Dumbledore's Trust in Snape - Part One: Headmaster and Schoolboy

[more2live4]

This is to discuss Dumbledore's Trust in Snape - Part One: Headmaster and Schoolboy by D.W. Hill.

[Oceania]

I like this editorial a lot, as it is very detailed and yet simple to understand. I think the real relationship between Snape and Dumbledore is key to the outcome of the books. In fact, I think that there are now two "climaxes" that will take place in the final book: Harry's final battle with Voldemort, and the answers to Snape's loyalties/Dumbldore's trust in him.

However, I do not agree that Dumbledore would have "nurtured and encouraged" Snape to be nasty and hateful, so that he could be a better spy. I think Dumbledore has more compassion than that, and even if he did ultimately want Snape as a spy, he still would not have "encouraged" such enmity and anger. Also, there is some pretty gratuitous speculation; although I don't mind speculation much (that IS what theories are after all) this editorial had a little too much.

However, the idea that Voldemort got to Snape when he was young (younger than we had thought at any rate) is very intriguing. Good idea, there.

I also liked your point about how Voldemort COULD have just immobilized Lily instead of killing her, and how that decision (to kill her) ultimately lead to his downfall. I don't know about the Snape connections you make concerning this idea (Snape is so complex; such a pain in the brain!) but the idea is good nonetheless.

Good job, am looking forward to reading the next installment.

[lmk]

This editorial is well-written, full of details, and easy to understand - even with the few punctuation and grammatical errors it contains ("Gaunt's" instead of "Gaunts", for example). I find your writing style very enjoyable; you've managed to write an intelligent editorial that makes good use of your vocabulary without "talking down to" those that are going to read the words you've written. Congratulations.

While I think some of your theories/conclusions are a little far-fetched, they aren't implausible. For example, I don't agree with your theory that Dumbledore encouraged Snape to be an unpleasant sort of person, but his (Dumbledore) doing so isn't outside the realm of possibility.

Again, congratulations on this first installment of your editorial. I'm looking forward to reading the others!

[DondaLonda]

I like it. Lots of juicy points in this one. Stuff that makes sense.

[hcnbedbugs]

Very good, I didn't think that this close to the last book that anyone would really have any new ideas or a new perspective that I would find interesting but this was good and not too far fetched.

[arwen57]

i did find some interesting ideas and points in this editorial. for one, i was impressed by the way the author developed a time line based on both evidence from the books and deduction based on the that evidence (lupin's age at time of bite showing how long dumbledore had been headmaster was inspired). however, it seems to me that the crucial bit in this editorial, the new thing, was that voldemort might have had access to snape at a young age. a lot of work and evidence was put into showing the voldemort could have been at the school when snape was there, but then the author never stated if they thought voldemort had approached snape at school. he then talks about snape's family and possible blackmail, but doesn't state why voldemort might pick the snapes or why he might resort to some form of extortion to spend time with snape. while some of the ideas in the editorial are good, i don't think it is focused enough. no clear point was made about how and when the snape voldemort relationship started. i think that the editorial included a lot of extraneous material and did not develop some of the more interesting ideas enough. it is intriguing to think that voldemort might have influenced snape at a young age, but that needed to be explored more in depth.

[Dr_Tot]

Excellent essay, and a lot of plausible ideas. However, your timeline might be a little off.

I was under the impression that Voldemort came back about a decade after he first applied for the job (which was apparently 1945), which would have been about eleven years after he first opened the Chamber of Secrets (about 1956-actually, I think that both Voldemort and McGonnagall were up for the same job).

And the potions book (originally belonging to Snape's mom) was copyrighted from about 50 years before Harry had it (so about the same time as Riddle being at the school). It is therefore reasonable to think that Eileen Prince was at Hogwarts at the same time as Tom Riddle.

Since James and Lily were about 23 when they had Harry in 1980 (based on the descriptions of Sirius and Lupin, but I'm not positive on this fact), and Snape is in the same year as the marauders, this puts Snape's birth in about 1957.

This fits in well with Snape and Malfoy being good friends (and possible schoolmates), since Lucius was born in 1954, according to OOTP.

So we need to find out how old the Marauders and Snape are, and then we can sort out the timeline.

[sfgilgalad]

hehe check in the encyclopédia They all were born in 1959.

[more2live4]

LMK - Thank you for finding that error, it has been corrected. Feel free to let me know if you find anymore.

Thanks again,
Amy
MuggleNet Editor

[cal1]

I don't think DD knew about the horcruxes until last summer.If he knew ,he would have destroyed them early on.

