Dumbledore's Ironclad Reason

Discussion of the editorial Dumbledore's Ironclad Reason (www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-walkersa01.shtml) by Scott Andrew Walker.

Sounds pretty reasonable.

havent read the whole thing yet, but looks good! dude, its long! so exciting!
(first!!??, god i must be really obsessed, or just nothing to do...)

It's actually a really good idea that you have with the UV, something I had sorta had an idea about after reading a few editorials a couple of days ago, but was way to lazy to express in writing...and am sorta glad I was, because you have done a very complete job and it was very good. I agree that a UV is a 100% sure way to trust Snape from Dumbledore's perspective...one thing I was thinking about though is...in SS/PS...Snape obviously suspects Quirell of trying to steal the stone...should he not simply have to Dumbledore about this. I mean, he head Quirell off on Halloween trying to get through the trap door...just...very sneaky sneaky of snape no??? I mean, maybe he wanted to catch Quirell and get the glory, or maybe he was trying to find out his reasons to want the stone, maybe he suspected it was to do with Lord Voldemort, and just didn't want to come out and say it incase he was wrong. I mean...depending on how you read the conversations between Snape and Quirell, it could be possible...just always has bothered me...and if Snape did keep that info from Dumbledore, than I do think that sorta could be an arguement against a UV.

Great Editorial!

I too have always thought it was likely that Snape and Dumbledore had an Unbreakable Vow, but the idea that Snape is too good an occulmens to be wholly trusted without one is the best expression of why that I have heard so far.

One thing I'm not quite sure about. While it is well argued and certainly possible that Snape has been working the situation to his own ends and will rise into the position of power himself and The Dark Lord's fall; I think idea does underestimate the real loyalty that Snape does have for Dumbledore. I believe he does also feel a real duty and alligience to the headmaster, who after all; even though it may be because of an UV, defends him to all others, respects him and is objective towards him when no-one else is, understands that it is possible for him to be redeemed and gives him the chance, rewards him with a job at Hogwarts, and ultimatley trusts him. Remember that Dumbledore is almost certainly a pretty damn good legilimens/occulmnens himself and can be invisible etc etc. I think right through the series there is a sense that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore even when he doesn't like what he has to do (shake hands with Sirius?) because he, for want of a better term, truly likes and respects Dumbledore. Perhaps the most uninspiring but also highly important piece of evidence in this direction is the fact that Dumbledore always refers to him as "Severus" and always reminds Harry to call him "Professor", when everyone else just snapily and nastily calls him "Snape". If everyone was as close to him as Dumbledore than maybe thay would respect him enough to call him "Severus" too.

And finally on a similar point. I think the fact that Snape always refers to Harry simply as "Potter", whilst Dumbledore of course calls him "Harry", is leading to a brilliant climax at the end of the series when Snape's good intentions are revealed and he will be redeemed in Harry's eyes, when he will finally call him "Harry".

Good editorial - the only thing that I would say is about the Malfoys.

The editorial said that now the Malfoys will owe Snape big time, and that this could help with the Death Eaters.

But I don't think that the Malfoys have any standing within the DE crowd anymore - or with Voldemort. Lucius has failed twice now (Diary and Prophecy) and Draco failed what was probably a test of his loyalty.

So even though Snape will be in high regard by the Death Eaters, I think that the Malfoys will no longer be in Voldemort's good books.

ExtendableEar: I think you may have it backward. Dumbledore genuinely seems to like and respect Snape. Snape, on the other hand, is ambiguous. A solid arguement of his loyalties could be made for either side. That is why he is so intriguing. Just because most of fandom seems to [I]believe[I] him loyal to Dumbledore doesn't mean he is.

Wow, what a well structured and thought-out editorial - great job! :clap: It definitely raises some interesting points. However, there's one thing that bothers me big time in the Snape as Spy section:

Telling Harry he was still in Lord Voldemort’s employ on that night implies that he hasn’t yet become a spy for Dumbledore at the time he heard the prophecy, or else he may have acted differently with the information he overheard while eavesdropping. [...]

So how could Snape have “rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort’s downfall and turned spy for us” and still have been in Lord Voldemort’s employ during his downfall?

You seem to equate the time of the prophecy with the time of LV's downfall here. However, we know that the prophecy was made before Harry was born and fulfilled (i.e. Lord Voldemort attempted to kill Harry) when Harry was already 15 months old (see also the HP-Lexicon timeline (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/main/timeline_1970-1990.html)).

So there are about one and a half to two years between the prophecy and Voldemort's downfall. I don't know exactly, but somehow I seem to remember that the prophecy was made quite some months before Harry's birth, in the fall, but I can't look it up right now, so I'm not 100% positive on this one. In any case - there was ample time for Snape to change sides!

Brilliant! An Unbreakable Vow would certainly be the one reason to trust Snape. I have always felt Snape was and is in it for himself. Of course, an UV would explain a lot of things. Also looking back at Snape's "Worst Memory", I believe it was his letting Lily down that hurt him far more than anything James could do. Thank you for an excellent editorial. :clap:

Well thought-out, coherent, you put across a lot of good points.

I was going to point out the gap between the prophecy and Voldy's downfall that you seemed to have missed, but Maginny has done it for me! One other little gripe - the editorial makes several references to a person's 'roll'. I think the word 'role' is what should have been used here!

Extremely well written essay. The possibility of an unbreakable vow between Snape and Dumbledore was something I never thought about. However there is one thing I sort of disagree with and its Harry ever trusting Snape and my reasoning has to do with a quote from Rowling. She said the relationship between Snape and Harry is now as personal if not more so than Harry Voldemort.

Nice editorial, you put a lot of thought and effort into it! The idea of an Unbreakable Vow makes sense, and the thought that Aberforth will fill Harry in on it all is a good one.
I'm still not sure what I think about Snape. But I think your conclusions about Lily were good.
There’s no way Lily loved Snape.
I agree 100%. It seems to me that Lily was the type of person who was kind hearted and loved everybody. I do think she loved Snape, maybe the way you love your best friends, but she had no romantic feelings for him.
In the DVD extras for PoA, JKR said:
Jo Rowling: Alfonso had good intuition about what would and wouldn't work. He's put things in the film that, without knowing it, foreshadow things that are going to happen in the final two books. So I really got goosebumps when I saw a couple of those things, and I thought people are going to look back on the film and think those were put in deliberately as clues.
Perhaps JKR is referring to the conversation Lupin had on the bridge with Harry, when he tells Harry he knew his mother, and that Lily always saw the best in people (or something like that).
Most people take JKR's comment about the PoA film to mean the moments between Ron and Hermione (which I love!) but perhaps she was also thinking of this one, because we will find out in Book Seven that Lily was indeed a kind-hearted person who saw the best in everyone, even Snape.

~Gina :)

thank you! I figured right away that there had to be an unbreakable vow between Dumbledore and Snape. It's the only thing that makes sense for there to be such a trust. I also think that part of the vow was to protect Harry at all cost. That way he redeems himself from Lily's death, and keeps Harry safe from Voldemort.

Very often, when I read the MuggleNet Editorials I find myself agreeing with some ideas, while I disagree with others, even the best and most reasonable Editorials have points I highly disagree with.

For the very first time, every single word in an Editorial matched completely my own theories about the subject. It was like reading my own mind, to a point where it was almost scary.

My most sincere compliments and my respect.

The article is well written though i am a bit confused.
JKR answered the question "Has snaped been loved by anyone"?
and the article is talking about who snapes might have loved.

So who has loved snape, would it have been lily? or possibly his mother or AD.

As for snape and lily being together in the slugclub...i don't know about that one
look at hermione/ginny and blaise. Also remember how Slug talks about
James and Sirius...surely they would ahve been in the club to

That is of course if the club existed back then.

lastly like in GoF the face tells many stories. In GoF it was ADs in HP it is Snapes...
what was with the hatred look? truly if snapes was for himself he would have enjoyed, or possibly
the hatred was for all the abuse he took in school. But if one truly wanted power than wouldn't one give a hint of satisfcation overcoming one of two obstacles.

Well written editorial...but I feel like you were assuming a lot. I mean, Lily and Snape may not have had a relationship. Therefore, Snape may not have had remorse, and without remorse, he would have had a different reason to feed to Dumbledore, which could lead to a different UV...I do agree with you that Snape is in it for himself. But there were so many grasping-for-straws moments in this article, I mean you assumed that Lily and Snape had a relationship, and assumed that he loved her, and assumed all of this because of that one moment in Snape's Worst Memory, when really, he could have done that all the time. And as for her hurt at being called a Mudblood, that could be explained away by the fact that no one would like to be called that. Also, when Snape killed Dumbledore, the look on his face could have been hatred of Dumbledore...you never know with Snape! Now, not to entirely put you down, as I said, I do agree that Snape is on his own side. I don't know what his reason is that he told Dumbledore and I suppose the UV makes sense...but isn't it dark magic? as in there is NO WAY Dumbledore would ever do that? I think it's a verbal reason, not a vow. I think your editorial was good, I just don't agree with much of the backstory about Lily or the UV with Dumbledore.

Excellent!

I would add one more piece to the puzzle: I believe the moment at which Dumbledore decided to give Snape a second chance was perhaps a low point in Snape's life rather than a clever ploy of Snape's to protect his own interests. Here's a thought: The reason JKR showed us Tonks and Lupins' relationships was to show us that a wizard could lose all magical powers if extremely distraught. (I means, really, why should we care about the progress of Tonks and Lupins relationship? What bearing does it really have on the story?) We are shown this reaction to emotional devastation because we need to know that this is what happened to Snape when he discovered that he (through telling V of the prophecy) had caused the death of Lily Evans.
We are also shown Harry's extreme emtional reaction at Sirius's death when Harry realizes that he is at least partially responsible for that death. This, too, will help us to see what happened to Snape, what Snape felt and thought, when Lily was killed by V.
And remember, Dumbledore does NOT trust everyone blindly. What he does is quite different -- he offers people a second chance. But he doesn't necessarily trust them. He offered Tom Riddle a second chance, but he didn't truat him and kept an eye on him at Hogwarts.
Dumbledore offered Snape a second chance, but that doesn't mean he trusted him. Whether he needed an Unbreabale Vow or not, we will soon find out in Book 7. But Dumbeldore does not foolishly and blindly trust anyone. He is very cautious.

Anyway, really great editorial. Especially the insight into why this was Snape's worst memory. Never really thought about it until reading your anaylsis. But I think you're spot on.

I think that your idea is a good one and if it turns out to be right than you are a genious. I still can't quite buy it because of a few reasons. The first one is "Snapes worst memory" I am not quite sure that the memory we saw was his very worst. It could be if that was one of the memories used to convince Dumbledore (how else did it end up in the Pensieve). I am still talking in two minds but I still can't quite belive that Snape loving Lilly would be one of the most crucial unknowns. In the article you also bring up multple areas where a Unbreakable Vow is used. I really don't think that Snape is caught in so many unbreakable vows.
While your theory is great I think it holds to many assumptions as facts and whenever you hold too much to be true you make a mistake.

Overall, this is pretty well thought out. There are a couple of ideas that I think are erroneous, but the general hypotheses seem likely.

So how could Snape have “rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort’s downfall and turned spy for us” and still have been in Lord Voldemort’s employ during his downfall? The timing doesn’t work out. I personally believe Snape didn’t switch sides until after the prophecy, after Voldemort chose the Potters. Then he went to Dumbledore.

Trelawney's Prophecy would have been uttered some time prior to July 1980; given the weather, probably in the spring of that year or the autumn of the prior year.Voldemort did not attack Harry until October 1981. So, there is no problem at all with the timing. We have a series of events something like this:

Spring 1980 or earlier: Snape hears part of the Prophecy, reports to Voldemort;
31 July 1980: both Harry and Neville are born by this time;
August 1980 or later: Voldemort has narrowed down his list to one of two boys; at some point, he picks Harry;
Around that time, Snape realizes that he's put Lily and James in danger (not that he would have cared about the latter, but the former.....); he grasses on Voldemort to Dumbledore and is no longer in Voldemort's employ (in Dumbledore's opinion);
Some time in 1981: The Potters learn that Voldemort is after them and use the Fidelius Charm to hide from him;
October 1981: Pettigrew betrays the Potters.

So, there is no problem at all with the timing: Snape was not in Voldemort's employ at the downfall, but when the Prophecy was given. That would have been about a year and a half before Voldemort's downfall. Snape could have gone to Dumbledore at any time between August 1980 and (say) summer 1981. Earlier makes more sense than later, because it does not make sense for Voldemort to wait too long to go after Harry. Important parameters that we do not know include:
When Pettigrew went over to Voldemort (if it was after he became secret-keeper, then the Potter & Evans might have been hiding for some time);
Whether Voldemort had a Founder's Relic handy for the making of a Horcrux


Snape is gravely affected when he learns that Lily is killed as a result of the info he gave Voldemort and becomes enraged. Now Snape’s return to Dumbledore is calculated.

Again, Snape would have been gravely affected when he learned that Harry was the one that Voldemort had chosen. I agree that Lily was the reason, not Harry and certainly not James. At that point, Snape's return to Dumbledore could have been calculated.

Indeed, only this really makes sense: had Pettigrew not betrayed the Potters, then Snape telling Dumbledore that Voldemort was after Harry could have put them forever out of harms way as Snape had no control over what steps they would take and who would guard those steps. This makes sense if Snape is acting to save Lily, but not if he is working for Voldemort.


I think what he is pleading for is Malfoy’s life.

Alternatively, Dumbledore is pleading with Snape to stick to the plan, and, if given the choice between killing Dumbledore or being killed by the Unbreakable Vow, then to kill Dumbledore: if that is to topic of the argument between Snape and Dumbledore overheard by Hagrid! Of course, the editorial posits this sort of scenario.


Now there are a bunch of Death Eaters who are sure to end up in Azkaban unless they find someone willing to lead them out of the mess they are in, and Snape sees his opportunity to finally slide into the position he’s craved his entire life – the power position. With Voldemort gone, who better to take his place, in their eyes, than the wizard who killed Dumbledore?

This is the one idea that I find highly unlikely. Snape's end will precede Voldemort's end. Snape simply is not the antagonist: Voldemort is. We know, for example, from JKR that the link between Harry and Voldemort will be important in the end. For JKR to switch antagonists at this late would make her the butt of literary jokes for decades to come (much the way some mystery novelists are skewered for introducing the criminals in the same scene in which they are unmasked).

Now, JKR could have used Snape in this sort of manner to set up a sequel series. (The Harry Potter serial is one of sequels, I know, but I do not know if a serial that is a sequel to another serial has its own word!) Snape would be the Sauron to Voldemort's Morgoth.

However, JKR has said 7 and out. So, my call: Snape dies a bitter death saving Harry, but not before unleashing upon Harry his hatred of Harry and all that he represents and the reminder that it is purely because there might, somewhere, somehow, be something of Lily Evans in Harry, although Snape has never seen it. A second firing of the "Lily's Eyes" gun might happen here. Harry's ability to reconcile himself with Snape's actions and to ultimately forgive Snape might be key to the mental state in which Harry will need to be in order to defeat Voldemort.


Well written editorial...but I feel like you were assuming a lot. I mean, Lily and Snape may not have had a relationship. Therefore, Snape may not have had remorse, and without remorse, he would have had a different reason to feed to Dumbledore

Dumbledore says that concern for Harry's mother and father is why Snape switched sides. This is why Snape warned Dumbledore that Voldemort was going to kill Harry, and thus what led James and Lily to hide at Godric's Hollow.

We have no reason to assume that Dumbledore is lying about this.

For this to work, there must have been some friendship of some kind between Snape and Lily, of which Dumbledore either knew or had verified. Remember, Lily Evans is alive and well at this time, and had she been surprised that Severus Snape would try to save her, then this would have come out. This does not rule out Snape having his own agenda (although that requires very convoluted explanations with no basis in the canon, and those reasons should be there at this point); however, it does mean that Dumbledore knew that Snape had at one time actually cared about Lily.

I loved the the take on Snape's worst memory! This is a very good line of thought and well worth exploring. While the unbreakable vow does make a lot of sense, I am not sure Dumbledore would use one. As to the timing of Snape's change of sides, there is ample time to hear the prophecy and then find out it would involve Lily, before Voldemort's demise. Cannon says Snape went over to Dumbledore's side before the down fall of Voldemort.

Lastly, to comment on someones use of the JKR quote about POA foreshadowing the last books. I believe this could be when Snape jumps in front of the trio when Werewolf Lupine comes near. This could be associated with the unbreakable vow or a least show how Snape is compelled somehow to instinctively protect students or at least Harry.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Mercer
Elf of Old

Surely the UV is dark magic? Also wouldn't Voldemort be more likely to bind all his death eaters to him with an UV? Therefore Snape would have one with him first and if he made one with Dumbledore, would instantly die. I think JKR will have limited the scope of the UV somehow (like she does with Felix, timeturners etc), otherwise there would be UV's all over the place.

What do other people think about this?

Great editorial! I had the very same thought process when I read about Snape taking the Unbreakable Vow. He had made one with Dumbledore.

As Dumbledore said to Harry about young Tom Riddle: "I didn't take it for granted that he was trustworthy"... neither did Dumbledore take Snape at face value. He has to believe in the good in others, but he's no fool.

I haven't finished it yet, mostly skimmed it yet, but it's obvious you put a lot of thought into and crafted a very solid essay.

I agree that Dumbledore is not messing around when it comes to Snape. But UVs seem to be something that Death Eaters use. Remember the snakes? And then there is the "you will die" clause. It sounds like something bad guys use. I think Dumbledore is an excellent judge of character and wouldn't need something like a UV to trust Snape. Besides, I think Dumbledore and Snape are time-travellers so they probably have a much more airtight way of trusting each other, that doesn't involve death.

I don't think Snape loved Lily romantically. I think the chapter titles work just like the rest of the book. It's all Harry's perspective (with the exception of two chapters I believe). So the memory is Snape's "worst memory" because Harry believes it is, not because it necessarily is.

GinnyPotter71: Since when is it canon that a UV is Dark Magic? Just because Snape and Narcissa make one (two dark characters), doesn't necessarily make it dark. Evil characters are capable of using neutral magic (accio, protego, etc.) and "light" magic (a patronus--Snape uses them to communicate with the Order) just as well as Dark Magic. I totally agree that Dumbledore would NEVER use dark magic, but how did you make the jump that a UV is dark magic? Is it because if you break it you die? Well, guess what, this is war, and if Snape messes up pretty much anything with Voldy he'll die. I don't consider this "stooping" on Dumbledore's part, just taking necessary precautions during wartime. Can you come up with a better reason for him trusting Snape?

How about the reason JKR gives in the book...i.e. Snape's story of regret.
Why isn't that reason enough? Perhaps Dumbledore was just wrong and shouldn't have trusted Snape (Harry thinks!). Afterall JKR seems to hint this in her interview with Mugglenet and Leaky. I dont understand why everyone thinks there is more to this trust of Snape.

Is this even an editorial? Shouldn't this be in the fanfiction section?

jmas1357
(I means, really, why should we care about the progress of Tonks and Lupins relationship? What bearing does it really have on the story?)

I rather doubt that JKR gave us Remus and Tonks to foreshadow any sort of relationship between Lily and Snape. I think it more likely that she is drawing loose parallels between Lupin/Tonk and Bill/Fleur, and perhaps later with Harry and Ginny. Star-crossed lovers and all that ;)

I think the following JKR interviews could provide evidence to a Lily/Snape relationship:

ES: Was James the only one who had romantic feelings for Lily?
JKR: No. [Pause.] She was like Ginny, she was a popular girl.

MA: Oh, here’s one [from our forums] that I’ve really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?
JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has. Okay, one more each!

David Moulds for the News of the World - How does Aunt Petunia know about dementors and all the other magical facts she knows?

JK Rowling: Another very good question. She overheard a conversation, that is all I am going to say. She overheard conversation. The answer is in the beginning of Phoenix, she said she overheard Lily being told about them basically.

Is that true?

JK Rowling: Yes. The reason I am hesitant is because there is more to it than that. As I think you suspect. Correctly, but I don't want to say what else there is because it relates to book 7.
It seems to me these three bits (thanks, Quick Quotes Quill!) could be used to support some sort of relationship between Lily and Snape. I especially think the last one is telling. If Aunt Petunia overheard a conversation between Lily and James, why not just say so? But JKR is deliberately keeping it a secret. Is it because Petunia overheard Lily and Snape? And telling us now would clue us in to something we shouldn't know yet? Or is she hoping we'll think its Snape, come up with all sorts of crazy theories, and then she'll laugh and say "Oh, it was just Lily talking to James, that's all!" ;)

Also - JKR will not reveal Snape's patronus *or* his boggart. Why? What could it reveal to us that she doesn't want us to know yet?? Thoughts? :)

~Gina :)

hmmmmmmmmm.....
reading this i've only one thing to point out:
"So the vow puts Snape under oath to do anything and everything within his power to: 1.) Bring to pass the permanent fall of Voldemort.
2.) Do anything and everything Dumbledore asks of him to this end.
3.) Protect students and teachers from death until #1 is completed.
4.) He must disclose his actions as a Death Eater to Dumbledore.
5.) And so on "

thus is debatable, we've no idea of the terms and conditions exactly, this should be taken as guesswork for now.
as for making an Unbreakable vow, thats a good idea.

I've seen many people forming an idea that Aberforth will be a rough cut Diamond. I don't think that will be appropriate. Dumbledore was DUMBLEDORE, bringing another character resembling him(Aberforth) would be unfair, for someone as good as Jo, i think she would like to make Aberforth as human as possible. He could have terrible shortcomings. Treating him as a Horcrux destroyer or avenging angel is debatable, nor would he necessarily be a solution to all of Harry's problems. Jo must have kept him till the end b'coz i think he must be a very interesting character, atleast as interesting as Snape neither evil, nor an angel

Great editorial. This is basically my theory on the subject too. There's really no good reason for "Snape's Worst Memory" to be so bad, and I doubt that even Dumbledore would be willing to trust a known Death Eater unless he had an Unbreakable Vow with that person.

Also - JKR will not reveal Snape's patronus *or* his boggart. Why? What could it reveal to us that she doesn't want us to know yet?? Thoughts?


thats a good idea. we should have a discussion on the possible Boggart forms or Patronuses possible for Snape

Great editorial!

