherins as aliegned with LV . But I think that harry's demeanor toward snape would give away that the relationship was something other than it appears on the surface. People speak volumes with body language and other non verbal clues. For snape to be nice especially when harry was younger would be very dangerous to both snape and harry, remember he wouldn't want to alienate any of the old death eaters by treating harry well or even civily. He ouwl dhave to treat him as other former death eaters do - like lucius malfoy for instance. As for Neville I think snape picks on any gryfindor who is vulnerable and Neville is. Personally I see this coming back to haunt him but then I see a final battle which includes the same six who twarted the death eaters in OotP doing the same in book seven - only this time they will be full wizards and will be harder to defeat.

One other thought on this - when harry arrives and really throughout the series, snape has shown that he has nothing to worry about when it comes to harry- there is no need to cultivate harry as a "friend" b/c there is no fear of harry ever being a threat to snape. DD and LV that is another story. If you notice Harry never tells DD how awful snape is to him , and snape never shows his true colors in front of DD. true he is a bit snide in GoF but I think DD would expect that this was done for "show" as part of snape's charade. Now that DD is gone he really only has to not kill harry until harry kills LV - then snape apparently feels harry will be easy prey - and why should he not feel that way - up until this point snape has proven that Harry is no threat.

As for leaving by way of the school rather than by broomstick, I can think of three possible reasons 1- to insusre that harry was not injured by the other death eaters in the building, afterall if he needs harry to kill off LV he would not want him killed by the death eaters inside while he escaped with draco - although it would have been faster to leave by broomstick snape didn't have to "fear" being injured, the Order members still thought he was one their side so they left him pass, and of course the death eaters weren't going to bother him as he was on their side, same goes for draco. 2- if he left leaving the death eaters inside hogwarts how would they get out of hogwarts? Remember snape had to magically open the gates when harry needed to get into hogwarts and DD had had to magically removed the protection in order to fly in , I would imagine that the death eaters would have to have someone magically open the gates. 3- snape would want to insure that the death eaters did damages any of the other students as they might run into a slytherin and injure him in error.

Wonderful editorial B.J. Texan. I haven't read many but it is one of the best I've read. I don't agree with several of the conclusions, but it gives a lot of insight on Snape's machinations, especially in books 5 and 6.

Great thread everyone. So many great arguments and wonderful reading suggestions.

I remain a staunch Snape is EVIL supporter. Anyone who would kill someone as good as DD is EVIL! OK enough of that.

After HBP I believed Snape's confession to Bella concerning his actions in earlier books and I feel that Snape is often out for himself... He's not worshipful of Dumbledore or Voldemort... but I think that he finally sides with Voldemort because under Voldemort he would be able to do as he likes more freely than he would on Dumbledore's side.

I think Snape likes to think of himself as a powerful dark wizard. In several ways he is. But I don't think he is after world domination. I think Snape is content to operate in the shadows (spider-like).

I like the idea that the events of the "Spinner's End" chapter of HBP will be Snape's undoing. I've always thought of Snape as anti-social so it was bizarre to say the least to see him entertaining Bella and Narcissa in this chapter. Unsettling.

I think Harry vs. Voldemort will be the climax of the series. I could see Neville or Wormtail disposing of Snape if it came down to that. I could also see Snape going to Azkaban.

Before Snape killed Dumbledore I felt he was evil but redeemable. However I don't see how he could kill someone so good and be redeemed. On a long shot he could die saving someone at the last minute but... as part of some long term good intentioned plan... No Way!

Anyway great editorial... very interesting thread... :)

Excellent editorial, well researched and a fantastic read! Although i still prefer the "old" version of Lord Voldemort being the main villain, i have to admit, the evidence strikes me nearly dead. Reading the editorial i was wondering about the meaning of the name "Snape". On Google i found there is an author called "Ian Snape" writing books about chess endings.... Might be far fetched but nevertheless caught my attention...