[i6uuaq]

it's an interesting theory, and what strikes me most is how it fits in with dumbledore's statement that tyrants make their own worst enemies. but i do agree with arwen57 that you didnt really show how the snape-voldemort relationship got started. it seems rather extreme that voldemort would go out of his way to handpick a boy, having no idea how susceptible he would be to the dark arts.

if i were to hazard a guess, i would say that voldemort recruited DEs through his other DEs... it seems that half of them are related by blood anyway, so that would have been easy.

[MPPMarauderGirl]

I thought it was really well-written and I can't wait to see more. Got a little lost when it came to LV and Snape's early relationship, but I guess that all depends on Snape's mom. How much do we know about her? If she's anything like Bellatrix maybe she was very intent on Snape getting involved in the Dark Arts. [I know that she married a Muggle, but their relationship was awful, so maybe it tore both her and Severus into dislike toward Muggles in general.]

Overall I liked it very much and I do believe that Severus is good, even without reading millions of points of evidence. Who else can help Harry now that Dumbledore's gone? Snapes the only one that makes sense, IMO.

[yappa1]

A nice article but I also have a theory that may possibly change some of your arguements against Snape. I keep coming back to the question of why Snape needed a curse against his enemies.
The sectumsempra is a killing curse. He had to have tried it out to know that it works. I believe that he killed Tobias Snape with it an it made him equal to Voldemort since both would have killed their muggle fathers while being students at Hogwarts.
The second part would be Dumbledore had already known that Tom Marvalo was named after his father and grandfather. When the killings of the Riddle Family and the confession of Tom's uncle came to pass, Dumbledore would have figured that out also.
Dumbledore should have also realized who the heir of Slytherin was and who opened the chamber,but didn't do it. This one I can't explain.

[Bubblesk633]

I look forward very much to reading the next three parts. Good start! This has always been the HP topic that interests me most: Why does Dumbledore trust Snape? While I am not sure that the use of an Unbreakable Vow is quite on the same level as putting a gun to someone's head, I do agree that it is not Dumbledore's style. The same way that it is not proper to Apparate into another person's home. The same way that I don't think Dumbledore really employs Legilimency to invade Harry's mind (I think he uses it for the limited purpose of detecting mood or state, while at the same time judging Harry's reactions and expressions). However, I think JK Rowling was being very deliberate in her use of the word "ironclad" in connection with Dumbledore's reason for trusting Snape.

It really would have to be ironclad, wouldn't it? After all, we have no evidence that Dumbledore had children of his own, so I'm sure he cares for these children deeply -- almost as if they were his own. To let Snape come into his school, and teach these children -- Dumbledore would have to be sure Snape would not try to convert them to the Dark Arts, recruit them for Voldemort, or harm them in anyway. Would you allow your children to be in the presence of someone who used to be in a group as lethal as the Death Eaters, if you were only 99% sure that he had repented? It does seem that the proper place to start, to understand how the trust arose, is by looking at Snape's background. I like the way this editorial discusses Snape's past; the subtle comments JK Rowling has made really do tell us a lot. In the past, you can find the building blocks for what someone becomes in the future.

But at some point, there is going to have to be something more -- what would make you trust someone who has dedicated part of his life to a cause that is diametrically opposed to that which you have dedicated your life to supporting? The reason to trust Snape had to be ironclad -- something that didn't involve Dumbledore's judgment or discretion, but something that constituted unwavering proof. Even trusting, old Dumbledore who acknowledges that he can make "huge" mistakes would realize how dangerous the slightest error would be. There had to be a reason that Snape, an accomplished Occlumens, couldn't fake -- something finite! Gives me goosebumps, can't wait for July! Good luck with the rest of the editorial, can't wait to see what you've come up with!

[Wimsey]

I do not really buy very much of this. It relies on a lot more extrapolation than interpolation!

You might ask why then, if Dumbledore was concerned about Voldemort recruiting his students, did Dumbledore allow him to leave his office unescorted? The passage mentions that it was snowing and I am guessing that the meeting occurred over the Christmas holidays and that few students were in the castle. Do we have yet another item for Dumbledore’s list of “huge” mistakes? Dumbledore’s failure to escort Voldemort from the castle might have both resulted in Voldemort finding a suitable object to make into a Horcrux and ultimately making Harry’s job easier. That paradox, however, will have to wait for another essay.

What evidence is there that Voldemort left unescorted? This is relying on a negative evidence argument: that is, an argument that because we did not see something, it did not happen, when no matter whether the event happened or not, we would not have seen it. Indeed, the fact that Dumbledore was so concerned about Voldemort's visit is evidence that Dumbledore did monitor Voldemort every step of the way. Hogwarts is full of things like paintings that the headmaster can use to follow someone. Indeed, there is no reason to think that Voldemort was not escorted by Filch's predecessor or some professor.