I particularly liked your analysis of Snape's worst memory, which I think is right on the money. I too think that Snape feels remorse for Voldemort killing Lily.
One thing I like about the Unbreakable Vow theory is that it can be used to explain a question I have been puzzling over

Why does Snape keep trying to get Harry expelled from Hogwarts where he is learning skills needed to defeat Voldemort, and where he is protected by Dumbledore? If Snape made a vow not to hurt Harry, nor to allow him to be hurt in his presence, but still wanted to see Harry defeated, then trying to get him expelled makes perfect sense. Harry would be in grave danger from all sorts of people if he had been expelled. Even if Snape had made a vow to work towards Voldemort's downfall, I am sure Snape would never believe that it is Harry who must defeat Voldemort.

Wow! That really makes sense. This is one of the first editorials in about two years that I absolutely agree with. I hadn't really given that much thought at all. Besides, why would she introduce the unbreakable vow if it didn't play a larger part later on? Brilliant!

Morwen,

I think Snape is trying to get Harry expelled because:
1. He knows it will never happen, so he can do it all he wants.
2. It will make him look like he is against Harry and thus protect his cover.

Great editorial, Scott! You put a lot together. Thanks

You've voiced practically all my thoughts on the matter! Incredible! I've been mulling most of these things for some time. 'Snapes worst memory' jumped out immediately. It wasn't the humiliation, it was the 'loss' of Lily. Everything branches from that foolish act on his part.

Thanks for a super editorial. But now I don't need to purchase book 7... But I will anyway.

OMT

Again, Snape would have been gravely affected when he learned that Harry was the one that Voldemort had chosen. I agree that Lily was the reason, not Harry and certainly not James.

You're forgetting that Snape owed James a life debt, and we have no proof that Snape ever wanted James dead. (But considering that Snape never wanted Harry dead, he probably felt the same way about James.)

I am pretty sure that what happened was that, as I-forget-who said in PoA, Dumbledore was tipped off by one of "a number of useful spies" that Voldemort was after the Potters. I think the spy was Snape, because I can't think what else would make Dumbledore trust him so much.

As for Dumbledore being mistaken in trusting Snape, that idea MUST have occurred to Dumbledore himself. After all, he could hardly ignore Harry's insistence that Snape's loyalties might not be as strong as he thought.

I have also been wondering about the look on Dumbledore's face after Snape killed him. I would think that since the man he trusted so much had ultimately betrayed him, the look on his face should have been a look of shock and horror, such as the Riddles had.

I liked your idea of Lily becoming friends with Snape at the Slug Club. That was very perceptive! However, the Unbreakable Vow doesn't work for me. It's just seems Death Eater style, whether it is dark magic or not. Dumbledore places too much value on free choice (and I think implicitly on true trust). To me it seems the Unbreakable Vow is used when you don't fully trust someone, to shackle them and prevent them from making last minute choices...

Great editorial. I think all of the ideas presented are very plausible.

Dumbledore places too much value on free choice (and I think implicitly on true trust). To me it seems the Unbreakable Vow is used when you don't fully trust someone, to shackle them and prevent them from making last minute choices...

Indeed. Remember what he did with Harry before they set out for the cave. If Dumbledore were down with making an Unbreakable Vow, I'm sure that he would have put one on Harry.

Unless the only reason he didn't was that he didn't have a third party to cast the charm itself, since it takes three people to make an Unbreakable Vow.

Sorry I didnt have time to read all the posts but for all those who said that Snape does have an abundant amount of loyalty to Dumbledore, I agree with you. I also totally agree with the Snape avenging Lily's death theory and the Snape's Worst Memory part of that.

But personally i cannot see Dumbledore asking anyone to make an Unbreakable Vow. I feel that an unbreakable vow is for people you dont trust at all (or are just in a deperate need of reassurance like Narcissa). It's like someone saying, " I don't trust you enough just to take your word for it." Its like the real croos your heart and hope to die. I think Snape could have given enough proof to Dumbledore that he loved Lily for him not to make an UV with him.

I do think Snape made an UV with Lily to protect Harry though. I see everything that happened in Spinner's End happening 15 years earlier just with James, Lily and Harry rather than Bellatrix, Narcissa and Draco.

Excellent editorial!

I did have a few problems with all the assumptions you put into the article. Them being:
1) People use the Dark Arts for the sole reason of gaining power. Sure, Voldemort and some of the others did it, but why not use them for other bad purposes, like as a better defense (against others) or for revenge on someone else.
2) Snape could actually get a crowd of death eaters to support him after the Dark Lord is killed. I mean, I know some of them respect him, but many others, like Bellatrix, don't. There would end up being a huge power vacuum if Voldemort falls, and other DEs would want the position, and I'm not sure Snape could get Voldemort's old job.
3) Then of course, how you used the timing of the prophecy confused me a little.

I'm not really in the campe where everyone thinks Snape is setting himself up as the next Dark Lord. And I hope he doesn't do such a thing.

Really liked this editorial. It brought forth a unique, plausable theory that i think just may be on the spot. I was a little wary with the Unbreakable Vow at first, but Scott backed it up with convincing evidence, to which I have a little to add. Recall year 1, the first Quidditch match of the season. Quirrel is jinxing Harry's broom, as we find out later, and Snape was working the countercurse. If Snape really hated Harry so much, why help him? If there was no UV in the way, there would have been no evidence that Snape had harmed Harry in any way. He could have been like the rest of the fans and done nothing, removing Harry as a pestulance. Similarly, Snape never directly harms Harry, but does all he can to get Harry expelled, which would remove him from the bound of the supposed UV. Peace out, everyone :cool:

Thank you for the very extensive article. It was very well thought out. I would hessiate though and say that you hang your hate too much on theories. First that Snape was bond by a UV (which I suppose is possible, but I would hope for something more exciting than that), and second that Snape was in love with Lily. I suppose that is possible to. The theory that an unpopular out cast would fall in love with a nice girl that didn't like to see anyone get picked on is totally possible. My only question would be then why did he call her a muddblood?

What I find interesting about this editorial is the idea that Snape's ultimate goal is power. I don't think I can definitively agree or disagree with the notion, but it doesn't quite sit right with my understanding of his character--power in the sense that Voldemort wants it, namely "hey, I wanna rule the world," just doesn't seem Snape's style to me. There's no real dispute that Snape is indeed powerful for a wizard, given his proficiency at dueling and his expertise in the Dark Arts, but he hasn't shown the kind of tendencies to control and dominate others that Voldemort has--to belittle and perhaps manipulate others, yes, but not to be their master. It's hard to say at this point, but I think even Snape doesn't ultimately know what he really wants. Perhaps part of him wants power, part of him wants personal safety, and part of him wants love, and it might be that his character arc could be defined as the struggle between these elements of his personality.

That said, I don't think Snape is out for anyone but himself in the sense of having any absolute loyalty to any master; on the other hand, I don't think an Unbreakable Vow would have been necessary for Dumbledore to trust him, given that, as has been pointed out multiple times on the thread, there was ample time between Voldemort's decision to kill Harry and Lily's death. The part of Snape that loved Lily and still hoped for her love would have been enough for Dumbledore at that point.

Surely the UV is dark magic? Also wouldn't Voldemort be more likely to bind all his death eaters to him with an UV? Therefore Snape would have one with him first and if he made one with Dumbledore, would instantly die. I think JKR will have limited the scope of the UV somehow (like she does with Felix, timeturners etc), otherwise there would be UV's all over the place.

What do other people think about this?
I totally agree with you, taqh. I haven't read all the replies, but I was about to write the same thing.

The "dark" thing about an Unbreakable Vow is that it takes away the element of choice. You either fulfill it or you die. That's why Mr. Weasley was furious when the Twins jokingly tried to get Ron to make one when he was a little boy - it's not something a good wizard would do to another. It's just as much about slavery as the Imperious Curse.

Dumbledore is the epitomy of good, and he is all about choices. He neither needs nor wants a slave in Severus Snape. I believe he trusts Snape because they Don't have an Unbreakable Vow between them. I believe he trusts Snape because has chosen to be on the good side and do the right thing for years.

Otherwise, the books are only about slavery to a "Master" on one side or another, and not about our choices proving who we really are.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Voldemort routinely uses Unbreakable Vows, which is probably why Narcissa thought it was necessary to make one with Snape - it's the only way these dark witches and wizards would trust each other because they are so suspicious. And if it is so easy to imagine Voldemort using these Vows, then how does that translate to Dumbledore forcing a Vow? It doesn't work, in my opinion.

One reason Dumbledore might not have told Harry the reason he trusts Snape is that he's always asking Harry to have faith in simple things, and Harry doesn't always buy it. For instance, Harry dismisses the "heart full of love" thing as a way to defeat Voldemort, so he surely would have thought Dumbledore was truly crazy if he said he trusted Snape just because Snape is trustworthy.

And this editorial along with "Machiavelli's Half-Blood Prince" are both trying to make Snape out to be this "power happy" guy. I don't see it. What power? How does he gain power by killing Dumbledore? Voldemort may even be angry that he did it, instead of forcing Draco to do it.

Also, Snape has no real purpose to the Dark Lord now. He can't spy on anyone at Hogwarts, which he states as his mission all those years, so what next? He's not popular with the DEs, as Chapter 2 HBP shows, and he's hated by most of the good guys now, so he's just as much of an outcast as he was in SWM all those years ago.

The theory that an unpopular out cast would fall in love with a nice girl that didn't like to see anyone get picked on is totally possible. My only question would be then why did he call her a muddblood?

The author answers this in his editorial. Here is a quote from the essay:

Now back to the lake. Snape’s “arch enemies” are taking turns throwing hexes at him, and Lily comes over and tells them to stop. James says he will if Lily will go out with him. Snape gets off a silent Sectumsempra spell against James, which cuts his face open, and Sirius lifts Snivelly up by the ankles, exposing his underpants. Lily almost laughs at this.

Until now, all of Harry’s focus has been on his father since he first saw him in the Great Hall. Harry doesn’t notice Snape’s reaction to Lily almost laughing at him, but I bet it really made Snape angry to see the girl he loves laughing at a prank at his expense. So he reacts by calling her a Mudblood -- forever damaging their relationship. This would also explain why Lily reacted so strongly to James when he tried to make Snape apologize. “I don’t want you to make him apologize,” (OotP, pg. 648, American version, JKR's emphasis). She wanted Snape to apologize on his own. I’ll bet they had words over this later, but he never did say he was sorry and their relationship effectively was finished.

Scott is proposing that the reason the chapter is called SNAPES WORST MEMORY is because he calls Lily a Mudblood, and it was in response to her almost laughing at him.

I thought most of your editorial was well thought out and based on clues in the books. I too, thought about an unbreakable vow between Snape and DD. It is very possible that it occurred. Whether there was or wasn't doesn't change the outcome too much though. DD believed Snape.

I also think Snape was remorseful about Lily's death. In fact, I believe that the reason LV gave Lily a chance to live was at Snape's urging. He may have asked LV to spare Lily because she could be useful....He would never have revealed to LV that he had feelings for her.

I am in the camp that Snape is for Snape as well, and have felt that way since book 5. I think Snape heard the whole prophecy, and protects Harry because he needs him to vanquish LV.

Where I disagree is when you begin to speculate that Snape will help Harry find the Horacruxes. I don't believe they will ever work together. There is way too much hostility between them. I think Snape will help Harry with LV in the end, which is unexpected by Harry and the order. I have often speculated that Snape might try to do in Harry once LV is vanquished.

In any case, your editorial was very good, and I enjoyed it!

I enjoyed the editorial. Most of it seemed to make sense. I do find comfort in the idea that we are all going to be a little bit wrong with our guess work, so the 7th book remains extremely interesting.

Also wouldn't Voldemort be more likely to bind all his death eaters to him with an UV?

This doesn't make sense at all. 1. Voldemort manipulates and uses people's fear to keep them in check. It would be kind of a waste of time for him to do an UV for all of his death eaters. If they betray him, he can simply kill them himself afterwards. 2. (And most importantly) We know that Voldemort doesn't do an UV with his death eaters. We were given proof of this in the beginning of HBP. Karkaroff betrayed Voldemort's death eaters and decided not to return to LV's services at the end of GoF, he fled. Yet, it was more than a year after his betrayal that he was finally found and killed. This evidence proves that your notion is false.

Important parameters that we do not know include:
1. When Pettigrew went over to Voldemort (if it was after he became secret-keeper, then the Potter & Evans might have been hiding for some time);

Sirius tells us at the end of PoA that Wormtail was a spy and passing Voldemort information for more than a year before the night that Lily and James were killed. So we know that, at the latest, he was in Voldemort’s service sometime in 1980, possibly before. It seems to me like Wormtail would have been in Voldemorts services before the Prophecy was made. Voldemort would only tell his death eater's his plan to kill Harry, he wouldn't make his plans public knowledge, especially to the members of the Order who weren't already on his side. In addition, the Potter’s probably wouldn’t have gone into hiding immediately after the prophecy was made. It would seem more likely that the Potters waited to intact the spell for them to go into hiding until they were sure that Voldemort had mad his choice about which boy he was going to go after.

I really liked this editorial the best one i have read for some time. The one main thing i disagree on is that when voldermort is defeated i dont think snape will take his place. I think there will be no leader at all. I cant see snape trying to kill all of these people who havent really done anything to him. I would like to see snape become the next AD the head of the order of the phenoix

I think we know too little about Unbreakable Vows to suggest that any had been used, except the one we witnessed with Narcissa and Snape. Although I agree that this editorial brings up some very good, backed up points, after reading the comments on this thread I've begun to have second thoughts.
Why WOULDN'T Voldemort use a UV on his Death Eaters? It makes sense for his character, and it also makes sense strategically to him. If anyone betrays him, they would die, and save him the trouble of hunting them down to do it himself.

Let's take the UV-Voldemort theory seriously for a moment. Voldemort makes his death eaters take an unbreakable vow to be loyal to him and carry out his requests. It would reveal two VERY important things about it:

1. Snape would be dead by now if he had joined Dumbledore's side. And, as many people think, if Snape was "his own man" and had taken neither side? This too, in my opinion, counts as becoming disloyal to Voldemort. Dead.
This said, it would mean that Snape is still loyal to Voldemort.

2. Voldemort never made his Death Eaters make an Unbreakable Vow. This gets me thinking...Why wouldn't he? Why wouldn't ANYONE? Why is it that the Unbreakable Vow isn't used more often? Wouldn't jealous lovers use it to force their mates to be loyal to them (physically if not mentally, which is a sad image but I could see it happen). Wouldn't the Wizengamot use it with criminals to lessen crime? Wouldn't criminals use it to get their way? Is there something about the Unbreakable Vow that makes it a rare spell to cast? I don't know about it's relationship to Dark Magic...but I'm not sure if that would be a reason for its rarity.


So I am not so sure about the Unbreakable Vow being used with Dumbledore and Snape, simply because I think there is more to their story than that. I'm not saying that they couldn't have used a UV, as it is quite plausible. But I am not going to, as it were, "take sides" as to whether they did or not because I feel like I know too little. I also think that it is not in Dumbledore's character to make an Unbreakable Vow to make sure of things. He said he "trusted" Snape, and I don't think "trust" entails forcing loyality upon an untrustworthy someone. I think Dumbledore genuinely trusted Snape, and that the reason will be revealed to us in book 7.

I do agree whole-heartedly with the Snape loving Lily theory, as it is something I have thought of ever since reading that chapter for the first time.
Love is a huge theme in this book. To me it is more likely that Snape genuinely felt remorse for telling Voldemort the prophecy, and "joined" Dumbledore out of regret of his own actions. I still think Snape is on neither side of the war.

I think it's obvious that Snape loved Lilly.I think they were friends. The idea of the unbreakable vow is good,but there must to be more to it.Something is missing.DD must to have had a plan.I also don't like the fact that DD told Harry he was going to tell him everything and still kept so many secrets from him.It is hard to believe that DD was such a goofball ,and that's why so many people have a hard time believing he is dead.

The whole theme of the Harry Potter series is love, we have heard that countless of times over the years, and to me it makes sense that through the use of love Harry will vanquish Voldy, so if this is the case, why not believe in the idea that that is the reason behind the trust between Dumbledore and Snape. Its not a farfetched idea to believe, its very plausible, much more plausible to me than the idea that Dumbledore might have forced Snape to perform a UV with him just to be sure of his loyalty, it is not in the character of Dumbledore to do this. I also believe that the UV is a form of Dark Magic, heck it must be, especially when the consequence of not fulfilling it is death, that in my opinion is not reflective of the extent that Dumbledore would go to confirm loyalty, we know that Dumbledore goes to any length to stop an unnecessary death. Over the course of the books Dumbledore to me epitomizes all the good in the world, and i dont think that he would rely on such crude and dark methods of confirming loyalty. I think maybe Dumbledore might have a subtler or simplistic way of doing it, either by taking Snape at his word of his remorse. i have also wondered about Fawkes. There is a thread that i remember vividly reading about Fawkes being a truth indicator. It's a good thought, we do know that Phoenix have many uses, maybe the ability to detect truthfulness? I think this is a interesting idea. But in my own opinion i think that Dumbledore may have taken Snape at his word of his remorse.

When Dumbledore tells Harry everything, i take him at his word, there might be a little bit more detail to it, but i have no doubt that maybe it was a generalised version overall, the remorse Snape felt is the key factor. Due to the timing, it was not possible for Dumbledore to elaborate much, due to the fact they were about to depart to go Horcrux hunting. But i think that we must take Dumbledore's explination at face value here, its not too incredulous to believe, its very possible to believe that Snape felt great remorse, especially in Lily's case.

Basically i dont think that Dumbledore has to rely on such methods as the UV to have to trust and confirm the loyalties of people, not even in the worst of situations. Or else it would be going against the whole idea and theme of this book, that the good side plays just as much hard ball as the other one does, to me its just not the kind message that JKR would promote in her books. (well thats my opinion, i could be way off the mark!! :D)

Very interesting ideas in the editorial, made a good read, but i must say that i dont agree with most of the things that you say. But all the same a very good read.

Wow. For the first time sice July 16th (HBP release) I'm actually convinced of something regarding Snape.
Whilst I'm not sure how the end wil play out, Snape being out for himself and taking over as Dark Lord or Snape being loyal to Dumbledore.
Other than that though, I agree 100% with everything that was said.
It was well written, well research and had lots of forshadowing and coanon backup.
I'd be very suprised when reading book 7 if the points from this editorial wern't right.
Well done! :clap:

Well written and structured editorial.

Unfortunately, I don't see most of that stuff happening.

I believe that there are as much evidence that debunks the use of a UV between Dumbledore and Snape as there are that supports it. But my main reason for believing a UV was NOT used between Dumbledore and Snape is that it was already used as a major plot device in HBP. Sure, it could be that it was shown in HBP to get us ready for it in book 7, but I will be sorely disappointed if a UV was/is used in book 7 between Dumbledore and Snape or Snape and anyone else.

Of course, since it's the only thing we know about, it's the only thing we can theorize about.
I really hope it's something new, or at least something that hasn't been used in such a way before.

As far as the Snape/Lily ship goes, I've never been a fan of that possiblity. NEVER. Unfortunately the ship does explain quite a bit and I fear is very plausable. So that may be something I just have to accept.

Also mentioned in some of the above posts, I do not believe that Snape will be the next "Dark Lord", for many of the reasons already mentioned. DE's don't trust him, there'll be a battle for power because other will want that position, etc. Oh, and the Malfoy's are definitely out of favor with Voldemort, so I don't see how they could help Snape gain more power.
And Jo said it in an interview somewhere (can't find the interview, but Oceania brought up the quote on another thread discussing Snape) that the theory that Snape will be the next dark lord is ridiculous and she is squashing that theory before it gets too far.

I have to say though, the editorial's show of the similarity between a UV and Dumbledore asking Harry to obey him before they retrieve the horcrux is very interesting. I would have never found that parallel and it could be important.

Oh, one more thing that has been mentioned before, though not on this thread and I think it does fit here. It has been theorized that Snape did in fact hear the ENTIRE prophecy, because Trelawney is aware of Snape bursting in on them, and if she was in the middle of the prophecy, she would still be in that trance-like state and she would not be aware of the interruption. Now, if THIS is the case, then Snape did not tell Voldemort the entire prophecy of his own accord, which changes things drastically.

i have also wondered about Fawkes. There is a thread that i remember vividly reading about Fawkes being a truth indicator. It's a good thought, we do know that Phoenix have many uses, maybe the ability to detect truthfulness? I think this is a interesting idea. But in my own opinion i think that Dumbledore may have taken Snape at his word of his remorse.


I was just about to bring up Fawkes when I got to your comment. I think, however, it is less about truth and more about loyalty. Dumbledore tells Harry that Harry must have shown him real loyalty in the Chamber to bring Fawkes to him with the sword and the Sorting Hat. There has been some discussion on the boards about the possibility of Fawkes being able to determine a person's loyalty, in which case perhaps Fawkes has "vouched" for Snape and that is why Dumbledore believes in him.

Can you just imagine Harry running into Snape sometime during Book Seven - and finding Fawkes perched on his shoulder?? ;)

I agree that Dumbledore would not have needed nor desired an Unbreakable Vow with Snape to confirm his loyalty. Whomever pointed out that an UV takes away the element of choice made a great point. Dumbledore is way too concerned with choices to use such a method. And I agree that an UV seems to border on Dark Magic, since it does - in a way- enslave the people involved to one another, and Dumbledore would not be likely to use Dark Magic.

I"d suggest a life debt between Dumbledore and Snape but there is no canon evidence for it, and little reason to suspect it. So it would sort of come out of the blue in Book Seven, and I wouldn't like that. It may be, perhaps, that Dumbledore has very normal, non-magical reasons for trusting Snape.

And it may be that he was wrong.

~Gina :)

And Jo said it in an interview somewhere (can't find the interview, but Oceania brought up the quote on another thread discussing Snape) that the theory that Snape will be the next dark lord is ridiculous and she is squashing that theory before it gets too far.
:) Well, she didn't exactly say he wouldn't ever be the next Dark Lord - and if she did there wouldn't be any point in some of these essays.

What she said was in reference to the theory that Snape was a vampire - another theory that has thankfully hit the dustbin. But I never realized before she does use the phrase "Lord of Darkness"

JKR: Generally speaking, I shut down those lines of speculation that are plain unprofitable. Even with the shippers. God bless them, but they had a lot of fun with it. It's when people get really off the wall — 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


:tu:

:clap: Very good! I really like your idea, it is something new that I have not considered and makes pretty good sense to me. Whether or not it plays out how you say it will I think you are on the right track.