I am still of the opinion that Snape (evil or not) killed Albus BUT if he hadn't just imagine what that really evil werewolf deatheater Fenrir, or for that matter the two other nasty deatheaters, would have done to the ailing Albus. It reminded me of puting down an fatally or very badly injured or terminally ill animal which is a humane thing to do.
Harry has to realise that Albus was very probably dying from the blackened hand plus the potion in the basin in the cave. Even if Snape had turned up with nobody else there (ie Draco or the deatheaters) he most likely would have had trouble keeping him alive at this late stage.
It seems many people have forgotten this fact or are so upset by what Snape did that they overlooked the circumstances which a major factor in the life and death of Albus.
Now Harry has to rethink the whole scene and realise that Snape - evil or not - saved Albus from an agonising death.
We then have to think back to the conversation Hagrid overheard between Albus and Snape and Snape not wanting to do something and Albus insisting it had to be done PLUS why Albus trusted Snape so much.
All these unanswered questions must have an important bearing to the story but until Book 7 comes out we can only guess what the implications are.

Wonderful editorial. The parallel is very evident and I do agree on most things that are presented in the editorial but I believe that Snape isn't compeltely Machiavelian. I believe he perfromed the Unbreakable Vow without self-interest and only because Narcissa, a mother in clear angsty desperation came to him for help and he happened to be the only who could save her son. I think Snape agreed to the Vow because he was moved by Narcissa's despair and because he cares about Draco. So there is a side of his personality that isn't ruled by Machiavelian principles; he does have moments where his decisions are ruled by his emotions rather than cold and calculating plans that lead him to gain power. For example, somebody else in this thread mentioned that Snape treated Harry with disdain since they first met and I agree that this is most un-fox-like. Machiaveli would've advise him to stay neutral, not revealing himself to be friend or enemy, but keeping an eye on Harry in case he proved useful later on. Yet Snape's attitude towards Harry is influenced by his hatred of James and thus he acts with his heart rather than with his intellect. I believe this side of his personality will be further revealed in the seventh book, showing a more complex and intriguing Snape.

@inkling7: I agree wholeheartedly on the matter as such. By killing Dumbledore with the Avada Kedavra, Snape did what caused least further damage, because Dumbledore was lost this way or that, and Draco's, Harry's and Snape's own life were at stake there, too.

BUT - now here are some points that I cannot ignore, because I studied Law. Perhaps they don't matter because HP is a work of literature and has no connection to the 'real' world of a lawyer. On the other hand, these principles are derived from centuries of development, they're not arbitrary tenets.

1. You must not set lives off against each other. Meaning: it isn't acceptable to say we sacrifice one life because we could save ten like this. Every human life in itself is untouchable. When you do sacrifice one and rescue ten others, you might be excused in the end, but still you fulfil all the elements of the offense, the reproach will not be dropped.

2. Even a short period of time, something like five minutes, still counts in manslaughter trials. It doesn't count as an excuse to say, the victim was almost dead anyway - if you've had a hand in their premature end, you're in need of a lawyer. (That rule primarily applies to doctors and malpractise cases, but it can be applied to other cases, too)

In the light of this, Snape has a problem, even though it might be less morally charged than many readers believe it to be. (With that I mean that many people believe in the right of a person to choose their own way and time of death by euthanasia, even though the assistants to such actions will be persecuted in most countries. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue here that Dumbledore was such a patient. All I'm trying to say is that the fact that you have put an end to someone's life doesn't make you a murder automatically)

We put animals out their misery but don't allow humans the same right should they prefer not to suffer and will die in agony or drugged to the eyeballs to stop any pain or be in like a vegetable not knowing what is going on at all just being kept alive - how horrible. There is no dignity dying like that and I would have hated for Albus to be attacked by Fenrir or the other two deatheaters for that matter and dying in complete agony as I think they would have relished the idea of torturing him first before finishing him off.

Yes, absolutely. In this respect, I kinda 'liked' the way his death was conceived by JKR. It left him his dignity. As a character, he had to die (so Harry would be on his own), but how that came along was done very well in my opinion.