[QUOTE=CrookshanksG]But my main reason for believing a UV was NOT used between Dumbledore and Snape is that it was already used as a major plot device in HBP. Sure, it could be that it was shown in HBP to get us ready for it in book 7, but I will be sorely disappointed if a UV was/is used in book 7 between Dumbledore and Snape or Snape and anyone else.

Surely having a UV used in HBP supports the theory about the Vow between Snape and Dumbledore, not contradicts it! I said this before, but it's the way the vow is used in Book 6 that makes it almost inevitable for it to resurface again in a major way in the last book. The vow between Snape and Narcissa serves no plot objective in Book 6, so, assuming JKR does not use frivolous plot devices (and she normally does not) the only point of devoting so much attention to it in Book 6 would be explain the mechanism of the Unbreakable Vow so that the reader would understand it when the time comes. Personally, I agree that the Vow for which we are being prepped is the one between Snape and Dumbledore. Nor do I think that using the Vow is "dark" or that it contradicts Dumbledore's character in any way: Dumbledore is trusting but not blindly so, and Snape is a sufficiently contraversial character to call for such an extreme measure. Besides, in trusting Snape Dumbledore puts in jeopardy not only his own life, but lives of many others, so a vow would be fully justified. That said, the vow in itself does not mean that Dumbledore does not have a good opinion of Snape, or that Snape does not have a genuine loyalty and respect for Dumbledore: the vow is just an insurance.

One thing I disagree with is the content of the vow. I believe it had two parts - doing everything necessary to bring down Voldemort, and protecting Harry from harm. I do not think that obeying Dumbledore would be part of such a vow: Dumbledore is smart enough to give people room to do whatever necessary to fulfill the main objective without having to resort to micromanagement. His authority as a top wizard and a headmaster would have been enough to ensure obedience in most cases. Besides, the argument that Hagrid overheared would have been impossible if Snape could not disagree to follow Dumbledore's instructions under the pain of death. Finally, I do not believe that disclosing information to Dumbledore would be a part of the vow - for the same reason, he has enough respect for people to trust them with such things, especially after he has an iron-clad, life-or-death reason to trust then in the essentials. Having a separate clause to protect Harry though would make sense: remember that Snape does not know that Harry is the chosen one (Dumbledore tell Harry he did not tell anyone else of the full prophesy), so without this clause Snape might believe he does not need Harry to bring down Voldemort and would act accordingly.

Well done, but I have two significant objections off the top of my head.
1) I still doubt that Dumbledore would use an unbreakable vow. They're dark magic, even if used to a good end. Remember that Arthur was apparently angry at the kids for using the unbreakable vow before he knew what the vow was about. Dumbledore values choices too much to really force someone's hand like that, and he wouldn't risk being a "murderer" of sorts if Snape broke the vow and died. I also can't think of a good reason why Dumbledore wouldn't tell Harry in HBP that he trusts Snape because of an unbreakable vow. The reason Dumbledore trusts Snape has to be something private. It could have to do with Lily, but it must be something that Dumbledore doesn't think he should tell Harry.
2) Assuming there is an unbreakable vow between Dumbledore and Snape, I can't think of a reason why Dumbledore would have it stop when Voldemort dies. I think maybe this came because you like the idea of Snape taking power after Voldemort's final downfall. I would think the hypothetical unbreakable vow would require Snape to protect Hogwarts students and so on for his entire life. And if there's some reason to have it end with Voldemort's death, Dumbledore could have told Harry THAT. He could have said something like "I trust Severus Snape to work against Voldemort" at least, if not "Harry, we can trust Professor Snape until you finally defeat Voldemort."

Im glad you wrote this editorial. I have posted several times that I believed that Dumbledore and Snape had made an unbreakable vow but I believe that the vow was for Snape to protect Harry as long as he is at Hogwarts. I think this is why Snape has been protecting Harry all along, because there is no way that someone who obviously dislikes Harry as much as Snape would have done so much to help him unless he was forced to in some way. however, one thing is wrong with both of our theories, and that is the fact that Snape has run off and will not be in a position to protect Harry or the Hogwarts staff, etc. So what happens to Snape now? Im sure Jo doesnt plan for Snape to vanish in a pouf if something happend, say, to Prof. Sprout!

I agree totally about Lily and Snape and their relationship. All of it--the love, the friendship, the betrayal and the ultimate remorse over inadvertently causing her death.

However, I object slightly to your version of what happened on the Tower.
This is why Dumbledore was so insistent that Harry get Snape when they returned. If Dumbledore’s death couldn’t be prevented that night, Dumbledore wanted to be sure Malfoy wasn’t the one pulling the trigger, allowing him to be redeemed. In fact, Dumbledore asks that Harry go get Snape BEFORE he even nows there is a dark mark in the sky. He wants Snape to heal his sickness from the horcrux potion. (see canon, HBP (American), p 580

Also, Dumbledore explains that he asked Harry to give him his word that he would obey all of his commands the night they go to the cave because Dumbledore knew that he might have to have Harry's help in drinking the potion (or some other unpleasant ritual associated with breaking a horcrux--see canon, HBP (American), p 570.)

Finally, you left out one group of people who have a position on Snape, those who believe that Snape is out for himself but will be redeemed and will ultimately do something to help Harry. I do not believe that Harry will find out all, forgive Snape, and then work hand in hand with Snape to defeat Voldemort. but I do think that someone will happen to make Snape act in the greater good. Im not going to speculate on what that would be, but if you think that the whole redemption issue is mumbo jumbo, you really should re-read what Jo has written about it. I believe she fully intends for Snape to be redeemed in the future, she has said as much, and she has stated that choices are the central issue, and I believe that Snape will be faced with a choice that will lead to his ultimate redemption. I can imagine that Jo might be at that place in her writing, right about... oh...say...NOW!

Oh, I'm so confused now! When I first read this editorial I thought -- This is great! I hadn't thought about the UV to cover the question of Snape's loyalty. It solves so much!

Then other folks came along and said -- No! This is Dark Magic and takes away freedom of choice. Dumbledore would never do that!

It seems that the UV causes as many conflicts as it removes. My pet theory, that Snape witnessed the murders and spilled his guts, er, memory for Dumbledore to peruse as penance, seems way too simple when compared to the UV theory. Yet the UV theory does seem problematic because it removes the element of choice. Could Snape have insisted on it, in order to prove his intent?

[QUOTE]
One thing I disagree with is the content of the vow. I believe it had two parts - doing everything necessary to bring down Voldemort, and protecting Harry from harm. I do not think that obeying Dumbledore would be part of such a vow: Dumbledore is smart enough to give people room to do whatever necessary to fulfill the main objective without having to resort to micromanagement. His authority as a top wizard and a headmaster would have been enough to ensure obedience in most cases. Besides, the argument that Hagrid overheared would have been impossible if Snape could not disagree to follow Dumbledore's instructions under the pain of death. Finally, I do not believe that disclosing information to Dumbledore would be a part of the vow - for the same reason, he has enough respect for people to trust them with such things, especially after he has an iron-clad, life-or-death reason to trust then in the essentials. Having a separate clause to protect Harry though would make sense: remember that Snape does not know that Harry is the chosen one (Dumbledore tell Harry he did not tell anyone else of the full prophesy), so without this clause Snape might believe he does not need Harry to bring down Voldemort and would act accordingly.

I think Snape is smart enough to figure out what's going on with Harry. He heard the prophecy in the Hog's Head, even if he didn't hear the entire thing. He must surely suspect that Harry is indeed The Chosen One, even if Dumbledore hasn't told him outright.

I would be shocked if any UV included a provision to protect Harry. But then, it would be a delicious twist, wouldn't it? ;)

I also question the timing of Dumbledore making an Unbreakable Vow with Snape. Snape turned spy *before* Voldemort's downfall. Did the UV happen before this, or after? If it happened at all, and included a clause to protect Harry, I think it had to happen after this event. Why in the world would Snape make an UV to protect the son of James and Lily Potter when they were still alive? But perhaps after Voldemort's downfall he felt some measure of guilt or remorse, particularly over Lily's death, and took the UV at that point in time. Or, if there is no requirement that Snape protect Harry in this hypothetical UV, then he may have made it *before* the Potters were killed at Godric's Hollow, as a show of his sincere desire to work for the Order and destroy Voldemort.

I still question any sort of vow between Dumbledore and Snape. JKR may set things up early to figure prominently later in the series, but if she is setting up the concept of the UV to appear in Book Seven, I think its more likely that we will see the consequences of the Snape/Narcissa UV play out, as opposed to a new vow between Dumbledore and Snape.

I think I would be a bit disappointed in Dumbledore, with the information I have, if he used an UV as a guarantee of trust/ measure of control over Snape. That said, it could still be done well, and be another wonderful twist (I really hope there are a few left!).

~Gina :)

[QUOTE=altap]
I still question any sort of vow between Dumbledore and Snape. JKR may set things up early to figure prominently later in the series, but if she is setting up the concept of the UV to appear in Book Seven, I think its more likely that we will see the consequences of the Snape/Narcissa UV play out, as opposed to a new vow between Dumbledore and Snape.

I think I would be a bit disappointed in Dumbledore, with the information I have, if he used an UV as a guarantee of trust/ measure of control over Snape. That said, it could still be done well, and be another wonderful twist (I really hope there are a few left!).

~Gina :)

I agree with you completely. Especially the part that if a UV had a prominent role in book 7, that it would be the "completion" (per say) of the Snape/Narcissa UV.

I guess a better explaination (then what I posted previously) of why I don't believe that a UV will be a major part of the plot of book 7 is because it was so blatent in HBP, since many argued that it was not a major part of HBP as I had said previously. The entire second chapter of HBP lead up to the UV between Snape/Narcissa.
The pensive for example could be considered a passing compared to this. It was something relatively small that ended up being something bigger.
The animagus was something relatively small or thoughfully insignificant, though later it was a huge thing with the mauraders. Same thing with Azkaban, briefly mentioned in CoS.
I just think that the "small/seemingly insignificant" things are what is going to be the klincher, not the "big" things and the UV was a big thing in HBP. That's all.

So, there is no problem at all with the timing: Snape was not in Voldemort's employ at the downfall, but when the Prophecy was given. That would have been about a year and a half before Voldemort's downfall. Snape could have gone to Dumbledore at any time between August 1980 and (say) summer 1981.
Just what I pointed out in my post (#8). ;)


Snape simply is not the antagonist: Voldemort is. We know, for example, from JKR that the link between Harry and Voldemort will be important in the end. For JKR to switch antagonists at this late would make her the butt of literary jokes for decades to come (much the way some mystery novelists are skewered for introducing the criminals in the same scene in which they are unmasked).

Now, JKR could have used Snape in this sort of manner to set up a sequel series. (The Harry Potter serial is one of sequels, I know, but I do not know if a serial that is a sequel to another serial has its own word!) Snape would be the Sauron to Voldemort's Morgoth.

However, JKR has said 7 and out.
My thought exactly (Voldemort being the antagonist, not Snape). But I could never have argued it as well as you did. (On a side note: D'you know, Wimsey, your posts are amazing. They often provide more insight and / or clarification than many a looong editorial. Keep it up! :clap:)


So, my call: Snape dies a bitter death saving Harry, but not before unleashing upon Harry his hatred of Harry and all that he represents and the reminder that it is purely because there might, somewhere, somehow, be something of Lily Evans in Harry, although Snape has never seen it. A second firing of the "Lily's Eyes" gun might happen here. Harry's ability to reconcile himself with Snape's actions and to ultimately forgive Snape might be key to the mental state in which Harry will need to be in order to defeat Voldemort.

Interesting scenario. I think we all agree that Snape will play some pivotal part in the last book, considering how the mystery of his character, his role, and his motivations has been set up in the six books available so far.
What I like most about your scenario is that it doesn't place Snape completely on either the "good" or the "bad" side (and neither on his own, like the essay we're discussing here did). He stays somewhere in between, living proof of another one of JKR's themes, namely that the world can't be divided into good and bad, black and white (or, as Sirius would have it: "good people and Death Eaters"), but that there are all shades of gray in between. Snape exemplifies this and was therefore one of my very first reasons to appreciate JKR's "children's books".


I just think that the "small/seemingly insignificant" things are what is going to be the klincher, not the "big" things and the UV was a big thing in HBP. That's all.
Couldn't have said it better myself!

It's hard for me to believe that Dumbledore would ask anyone to make an Unbreakable Vow. Remember that a betrayal of the vow results in death, it's like asking Snape to sign his life away, something I just don't think Dumbledore would resort to.

Voldemort, on the other hand, would definitely do something like that.

Is it possible Snape has a UV with Voldemort, not Dumbledore? I can see Voldemort doing something similar to the UV during the initiation ceremony of becoming a DE, (if there is one, and it seems highly plausible that there would be since the DEs resemble a cult). It would be like entering a fraternity, a test of loyalty. The Dark Mark would be a physical symbol of that contract. It has similar properties to the Unbreakable Vow...the fiery ropes that resembled snakes, the snake in the Dark Mark, the burning sensation from the Dark Mark, and the UV is made with fire. And then there's the comment about "once a death eater always a death eater" and "you don't just hand in your resignation to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death." Sounds like a UV to me. ***please excuse me/correct me if I've misquoted, I don't have my books with me at the moment! :)

Also Voldemort's paranoia would lead him to make a UV with his followers to prevent double agency.

And, IMO, Dumbledore making a UV with Snape goes against one of the very crucial parts of Dumbledore's personality...his almost reckless trust in others.

While I don't agree with the conclusion of the editorial I thought it was well-written and definitely thought provoking. Great job! :D

It's hard for me to believe that Dumbledore would ask anyone to make an Unbreakable Vow. Remember that a betrayal of the vow results in death, it's like asking Snape to sign his life away, something I just don't think Dumbledore would resort to...

And, IMO, Dumbledore making a UV with Snape goes against one of the very crucial parts of Dumbledore's personality...his almost reckless trust in others.

...
I totally agree! :tu:

I can't see DD making anyone do a UV. It's just not his style.

I do have to say that this editorial has pushed me off the fence about Snape having feelings for Lily. It appears quite likely to be the case. It also gives credence to the theory that Petunia learned about Dementors from Snape not James. Snape would be in a position to know more about Dementors. Enough to impress upon Petunia how dangerous they can be.

I've just finished reading all of the posts, and so many of you have said so many great things. Now, along with this editorial, you really have me thinking!

I agree that Dumbledore and Snape probably do not have an UV. From many posts I have read, I have come to agree that it's more of a sign of lack of trust, it takes away choice, and while it may not be dark magic, it's getting close to it, because of the "death" part.

If there was a clause in some UV to protect Harry, that would explain Snape's constant protection of Harry, despite Snape's hate for Harry. However, wouldn't Snape ultimately being good, and wanting Voldemort defeated, cause the same thing? Even if Snape didn't hear the whole prophecy (which someone else brought up again that he actually may have heard the whole thing, which is an awesome thought), Snape heard enough to make Voldemort realize that Harry was a danger to him. Remember the first part of the prophecy? "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord...". Snape is the only person other than Dumbledore and now Harry, Hermione, and Ron that knows (although many suspect) that Harry is the only one who can defeat Voldemort. And, especially from Snape's perspective, he might not. But Harry has the power, and thus he is important. No matter how much Snape might want to never see Harry again, for whatever reason, if Snape is truly good, like I still somehow believe, he wants Harry to stay out of harm's way.

Doesn't that just make sense?

~

I know that there was more I wanted to say. But I can't think right now...

Oh. Well, I had another thought. Remember how Dumbledore said he's "watched [Harry] more closely than [he] can have imagined" (OotP, Amer. Hardcover, pg. 839). He most likely knows, somehow or another, that Snape has been protecting Harry. Wouldn't that be the proof of all proof that Snape can be trusted?

And about Lily. There really seems to be no canon evidence to support his loving her, or vice versa, so I've always been skeptical about the idea. But I have heard the "Snape's Worst Memory" argument before, about how Lily could be the only reason it was his worst memory, and Lily could be the only reason Snape felt remorse. And while I find it hard, even, to believe that Snape and Lily were best friends, per say, she seems to be a nice person, and a person that even "hated" James at some point, just like Snape. So it might make sense that he liked her... cared about her in some way... didn't exactly want her dead, let's say. That makes sense. I don't know how far I want to take the "love" thing. But love of some kind would be a great reason, and one I've always thought, of why Dumbledore would trust Snape. So perhaps he secretly loved Lily, and somehow, perhaps by losing his powers, or something, Dumbledore realized this.

(However, I think the "losing your powers out of love" thing has been played out. Tonks forshadowed Merope....)

I also agree with SoccerDM in post 47.
This doesn't make sense at all. 1. Voldemort manipulates and uses people's fear to keep them in check. It would be kind of a waste of time for him to do an UV for all of his death eaters. If they betray him, he can simply kill them himself afterwards. 2. (And most importantly) We know that Voldemort doesn't do an UV with his death eaters. We were given proof of this in the beginning of HBP. Karkaroff betrayed Voldemort's death eaters and decided not to return to LV's services at the end of GoF, he fled. Yet, it was more than a year after his betrayal that he was finally found and killed. This evidence proves that your notion is false.

I agree that for some unknown reason, Unbreakable Vows don't seem to be used much. Voldemort can't have made UVs with each of his Death Eaters, like SoccerDM pointed out early on with the example of Karkaroff. I don't think he did, either. I don't think it's because he'd prefer to have everyone follow him out of fear, like SoccerDM said, because an Unbreakable Vow kind of is fear - you follow it only out of a fear of death! I think that the main reason Voldemort wouldn't use UVs is because he's so secretive. You need a bonder for an UV. He'd never want a witness!

However, although I don't think Snape and Dumbledore had an Unbreakable Vow between them, a good argument for it would be that "ironclad" means "unbreakable"....

I think that's it for now.

If you can think of anything better, or wrong with what I've said, let me know!

I agree that Dumbledore and Snape probably do not have an UV. From many posts I have read, I have come to agree that it's more of a sign of lack of trust, it takes away choice, and while it may not be dark magic, it's getting close to it, because of the "death" part.

(However, I think the "losing your powers out of love" thing has been played out. Tonks forshadowed Merope....)

The way you phrased the UV as a sign of "lack of trust" is perfect. There's definitely a lack of trust, and insecurity on the part of the person asking for the UV. I don't see DD having that insercurity.

On another note, I never thought of Tonks forshadowing Merope in that way. Hmmmmmm....... Interesting.

I’m sure you’ll all come up with many more objections, but this is long enough as it is. My goal in writing this essay was to explore some of the motivations behind one of the series’ biggest mysteries: why Dumbledore trusts Snape. I hope that I have given some credible evidence that supports the idea.Well, Scott, I think you've done a good job at outlining your theory. An Unbreakble Vow between Snape and Dumbledore would explain a lot. It's not only possible, it's plausible. I'm not entirely convinced, though, that a UV is the only way DD might have been convinced of Snape's sincerity. It may be the best way, but I'm sure JKR would be able to come up with something else... if she wanted to. But, hey, you could be right.

There were only a couple things in particular from your editorial that I want to comment on.

First:What was all of this for from the very beginning for Severus Snape? Before the vow...before the curse-that-went-bad...before falling in love with Lily Evans...when he decided to immerse himself in the Dark Arts? It was about power. Snape wanted power then and has wanted it ever since. That’s why he became a Death Eater. That is why he has aligned himself the way he has with the people in his life. That’s why he chose to be close to the leaders of both sides of the war....

Now there are a bunch of Death Eaters who are sure to end up in Azkaban unless they find someone willing to lead them out of the mess they are in, and Snape sees his opportunity to finally slide into the position he’s craved his entire life – the power position. With Voldemort gone, who better to take his place, in their eyes, than the wizard who killed Dumbledore?I'm not so sure the "power position" is what Snape's been after all these years. That is, I'm not sure he wants power over others as much as he simply wants to ensure that no one else has power over him. This would be one of a few typical reactions for a survivor of a dysfunctional family and very likely of child abuse, as we saw Snape mired in during the one brief episode Harry was able to delve into his mind. Survivors who choose to take the reins of their own destiny, and do so with stealth, are most often looking to protect themselves in the future. They may manipulate others to achieve that end, but their intent is not to "lord it over" them. Any anger issues they may additionally be indulging are met through passive-aggressive means. Survivors with a true desire to "lord it over" others do so by emulating their own abusers - they become abusers themselves.

But Snape does not do this. His ability to restrain himself - for years - is notable. Snape is talented and expedient enough to have gained much more power for himself before now if it's what he'd really wanted most. Continuing to restrain himself after Voldemort's defeat at Godric's Hollow tells me that seeking power over others was never his first priority. After Voldemort's defeat, most people, including, I believe, most of the DEs, thought Voldemort was done for, gone for good. I don't believe the vast majority of DEs knew anything about horcruxes, and certainly not about the number LV had put aside. But if any of them could have, it would have been Snape, not from being told about them, but from being so knowledgable about the dark arts on his own. Even if that's true, though, Snape had to know that Voldemort making a bodily comeback would be very, very difficult, if possible at all, especially as time wore on and no new Voldy showed up. Had Snape wanted power over others, I think this would have been the time for him to strike. Even if he felt it possible for Voldemort to return, he would have had ample time to make his move and to thoroughly prepare for the day when that might happen. A "reborn" Voldemort was probably not going to be up to his old standards at first and Snape would have known he might be able to do away with him for good.

But as Snape did not do this, I believe he was doing what he had to - staying at Hogwarts - in order to keep himself out of Azkaban, where "others" would most definitely have had the ultimate power over him. :scared:

Second:I just don’t buy it. Dumbledore wouldn’t make an Unbreakable Vow with Snape because it’s below him. If Snape really had good reasons to believe to come to Dumbledore to begin with, Dumbledore should have had equally good reason to trust him without a UV.

That’s possible. But the real reason for the vow is to defeat Voldemort. And Dumbledore knows he isn’t going to be the one to do it, Harry is. Dumbledore has to depend on allies to be reliable at the end when Harry needs him most. We cannot forget Snape’s outstanding ability to hide his thoughts and make his actions completely unpredictable. As a double agent spy, what other method of magic, potions, spell, contract, etc. exists that would allow Dumbledore to ignore the past and completely and absolutely trust Snape? Unless there is something that JKR hasn’t introduced to us yet, the UV is the only type of contractual agreement (magical or otherwise) that would give Dumbledore that certainty.If there is an Unbreakable Vow between DD and Snape, I think you've hit the nail on the head here as to why, Scott. :agree: Dumbledore is trusting, but he is also very savvy and no idiot. In other words, he is pragmatic. We've seen him do a number of things outside the strict rule of law, as you mentioned in the editorial. He is always focused and at all times has his "eyes on the prize" of defeating Voldemort once and for all. If he absolutley had to have Snape's assistance to attain that prize and absolutely had to be able to trust in Snape's cooperation, DD would certainly accept the UV as a necessary means of doing so. It would not have been too ignoble an act to ensure Voldemort's defeat.

I'll be interested to see if your theory is proven correct, along with all the other plausible ones I've seen to date. :)

Would Snape's refusal to continue Occlumency lessons count as something Snape didn't do that Dumbledore asked him to do to bring to pass the permanent fall of Voldemort, and isn't that a breaking of the vow? And if so why isn't Snape dead? Unbreakable Vows are so confusing... :(

Survivors with a true desire to "lord it over" others do so by emulating their own abusers - they become abusers themselves.

But Snape does not do this. His ability to restrain himself - for years - is notable. Snape is talented and expedient enough to have gained much more power for himself before now if it's what he'd really wanted most.

That's a great point. But Snape is an "abuser". The reason that, even if he's "good", he's still "bad" is that he abuses his teahcer's position. He doesn't grade fairly, he favors certain students and truly is horrible to certain students (that's where the real "abusing" comes in), etc.

However, I agree that Snape doesn't seem too power-hungry. He may (I don't know) be only out for himself, but he's not aiming to take over the world.

Would Snape's refusal to continue Occlumency lessons count as something Snape didn't do that Dumbledore asked him to do to bring to pass the permanent fall of Voldemort, and isn't that a breaking of the vow? And if so why isn't Snape dead? Unbreakable Vows are so confusing... :(

That's a good catch. I missed that! That seems to prove that there at least weren't any clauses to the UV (if there was one) that stated that Snape had to do as Dumbledore said. However, there could still be a clause that said that Snape had to do whatever he could to protect Harry and/or bring about the permanent fall of the Dark Lord. Because Snape seemed to be truly unable to continue. Dumbledore's "mistake" was thinking that Snape would be able to forget his grudge. Snape couldn't, and Snape was so furious that he really couldn't help Harry anymore.

I saw it earlier in this thread, but I don't think anyone shot it down. How about the Unbreakable Vow being between Snape and Lily, probably a vow to protect Harry if anything happened to Lily. That would drive Snape ultimately to Dumbledore, and even to confess to him about the UV.

Picture the scene this way. Snape overhears half the prophecy before he is apprehended. The struggle lasts long enough for Sibyl to finish the prophecy before they break into the room but Snape has been too distracted to hear it all. After his release, he reports to Voldemort and figures out the Voldemort is going to kill the Potters. Snape is filled with regret and remorse, and goes to Lily to confess what he did. At this point, Lily gains the UV from Snape to protect Harry if anything happens to her. Then he (and perhaps the Potters) go to Dumbledore. Dumbledore starts to make arrangements to hide the Potters, and realizes that Snape must no longer be loyal to Voldemort. He begins to trust him and recruits him as a double agent.

This explains Snape's constant protection of Harry book after book, yet Dumbledore is not involved in a UV with SNape.

Just a thought.

That's a good catch. I missed that! That seems to prove that there at least weren't any clauses to the UV (if there was one) that stated that Snape had to do as Dumbledore said. However, there could still be a clause that said that Snape had to do whatever he could to protect Harry and/or bring about the permanent fall of the Dark Lord. Because Snape seemed to be truly unable to continue. Dumbledore's "mistake" was thinking that Snape would be able to forget his grudge. Snape couldn't, and Snape was so furious that he really couldn't help Harry anymore.

But how does the vow recognize that sort of emotion? I can see him not dying from the vow if he was somehow physically unable to (injury, being held somewhere against his will) but something like a grudge...it's more of mental thing, you know? How would a spell recognize human feeling like that?

And it depends on if you believe Snape really couldn't get over it or if he just doesn't want to. I tend to think that he could get over his grudge if he really, truly wanted to. But it seems like he gets a lot of pleasure from being the way he is, which in my mind makes him horrible but not unable to do anything about it.

Also, how is trying to get Harry expelled doing all he can to ensure Voldemort's downfall? An uneducated Harry would be a much easier target for Voldemort.

All quotes from editorial.

The piece is interesting, however I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that Snape and Dumbledore made an Unbreakable Vow hence Dumbledore's trust of Snape and make the following points in response to some particular matters raised.

We also know that Snape, talented at Slughorn’s own subject, Potions, was one of his favorites.
Where, pray, do we "know" this from. Slughorn does not sing Snape's praises during his rhapsodies on Lily, neither does he seem to recognise Harry's methods in his class as coming from Snape. As far as we are told in the book Slughorn compares Harry's innovations to Lily and most emphatically never to Snape.

Neither is there ever any indication that Severus was a member of the Slug club in HBP. What we do know is that Snape was recognised to be good at Potions, but there is a clear implication that he was no where near as good as Lily Evans (as she then was).

Since they were both favorites, and both in the same year at Hogwarts (presumably), it only makes sense that they spent a lot of time together at Slug Club parties.
Similar sentiments as above on this issue. Severus is not mentioned as having been in the Slug Club, and, as the first Voldwar was in progress when Snape arrived at Hogwarts, and because he was seen to be assoicated with what for want of a better term could be called pure blood supremacists, it would make more sense that in light of Slughorn's seeming revulsion of Voldemort (due to what Horace himself had helped to make him) that Snape was not a member of the club. Therefore, even though there is a very good likelihood that Severus and Lily were in the same NEWT level Potions class, it is unlikely that their friendship (if it existed at all) existed at any level other than in the classroom. This would be supported by the fact that Severus and Lily were in different houses and from what we have been shown there is little interraction between houses except in class or at Quidditch matches.

“…your mother and father.” He doesn’t say, “parents.” He also doesn’t say, “Father and mother.” By saying “mother” first, he is naming the person Snape still has feelings for, giving justification for the remorse he felt at her loss.
This is not an unusual use in Britain (and here I'm taking it that the author is not from Great Britain). It is normal to say both mother and father or mum and dad. The order is invariably with the female nominative first and IMHO too much is being hung on this rather innocuous phrase.

I would also refer you to the Loyaulte me Lie piece on Red Hen, which sets out compelling reasons as to why Severus did not love Lily.

It is noted that Severus was remorseful at Lily's death, however the reason for this is more likely to have been because he did not realise the consequence of his reporting the partial prophesy to Voldemort would be that Lily died than that he was in love with her (even in the unlikely event that he was).

Snape’s plan would be this: He would go to the interview and simply tell Dumbledore he was sent to be a spy, he wants to switch sides and wants to fight against Voldemort.
Snape was never stated to have been at the Hog's Head for a job interview. This testimony comes only from Trelawney, who is, let's face it, not the most reliable source (except when she doesn't remember). Snape's actual job interview would have been almost two years later (if there ever actually was one and he was not placed at Hogwarts thorugh his connection to the Malfoys).

It is also rather unlikely, but admittedly not quite impossible, for Snape to have gained Dumbledore's complete trust in a period of only about two months. This is calculated from 1st Sepember 1981 (first day of school) until 31st October 1981 (Voldemort's downfall). If he did gain Dumbledore's complete trust in that short time the reason must have been more than just his remorse over effectively sending Voldemort after the Potters.

The most likely scenario, and one that would tie up matters rather well, is that Severus had been Dumbledore's man since the aftermath of the Werewolf incident.

Dumbledore tells us Snape was “still in Lord Voldemort’s employ on the night he heard the first half of Professor Trelawney’s prophecy” (HBP, pg. 549). Telling Harry he was still in Lord Voldemort’s employ on that night implies that he hasn’t yet become a spy for Dumbledore at the time he heard the prophecy, or else he may have acted differently with the information he overheard while eavesdropping.
Once again reference is made to Red Hen's piece as stated above. The question that has to be asked is this:

If both Dumbledore and Trelawney were accurately recounting their versions of the Hog's Head incident then one of them must have been rather economic with the truth, so which one was accurate?. It is near impossible for both versions to be true.

In light of what has been put forward here and elsewhere I am of the view (and subject to persuasion otherwise) that Severus is Dumbledore's man.

This editorial is BRILLIANT! I am of the same mind with everything that you said Scott.
However; after reading a few of the posted comments, I must now question Dumbledore's use of the Unbreakable Vow. I don't really believe it is dark magic, or the Weasley twins would not know the specifics of how to work the charm (for example, how to bind the agreement, etc.). It is however, dangerous. I'm thinking that maybe Dumbledore's trust comes down to his Legilimency powers, which I assume, are greater than Snape's Occlumency powers. Dumbledore is about 150 years old, where as Snape is in his 40's. Dumbledore is the man, and his skills outmatch any wizard or witch in the series, as verified by Madam Marchbanks, who personally tested Dumbledore in his Transfiguration NEWTS (She must be about 200, and still ticking). Everyone distrusts Snape because he is unsavory and has a bad habit of making people dislike him (Lupin and McGonagall for instance). They see him as a very good Occlumens because they can't do it! So far, only Dumbledore and Voldemort are better at Occlumency than Snape. To me, the Unbreakable Vow falls into the catagory of magic used by both sides, just like Legilimency. Dumbledore had/has no problem using Legilimency to get information he needs. He used in on Morfin, Hokey, and tried using it on Slughorn. Duh!---I forgot about Slughorn!! Slughorn can perform Occlumency, and probably Legilimency too!
Sorry, I'm losing my original train of thought--see how it all is so woven together that one thing effects everything else! Just like the Time Turner told us. Anyway... this is really tough! I suppose we shouldn't rule out the possibility of an Unbreakable Vow between Snape and Dumbledore. And, remember, Dumbledore was arguing with Snape, as overheard by Hagrid (and repeated to Harry and Hermione). I just remembered that! There may have been an UV made to ensure that Snape carried out DD's plans, which also mirrors the UV made with Narcissa--all to protect 16 year old Draco. Yeah, it all makes sense now! And to protect Harry after Dumbledore is gone--yep, totally believable.

We are all the time trying to find a reason which would explain everything that Snape did since he heared the prophecy/approached Dumbledore. But, on the other hand, we all agree that Snape, whether good or bad, has a very complex personality.
So perhaps what we need to do is to find different motives for different actions.
It might be, for example, that Snape did not want Lily dead because he cared for her. Therefore, availing himself of the possibility to approach Dumbledore, presented by Voldemort's order to infiltrate the Order of the Phoenix, Snape divulged to Dumbledore that Voldemort wanted to hunt down the Potters. All the same, Snape did not intend to truly work for Dumbledore. He wanted to give Lily a chance to live, that was all. Much like quite a number of Nazis during World War II who hated and persecuted Jews in general but tried to help the one Jew they knew personally.
Snape may have planned to stay loyal to Voldemort and would perhaps have done so if Godric's Hollow had not occured. Afterwards, being a teacher at Hogwarts, Snape may have acted more or less like Dumbledore wanted him to without scheming and ploting secretly against him, simply because that turned out to be best for himself. Probably he really believed Voldemort gone. After GoF Snape may have taken some time to decide which side was more likely to win the war, and only when he had made up his mind that it was Voldemort he agreed to make an Unbreakable Vow and to kill Dumbledore.

Why does he not harm Harry, although he certainly dislikes and even hates him? etc. All of these questions may have to be answered one by one; and the same (type of) action does not necessarily always have the same reason.

Wow, that was a great editorial!! it makes complete sense...the biggest obstacle to being sure of snape was the fact he was a "superb occlumens" so the only way to be absolutely sure is an unbreakable vow...perhaps the timing issue of when he came into dumbledore's employ is thus: from ootp..
16 yrs ago the prophecy is made and tralawney is hired...snape immediately goes to voldemort and tells him...perhaps it takes awhile to discover who fits the prophecy's conditions, child born at such a time and whose parents have thrice defied voldy, etc,....once voldemort has decided on killing the potters, snape finds out...and goes to dumbledore to try to undo the harm he's done and save lily......that is when dumbledore realizes that the potters in particular are in danger and has them go into hiding......but peter pettigrew tells voldy where they are....maybe that is why dumlbedore trusts him -because he did spy for him before voldys downfall.....

How about the Unbreakable Vow being between Snape and Lily, probably a vow to protect Harry if anything happened to Lily.

This explains Snape's constant protection of Harry book after book, yet Dumbledore is not involved in a UV with SNape.

This seems like a brand new theory to me, and seems to resemble Narcissa's requested Vow that Snape took to protect Draco. It would have been out of love... but I still think, that for the same reason Snape can't have had an Unbreakable Vow with Dumbledore, he can't have with Lily. Lily would rather die than let her son die. She is the symbol of good. Surely she wouldn't force something like a UV on Snape, for the same reason Dumbledore wouldn't! The "death" part, plus the "lack of trust" idea. As I said earlier, an Unbreakable Vow seems to imply a lack of trust: Narcissa needed Snape's help, but, with her sister constantly doubting Snape's loyalties, she didn't trust that Snape would really help to bring down Dumbledore. She needs him to swear. So she forced him into an Unbreakable Vow (which, you might notice, shows the physical bond as a chain, and then, finally, a snake. Lily would have either trusted Snape, or not, and thus would never ask him for an Unbreakable Vow. If she trusted him, she trusted him. If she didn't, why would she be talking to him?!

However, I do like this explanation of what happened:

Snape overhears half the prophecy before he is apprehended. The struggle lasts long enough for Sibyl to finish the prophecy before they break into the room but Snape has been too distracted to hear it all.

Here's something else I have been wondering about:

But how does the vow recognize that sort of emotion? I can see him not dying from the vow if he was somehow physically unable to (injury, being held somewhere against his will) but something like a grudge...it's more of mental thing, you know? How would a spell recognize human feeling like that?

I think that the Vow Narcissa worded gives us the best clue as to how we could guess the spell works:

Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?

And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm?

And, should it prove necessary . . . if it seems Draco will fail . . . will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?

Watching over Draco. Yes, an action. How strict is the Vow? Is it literal? Or is it easily enough implied that Snape has to "keep an eye" on every single thing Draco does, and know what Draco is trying to do?

"To the best of your ability" - kind of vague, right? But Snape basically has to do whatever he thinks he possibly can to protect Draco from harm. Countercurse the Sectumsempra. Try to get to the astronomy tower as fast as possible. Shield Draco as they run away.

"Should it prove necessary": I guess if it's "proven" necessary, then it's not what Snape thinks. It's what Snape, without trying to get around it by focusing on the word of the law, knows is necessary. "Seems Draco should fail is a little more point of view. But Snape would know what the situation "seems" like. I guess.

I suppose it's hard to figure if emotional "ability" plays into the spell: however, to a certain extent, I believe it does. Magic is complex, and if Snape truly couldn't continue Occlumeny, LionHart, as you thought wasn't really true, then I think the Vow would be able to understand that basic emotional inhabition.

Gavina, I read through your response. There are some things I'd like to comment on:

Slughorn does not sing Snape's praises during his rhapsodies on Lily, neither does he seem to recognise Harry's methods in his class as coming from Snape. As far as we are told in the book Slughorn compares Harry's innovations to Lily and most emphatically never to Snape.

Neither is there ever any indication that Severus was a member of the Slug club in HBP.

This is a great observation, that I hadn't been thinking of as I was reading this particular editorial. It does seem to refute the editorial's idea of why Snape and Lily would have been best friends.


It is normal to say both mother and father or mum and dad. The order is invariably with the female nominative first and IMHO too much is being hung on this rather innocuous phrase.

I know what you're saying about not being too hung up on this phrase. Saying "mother" first really does seem to be stretching a bit far.... But Dumbledore does repeatedly say that both of Harry's parents were killed, and while this could mean nothing, as saying just Harry's father might be considered "wrong", considering they both died, it might be notable. Dumbledore is including Lily in Snape's remorse.

Snape was never stated to have been at the Hog's Head for a job interview. This testimony comes only from Trelawney, who is, let's face it, not the most reliable source (except when she doesn't remember). Snape's actual job interview would have been almost two years later (if there ever actually was one and he was not placed at Hogwarts thorugh his connection to the Malfoys).

This is very true. When I read Trelawney's naive interpretation of the events, I assumed it was to be assumed that Trelawney was acting in a rather "full-of-herself" way, and that she was making herself important by stating "matter-of-factly" that Snape was spying on her. Like that would ever happen. She wishes!
"...there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, who was waffling about having come the wrong way up the stairs, although I'm afraid that I myself rather thought he had been aprehended eavesdropping on my interview with Dumbledore - you see, he himself was looking for a job at the time, and no doubt hoped to pick up tips!"

If both Dumbledore and Trelawney were accurately recounting their versions of the Hog's Head incident then one of them must have been rather economic with the truth, so which one was accurate?. It is near impossible for both versions to be true.

But Chas's version of what happened, which I quoted earlier, would explain how it is possible for both versions of the story to be true. I think.

And lastly, ibnalsaigh, I do like what you have to say:

We are all the time trying to find a reason which would explain everything that Snape did since he heared the prophecy/approached Dumbledore. But, on the other hand, we all agree that Snape, whether good or bad, has a very complex personality.
So perhaps what we need to do is to find different motives for different actions.

I think that we, for the most part, are taking into consideration that there might be many motives for each one of Snape's actions. For instance, Snape is mean to Harry because he reminds him of James and is in Gryffindor, but he protects Harry because he wants to defeat Voldemort. He calls Voldemort the "Dark Lord" out of habit, or to keep his cover, but he murders Dumbledore for any of a number of possible reasons: ranging from Dumbledore asking Snape to kill him to an Unbreakable Vow to Snape being evil! We have been considering many possibilities: I think you underestimate us, ibnalsaigh!

(Sorry for the insanely long response. Please take the time to read at least part of it!)

I really enjoyed this article.
Reading through this post, I have become increasingly convinced that Dumbledore would not have insisted upon an Unbreakable Vow (it just doesn't go along with choosing what is right over what is easy). However, I think it could be possible that Snape insisted on using it to proove himself OR that Snape wanted an UV from Dumbledore (to ensure either protection or information for himself).
Even though I've heard the theory about Snape being in love with Lily before, and had also considered that Dumbledore trusted Snape as a result of an UV, I had never thought of putting the two theories together in that way.
What really struck me about the Snape-wanting-to-revenge-Lily's- death theory, is that it completely explains why Snape hates Harry so much! He wants to revenge Lily- he does not want to sit on the sidelines and help someone else do it for him. He despises Harry, not because he's his father's son, but because he gets to be the One to vanquish Voldy. The fact that Harry would be revenging James (who he hates) as well as Lily may just add insult to injury for Snape; though, I'm not so sure Snape really would have wanted James dead. (much like Harry didn't really want to cause serious injury to Draco when he used the sectumsempra spell)
Anyway, excellent article. Excellent thought provoking replies, as well.

It was very good. I'm not sure you have the timing correct on Snape's employ times with both Dumbledore and Voldy, but I won't address it here. I agree with the thought process in the Lost Love section...you are right...there was no reason for Snape to go in the Marauders general direction although JKR does a good job pointing out that he seems absorbed in reading something or researching his exam answers. I don't agree that you have made the case that ultimately Snape is out for himself. I think he has proven himself to be Dumbldore's Man through his deeds...the problem is that we see all the action from Harry's POV and Harry can't filter out the truth due to the issues going on between the two of them. But whatever my opinion, I still enjoyed the good read.

There are a lot of people who have posted in response to this editorial that think a UV is "Dark" magic –either because it takes away choice or breaking it results in death. Therefore Dumbledore wouldn’t use one because of those reasons and he is above that. Or maybe your think he is just too noble to use something that “bonds” someone and that trust alone for trusts sake should be enough for him, based on the story he got from Snape.

Well I couldn’t disagree with you more for the following REAL LIFE and very PERSONAL reason:

While I really Hope this thread to become a religious discussion (please) I just want to draw some parallels to the UV and my marriage:

*Snape would have made his own choice to enter into the Bond
*I made my own choice (so did my wife) to enter into marriage.

*UV has a Bonder
*Marriage has an ordained officiator

*Questions are asked to which each party agrees (Both UV and Marriage)

*The consequence of breaking the UV is physical death
*The consequence of breaking my marital vow is spiritual death(or a long and difficult repentance process)

Does marriage limit my choices? Absolutely. I can’t have relations with other women. I vowed to be faithful in every way. Also, I can’t just quit my job if I don’t like it, because I have a wife and children depending on me. Heck, I have to call if I am going to be late for dinner. So my “free choices” are definitely compromised compared to life as a single man. Does that make marriage Evil or Dark? Absolutely not.

What would make a UV evil or dark is the content. If someone made a Vow to murder a bunch of pre-schoolers, that would make the Vow evil. If the Vow were made for a noble purpose like stopping a ruthless, murdering dictator, then the vow would not be evil in nature, but would be what it is –basically good in nature.

Vows (marriage included) are like any other contracts. ALL contracts limit choices in some way. I had to sign a contract with my large corporate employer who pays my comfortable salary. If I break any of the agreements of that contract, I could lose my job. That’s a consequence of the action.

If it’s the death part that bother’s you about the UV, think about this. How many marriages end in divorce these days? Marriage is a vow, a contract made most times in the presence of a representative of ordained of God. So many people take that vow very lightly these days. Now just take your average run-of-the-mill promise. What good is the average promise, when half of the marriages end in divorce? I think there is serious cause for moral concern. Maybe JKR is making a stronger statement about broken promises/ vows in general. Maybe she wants us to keep our promises. If Snape REALLY is sincere in his repentance, and turning sides, there should be absolutely no problem with his taking a UV, because he will never break it.

Yes, the UV would limit Snape’s free choice. Yes, Snape would indeed die if he broke his end of the agreement. One thing Dumbledore would not do, however, is FORCE Snape to make a UV. So if Snape ever did break the UV, Dumbledore would never be accountable for his death if that occurred. Snape’s would be accountable for his own actions. He would have a choice to do what he agreed to do in the vow –just like I have a choice to follow my marital vows.