Yes she killed several birds with one stone and made the story even more mysterious so we would all get on the forums discussing every little detail in great depth and putting forward our own theories as to what it all means and what we think might happen. It's quite a lot of fun really and after it's all over we'll have nothing much to discuss (except the outcome and what should happen to all the surviving characters).
Now we are all asking what about Snape and Draco. Where are they? What does Voldemort think of what happened in the Tower? Has Beatrix dobbed in her sister and Snape over the Unbreakable Vow and in doing so herself for sealing it? If Voldemort does find out (maybe Peter Pettigrew listened at the keyhole and heard the whole thing and will tell him) what will Voldemort do to Snape et al.?????

This is excellent! I agree with you. I think that Snape has always and only looked out for his own self-preservation. I believe that the loathing and hatred in his eyes when he killed Dumbledore was just that-- he was angry that he finally had to act-probably earlier than he wanted because of Draco.

I do not think that Snape will save the day in book 7. I think Draco will have a role in the destruction of Snape because Snape, believeing in the power of love, will not expect it to come from Draco to whom he has shown affection throughout the series.

Thank you for your research. having not read Machavelli, it was most helpful. I took major American writers in college--I don't see how Mark Twain or F. Scott Fitzgerald would fit in this series. If JKR has done anything for me, she has encouraged me to read more of the classics--without a professor telling me to do so!

BJ Texan, you are amazing. I applaud you, as this is the most convincing arguement I have ever read.

Firstly, I would like to smash everyone on this "Snape is the New Dark Lord" thing. It's obvious that JKR isn't going to do that, and I think that one of the most important things that Texan does in his editorial is pick up on JKR's themes.

The theme with Snape, through and through, is that he likes to glorify himself. He is NOT like Voldemort because he does not wish to be feared by all others; he does not want eternal glory from others. He wants to respect himself. For this reason, I believe his goal is not to become Voldemort (and I believe Snape can see Voldemort's largest faults in doing this). His real goal is simply to bring down the two most powerful wizards of his time. One of which bothers him particularly for always being "too nice" and almost tainted with his understanding and forgiveness.

Jo's "book" is about countless themes. One of the most important is this portrayal of love and hate.

You have two sides that are polar opposites: Albus and Voldemort. One guy's name means "White" the other's "Flight of/from death". (Enough said, eh?) Dumbledore represents all things pure and good. He trusts completely, wholeheartedly. He always gives that second chance, whether it's Severus Snape or Draco Malfoy. He can forgive. Then you have Tom Riddle, consumed by power, knows nothing of love, and trusts no one. Neither can understand the other.

But then there's Snape. He fits in between the two, and I think that Jo is saying that if you don't give A LITTLE you will fall, as both of these two have/will. He's that unforseen problem. The one that got too close, sorta reminds me of the Jedi-Sith-Anakin thing. With what Jo said, "Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort.” (Mugglenet/LC interview) I think that this is the meat and potatoes.

I think it's more than likely that this is what Jo will do. I'd say it's probable. Now as far as how this works out, only time will tell :)

Why? The Prince is about power, not glory. "It is better to be feared than to be loved."

Firstly, JKR said something about when people's theories get to the point where they think that Snape is the "New Lord of Darkness" it is time for them to be stopped. (So I think she puts that down, pretty well) It's in the Emerson/Melissa interview.

Secondly, Snape doesn't want eternally glory, as I said before. Look at how he conducts himself. He knows what Voldemort thinks of him, and he's content with that. He tells Bella that Voldemort is content, and doesn't feel any reason to justify himself to her. Snape doesn't brag. He's very humble. He doesn't need everyone else to know what he's accomplished, unlike Voldemort.

Thirdly, I think that to be feared, sure, look at how he treats his students. But I think there is quite a large difference from "I hope he doesn't take any points away from Gryffindor..." to "Please don't kill my entire family..." Snape isn't really THAT evil. I think Jo reserves that level of evil for only one soul. (Or 7....)