After reflecting upon many of the posts in this thread, I believe that it is most likely now that Snape, out of desperation to prove his sincerity, proposed the UV himself to Dumbledore to prove that he could be trusted. Knowing Dumbledore, he may have even let Snape agree to the provisions of the vow to make it fair enough, yet strong enough to matter (for example –that it contain verbiage that Snape will work with Dumbledore to bring down Voldemort, and that Snape must protect students –in every other way Snape has his own agency –or something like that, I’m thinking on the fly here…). But in this way, the UV would serve two noble purposes and still give Snape the freedom to act as we have seen him throughout the series.

One final thought. Here is the definition of IRONCLAD:

adj 1: inflexibly entrenched and unchangeable 2: without flaws or loopholes; "an ironclad contract" (dictionary.com)

If Dumbledore would use this term to describe his trust in Snape to McGonagall it doesn’t sound to me like he was leaving much room for “free choice” on the subject.

This editorial is brilliant! I agree with nearly everything in it. :tu: I honestly believe that the author could be right about Snape making an unbreakable vow with Dumbledore. As of right now, I have nothing but praise. :)

uh...yeah, you did

There are a lot of people who have posted in response to this editorial that think a UV is "Dark" magic –either because it takes away choice or breaking it results in death. Therefore Dumbledore wouldn’t use one because of those reasons and he is above that. Or maybe your think he is just too noble to use something that “bonds” someone and that trust alone for trusts sake should be enough for him, based on the story he got from Snape.

Does marriage limit my choices? Absolutely. I can’t have relations with other women. I vowed to be faithful in every way. Also, I can’t just quit my job if I don’t like it, because I have a wife and children depending on me. Heck, I have to call if I am going to be late for dinner. So my “free choices” are definitely compromised compared to life as a single man. Does that make marriage Evil or Dark? Absolutely not.

When I first read HBP, I realized that the only real time that I've ever really heard the word "vow" used was when someone was getting married. But I got used to how magical language is old-fashioned, like a lot of times "marriage-language" is, like I always do, and I forgot about that idea. It's a great one to bring up! But I still think I have a rebuttle.

Neither Dumbledore nor Snape are married, and no Slytherin's marriage thus far seems to be based on JKR's important concept, love. When you get married, it's a big deal.
If someone elopes and "just does it", then they're, in a way, being brave. They're also taking a big risk, and making a big statement. And the people that don't think too much about marriage, and "don't think it's a big deal", usually are the ones who don't believe that breaking it will result in "spiritual death", like you said it would. They tend to be the people that figure "Well, I could always get divorced". Which is exactly what an Unbreakable Vow isn't.

When you have a long engagement before you get married, it enforces the "big deal" that marriage is. A lot of planning about the tiniest (and not so tiny) details go into it: from where to have it, who to invite, where to live afterwards, what to wear, and how much money to spend (etc.); to even things about after you get married, like decisions about work and children!

Like with marriage, most reasonable people like Snape and Dumbledore would have to think long and hard about taking an Unbreakable Vow. And in my opinion, Dumbledore seems more likely to be willing to take one than Snape.

With that in mind, Dumbledore is more like the person proposing to Snape, or perhaps the Priest/Minister/Rabbi/Whatever Religious Leader You'd Like. To hypothetically propose marriage to Snape (feel free to smile as I try to make my comparison), Dumbledore would of course have to feel sure enough that Snape loved him, and would be willing to marry him. Or he'd have to love Snape so much that he was brave enough to be willing to take the risk. Of course Dumbledore is brave. He's most likely a Gryffindor, and whatever he is, he's strong and true and great! But he'd have to "love" Snape first. Or trust Snape. Trust that Snape would say yes to everything. You can't start an Unbreakable Vow, and ask, "...And will you, to the best of your ability, prevent any true harm from coming Harry Potter's way" (for instance), and then get the answer "Um... actually, now that you ask me that, I think I'm gonna say 'No'." Imagine Dumbledore's thoughts if that were the case. So Snape isn't going to try and bring about the permanent fall of Voldemort no matter what. I can't trust Snape. And now he knows what I want above all. Ahhh! I think Dumbledore is almost as cautious as he is brave. He's reasonable, above all. And reasonably, he'd have to already trust Snape before asking him to make an Unbreakable Vow, which would defeat the whole "confirming trust" thing to begin with!

But people ask other people to marry them all the time, you say. Say I'm madly in love with a man, and we've been going out for a very long time, and I trust him completely, and all of the feelings are mutual. If he'd propose to me, I'd be happy, wouldn't I? I already knew he loved me. But for some reason, I still want to get married?
Why am I not outraged?! He doesn't trust me? He needs confirmation of our love? What is this?!
But I'd be willing to propose myself, of I didn't think he'd ever do it. I'd want to show off my love, make having children socially acceptable, be legally bound to him for a range of reasons from insurance to inheritance, etc. These are actually some of the main reasons for marriage, and they're reasons that don't apply to the Unbreakable Vow.

The Unbreakable Vow is relatively private: just the Licensed Las Vegas Guy, Bride, and Groom; not even any witnesses! What are you showing off? There's nothing legal. It's actually quite different from marriage.

Snape would be sacrificing a lot to take an Unbreakable Vow. He'd probably never get married if it didn't benefit him personally in some non-love related way, like a true ambitious Slytherin. Lucius probably got married to gain respect and status, not to mention an heir. Practical reasons, maybe, but not really love.

And my afterthought:
One final thought. Here is the definition of ironclad:

adj 1: inflexibly entrenched and unchangeable 2: without flaws or loopholes; "an ironclad contract" (dictionary.com)

If Dumbledore would use this term to describe his trust in Snape to McGonagall it doesn’t sound to me like he was leaving much room for “free choice” on the subject.

Dumbledore didn't use the word "ironclad": McGonagall did. She said he hinted at having an ironclad reason. Which means that Dumbledore's reason was simply infallible, or foolproof. Dumbledore was so sure of himself. Which is the reason that all of us on the "Snape isn't bad" side are so sure of ourselves: Dumbledore was sure. But it does seem like "ironclad" and "unbreakable" are similar words. I don't think that necessarily means anything.

A fine and well-written piece. However, I think Snape was telling the truth when he said that "Potter belongs to the Dark Lord" during his escape from Hogwarts in HBP. Why? Because I think Voldemort (and Dumbledore, even if he doesn't reveal it) already suspects (or even knows) that Harry is a horcrux. I therefore suspect that the Death Eaters have explicit orders from Voldemort not to touch Harry.

And, IMO, Dumbledore making a UV with Snape goes against one of the very crucial parts of Dumbledore's personality...his almost reckless trust in others. :D

DD doesn't have a reckless trust in others, just Snape. Who else does he trust that we have questions about? The reason we all think his trust in Snape in reckless is because... let's see... he:
1. Is a Death Eater (remember, this is at the hight of LV's power, and the Order is NOT doing well)
2. Snape gave LV the piece of the prophecy which later caused him to come after the Potters
3. His thoughts are completely and absolutely unreadable. As a master Occlumens, he will only let DD see what he wants him to see, and DD will know that. Even though DD could use legilimency on a weaker mind, they would cancel each other out in this case.

DD is thus faced with a Death Eater who gave information that resulted in the death of two very good friends who now claims to be sorry for it. However, there is no way to tell if he's really sorry because he just happens to be one of the most accomplished Occlumens around.

DD was not a fool. He was not reckless. Most people agree he had more wisdom than any other wizard alive. To say he would just "trust" Snape given the circumstances would be foolish, reckless, and just lack plain common sense on DD's part. Something else has to account for the absolute and complete faith he puts in Snape.

The UV theory is the only explanation I have seen that explains his complete trust in Snape.

When you get married, it's a big deal. If someone elopes and "just does it", then they're, in a way, being brave. They're also taking a big risk, and making a big statement. And the people that don't think too much about marriage, and "don't think it's a big deal", usually are the ones who don't believe that breaking it will result in "spiritual death", like you said it would. They tend to be the people that figure "Well, I could always get divorced". Which is exactly what an Unbreakable Vow isn't.

That's exactly the point I was making about promises in general. If we could really trust people, we wouldn't have to "bind" them with contracts and so forth in business, etc... But people break promises, even when they are trustworthy, and even when they make VOWS before God -which should really mean something.

Like with marriage, most reasonable people like Snape and Dumbledore would have to think long and hard about taking an Unbreakable Vow.

I totally disagree. There are basic principles that people live their lives by. DD, for example is a right and wrong kind of kind of man. Things are very black and white with him. There is no moral relativism. Personally I think it's the same with Snape, I just don't know which he prefers.

The Unbreakable Vow is relatively private: just the Licensed Las Vegas Guy, Bride, and Groom; not even any witnesses! What are you showing off? There's nothing legal. It's actually quite different from marriage.

The purpose of my comparison is to show that they are both binding and contractual, and both have consequences if not taken seriously. Also that a UV in an of itself wasn't nessesarily evil if it's end was to serve a noble purpose.


Dumbledore didn't use the word "ironclad": McGonagall did. She said he hinted at having an ironclad reason. Which means that Dumbledore's reason was simply infallible, or foolproof. Dumbledore was so sure of himself. Which is the reason that all of us on the "Snape isn't bad" side are so sure of ourselves: Dumbledore was sure. But it does seem like "ironclad" and "unbreakable" are similar words. I don't think that necessarily means anything.

I think we agree on something here! :clap:

It is McGonagall's quote. She wouldn't have said it without all of the reasons you stated.

I think you should look at this theory a little closer if your on the "Snape is good" side, because the editorial gives you many points for your side of the argument (up until the Snape Victorious section where he tries to get power for himself -but that's a seperate issue altogether). :D

There are a lot of people who have posted in response to this editorial that think a UV is "Dark" magic –either because it takes away choice or breaking it results in death. Therefore Dumbledore wouldn’t use one because of those reasons and he is above that. Or maybe your think he is just too noble to use something that “bonds” someone and that trust alone for trusts sake should be enough for him, based on the story he got from Snape.

If it’s the death part that bother’s you about the UV, think about this. How many marriages end in divorce these days? Marriage is a vow, a contract made most times in the presence of a representative of ordained of God.


Divorce and death are VERY different things.
I agree that "marriage" would not be dark magic, however, if you are bound to someone and the consequences of disloyalty is DEATH, I feel it is a much different type of bond. I am not saying a UV is dark magic, because I've seen good arguements for both sides. But I believe it very well could be dark magic, as death by this means doesn't seem very honourable, or courageous. It seems forced, on an untrustworthy level, and a reason to keep someone in tow. I don't think it compares to marriage at all, because marriage is a willingness through love and commitment, not because you need to prove something or make sure someone trusts you. Using an unbreakable vow in marriage seems to me a selfish and controlling way to make sure your significant other doesn't cheat on you.

And yes, you CAN be forced into a UV. Look at the UV between Snape and Narcissa. I truly believe that Snape was against it, but in order to keep on good terms with the Malfoys and the Blacks, for whatever reason it was, he was forced to abide by her terms. It would've blown his cover if he had refused. Perhaps it was the same with Dumbledore, that is, if they had one in the first place.

Like I said before, I don't believe it is Dumbledore's character to do this. I do believe that Dumbledore had another "ironclad" reason. It could've been a memory of Snape's, a knowledge of something, or possesion of something...
I really truly believe we know too little to prove anything at this point. I could be wrong.

A Means To an End. Has anyone ever heard that song by Joy Division? I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the essay but its bugging me. I always hear this song in my head when I think about Snape. Seriously. I can imagine that song being the song that plays along to Snape's life. I freaked out when I read this editorial, by the way, awesome editorial!

Here's the lyrics to the song that I was talking about, A Means To An End by Joy Division. I know, I like Joy Division too much. But in a weird way, the lyrics remind me a lot of the book.

A legacy, so far removed
One day will be improved
Eternal rights beleft behind,
We were the better kind
You this day met free too,
I always looked to you (3)

We fought for good,
stood side by side
Our friendship never died
But stranger ways that froze on highs,
our vision touched the skies
Mortal list - the points to prove
I put my trust in you (3)

A house somewhere, on foreign soil
Where aching lovers called
Is this your goal, your final deeds
Where dogs and vultures eat?
Permitted still, I turned to go
I put my trust in you (4)
In you, in you, in you
Put my trust in you, in you

Does marriage limit my choices? Absolutely. I can’t have relations with other women. I vowed to be faithful in every way. Also, I can’t just quit my job if I don’t like it, because I have a wife and children depending on me. Heck, I have to call if I am going to be late for dinner. So my “free choices” are definitely compromised compared to life as a single man. Does that make marriage Evil or Dark? Absolutely not.
You're missing some key points with this analogy. I think divorce is very spiritually damaging too. I agree that marriage involves giving up some "freedom" and choices, and that doesn't make it evil or dark. The thing is, there's so much more to marriage that doesn't exist for the unbreakable vow. If those were the ONLY characteristics of marriage, I would say it is evil or dark.

1) Primarily, from a religious perspective, marriage gives special grace to the couple. There's no corresponding phenomenon for the UV.

2) Secondarily, from a pragmatic perspective, there are tax benefits and such for marriage. There's nothing like that for the unbreakable vow.

3) Marriage is generally viewed as a blessing. Parents are happy to see their children get married. There's a celebration. On the other hand, Arthur Weasely was terrified and angry that his kids would use the UV. Ron was shocked that Snape would do it.

4) One reason lots of people get married is to declare the love for the whole world to know. The one UV we know about and the other one we're theorizing about now are both secretive matters. I wouldn't want to be in a secret marriage, would you?

5) The UV's purpose is JUST to remove the choices that go against the vow. Do you know of anyone who got married just so they could be sure their spouse wouldn't cheat on them? I hope not.

One final thought. Here is the definition of IRONCLAD:

adj 1: inflexibly entrenched and unchangeable 2: without flaws or loopholes; "an ironclad contract" (dictionary.com)

If Dumbledore would use this term to describe his trust in Snape to McGonagall it doesn’t sound to me like he was leaving much room for “free choice” on the subject.
Before you got married, would you have felt like you had ironclad reasons to trust that the woman who is now your wife would not cheat on you? I hope so.

There are other ways to be sure of things besides vows. There are lots of ways to be certain of how a person will behave without asking them to vow that they'll behave that way. I'm certain my family will always look out for me. I'm certain the president won't apologize for lowering taxes.

There could have been something Snape did which Dumbledore knew he'd only do if he's trustworthy. I don't think we know enough to know yet what that was. I'm convinced by the fact that Snape alerted the Order to go to the Ministry to save Harry in OotP. If he did something like that before asking for Dumbledore's trust, that could work.

That was the best editorial i have ever read about Dumbledore's trust of Snape. It made more sense than any other one too!!! IT WAS THE BEST EDITORIAL!!
:clap: :tu: :D

I think Snape knew who the Prophecy was about and he Knew Harry and James would die but asked Voldemort not to kill Lilly (she didn’t have to die) but he also knew Voldemort would do it anyway so he turned spy and warned Dumbledore

This was an absolutely brilliant editorial. I couldn't disagree with a single thing and I definitely agree that Snape is on his own side, but leans more to the Good than towards evil. I never really thought about the whole Unbreakable Vow. Good idea.
There is a good reason why Snape did not become a teacher until two years after the prophcey was made. Think about it, Trelawney was added on the school rota after she made the prophecy - Dumbledore did that to protect her as you said, but it was not until a year after that the prophecy was set in motion. Harry was one when Voldemort arrived at the doorstep of Godric's Hollow house. It probably would have been another year before Dumbledore and Snape sorted everything out and Snape became a teacher at Hogwarts. Plus Snape has to act like a spy for both sides so he probably had to get Voldemort's permission to become a teacher at Hogwarts also. So if you take all these factors into account then its no wonder that it took two years before he could go to Hogwarts. Am I making sense?

I hope this hasn't already been said, but I don't have time to read all of the comments, sorry!

Quote from original article:
So what was Snape doing for those two years? Dumbledore tells us Snape was “still in Lord Voldemort’s employ on the night he heard the first half of Professor Trelawney’s prophecy” (HBP, pg. 549). Telling Harry he was still in Lord Voldemort’s employ on that night implies that he hasn’t yet become a spy for Dumbledore at the time he heard the prophecy, or else he may have acted differently with the information he overheard while eavesdropping. Also, would Dumbledore believe Snape was on his side if he steals intelligence and takes it straight to Voldemort? I don’t think that would go over well with Dumbledore if Snape was already spying for him.

So how could Snape have “rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort’s downfall and turned spy for us” and still have been in Lord Voldemort’s employ during his downfall? The timing doesn’t work out. I personally believe Snape didn’t switch sides until after the prophecy, after Voldemort chose the Potters. Then he went to Dumbledore. Then Dumbledore stretched the truth about the timing of Snape’s repentance with the Wizengamot to protect him, so he could have a spy gathering information from as many Death Eaters as possible to help gather them up. We’ve seen him do it a number of times to keep Harry out of trouble with the Ministry -- and Dumbledore obviously has his own reasons for doing things and he doesn’t always include the Ministry in those decisions.


My response:
I believe that Snape had already gone to Dumbledore before Voldemort killed James and Lilly because they got a secret-keeper to protect them. We know that the Potter’s knew that they were being hunted by Voldemort, and who better to inform Dumbledore (and thus the Potter’s) than Snape. He probably told Voldemort about the prophecy, and once Voldemort picked Harry as the one to kill, Snape realized that he had put Lily in jeopardy and went to Dumbledore with the information in an attempt to save Lily’s life. This might have been part of the reason that Dumbledore knew he could trust Snape…who knows?


I hope that made sense!

Anyways I thought the article was very well wirtten and researched and had proof from the text, which is obviously important. That was really the only thing I disagreed with, or at least that I felt I could argue about.

DD doesn't have a reckless trust in others, just Snape. Who else does he trust that we have questions about? The reason we all think his trust in Snape in reckless is because... let's see... he:
1. Is a Death Eater (remember, this is at the hight of LV's power, and the Order is NOT doing well)
2. Snape gave Voldemort the piece of the prophecy which later caused him to come after the Potters
3. His thoughts are completely and absolutely unreadable. As a master Occlumens, he will only let Dumbledore see what he wants him to see, and Dumbledore will know that. Even though Dumbledore could use legilimency on a weaker mind, they would cancel each other out in this case.

Dumbledore is thus faced with a Death Eater who gave information that resulted in the death of two very good friends who now claims to be sorry for it. However, there is no way to tell if he's really sorry because he just happens to be one of the most accomplished Occlumens around.

Dumbledore was not a fool. He was not reckless. Most people agree he had more wisdom than any other wizard alive. To say he would just "trust" Snape given the circumstances would be foolish, reckless, and just lack plain common sense on DD's part. Something else has to account for the absolute and complete faith he puts in Snape.

The UV theory is the only explanation I have seen that explains his complete trust in Snape.

I would have to disagree, based on the fact that JKR has said that Dumbledore does trust almost "almost to the point of recklessness" and that it has indeed created problems for him. As she says, intelligence does not protect him from the kind of emotional mistakes it appears he has made. We all have our weaknesses, I think it makes him more human than if he has been right about everything all along.

ES: I know Dumbledore likes to see the good in people but he seems trusting almost to the point of recklessness sometimes.
[Laughter]

JKR: Yes, I would agree. I would agree.

ES: How can someone so -

JKR: Intelligent -

ES: - be so blind with regard to certain things?

JKR: Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. But I would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in Books 5 and 6 that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes, and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that. In fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books, because where is his equal; where is his confidante; where is his partner? He has none of those things. He's always the one who gives; he's always the one who has the insight and has the knowledge. So I think that, while I ask the reader to accept that McGonagall is a very worthy second-in-command, she is not an equal. You have a slightly circuitous answer, but I can't get much closer than that.

I think the biggest problem with this editorial--which may or may not have been mentioned already, I didn't have time to read every post here--is the problem with Snape revealing only the first half of the prophecy. Those of you who are not familiar with "The North Tower" should check out Maline's article "A New Light on the Prophecy" found here (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt42.shtml).
The problem is that Tralawney told Harry that Snape barged into the room in The Hog's Head after she was finished telling the prophecy, and Dumbledore has always insisted that the informant heard only the first half. This is clearly not the case. How could Trelawney be frightened out of a trance half-way through a prophecy, and then go back into her trance and pick up where she left off once Snape was taken care of?

Not only this, but while it is true that Snape had been working at Hogwarts for fourteen years, he told Bellatrix in Spinner's End that he had sixteen years of information to give Voldemort once he came back. It seems that he must have been working for Dumbledore before he started teaching at Hogwarts, and he also must have been on Dumbledore's side before the prophecy was made. Otherwise, there is no reason for him to give only the first half to Voldy.

DD was not a fool. He was not reckless. Most people agree he had more wisdom than any other wizard alive.

I agree that Dumbledore's trust wasn't reckless. Despite what LionHart said and quoted:
I would have to disagree, based on the fact that JKR has said that Dumbledore does trust almost "almost to the point of recklessness" and that it has indeed created problems for him. As she says, intelligence does not protect him from the kind of emotional mistakes it appears he has made. We all have our weaknesses, I think it makes him more human than if he has been right about everything all along.

ES: I know Dumbledore likes to see the good in people but he seems trusting almost to the point of recklessness sometimes.
[Laughter]

JKR: Yes, I would agree. I would agree.

ES: How can someone so -

JKR: Intelligent -

ES: - be so blind with regard to certain things?

JKR: Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. But I would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in Books 5 and 6 that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes, and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that.

Dumbledore isn't reckless. He "seems trusting almost to the point of recklessness sometimes". Because JKR wants her characters to be human. All of them. Including Voldemort and Dumbledore, which technically are symbols of Evil and Good. Dumbledore's not perfect, and she makes that clear. He loved Harry "too much", he admits to actually making mistakes, etc.. But wouldn't some people say that actually makes him more perfect? He's intellegent, but he still has emotions: that's what actually makes him so good. He knows how questionable Snape's trust is: everyone continues to doubt it (for 15 years)!

Although, that's the real question. In determining if you think Snape is still good, and that there was some justifiable reason he killed Dumbledore, you're asking yourself whether or not you think it's possible Dumbledore could have possibly been mistaken to trust Snape. I think it's not possible for Dumbledore to have made such a mistake. Simply impossible. Therefore, I think Snape's still good.

To say he would just "trust" Snape given the circumstances would be foolish, reckless, and just lack plain common sense on DD's part. Something else has to account for the absolute and complete faith he puts in Snape.

The UV theory is the only explanation I have seen that explains his complete trust in Snape.

I agree that "something else has to account for the absolute and complete faith he puts in Snape", however, just because we haven't seen a "better" explanation yet doesn't mean that there necessarily was an Unbreakable Vow. I still think an Unbreakable Vow between Snape and Dumbledore is unlikely. Same thing with hermione357's response:

That was the best editorial i have ever read about Dumbledore's trust of Snape. It made more sense than any other one too!!! IT WAS THE BEST EDITORIAL!!
:clap: :tu: :D

Just because the UV theory makes the most sense doesn't mean it really made enough sense.

~

I think that the UV is still unlikely. Idabomb333's response to your marriage post, AberforthsGoat, is great in how in supports what I was trying to show you was wrong with your theory.

You're missing some key points with this analogy. I think divorce is very spiritually damaging too. I agree that marriage involves giving up some "freedom" and choices, and that doesn't make it evil or dark. The thing is, there's so much more to marriage that doesn't exist for the unbreakable vow. If those were the ONLY characteristics of marriage, I would say it is evil or dark.

Idabomb333, I couldn't agree more.

1) Marriage gives special grace to the couple. There's no corresponding phenomenon for the UV.

2) There are tax benefits and such for marriage. There's nothing like that for the unbreakable vow.

3) Marriage is generally viewed as a blessing. Parents are happy to see their children get married. On the other hand, Arthur Weasely was terrified and angry that his kids would use the UV.

4) One reason lots of people get married is to declare the love for the whole world to know. The one UV we know about and the other one we're theorizing about now are both secretive matters. I wouldn't want to be in a secret marriage, would you?

5) The UV's purpose is JUST to remove the choices that go against the vow.

I highlighted in pink what points Idabomb333 made. I agree with all of them!

You said this:
If we could really trust people, we wouldn't have to "bind" them with contracts and so forth in business, etc... But people break promises, even when they are trustworthy, and even when they make VOWS before God -which should really mean something.

But I like how Idabomb333 explained why this isn't really true.

Before you got married, would you have felt like you had ironclad reasons to trust that the woman who is now your wife would not cheat on you? I hope so.

This is also very true:

There are other ways to be sure of things besides vows. There are lots of ways to be certain of how a person will behave without asking them to vow that they'll behave that way. I'm certain my family will always look out for me. I'm certain the president won't apologize for lowering taxes.

There could have been something Snape did which Dumbledore knew he'd only do if he's trustworthy. I don't think we know enough to know yet what that was. I'm convinced by the fact that Snape alerted the Order to go to the Ministry to save Harry in OotP. If he did something like that before asking for Dumbledore's trust, that could work.

I too am convinced that Dumbledore was sure of Snape due to something other than an Unbreakable Vow. But everyone can't even decide if Snape really was trustworthy. Answering the "why" would explain if/how he was trustworthy. That's why we need to know what Snape did to prove his trust. For some reason, I am just fairly certain it wasn't an Unbreakable Vow.

~

To address a few more of your statements, AberforthsGoat.

I said that most reasonable people like Snape and Dumbledore would have to think long and hard about taking an Unbreakable Vow. You said:

I totally disagree. There are basic principles that people live their lives by. DD, for example is a right and wrong kind of kind of man. Things are very black and white with him. There is no moral relativism. Personally I think it's the same with Snape, I just don't know which he prefers.

Dumbledore can see past the "letter of the law". He knows that people aren't just "good" or "bad". He can most definitely see the shades of gray (yes, "gray", I know, and you said black and white... :)).

The purpose of my comparison is to show that they are both binding and contractual, and both have consequences if not taken seriously. Also that a UV in an of itself wasn't nessesarily evil if it's end was to serve a noble purpose.

The part I highlighted I understand and can almost agree with. "Evil" is a strong word. An Unbreakable Vow does seem, perhaps, more like "neutral" magic than "dark". However, the death part, as many have said, makes an Unbreakable Vow an extremely big deal: while Dumbledore told Voldemort that "there are things much worse than death", even Dumbledore doesn't think death is nothing! It's a mutilation of your soul to murder. He understands the pain Sirius's death caused Harry. He allows righteous anger due to deaths. And he called it an "adventure". Obviously it's not nothing.

You said, "a UV in an of itself wasn't nessesarily evil if it's end was to serve a noble purpose." I think that a more accurate rewording of that statement to fit my point of view is that "a person in an of themselves isn't nessesarily evil just because they wanted an Unbreakable Vow, especially if their end was to serve a noble purpose. However, in retrospect, asking for an Unbreakable Vow is probably not the only nor best way to go about something. And Dumbledore would know that.

I think you should look at this theory a little closer if your on the "Snape is good" side, because the editorial gives you many points for your side of the argument (up until the Snape Victorious section where he tries to get power for himself -but that's a seperate issue altogether). :D

I am on the "Snape is good" side, but you brought up the "selfish/only for himself" side, and I then realized what the problem with that is. You, I believe, said yourself that Snape might "tend to lean" more one way or the other. Tending to lean to one side, tending to truly believe in either good or evil, etc.: even if Snape, "when given the choice... will always choose to save [his] own neck"(-Phineas Nigellus). Even though technically he could be biding his time, seeing who will come out on top, and then choosing to side with them, or trying to do whatever it takes to rise in power, Snape is human, and he definitely has the ability to feel strongly about something. He either feels like Voldemort is completely right about everything, or that Voldemort is horrible and comepletely wrong.And depending on how he feels, that determines if he's "good" or "bad". From what we've seen of him, I'd assume he's good. He has a strong feeling of what is right and what is wrong. He thinks "properly", and wants Voldemort defeated. I would look into this theory more, except I'm one of those who feel we "just don't have enough information yet". I'm not someone who even really wants to figure everything out before it happens. I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised, and trust that JKR will do her story justice!

Snape is human, and he definitely has the ability to feel strongly about something. He either feels like Voldemort is completely right about everything, or that Voldemort is horrible and comepletely wrong.And depending on how he feels, that determines if he's "good" or "bad". From what we've seen of him, I'd assume he's good. He has a strong feeling of what is right and what is wrong. He thinks "properly", and wants Voldemort defeated. I would look into this theory more, except I'm one of those who feel we "just don't have enough information yet". I'm not someone who even really wants to figure everything out before it happens. I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised, and trust that JKR will do her story justice!

I agree with what you are saying about Snape being on the right side (not nessasarily good) lol but not down right evil. I think he's (Snape) is one of the smartest and says the smartest things of anyone in the books. Yes Dumbledore is a genius (give it up for the man) but as far as sarcasim, wit, and cunny Snape is blows my mind with the way his mind works sometimes. I don't really even like Snape, but I admire him, and will wait until the last page of book seven before I will really know where his loyalties really are.

I also want to say that I think Snape is trustworthy, and has proven himself immeasurebly to be Dumbledores man through and through. Do not get side tracked by Snape, and also Dumbledore was no dummy, he definately had more reason to trust Snape, we just don't know it yet.

I think he's (Snape) is one of the smartest and says the smartest things of anyone in the books. Yes Dumbledore is a genius (give it up for the man) but as far as sarcasim, wit, and cunny Snape is blows my mind with the way his mind works sometimes. I don't really even like Snape, but I admire him, and will wait until the last page of book seven before I will really know where his loyalties really are.

I also want to say that I think Snape is trustworthy, and has proven himself immeasurebly to be Dumbledores man through and through. Do not get side tracked by Snape, and also Dumbledore was no dummy, he definately had more reason to trust Snape, we just don't know it yet.

I agree completely!

I would have to disagree, based on the fact that JKR has said that Dumbledore does trust almost "almost to the point of recklessness" and that it has indeed created problems for him. As she says, intelligence does not protect him from the kind of emotional mistakes it appears he has made. We all have our weaknesses, I think it makes him more human than if he has been right about everything all along.

ES: I know Dumbledore likes to see the good in people but he seems trusting almost to the point of recklessness sometimes.
[Laughter]

JKR: Yes, I would agree. I would agree.

ES: How can someone so -

JKR: Intelligent -

ES: - be so blind with regard to certain things?

JKR: Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. But I would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in Books 5 and 6 that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes, and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that. In fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books, because where is his equal; where is his confidante; where is his partner? He has none of those things. He's always the one who gives; he's always the one who has the insight and has the knowledge. So I think that, while I ask the reader to accept that McGonagall is a very worthy second-in-command, she is not an equal. You have a slightly circuitous answer, but I can't get much closer than that.

You bring up some excellent points here about DD here that I haven't thought about in a while. :tu: Keep in mind who you're quoting, though... Emerson asked the question about reckless trust, while you said JKR said it. She only agreed with him. It isn't at all the same thing, she may never have said those words on her own.

I also think it's important to bring out her main point: DD really has no one with whom he can bounce ideas around. That must be why he uses the Pensieve so much -to sift through his own ideas since he has no intellectual equal to help him creatively.

So JKR's point in this answer isn't so much about trust, but about DD simply being human and having faults in general. Even though he is a genius, he can still be wrong.

The part I highlighted I understand and can almost agree with. "Evil" is a strong word. An Unbreakable Vow does seem, perhaps, more like "neutral" magic than "dark". However, the death part, as many have said, makes an Unbreakable Vow an extremely big deal: while Dumbledore told Voldemort that "there are things much worse than death", even Dumbledore doesn't think death is nothing! It's a mutilation of your soul to murder. He understands the pain Sirius's death caused Harry. He allows righteous anger due to deaths. And he called it an "adventure". Obviously it's not nothing.

Huh? I couldn't really follow your line of thinking. I was exploring the idea of a UV not necessarily being evil, and somehow you came to the conclusion that I think death is no big deal?!?! Or that I think Dumbledore thinks death is nothing? I am not sure how you came to that conclusion, but no... I don't think that way at all...

Also I think you misunderstood my following quote:
"I think you should look at this theory a little closer if your on the "Snape is good" side, because the editorial gives you many points for your side of the argument (up until the Snape Victorious section where he tries to get power for himself -but that's a seperate issue altogether). :D" (you quoted me in # 95)

Then you responded...

I am on the "Snape is good" side...

I know. That's why I said, "your side of the argument." Obviously I know where you stand on the matter...

I agree with what you are saying about Snape being on the right side (not nessasarily good) lol but not down right evil. I think he's (Snape) is one of the smartest and says the smartest things of anyone in the books. Yes Dumbledore is a genius (give it up for the man) but as far as sarcasim, wit, and cunny Snape is blows my mind with the way his mind works sometimes. I don't really even like Snape, but I admire him, and will wait until the last page of book seven before I will really know where his loyalties really are.

As i was reading through some of these last posts, especially this one above, the two most random quotes from the book popped into my head.

We know that Snape was a Death Eater. We were also told he returned to the good side, and, as Dumbledore put it in GoF..

"Severus Snape Is no more a death eater than I am". GoF

I then remembered what Sirius said in OotP.

"The world isn't divided into Good People and Death Eaters" OotP

Snape is a rotten person from everything we have seen in the books. People have said that Snape leans more towards good then evil. Yet, killing as Slughorn says is "The Supream Act of Evil"

None of our truly good characters have killed in the series, regardless of whether a certain someone did or did not asked that person to kill them. Snape clearly has a darker side than anyone else who is possibly good. I feel we shouldn't overlook this fact about Snape. IF the idea that Snape hates Voldemort for killing Lily is true, and that is why he is helping the Good Side, in order to get revenge against Voldemort, that doesn't make Snape good. Besides, who ever said that evil can't help good fight evil.
After all, The enemy of your enemy is your friend!

As i was reading through some of these last posts, especially this one above, the two most random quotes from the book popped into my head.

We know that Snape was a Death Eater. We were also told he returned to the good side, and, as Dumbledore put it in GoF..



I then remembered what Sirius said in OotP.



Snape is a rotten person from everything we have seen in the books. People have said that Snape leans more towards good then evil. Yet, killing as Slughorn says is

None of our truly good characters have killed in the series, regardless of whether a certain someone did or did not asked that person to kill them. Snape clearly has a darker side than anyone else who is possibly good. I feel we shouldn't overlook this fact about Snape. IF the idea that Snape hates Voldemort for killing Lily is true, and that is why he is helping the Good Side, in order to get revenge against Voldemort, that doesn't make Snape good. Besides, who ever said that evil can't help good fight evil.
After all, The enemy of your enemy is your friend!

You are right, that none of the good people in the books have killed. But Sirius and Remus came awfully close don't you think? Does that make them evil, underneath it all. Now, I'm not saying that Snape is a good person, or even a nice person, but sometimes choices have to be made, and until further debunking of my reasoning, Snape make his hard choice in killing Dumbledore. I think that it was time for him to make a hard choice, just about everyone else have that I can think of. In killing Dumbledore, like a previous article stated, Snape confirmed that he was Dumbledore's man through and through.

I have to agree that this was well written.

It could be possible that Dumbledore and Snape had an Unbreakable Vow and it wouldn't surprise me if they did. The problem that I have is the Snape and Lily ship aspect of it. I have a real problem with this relationship and I don't think there ever was one between then. They may have has a certain respect for each other but that was busted when Snape called her a Mudblood during the Worst Memory. But any sort of romantic feelings for each other wether one sided or not makes me quite uncomfortable.

I also think that Dumbledores trust in Snape was waning a little and it might have been more out of habit that he continued to inform people of this trust when they asked.

You are right, that none of the good people in the books have killed. But Sirius and Remus came awfully close don't you think? Does that make them evil, underneath it all.

In killing Dumbledore, like a previous article stated, Snape confirmed that he was Dumbledore's man through and through.

Let me ask you, do our thoughts make us evil? Watch Minority Report. Is it right to classify or give judgments to people based on what they are thinking, and should we treat those who don't act upon those thoughts the same as those who do act. No. Our choices are the difference. Lupin and Sirius had the great power and great choice to kill, but they consciously and emotionally chose not to act. They are even extremely thankful afterwards with their decision, because they knew it wouldn’t have been right.
Sirius and Remus show love, compassion, loyalty, true friendship, honesty, etc. Snape doesn't. A single moment of weakness during one point of desperation was what led Sirius and Lupin to consider killing, but in spite of it all, they didn't act. Snape was basically put into the same situation and presented the same choice. However, he acted.

Sorry, about your second quote. I just Don't buy it. We are basing this off of the assumption that Dumbledore discussed this course of action with Snape. Without this particular assumption, we really can't make a further case on the matter.

I also feel that the points I made in the first paragraph also reflect on this particular idea. When I read posts similar to what was said above (Not made by me, but by others), and then when I read about how “This act of killing proved that Snape was Dumbledore’s Man Through and Through” just is mind boggling. I don’t know if I’m strange or different or something, but it seems to me that this type of math is trying to say 1 + 2 = 8.
Believe me, I WANT Snape to be good sooo bad that it drives me crazy, and I do think that it is possible still. I’d love it if you were completely right. I just feel that the particular statement is off, that’s all.

I wrote earlier that I feel uncomfortable with the whole Snape/Lily relationship but I didn't really elaborate on why mainly because I hadn't really thought about it and I now have and I think I know why I feel so uncomfortable about it. It is naturally about Harry.

Not once during the whole series has Snape showed any compassion or respect for Harry. I know that Harry looks alot for like his father and that is probably all he sees but Harry also have alot of Lily in him and not just her eyes. If Snape cared at all for Lily in any romantic way he should at least see the little bit of Lily in him that everyone else that knew her can see but Snape is constantly blinded by the resembelance to James and doesn't even try to see Lily in him and show at the very least a little bit of respect to her only child.

Right from the minute they locked eyes at the first feast Harry could sense that Snape did not like him and this was before they had even met. What is that saying; don't judge a book by it's cover. That is what Snape did he judged Harry and on his appearance and decided that he did not want to even attempt to read the book. I wonder what would have happened if Harry had the red hair of his mother and the hazel eyes of his father. Would he have judged Harry the same way?

I know i'm gullible to nearly every harry potter theory, (They're all so intelligently written) but this one is especially convincing. I mean I wondered why this was called Snape's Worst Memory, especially since Sirius and Lupin explained that James and Snape had always been like that.

Let me ask you, do our thoughts make us evil? Watch Minority Report. Is it right to classify or give judgments to people based on what they are thinking, and should we treat those who don't act upon those thoughts the same as those who do act. No. Our choices are the difference. Lupin and Sirius had the great power and great choice to kill, but they consciously and emotionally chose not to act. They are even extremely thankful afterwards with their decision, because they knew it wouldn’t have been right.
Sirius and Remus show love, compassion, loyalty, true friendship, honesty, etc. Snape doesn't. A single moment of weakness during one point of desperation was what led Sirius and Lupin to consider killing, but in spite of it all, they didn't act. Snape was basically put into the same situation and presented the same choice. However, he acted.

Sorry, about your second quote. I just Don't buy it. We are basing this off of the assumption that Dumbledore discussed this course of action with Snape. Without this particular assumption, we really can't make a further case on the matter.

I also feel that the points I made in the first paragraph also reflect on this particular idea. When I read posts similar to what was said above (Not made by me, but by others), and then when I read about how “This act of killing proved that Snape was Dumbledore’s Man Through and Through” just is mind boggling. I don’t know if I’m strange or different or something, but it seems to me that this type of math is trying to say 1 + 2 = 8.
Believe me, I WANT Snape to be good sooo bad that it drives me crazy, and I do think that it is possible still. I’d love it if you were completely right. I just feel that the particular statement is off, that’s all.

I think you bring up a very good point about the difference between people who think about doing bad things like murder, stealing etc, and those that actually act on them. I'm not saying that I'm a master of the books or anything cause like you said, snape might be evil and that's it,simple and to the point. Maybe you can correct me, but isn't the only reason that Lupin and Sirius didn't kill Wormtail is because Harry asked them not to. And I've not seen any part of it that shows Lupin or Sirius glad that they didn't kill him (Wormtail). In fact when Harry and Hermione went back in time, Harry's first thought is to capture Wormtail, and i don't think that the outcome of taking Wormtail to the dementors would have been his choice a second time around. What do you think Soccer DM?

dang_Viela
O, I'm certainly no master of the books either, by a long shot:no: , it would be nice though. I was actually thinking how it must feel to be JKR right now. Getting to make up whatever she wants about the story, and no one can ever prove her wrong. Even though she does restrict herself a little bit concerning her formulation of the story. AH, the absolute power she possesses and how she can alter all of our thoughts. :drool:

I personally just try to stick to what is proven in the books as best i can, because all of us HP fans know how amazingly fast our imaginations can get to us. It's more of a restrictor than anything. Because like in your point, IF we could verify that Snape and Dumbledore had the conversation, the possibilities for what happens could be endless. To your questions: I don't have my books with me here at college to find Sirius and Lupin being relieved, it may not be there. I actually think it was in the PoA movie that we saw Sirius's realization of how nice it will be to be a free man once Wormatil is exposed. That is his relief. For Lupin, I'm probably just inferring that he would be relieved because of his personality. We saw in the books how conservative and non-confrontational that he is. . ie Him not doing anything to stop James/Sirius in Snape’s Worst Memory. I guess I just see him as more of a peace maker.
I also agree that Harry didn't want to take Wormtail to the Dementors. When he made this threat to Wormtail, I believe that he was just trying to get inside Wormtail’s head and make him worry a bit. I’m sure Harry's true intention of getting to Wormtail was to prove to Fudge and the rest of the Wizarding world that Sirius was innocent; thus, Harry could possibly live with Sirius. (Of course we know that Dumbledore probably wouldn't have allowed this, due to the protection that Harry receives at the Dursleys. But we didn't know this bit of information at this particular point in time)

dang_Viela
O, I'm certainly no master of the books either, by a long shot:no: , it would be nice though. I was actually thinking how it must feel to be JKR right now. Getting to make up whatever she wants about the story, and no one can ever prove her wrong. Even though she does restrict herself a little bit concerning her formulation of the story. AH, the absolute power she possesses and how she can alter all of our thoughts. :drool:

I personally just try to stick to what is proven in the books as best i can, because all of us HP fans know how amazingly fast our imaginations can get to us. It's more of a restrictor than anything. Because like in your point, IF we could verify that Snape and Dumbledore had the conversation, the possibilities for what happens could be endless. To your questions: I don't have my books with me here at college to find Sirius and Lupin being relieved, it may not be there. I actually think it was in the PoA movie that we saw Sirius's realization of how nice it will be to be a free man once Wormatil is exposed. That is his relief. For Lupin, I'm probably just inferring that he would be relieved because of his personality. We saw in the books how conservative and non-confrontational that he is. . ie Him not doing anything to stop James/Sirius in Snape’s Worst Memory. I guess I just see him as more of a peace maker.
I also agree that Harry didn't want to take Wormtail to the Dementors. When he made this threat to Wormtail, I believe that he was just trying to get inside Wormtail’s head and make him worry a bit. I’m sure Harry's true intention of getting to Wormtail was to prove to Fudge and the rest of the Wizarding world that Sirius was innocent; thus, Harry could possibly live with Sirius. (Of course we know that Dumbledore probably wouldn't have allowed this, due to the protection that Harry receives at the Dursleys. But we didn't know this bit of information at this particular point in time)

You are probably right about Harry just wanting to get under Wormtail's skin with the nod to Sirius and Lupin. You make an excellent point about Lupin, he would most likely not have wanted to kill anyone, is this the most agression we've seen from Lupin or what? He by the way is one of my favorite characters (right behind Fred and George). I wonder where was he during the DOM fight between the DE, DA, and the OotP? I think we must see him fight in book seven, and someone not to be played with. Sometimes I think I used to be like Lupin, afraid of confrontations, but I realized a while ago that sometimes you can't back away, everything has to come to ahead. I think that that is what Lupin's cross to bear(so to say) is. Maybe he is afraid of what he would do if he really let his emotions come forward. Well, I love the character of Lupin, obviously for separate reasons that I love Snapes character. lol He is the exact opposite of Snape. Hey, maybe Lupin and Snape will fight in the end. Would be very interesting. Maybe someone can write an article titled: Why Lupin and Snape are at War, or something like that.:lol:

I've only just read the editorial, so please excuse me interupting the thread.

I think it is well written, and there is a place for theories which take things pretty much as they seem. And I agree with many of the premises. For example, I thought Snape had feelings for Lily from the first book. And I think that Dumbledore knew even when they were in school.