Firstly, JKR said something about when people's theories get to the point where they think that Snape is the "New Lord of Darkness" it is time for them to be stopped. (So I think she puts that down, pretty well) It's in the Emerson/Melissa interview.

Secondly, Snape doesn't want eternally glory, as I said before. Look at how he conducts himself. He knows what Voldemort thinks of him, and he's content with that. He tells Bella that Voldemort is content, and doesn't feel any reason to justify himself to her. Snape doesn't brag. He's very humble. He doesn't need everyone else to know what he's accomplished, unlike Voldemort.

Thirdly, I think that to be feared, sure, look at how he treats his students. But I think there is quite a large difference from "I hope he doesn't take any points away from Gryffindor..." to "Please don't kill my entire family..." Snape isn't really THAT evil. I think Jo reserves that level of evil for only one soul. (Or 7....)

Perhaps... we'll see in book 7. At least we agree that he isn't good and isn't diong everything to protect Draco :D

This article is very good! Two-thumbs up. Well written. I don't agree with what you said about Voldemort "What if Snape asked LV to spare Lily because Snape respects the power of Love, that the Dark Lord knows not, and knew it would rebound and incapacitate LV?" because Dumbledore said in the Order of the Phoenix 'But I, knew, too, where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated -- to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you.' Dumbledore refers to love. He is, of course, a very wise and gifted wizard and human. He says that Voldemort knows, understands and is cognizant of the ancient powerful magic of love and what it can do but despises and underestimates it because he is bent on only anger, lies, deceit, hate, power, etc. In addition, the Dark Lord has six horcruxes(the seventh in his body he made), drinks unicorn blood, etc. So I don't think Snape has a chance of becoming the new Dark Lord and becoming the primary antagonist because he hates Voldemort but respects and honors Dumbledore and speaks of Dumbledore with praise. The only thing Snape has in common with LV is that he made up a name for himself and is a highly qualified legilimens and occlumens, which Dumbledore is too, also that all three understand the powers of love.

probably my favorite editorial...i love it

I tend to doubt whether "most people have heard of The Prince and know what it is generally about", so thanks for this editorial, letting us learn more about the literary background for Snape's character and its consequences.

However, I think Snape cannot take the place of LV as the ultimate antagonist of the story. The story emphasises that LV acts in ways of cruelty beyond measure, that he is a mass-killer that spreads fear and terror. Harry's first and foremost aim is to destroy LV, and nothing after that would be of his responsibility in the same level of importance. Snape has not shown signs of willing to be in a position of power such as that of LV. His "princedom" is his own grayish home at Spinner's End, and he doesn't wish to take command, but rather to survive and preserve his pride in his own cunning way. I think one symbolic hint to the point where Snape departs from the Machiavelli's prince is what Hermione (and JKR through her) tells Harry and us at the end of HBP - that the name "Prince" comes from his mother Eileen Prince, so it is not really a title after all. On one level we will be right to take it as Harry did and say that Snape, just like LV, is obsessive about his parentage and ashame of his muggle father. Yet on a more symbolic level perhaps what JKR is trying to tell us here through Hermione is that Snape is not really a fully developed Machiavelli's prince.

Ayala

Well, they are of course related, as Machiavelli is the "inventor" of pragmatism in politic (bit like popularism). See the effects in France for example. And of course, Severus Snape is one of those people, we know it too much.
There's one thing I didn't like in this editorial is the LV=Niger=Black/evil.
Do you mean Niger=Black=Evil??

that was an amazing editorial. i am fully convinced that there is a deliberate parallel between the two stories. I'm surprised that it wasn't featured. :wow:

Well, they are of course related, as Machiavelli is the "inventor" of pragmatism in politic (bit like popularism). See the effects in France for example. And of course, Severus Snape is one of those people, we know it too much.
There's one thing I didn't like in this editorial is the LV=Niger=Black/evil.
Do you mean Niger=Black=Evil??