Thats the thing. Dumbledore belives in the power of Love, to transform a person, or to help them to see the truth. Just because a person is sorted into Slytherin doesn't mean they cannot eventually hav an epiphany of sorts. They grow up, just as Draco did when faced with the choice without his hate at full boil.

Dumbledore would need the vow or something like it if he didn't already have reason to think Snape would want to revenge Lily. He can only trust Snape "now" because he knows his affection for her was not a put on, and he knows what that means. Voldemort doesn't know, but Dumbledore does.

This editorial did bring me to a different, though perhaps not completely original idea. We see Snape's hate for James manifest in his treatment of Harry. Lupin says that Snape hated James, and we see in PoA how much he despises the Marauders. And yet he still manages to keep Lupin in potions, going so far as to check to see he is taking it on schedule. This cruelty and pettiness is what defines Snape for many readers. How he acts when Dumbledore is not around is supposed to be his true face.

When Snape and Harry discuss occulumnecy, Snape says it is not like reading minds, it is less precise, more along the lines of reading passions. And Snape has apparently managed to fool Voldemort about how he feels about the victims at Goderic's Hollow, or at least one of them. If he loves/loved Lily, how does he conceal it? Does Voldemort simply ignore it because he underestimated Love?

What if Snape has all along used his hatred of James and the Marauder's to conceal his affection for others? What if he has purposely cultivated this hatred, rather than grown out of it, to serve as a sort of smokescreen? What if part of the reason he saves that memory is to give him new inspiration when he needs to see Voldemort?

Practically every view of Snape, except those who view him and his actions as entirely evil, need an explanation of how he fools Voldemort. And the others need to explain how he fooled Dumbledore. This would seem to explain it, as well as why such a controlled and cunning personality can occaisionally seem to lose its grasp on logic and reality. But what would this imply?

First, if the hate is cultivated, it may eventually be turned aside. If Snape understands that he hates James as he does only because he has chosen to do so, he understands he has the power to forgive him. Snape may be able to treat Harry decently, as more than merely the means to Voldemort's defeat.

Secondly, it means that Snape is not really the person he is seen to be at his most cruel and petty. Merely cunning. If that much is an act, than how much more might be also?

When Snape and Harry discuss occulumnecy, Snape says it is not like reading minds, it is less precise, more along the lines of reading passions. And Snape has apparently managed to fool Voldemort about how he feels about the victims at Goderic's Hollow, or at least one of them. If he loves/loved Lily, how does he conceal it? Does Voldemort simply ignore it because he underestimated Love?An excellent line of thinking in general, Phil. This bit in particular prompted a thought - what if Voldemort did know about Snape's love of Lily but he not only underestimated it, he belittled it to Snape. What if Snape was there that night at Godric's Hollow and the reason Lily "did not have to die" was because Snape asked for her to be spared. Voldemort at first agreed, but with her continued defiance and protection of Harry, he did what was necessary to complete his mission, Snape and his request be damned. Snape is enraged, horrified, and filled with overwhelming guilt, eventually turning to Dumbledore.

Yes, this scenario has been around for some time, but what I hadn't considered is there might have been more to it than Voldy's actions that could have affected Snape deeply and turned him for good. If Snape reacted with shock, dismay, anger, or, worst of all in Voldy's view, grief, I can now clearly imagine him telling Snape that he's a fool, he's weak, that love doesn't matter and... not to be a coward when it comes to doing what needs to be done. Remember Snape's rage at Harry when he calls him a coward at the end of HBP? Whether it was that particular comment or more generally dismissing Snape's feelings, perhaps the only feelings of love he'd ever had, Voldemort's comments, as much as his actions, might have been the trigger that changed Snape's allegiance towards him permanently. I can even imagine Snape's own internalized response,
"YES IT DOES MATTER!!! It changes everything, it means everything, and you're the one who's a fool because you do NOT understand it at all!!!"


What if Snape has all along used his hatred of James and the Marauder's to conceal his affection for others? What if he has purposely cultivated this hatred, rather than grown out of it, to serve as a sort of smokescreen? What if part of the reason he saves that memory is to give him new inspiration when he needs to see Voldemort?As the saying goes, this is Bloody Brilliant. Simply inspired. Kudos, Phil. :tu: :tu:


If Snape understands that he hates James as he does only because he has chosen to do so, he understands he has the power to forgive him.My only (minor) disagreement with your post is this - there's a big difference between letting go of your hate for someone, letting go of how it affects you and your life, and actually forgiving them. Despite Snape's probable love for Lily, he does continue to exhibit a great deal of self-serving behavior. I can very much see him deciding that the time for needing his hate for James is over, it no longer serves a useful purpose, and, hence, letting it go. But I think it would take something greater, something from outside himself, say, like Harry saving his life, for him to ever consider the concept of foregiveness. Harry acting in a way that clearly reminds Snape of why he loved Lily, acting as she would have towards him, might just do that.

Very insightful both Emerald and Phil. But knowing Snape, how did he hide from Voldemort how he felt? Just because he was an excellent Occlumens doesn't mean he could hide all emotion as well. Could you imagine the involuntary reaction when your supposed "mentor" or "leader" kills the only person who may actually have had some love for you? Harsh!

If I remember well,Snape turned spy before the demise of Voldemort.I think when he realized Voldemort was going to kill the Potters,he told DD .They had plenty of warning and hid,perhaps for a long time,giving Lilly chance to perform the charm that would save Harry;giving her life to save his.

Very insightful both Emerald and Phil. But knowing Snape, how did he hide from Voldemort how he felt? Just because he was an excellent Occlumens doesn't mean he could hide all emotion as well. Could you imagine the involuntary reaction when your supposed "mentor" or "leader" kills the only person who may actually have had some love for you? Harsh!Thank you for the compliment! :)

Yes, I can see Snape's involuntary reaction getting beyond his control to hide with Occlumency. But I can also see Voldemort flush with the moment, really... enjoying... the power trip of killing in general and especially that he killed Lily to get to his real prize, Harry. Threshold of triumph and all that. In fact, I always had the impression that after he killed her it was within only a second or two that he tried to kill Harry. I think LV might usually pick up on even a brief flash of someone else's emotion in that time span, but with his ultimate goal so near I think he could have missed it.

Remember also (given this Godric's Hollow scenario is correct), Snape likely felt a few seconds of utter shock, a brief window of not being able to process what he'd seen. Doesn't sound like Snape? Neither does being in love. (Nor hesitating on the Astronomy Tower. But both do seem to imply more to the man's emotions than is usually apparent.) So in that short time he may not have yet had horror or anger set in. Just enough time for LV to turn his wand on Harry and then... whatever Snape felt wouldn't matter anyway. I can also see the remaining shock and oncoming grief, not to mention the creation of Vapormort right before his eyes, allowing him to stumble away in a mental fog and leave Baby Harry behind. A lot of the detractors of "Snape was at GH" theories ask why he just left Harry there. This could be why - his own state of mind combined with the fact that he's seemed to have always seen Harry as an extension of James rather than Lily. One more reason now for any act of Harry's that is reminiscent of Lily's behavior, rather than her looks, to have a possible effect on Snape's attitude.


If I remember well, Snape turned spy before the demise of Voldemort.I think when he realized Voldemort was going to kill the Potters, he told DD.They had plenty of warning and hid, perhaps for a long time, giving Lilly chance to perform the charm that would save Harry; giving her life to save his.Good point! Snape turned spy before GH. But can you really see DD completely trusting someone just for becoming a spy, and a double agent at that? However, a shell-shocked, post-traumatic Snape, unable to shield his profound feelings of loss from Legilimens DD, would be a much more trustworthy person in DD's estimation.

I wanted to mention further the situation with Snape possibly witnessing the "death" of Voldemort and maybe even the creation and exit of Vapormort. If Snape saw the first, but not the second, he would have thought LV dead and would not have needed to cultivate his hate as Phil described. But, if he saw or sensed Vapormort, Snape, with his very deep knowledge of the dark arts, may have known LV was not really dead and, thus, known he might come back. If Phil's correct, it would either have to be the second option or Snape might have already suspected LV had a horcrux (or two...). Believing LV could come back would explain him "hanging onto his hate," as well as why he never tried to attain more power, i.e. if you believe he's power hungry and wants to be the next Dark Lord. I don't happen to believe that, but for those who do, it's something to consider.

About the timeline for the Potters being in hiding - we know the Fidelius Charm was performed only about a week before they died. But, if I remember correctly, they'd been on the run for quite a while before that, probably for having defied LV three times. Even before learning of Harry and/or The Prophecy, he seems to have had it out for them. And... we don't actually know that Lily "performed" some sort of protection charm on Harry, other than the Fidelius Charm to stay hidden. There's a decent chance that just sacrificing herself created her ancient love magic protection.

I guess we're closing in on some good reasons why DD would have trusted Snape and not needed an Unbreakable Vow with him, as the original editorial proposed. But of course we could all be wrong and the author right... we'll just have to wait and see! :cool:

The editorial is very well written but i have some doubts on its plausibility.

Perhaps i missed this, but i don't understand WHY snape would agree to a UV this binding. If the theory is that Snape is working for himself why would he agree to work with Dumbledore this closely. I understand that Snape would want to destroy Voldemort but the implications a vow like that would have on his life are huge. He's basically agreeing to carry out DD's every whim. How could a person who is working for himself agree to do something like this??

Also i have trouble with DD suggesting a UV. It seems like dark magic to me. You have to do whatever you agree to or else you die. Havent we been told and retold that DD is a TRUSTING person. A UV seems like the opposite of trust.

Finally there is the Snape/Lily issue. This theory is entirely based on the fact that Snape had a love for Lily so great that he would do anything to avenge her death. Does Snape seem like that kind of person to you? I can understand if he had a crush on Lily, that is a perfectly plausible theory but i think it ended when she went out with James. Ithink that at the point he just hated them both.

I don't personally have any theories of my own on why DD trusted Snape so implicitly but i know there is no way that it is because of an unbreakable vow.

-----I hope what i've written makes sense.:D

Thanks Emerald.

I am dubious of Voldemort inviting Snape along to Goderic's Hollow. On one hand I can see him wanting, and your theory would offer good rationale for it being Snape. Plus, if he has kept the Prophecy between him and Snape, Snape would be the natural choice for a witness. On the other hand, I don't see Voldemort wanting witnesses, because of his cunning.

Consider this: Would Voldemort know of Snape's long standing emnity for James? If so, and I think he would, wouldn't Voldemort let Snape kill James, sort of as a gift, even reward for the Prophecy? (And what about Lily?) But we know from the prior incantatum that Voldemort's wand killed both Potters, so probably he did them both. I don't think Snape would have been brought along just to watch.

I think you made a very good point, and it brought me thinking back to an old anagram of "Severus Snape", which was "pursues evans" so this could be true. The reference to the memory was good, and the whole thing may be true. It would make sense that Albus would trust Snape more if he knew Snape could love.

Thanks Emerald.Thanks yourself and you're welcome!

I am dubious of Voldemort inviting Snape along to Goderic's Hollow. On one hand I can see him wanting, and your theory would offer good rationale for it being Snape. Plus, if he has kept the Prophecy between him and Snape, Snape would be the natural choice for a witness. On the other hand, I don't see Voldemort wanting witnesses, because of his cunning.Hmmm.... besides cunning Voldemort also has a sizable ego. I've made comments on that on the Underground Lake #35 thread, "Slug Repellent." It's common with his ilk to have both ego and a desire for secrecy, and the two are often at odds. I also mentioned that DD's focus on LV's love of secrecy may have kept DD from giving proper credit to LV's ego. DD did say he can make bigger mistakes than the average person.


Consider this: Would Voldemort know of Snape's long standing emnity for James? If so, and I think he would, wouldn't Voldemort let Snape kill James, sort of as a gift, even reward for the Prophecy? (And what about Lily?) But we know from the prior incantatum that Voldemort's wand killed both Potters, so probably he did them both. I don't think Snape would have been brought along just to watch.I don't know...

With that ego - think of his grandstanding soliloquy in the graveyard and his taunting DD in the MoM battle - I kinda think Voldemort might want a witness to his "finest hour." But letting on to anyone that he needed to kill a baby would mess with his ego. Nope, this would be a combined secrecy/ego mission. So I agree; with Snape having given him the Prophecy, LV could take him along and not worry about that part of it getting out. ("To think, a Prophecy that anyone could defeat him, but a baby?!") Snape would serve both agendas.

More likely you're right, though, and LV would have put him to use as well. Snape might have provided backup (the Potters had already "defied" LV three times) or a distraction to Lily while LV took care of James. Or if Lily had taken Harry and run, LV might have wanted someone to chase them down while he AKed James.

Or you could be right, Phil; LV might have offered James to Snape as a "prize." If Snape had asked LV to spare Lily, LV might have wanted Snape to kill the man she loved to test Snape's loyalty, make sure there was no spill over sympathy. Lily's reaction, however, her likely pleas not to kill James, might have been where Snape's doubts started to niggle at him. Kill the man he hates or spare him because he means so much to the woman he himself loves? That sort of choice, and Snape opting for love over hate, could have been the turning point in securing Snape's loyalty to DD rather than LV. I can just imagine LV noting Snape's hesitation and saying, "Fine, I'll do it." If Snape even hesitated, LV is the sort to have rescinded his agreement to spare Lily.

And who knows, if Snape really did love Lily, he might have openly defected rather than go along knowingly to Godric's Hollow to begin with. I can easily see him not knowing where they were going until it was too late. This would definitely have been a sneaky way for LV to test Snape's loyalty - put him on the spot. When Snape realizes what is afoot, he improvises with some sort of excuse for LV to spare Lily. "Fine, you told me of the Prophecy. The Dark Lord can be generous to his faithful servants. But that baby has to go!"

However.... I still think Pettigrew was likely in on the operation, too, in some fashion. Someone managed to retrieve Voldemort's wand in the post-vaporization chaos. Seeing as how it was present at the graveyard, and the only DE to know LV was making a comeback that night was Pettigrew, it stands to reason that he was the one who retrieved it at GH. Pettigrew likely also knew of the Prophecy because he was probably told when it came time to do the Fidelius Charm. If Voldy learned that Pettigrew already knew of the Prophecy, there would have been no problem with him going along that night.

So, keep in mind all the stuff about Snape was entirely speculation. I do feel it would fit with the scenario and also with what we know of the characters' personalities. If Snape was at GH - and I'm not truly convinced of that either - I think any one of these options is how things might have gone down.

And... we're back to Snape having had sincere desire to join the fight against LV and no need for an Unbreakable Vow. My apologies to the author of the editorial. :whistle:

Mate, that was an amazing read. I love to read all the theories and ideas in all sections here at MN, and many essays/theories, etc, have parts that are well thought out and so forth - but your essay struck such a chord with me, I think because my first-up, gut reaction when reading HBP was that Snape was doing what Dumbledore wanted and I trust Dumbledore's trust - and now YOU have supplied perfectly logical reasons for all of my "feelings" - and even though I've never felt JKR has such "complicated/longwinded/complex" things behind her stories, it is only because to her, they are just an instrinsic part of that person's character that she's never had to write these detailed "exposes" - the fans now do it for her, anyway!
OK, I'm really dragging it out here - but that was a great read, full of truly original, beautifully and logically put ideas - thank you!!! I can't think of any thing you've postulated that I could refute in all good conscious...

This is a really beautifully written and well argued idea (sorry, I haven't read all the posts...). However, I just don't buy it for 2 reasons - one which you've already challenged and one additional one.

Firstly, I just don't believe that Dumbledore would make an Unbreakable Vow just to ensure he can trust someone. In fact, by making the vow, he's saying that he doesn't trust Snape - otherwise he wouldn't need to make the vow. Dumbledore says time and time again that it's all about the choices people make - once you've got an Unbreakable Vow then your choices are gone: if you don't follow it, you die. I don't believe Dumbledore would put Snape in that position, when he knows that Snape's personal choices are so important.

My second objection is this: what would be the wording of the UV which would cover all the requirements? You gave some examples in the essay, and neatly added one which would allow Snape to have 2 UVs. But I wonder what could the exact wording be which would provide Dumbledore with the required trust in Snape's actions, as well as making Snape protect Harry as you argued he does? I can't come up with suitable words - it's difficult that we have the benefit of hindsight, so we can fit the UV to the actual circumstances. But I just don't see how Dumbledore could have worded it, given that he could not have imagined all the possible circumstances which would arise.

So there - excellent article though!

Has anybody considered the possibility that it was *Dumbledore* who broke the unbreakable vow? Perhaps he made a vow with Snape that he would protect him, and somehow, by choosing to save Malfoy's soul, he broke the vow - and so had to die. This would expain Snape's look of hatred to Dumbledore and why he had to leave so quickly...

havent read the whole thing yet, but looks good! dude, its long! so exciting!
(first!!??, i must be really obsessed, or just nothing to do...)

Me too. It looks interesting, but kinda long, considering the time I found it: 3:12 am!!!!

Something just occurred to me, and it might or might not be relevant to this thread.

Snape said in OotP that those who cannot control their emotions are easy prey for the Dark Lord.

However, Dumbledore also said in OotP, "Even the best wizards cannot always control their emotions." Therefore, Snape cannot always control his emotions.

Of course, until he killed Dumbledore, he hadn't always been in Voldemort's presence and thus hadn't needed to "always" control his emotions. But now that he has killed Dumbledore, I doubt that Snape will be able to find any excuse to get away from Lord Voldemort, and, since he cannot always control his emotions, he will someday be easy prey for the Dark Lord...

There is an old story at Ashwinder that basically addresses all the issues in your editorial - Before the Dawn by snarkyroxy

http://ashwinder.sycophanthex.com/viewstory.php?sid=10633

(you have to register to read the story)

The UV as a reason for Snape's loyalty is first mentioned in chapter 30, where Snape explains the Vow to Harry.

Good ed (although, as others have mentioned, the timing of Snape's remorse is longer than the editorial makes it sound; the prophecy was given before Harry's birth on July 31, 1980, and his parents died on October 31, 1981). But the analysis of Snape's reasons for hating Voldemort is quite good.

Still not sure the UV isn't dark (that bit about the binding fire being like a snake at the end of Spinners End makes me wonder), but it doesn't do away with choice as long as the person honestly chooses to take the Vow.

I also don't think we're going to find Snape as a Dark Lord wannabe. As Emerald63 has said, his behavior so far hasn't supported that. I think the issue (articulated by Harry at the end of HBP) is going to come down to trust in Dumbledore. Certainly trusting Snape is one of D's most important and controversial decisions. I don't think we're going to find that he was the "stupid old man" Draco called him for trusting Snape.

Elizabeth P--Trelawney, in talking about Snape barging in, says that she was feeling odd just before. I think she was going INTO her trance at that point, not coming out. Therefore Snape would have heard the first couple of sentences before one of the Dumbledores realized what was happening and hustled him out.

About Dumbledore's rampant trustfulness--I think we've exaggerated this. Look at how he treats Tom Riddle. He keeps an eye on him, never trusts him, never falls for his charm. He's not credulous.

You are right, that none of the good people in the books have killed.

Except Harry. He killed the Basilisk.

And he's going to kill Voldemort. At least, Voldemort is going to die at Harry's hand, and I think that amounts to the same thing.

Im not going to speculate on what that would be, but if you think that the whole redemption issue is mumbo jumbo, you really should re-read what Jo has written about it. I believe she fully intends for Snape to be redeemed in the future, she has said as much, and she has stated that choices are the central issue, and I believe that Snape will be faced with a choice that will lead to his ultimate redemption. I can imagine that Jo might be at that place in her writing, right about... oh...say...NOW!I'm just curious, where has JKR said anything implying that Snape will be redeemed? I don't recall ever seeing anything that implies that.

Some very interesting ideas here. I particularly enjoyed the analysis of Snape’s Worst Memory. I had not put it together, but you’re right, Snape and Lily would likely have been interacting socially through the Slug Club, and in order for that to be his worst memory, there had to be something more going on there than just humiliation at the hands (wands) of James and Sirius.
I do not however, believe that it is necessary for Dumbledore’s unquestioning trust of Snape, that there was an unbreakable vow between them. I have always assumed that, after finding out how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy, and that he intended to kill the Potters, Snape went to Dumbledore and told him what he had overheard of the Prophecy, and what was going to happen because of it. I have always believed that THAT is why they went into hiding. There’s a nice symmetry there too. Snape, the person who should be their enemy, betrayed his master and his friends by trying to save James and Lily, landing himself in a position of alliance with Dumbledore, and the Order. Peter, who should have been their friend betrayed them, his other friends, and the Order, and landed himself in a position of alliance with Voldemort.

I enjoyed this theory immensely and think it is plausible. The only thing I have to say about it is that Dumbledore didn't have to stretch the truth about when Severus switched sides. Snape could have let Voldemort know about the Prophecy and continued to work for him until he realized Voldemort was going after Lily. Remember, he heard the Prophecy before Harry was even born (we think, considering how long Trelawney has been working at Hogwarts when Umbridge asks her in OoTP), and Harry was one year old before Voldemort actually found them. When Snape realized what was going on, he could have gone to Dumbledore then, giving information to protect the Potters and becoming a double agent. Then, before Voldemort's downfall, Voldemort gave Snape orders to gain a position at Hogwarts as soon as possibe, which Snape also let Dumbledore know because of the UV they would have made by that point. Then Wormtail betrayed the Potters and Voldemort found them, anyway. This encounter caused Voldemort's downfall; thus, Snape turned against Voldemort before his downfall but is bound by the UV with Dumbledore to work until Voldemort has a permanent downfall... which is perhaps how they knew Voldemort wasn't really dead and would be returning. Maybe Snape and Dumbledore realized the UV was still in place and knew that the Killing Curse rebounding off of Harry and onto Voldemort wasn't enough to vanquish him, as the Prophecy said must happen... Just a thought.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this editorial versus "The Psyche of Severus" (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/spinnersend/se19.shtml). This editorial suggests a UV between Dumbledore and Snape. But that one suggests one between Lily and Snape....

Does anyone have any thoughts on this editorial versus "The Psyche of Severus" (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/spinnersend/se19.shtml). This editorial suggests a UV between Dumbledore and Snape. But that one suggests one between Lily and Snape....
I don't buy either one. If JKR wanted us to think that the UV is something Lily or Dumbledore would use to ensure Snape's support, she wouldn't have had Ron emphasize how mad Arthur got about it.