I think it meant along the lines of Niger=black=dark=Dark Lord=Lord Voldemort. That makes a little more sense. In any case, I don't think it was meant to be offensive. :shrug:

I love this editorial, it's very well written and supported, and I was looking for something to pull me back over to the "Sirius is evil" side, because I think that's just a bit more fun to believe. This article really in very convincing, though I'm still not completely sure, as Jo likes to reference or mirror classics like this, not necessarily follow them exactly. After all, it's her original spin on things that makes the books great. So I really very highly doubt that Snape will become the next Dark Lord, even if Voldemort was destroyed, I think he'd run into a lot of trouble with the other Death Eaters, namely Bella, if she's still around by then.

Which reminds me of the part in Book 6 you brought up where Bella kills the fox. I think you're probably right, Snape's patronus is likely to be a fox, and even if it isn't, a fox is clearly very representative of him. But why stop analyzing that portion there? Perhaps Bellatrix's killing in the fox is, like Jo has done so many times before, a foreshadowing of Snape's death. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Bellatrix herself kill Snape, and who wouldn't want to read that duel?

There's another part of your editorial that doesn't sit well with me, either, that being the supposition that Snape sent Voldemort to the Potter's house knowing that it would lead to his downfall(temporary though it was). This of course implies that Snape knew that if Lily sacrificed herself for Harry, Harry would then be protected by the power of love. The way Jo has dealt with questions concerning the whole issue of Lily's sacrifice, however, makes it clear that nobody could've predicted that that would happen. Here's an example, straight from the Mugglenet/TLC interview -

MA: Did she[Lily] know anything about the possible effect of standing in front of Harry?

JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could happen.

And even if Snape did ask Voldemort to spare Lily, why would he listen to Snape? That seems highly uncharacteristic of Voldemort to me. When has he really cared about anyone other than himself? I think he must have had a more personal reason, perhaps he only wanted to split his soul so many times that night, it's difficult to say. But sparing her just because Snape asked him to seems unlikely, unless he reaaaally felt he owed Snape that favor.

So I think you're probably right about a lot of Snape's character being drawn from Machiavelli, especially with his nickname being "The Prince" and with the reference to the Emperor Severus and Generals Albinus and Niger. But I don't think Jo is following that story or those references entirely, she obviously has her own plot as well, and I think we'll see it end up a lot differently than Snape becoming the next Dark Lord, or anything like that.

And yeah, the Niger=Black/Evil is in no way a racial thing, Niger is Latin for black(the color, not the race), and the color black is often associated with evil, just as white is often associated with purity and righteousness.

Anywho - once again, awesome editorial!:tu:

Oh ok I thought this was the name niger for the african slaves brought to america. Sorry :/

Please remember that the COS Forums conduct notice (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108001) is in full swing here also




Welcome one and all to the Deathly Hallows Discussion Forum.

So, now that the final book is here, you may all begin your discussion of the story that we've all been waiting for.

general notice of conduct, zero tolerance & fan submitted work


This icon http://www.cosforums.com/images/dhus/buttons/report.gif is the report button. It appears in every post someone makes. Use it when you feel it needs using.

Spoiler Policy

There is a general two-month ban on discussing DH outside of this area. We will lift the ban on September 24th. The date is subject to change.

Anyone caught posting Spoilers outside the Deathly Hallows area will be subject to a three-point warning if they have been a member for longer than 30 days. For members under the 30-day period, they will be issued with a one-point warning. Second offences will result in an instant banning for either group.

No one may include spoilers in their signature, avatar or anywhere in their profiles. This instruction lasts for 45 days from the day of this thread creation. The 45 days are subject to change, either an increase or decrease.

Use of the Wizengamot for questions related to the Deathly Hallows discussion area is prohibited. Please use the High Inquisitor's Chamber.

General Conduct

Members are requested to moderate their tone and be sensitive to those whose theories are proven inaccurate or altogether, wrong. Regardless of the personal gratification you may take in being proven right, you will not last more than ten seconds as a member here and will be forgotten several seconds after we have banned you, if, you decide to act out your pleasure on here.