I don't buy either one. If JKR wanted us to think that the UV is something Lily or Dumbledore would use to ensure Snape's support, she wouldn't have had Ron emphasize how mad Arthur got about it.

I actually think you're on to something - not only did she mention that Arthur got mad about it, but she did introduce it in a very dark way - between Narcissa and Snape in the presence of Bellatrix. Now, that doesn't mean she can't turn it around and prove that it actually could be used in some other way. I'm still not sure.

Plausible. There is a problem that I have with the timing section for when Snape turned spy. I take issue with the idea that Dumbledore stretched the truth to protect Snape. What I think is more a more plausible account for those two "lost" years is: for the first year, Snape spent much of the time waiting for Voldemort to strike. The prophecy was made in winter (I think..please do correct me if I am wrong, my HBP is on loan) and the murders of the Potters was not until late summer, therefore he is accounted for as being on LV's side during most of the first year.

DD's credability lies on the fact that Snape did switch to the Order's side after he realized what Voldemort was about to do, and for Dumbledore to lie about Snape's real reason for repentinence would be to suggest that other important memories and information he has imparted could also be false. To lie about that would ruin DD's credability. What I think is more plausible is that Snape probably was working for the Order as a double agent when he realized thatLV thought it was the Potters in the prophecy, but that he didn't necessarily immediately join the Hogwarts staff. Remember that Voldemort had Snape apply, but he obviously didn't get the job as there is a two year gap. I think is it probably that Dumbledore hired Snape when he wanted to work there on his own volition (be it personal protection or what have you) and not LV's. The rest of Snape's "lost" time then would be spent outside of Hogwarts working as a double agent and perhaps simply assisting Dumbledore with DE-clean up post Voldemort before he joined the Hogwarts staff.

Just a thought. (I'm not inclined to think of Dumbledore as a liar....)

I think is it probably that Dumbledore hired Snape when he wanted to work there on his own volition (be it personal protection or what have you) and not LV's.
I think Dumbledore hired Snape when Slughorn retired, and that he wouldn't hire him before that even though Snape had turned to the Order's side because Snape was applying for the DADA position.

I would be disapointed if that was the reason DD trusted Snape;but it is possible. I think there's no way ,after all this speculation.that I will not be disapointed with one thing or another.So far she(Jo) did the unthinkable ,that is,nobody knows how it will end.And there is some very smart people among us,one can tell.

Another example to support lilly loving snape was when professor moody says that lilly had the quality of seeing good in people even when they couldn't see it themselves.

obviously moody he was talking about himself when he said that, but why couldn't it also apply to snape?

i like the idea of an Unbreakable Vow....but who was the bonder

i like the idea of an Unbreakable Vow....but who was the bonder

I speculate that the answer lies in the one person alive who knows about the vow between Dumbledore and Snape. Aberforth Dumbledore. I believe he served as their Bonder in the Hog’s Head. I am guessing Dumbledore left some memories for Harry to discover and he will learn of the existence of the vow. He’ll learn that Aberforth served as Bonder for Dumbledore and Snape, thus Harry will learn about the details about Lily and revenge and everything.

So according to the editorial... Aberforth.

Well written editorial. I agree with most of it, but I am, like others, unsure if Dumbledore would have felt the need for an UV. I always felt that Snapes Worst Memory had more to do with Lily than with James.

Immediately I read this article I thought of a comment JKR made some time ago about Snape, which is referred to above (apologies if someone quoted it and I missed it) From an interview then:

Questioner: 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 Seven. That's all I’m going to say.

So, there is a redemptive theme to Snape's story, whatever it is. That means to me that Snape must make a voluntary choice to turn to the good, in order to be redeemed, and that he must first have done something awfull which needed redeeming.

In fact we do not know of many bad things Snape has done, in fact I can only think of one at all, which is telling Voldemort about the prophecy and the resulting deaths of Harry's parents. So it has to be that.

So JKR has to arrange that Snape voluntarily does something to make good this mistake. No compulsion because of vows. Something he willingly does. Otherwise she has contradicted her own plot plan. This is why I do not buy a compulsion placed upon him by Dumbledore. To comform to JKR's stated plot, she must arrange circumstances so that he has a real, credible desire to put things straight, and Dumbledore would be absolutely right to have trusted him implicitly.

Aside from this, UV are described in the same way as 1000 page legal contracts and geniis wishes. Trixy. You always get something other than what you expect. This is illustrated in the vows Snape does swear to Narcissa. He apparently swears to do Voldemorts bidding, but in reality it all comes down to the exact meaning of every single word. Not very reliable.

Now, as to Snape's real motivations. I see two possibilities amongst what we know (which is not all that much). It is clear that Dumbledore did not tell the exact truth to Harry about the circumstances of the prophecy, and what and how Snape overheard it. This might be because he was editing his story because at first Harry did not know that it was Snape, and Dumbledore did not want to tell him. Later, just before a battle is a bad time to explain diffcult news. But it is also possible that Snape was already on Dumbledore's side when he told Voldemort about the prophecy. This would mean that Dumbledore deliberately released the partial prophecy, with the aim of making Voldemort act (more or less) as he did, and thereby creating the one who might destroy him. Whatever, Dumbledore's exact reasoning of how this might play out doesn't matter for the moment, but the upshot would be that both he and Snape were responsible for James and Lily dying. Admittedly indirectly, and without appreciating that this would happen, but still responsible. This very much adds to Dumbledores personal sense of responsibility for Harry, and might indeed be one of his major mistakes, which he mentioned. It is certainly not something he would have wished to explain to Harry untill he absolutely had to.

In this scenario there is no difficulty explaining why Dumbledore trusts Snape. Snape from his school days was just another of Dumbledore's proteges, and he always did what Dumbledore requested - including becoming a spy for Dumbledore from before he ever became a death eater. The explanation is that he was never, ever, an evil character, just another put upon and misunderstood ordinary guy who was glad to be wanted. Likely Lily was a good influence upon him, as has been discussed, and encouraged him away from the dark side. But I am not sure, when viewed right from the very start, that aside from being rather unlikeable there is any evidence that Snape, ever, did anything bad. So I say again, no reason for Dumbledore to have ever not trusted him. So no need to find an explanation why he suddenly does.

The 'redemptive pattern' JKR refers to is satisfied, because Snape and Dumbledore unwittingly caused James and Lilies deaths. Snape has to redeem this mistake by working against Voldemort, and ultimatlety aiding harry even though he personally sees nothing in Harry except the father Snape hated.

The moral of this story is rather fine. Snape, an apparently awful personality, turns out to be one of the few noble and unselfish characters in the book. Dumbledore, originally portraid as whiter than white, turns out to have been the prime cause of James and Lilies deaths, since it happened as a result of his plan. Nonetheless, everything will eventually turn out ok. Dumbledore, and very possible Snape, pay for their mistake with their lives. Voldie gets the chop, the survivors live happily ever after. Good triumphs, but there is a price which has to be paid for mistakes (as indeed JKR has commented). Do not judge people by appearances. An excellent story for all of us still learning about life, not just children.

Some nice theories there but still nothing more than theories until we read the 7th book now aren't they? I wonder about the Unbreakable Vow, how much do we know about an Unbreakable Vow except that if someone breaks it they die? But what if one of the two people bound to the vow dies because of some other reason such as Snape killing Dumbledore. Is that Unbreakable Vow still valid or is it void now that one of the persons is dead. Would Snape still have to carry on that Unbreakable Vow to Dumbledore?

The other theory about Snape's worst memory, the idea that perhaps Snape was in love with Lily, although Lily not necassarily in love with him, yet Snape had feelings for her and it was this reason Snape was later very "remorseful" about telling Voldemort about the prophecy. They make a good point asking why that memory was even in the pensieve, why was it described as Snape's worst memory? worst for who? Snape or Harry? Harry certainly didn't like what he saw in the pensieve, but why was such a seemingly mundane memory in the pensieve in the first place, surely Snape had many memories of James and Sirius just like this? Perhaps there was indeed something more about Lily. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

Wasn't Snape observed by that woman that disapeared,kissing someone?Remember the memory in the pensieve?Could that be Lily?

Hmm... I just spent some time debating the possibility that there was an unbreakable vow between Dumbledore and Snape with my husband. He seems to think it likely that Dumbledore would have made Snape swear in this way that no matter what happened he would do what was necessary to protect Harry and see Harry through to his final conflict with Voldemort. I think it highly probable that Dumbledore extracted such a promise from Snape, but not with the Unbreakable Vow.

Logistically speaking, it make alot of sense I admit. But it doesn't feel right. The Unbreakable Vow feels too close to dark magic, to constraining to free will. It doesn't feel like Dumbledore. All along Dumbledore has been contrasted with Voldemort and his followers. In P/SS Mcgonagal says that Dumbledore was just as powerful as Voldemort but too noble to use the dark magic that made Voldemort so strong. I feel that if Dumbledore resorted to the same sort of magic that a Death Eater did with Snape, it would diminsh him. And I feel that it would be far more moving and powerful if Snape's promise to Dumbledore which was just an ordinary promise was as important to him as a potentially fatal Vow.

I think that Dumbledore trusts Snape for a much better reason, not because Snape is limited by a Vow.

Wow, you almost have me convinced! I admit, I'm of the "DD wouldn't require a UV: he would either trust the person, or not." Yet, you present a very good argument to the contrary. I must admit, unless there is something that JKR hasn't presented yet (ala the Horcrux), then the UV being the reason DD trusted SS so completely makes an awful lot of sense.
I haven't read all of the responses in this thread, so this may have been pointed out already: I think that it's likely that Snape did, in fact, change sides and confess to DD BEFORE LV attacked the Potters. Otherwise, how the heck would they (DD and the Potters) have known that LV had targeted them? I think at some point, Snape discovered that LV had chosen to target the Potters, he went and confessed to DD, and the Potters were put into hiding with PP as Secret Keeper.
Anyway, very good editorial, very well thought out. Now I'll go to read some of this thread and see what the criticisms are that I didn't think of. :-)

Edited to say:

I am back to my original belief that DD would not use the UV as a means to be able to trust SS. IN a nutshell:

Dumbledore is the epitomy of good, and he is all about choices. He neither needs nor wants a slave in Severus Snape. I believe he trusts Snape because they Don't have an Unbreakable Vow between them. I believe he trusts Snape because has chosen to be on the good side and do the right thing for years.

Otherwise, the books are only about slavery to a "Master" on one side or another, and not about our choices proving who we really are.

I believe DD did have a REAL reason for trusting SS: his trust was not "blind" as some have put it. The reason has to do with a CHOICE made by SS: in the words of DD, this choice put SS "at great personal risk." (GoF, sorry don't have book for page number at the moment). I believe this was an action beyond the spying we already know that SS is/was doing for the Order.

I really liked this whole editorial. I have been thinking along the same lines for some time now. But I'm not sure if I agree with a couple of points. Please know that this is all assumption and conjecture on my part. Lets face it, anything can happen with a writer as skilled and imaginative as JKR.

When Snape talks to Bellatrix on page 31 of HBP, he mentions that Dumbledore is getting old and slow, and has recently sustained a serious injury. Could it be that Dumbledore is dying of some disease and is ready to sacrifice himself rather than shriveling up slowly in St. Mungos? Remember that Snape already knows about the plan for Draco to kill Dumbledore (pg. 32 HBP), which means that Snape has probably already discussed it with him and they have hatched out a plan of their own. The agrument that Hagrid overheard between Snape and Dumbledore (pg. 405 HBP) sounds to me like Snape is having second thoughts about killing the only true friend he ever had, even if it is for the ultimate good. And if he had taken an UV they would never have had that argument.

Another reason i think Dumbledor knows he is dying is because he is willing to drink the potion in the cave to reveal the locket. Even after Harry warns him it might kill him (pg. 569 HBP) Dumbledore reminds him that Voldemort would not want to immediately kill the person who reached the island, he would want to interrogate, perhaps torture him for info first. Does the potion weaken its victim to the point that he can't resist Voldemort's mind probes? Does it cause increasing pain until the victim begs for death? Perhaps by the time Snape reached Dumbledore he was in so much pain he was pleading with Snape to put him out of his misery.

The other thing that puzzels me is Dumbledore's conversation with Draco before everyone else gets there. Draco confesses that Voldemort will kill him if he doesn't complete his task. So Dumbledore tries to persuade him to come over to the right side. "He cannot kill you if you are already dead.... We can hide you more completely than you can possibly immagine." (pg. 591-592 HBP) I know JKR said on her site that Dumbledore is really dead, but that statement is bound to have real meaning as we read book 7. I'm convinced that he is dead, but not out of the picture. In the original Star Wars movie Obi Wan told Darth Vader that if Vader struck him down he would become more powerful that Vader could possibly imagine. Maybe Dumbledore does the same.

One last point, and this is the hopeless romantic in me, I would like to think that Lilly and Severus did have a relationship at one point. They would have started out as friends, secretly meeting to hone their potion skills. Then it would have blossemed. But because he was a Slithern and she was muggle born, he would insist they meet in secret. He wanted so much to throw people off track that he called her a "mudblood" that day by the lake and that was the beginning of the end of their relationship.

I admit that this last bit of conjecture is far fetched, but it seems to me that someone as intelligent, talented and mysterious as Severus Snape would no doubt have a few female admirers. Why not Lilly?

Nice Editorial.

I had been thinking along those lines for a long time now.
One more thing I would add. When Harry heard Dumbledor plead "Please Severus" could he really have said "Please Sever Us" (meaning end the Vow by severing the link)

I really like Sandpiper's take on this. The idea that DD let a bit of the Proficy get out on purpose would not surprise me. And it would just show that DD, like the rest of us, slips up once in a while, even with the best of intensions.

[QUOTE=samlindude;3787799] I am not quite sure that the memory we saw was his very worst. It could be if that was one of the memories used to convince Dumbledore (how else did it end up in the Pensieve).


Dumbledore loaned Snape the Pensieve so that he could remove potentially dangerous thoughts before his Occlumency lessons with Harry. If you recall, the Pensieve was in Snape's office when Harry viewed this scene. Snape put the memory there himself to aviod embarassment--further proof that it was one of his most painful experiences.

Snape put 3 memories in the pensive before Occlumency lessons with Harry. I wonder what the other 2 are? Any theories?

I'm new to the site and just read your editorial. I myself have been delving into the similarities between HP and LOTR and this surmise is consistent with my own belief that Snape could be the Saruman character. Certainly I was a bit annoyed at why Snape "couldn't shoot straight" during the battle at the end of HBP. Your editorial does explain that well.

In following the LOTR framework, it makes sense to have more than one character seek ascendancy to the top of the wizarding world - one publicly and one privately. Moreover, like LOTR, it needed to be someone close to the Gandalf-like character and who could ultimately betray that character. However, at some level there needs to be an unexpected backfire - someone/thing that goes after Snape unexpectedly.

That someone/thing could be the remains of LV. Tom Riddle's ego was off the chain from the beginning. It's not too far a leap to envision that realizing he's been played by a superior (as in better than LV) wizard who's blood is also "tainted" by a muggle parent, that LV turns on Snape (his "twin" in many ways), providing Harry enough oomph to eliminate them both. In this way, LV dies last but only subtly.

With respect to the unbreakable vow, if I'm right about the LOTR pull-through then Dumbledor's error would be in trusting Snape because of his confessed love for Lily; his confession would be sufficient to convince Dumbledor that Snape had repented since Snape accidentally caused the death of the only girl he ever loved. However, if Dumbledor is smart or circumstances are fortuitous then the UV is actually a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card in that its restraints were so woven/spoken by Dumbledor that they hamper Snape in a way Snape doesn't forsee (such as if Harry decides to let the mortal LV go to Azkebhan forever once he's damaged, rather than killing him outright). Dumbledor might have selected Snape to finish himself off specifically because once Harry knew it was Snape he would never stop hunting Snape down to avenge Dumbledor. In this way Dumbledor could be showing that he did Legilimen Snape and knew his heart sought power and position; even Harry got past Snape's mind blocks once, so Dumbledor might also have found a topic which let him in deeper than Snape knew.

I did re-read the prophesy (and I don't pretend to have read all of JKR's interviews and musings). It occurred to me that Snape's disdain for Harry's "abilities" might be because after alerting LV to the prophesy, he might have actually been there when LV tried to kill Harry and killed Lily instead - either because (a) he meant to have her himself once James was killed and LV died from Lily's love defense (the Machiavellian approach) -or - (b) because he didn't realize LV would go after the Potter's - he thought the Longbottoms would be the target - and found himself trying to defend Lily surreptitiously and unsuccessfully. Thus Harry could represent either a reminder that Lily should have been Snape's honey or a reminder that she died while Harry lived.

I am still trying to understand the "thrice denied" portion of the prophesy because if LV selected the wrong targets - Lily & James instead of the Longbottoms - then Snape has a bigger issue in that there could be two potential avengers he has to deal with before his ascendency to the head of the wizard world.

Brilliant theory regarding the UV. JK Rowling often introduces a new magical concept/ spell/ potion in one book which later goes on to be a crucial element in the next book (think polyjuice potion used in CoS then later in GoF). I think it is the best reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape as he knows Snape's life would be forfeit if he betrayed him.

I also agree with the theory that Dumbledore was slowly dying by whatever curse he encountered in destroying the ring horcrux. Snape must have concocted a potion to slow Dumbledore's death. Snape still did not want Dumbledore to die so quickly or to be responsible for killing Dumbledore. It would also explain DD's rash behaviour in book 6.

Good thinking FrogPrincess...I also felt that Dumbledore was a bit rash in book six, and this could have been due to an illness or curse

I find myself in complete agreement with you Mr. Walker on the theory of the Unbreakable Vow Dumbledore would have made with Snape. Throughout the series has proven himself very wise and cunning, in the which we got a hint of his insight in CoS, when Harry and Ron were under the Invisibiliy Cloak. Dumbledore knowing the two where there while Fudge and Malfoy were completly unaware. Another great example of the Headmasters unremarkable ability, I feel, when he and Harry went to steal the Horcrux. I believe Professor Dumbledore to be very wise indeed, I think everyone who reads can agree on this. The other thing is that the wellbeing of the students at Hogwarts is of uttmost priority to our Headmaster. That being said, is it so far fetched that Dumbledore would also be wise enough to go to any length to ensure the safety of his students at his school (his legacy)? I believe that he wouldn't hesitate to do so. I also believe that Dumbledore, in the moments before his death, he was not pleading for his own life, on the basis that he told Voldemort " Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness-"(OotP Amer. paperback p.814) He himself obviously not afraid of death, why then would he plead for his own life!?! Lastly, I've read some that suggest Dumbledore maybe used of Voldemort as an Inferi. I for one am still hoping that somehow the murder of Dumbledore was all just an act, just apart of Dumbledore's whole master plan in someway??? Some have said that, yes, he is indeed gone. I hope, that if this is so, that Jo, will bring him in as a ghost, having not completed his task here! Thankyou, I am ahumbleservant.

An interesting, well-thought out editorial!

I'm not sure that I agree that there was an UV between DD and Snape, but it would provide an airtight reaason for DD to trust Snape. I just can't see DD making an UV for some reason.

Also, someone metioned in this thread how DD gives second chances to people but doesn't wholeheartedly trust them, eg. Tom Riddle. Why wasn't Snape treated in this way? He must be either genuinely sorry for his mistakes and is loyal to DD or told an absolute WHOPPER for DD to believe him if he was still on VM's side.

Either way, great editorial!

1. Snape would be dead by now if he had joined Dumbledore's side. And, as many people think, if Snape was "his own man" and had taken neither side? This too, in my opinion, counts as becoming disloyal to Voldemort. Dead.
This said, it would mean that Snape is still loyal to Voldemort.

I still think Snape is on neither side of the war.

Here's a weird thought. What if Snape is already in charge and Voldemort is working for him and has been all along? LV could never betray him, or else it's death for him. Again. What if Snape didn't tell LV of the prophecy to help him, but rather as an order? "Go kill James Potter and the boy, but leave Lily Potter alive", because that's what Snape really wanted along with Dark power. But LV screwed up and was killed, and Pettigrew helped him and went into hiding.

Each time since then Snape has in one form or another helped to prevent LV from coming back rather than help him. In no way did he assist Quirrell, Malfoy, or Crouch. He doesn't even show up when the other Death Eaters are summoned, and that's something a Dark Lord would tolerate on his big rebirth? Is it odd that of all the Dark Lord's army only Voldemort and Pettigrew lack the dark mark? It's because neither of them are worthy to wear it.

Snape is the self-styled Prince who creates his own spells and potions. He's got every bit the power of LV. But's he's smarter than LV and doesn't put himself in harm's way. He even infiltrated the Order of the Phoenix under pretenses of being a reformed Death Eater and stays there even while being suspected by most everyone. Look how ham-handed LV is when duelling Harry and DD. All he can do is cheap tricks like possession, and AK & Crucio, same as the rest of the DE. Snape is running backwards and deflects everything Harry throws at him without batting an eye, verbally and non-verbally. His duelling is elegant. Yet he never has had to raise a hand against DD other than a well-timed AK spell without any opposition. He kills him as easily as Pettigrew kills Cedric Diggory. Because he's smart enough to fight the fights he can win and he positions himself like Kasparov in a chess match. If DD's ironclad reason for trusting Snape was a UV, the Snape played him perfectly. DD himself said that when he makes mistakes they are big, and no bigger mistake could be made than bonding yourself to an enemy so well that they can hide themselves in plain sight.

I think Snape usurped LV before he had any real power and left him out in the open as bait under threat of death. The only damage Snape has taken from Voldemort is losing Lily and not being able to take the DADA job that LV cursed. LV made the horcruxes not to make himself immortal but as protection against Snape should he kill him. It may have started as power, but in the end it was self-defense. Every mistake in the war has been because of oversights on LV's part and errors in trusting the DE with special tasks. Snape has yet to make a mistake because he knows when to take an opportunity. Even when Bellatrix doubts him he knows of LV's plans with Draco because he's the one that actually made them. And notice that this plan out of all of them with a resurrected LV is the one that actually works. Snape knows who to use and when, unlike LV who it just a bludgeon that Snape uses.

You could even think of LV as Darth Vader, openly battling throughout the story until the end of Jedi when the Emperor comes out to play. That's the red herring that's been hidden under layers till now.