Private Conduct

If you are in receipt of a private message (Owl) where a member conducts themselves in a manner similar to the General Conduct notice above, you may forward such an owl onto a member of staff and we will action it accordingly. If you fake such a message we will know and you will be banned. If the message is genuine, we will warn/ban the member involved depending on the severity. I would like to point out that a heated argument is not the same as a blatant poke with the 'you're wrong' stick.
Private Messages are there for you to engage in conversation that may get heated, that would normally be removed on public forums. If you yourself have engaged or baited the person into saying something, you won't get very far if you report it to us.

Additionally, please inform us if you receive spam messages of any kind, in particular people spoiling the book.

Fanfiction & Art

All fan submissions related to the Deathly Hallows must be made in their relevant areas "Flourish & Blotts - New Premises" and "Hallowed Masterpieces" and any subforums within them. You may not post them outside the area. You may not link them in your signature. More on that below.

Signatures, Profiles etc...

No book 7 related information maybe included in your signature until after the spoiler policy is over. That means you may not have avatars, signatures or link threads of importance in the Deathly Hallows area in your profile/signature. If you do so, you will have the links removed and be warned.




As always forum rules apply. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact a staff member :) Better to ask the question than be proven wrong.

Yes, very good editorial indeed. Although, as has been mentioned, the conclusion was a bit... risqué. On a different forum, I too wrote, around that time, a piece about the similarities, and I must confess, it wasn't nearly as complete as this one.

I am not exactly sure on what I am to tell here - and what not, but in retrospect, it seems to me that, Snape DID get his position as "emperor". But that's reasoning to the prophacy, rather then predicting by it.

No, I think the writer missed a piece, if one concideres the whole puzzle. You see, apart from pragmatism, another philosophical trend started out; humanism. Now, humanism is said to be a product of the renaisance, something Machiavelli's The Prince certainly was, with all the refences to old emperors, myths and wars. Coincidentally, one of the early humanists wrote a book within years of Machiavelli's work; Praise of the Fooly, by Erasmus. This peace is often mentioned in conjunction with The Prince, as the works preach quite opposite standpoints. Erasmus praised the unknowing, whilst mocking kings, religion and just about anything else with a title above peasant for their blindness and lust for power - incidentally in much the same way Machiavelli does, by studying the classics. Erasmus wrote another book, less well known, called "The Education of the Christian Prince", in which he outlines the duties of a Christian prince, with of course, humanistic lining.

I think this collision is a very important theme within the HP books. Although, I would say Voldemort is the real Prince (in the sense of "ruling a principate, rather then "being the son of a king"), Snape seems to be a perfect machavellian, well Magistrate? He seems to be the perfect man for things like pacting, double-crossing, betraying and all that, for what seems for a very long time, his own interest. Like Machiavelli.

The "other side", is of course dominated by a man that radiates humanity. Now, paralells are harder to come by here, but at least he seems to praise the jolly and folly, though, of course, in a very serious way. He did not seek power and believed in the virtue of what could be said to be "his subjects".

On Erasmus himself, it can be noted that he took up a job as Professor in English at Cambridge at the end of his life, after a long academic career. He was of the opinion that education was very important and famously helped a young female study under his guidance, something which was very irregular in that age. He was also against corporal punishment. He was orphaned in his teens.

Notably, he initially held up correspondence with Martin Luther, whom tried to break Erasmus loose from Catholicism and have him join his reformation struggle. Erasmus refused and remained catholic for the rest of his life.

Whether or not Rowling modelled Dumbledore on Erasmus, or even thought about him when she wrote the books, I don't know. I do know that she intentionally seemed to point to Machiavelli's The Prince, both in theme and paralelles. And that she meant Dumbledore to be the antagonist of this theme (thus, protagonist in the whole) - and that she modeled him a humanist.

I don't know whether it's got anything to do with it, but for those with an open mind and a bit of imagination... Please concider this (http://www.biologie.de/w/images/0/0d/Holbein-Erasmus.jpg) and add a particular kind of glasses, long hair and a white beard. Detail: check the ring on his left index finger...