Moreover, Voldemort himself would have thought that Dumbledore was watching him. The reason why Dumbledore tells Voldemort about the Death Eaters accompanying Voldemort is to plant this thought in Voldemort's mind, too. Dumbledore is self-effacing about it (and probably truthful about the source), but notice just how disarmed Voldemort is by this: you are as omniscient as ever, Dumbledore. Voldemort fears Dumbledore: and that fear of Dumbledore would have driven him to flee the castle as quicly as possible.

An even bigger problem is that Rowling would have an idiot plot if she resorted to this: Voldemort can just waltz in and find a relic of Gryffindor or Ravenclaw in a few minutes, when Dumbledore had no idea that it was there? Alternatively, Voldemort waltzes in and begins recruiting students, without Dumbledore ever learning this or doing anything to prevent it? This would demean and degrade Dumbledore's character greatly. This is not like failing to appreciate the depths of old rivalries or teenage passions: this is simply being dumb.

So sometime between when Lupin received the bite as a small boy, and when he arrived at Hogwarts at age eleven, Dumbledore was appointed Headmaster

Actually, Dumbledore became headmaster much earlier. Despite what Lupin says, the HP Lexicon estimates that Dumbledore took over around 1955. This means that the interview happened before Snape even was born. (Rowling herself has lauded this site for its accuracy.) This is the date implied by what Dumbledore tells Harry in his lessons. So, between the fact that the interview almost certainly took place before Snape was born AND the fact that there is no way Dumbledore was not monitoring Voldemort all the time Voldemort was there, Voldemort did not meet an impressionable young Snape at that time.

Also, we learn that Snape knew a lot about the Dark Arts when he arrived at school. We have brief glimpses of him cowering from an abusive man, likely his father. That is all the reason Snape would need to hate Muggles. Put him in Slytherin (because of his lust for power), and he would come to hate them more, surrounded by so many bigots.

[arwen57]

Originally Posted by yappa1

The sectumsempra is a killing curse.

sectumsempra is not a killing curse. otherwise draco would have died when harry hit him with it in HBP. since there is already an unblockable killing curse, Avada Kedavra, why would snape have tried to create a new one anyways? also, i don't see how this is really relevant to what the writer stated in their editorial.

[dobbyrules]

good editorial well written and easy to see it being true. One thing stuck out to me that made me think twice about snape being good though and that's this quote:

“I had advised Armando against the appointment - I did not give the reasons I have given you, for Professor Dippet was very fond of Voldemort and convinced of his honesty. But I did not want Lord Voldemort back at this school, and especially not in a position of power.”
(HBP, 432)

doesnt the way that armando dippet seems convinced that there is nothing wrong with voldemort appear to be parallel to dumbledore being convinced about snape? just when im 99% sure snape is good this throws a spanner in the works

[Opaxia]

Note number one: I understand the need to tie up loose ends, but "knot" should be "not" if that's the way it appears in the original quote... which it does.
Aside from the one word trip up (Knight and night get me everytime, personally...) not a bad editorial. Other people have already pointed out Snape's mother's textbook date placing her at Hogwarts at the same as Voldy. This would give them some sort of relationship, though whether it was a bully and victim relationship or otherwise, there is no way of knowing. However, Voldy would still have some way of knowing about the Snapes.
There is a fairly large time discrepency between the ages of Severus and Lucius, so chances are that if they were friends at school, it would have had something to with Snape's ability with curses bringing him into that particular circle. Being much yonger than Lucius' buddies probably didn't make him in any sense popular... and as they would have all graduated before Snape did, he would have been left fully open to abuse from anyone who disliked him.

I love speculation

[dixiedarling]

This is a very good editorial. It is thought provoking and has given me a reason to go back and reread the books more carefully, especially the parts about Snape's childhood and youth. The speculation about how early in his life Snape had dealings with Voldemort is interesting. Why would Snape know about the Dark Arts before he even started Hogwart's? Voldemort beginning his recruiting of youngsters is an interesting thought. I hope we get this information in Deathly Hallows. I also hope we discover the ironclad reason that Dumbledore trusts Snape.

[Phil_Stone]

There is a lot of work in this editorial, but I agree with Wimsey, it's weakest points seem to be its most crucial ones.

While a Muggle would not teach Dark Arts, he certainly might inspire an intrest in them. Do we know what house Eileen Prince was in? What her family was like? If she was a Black she would have been blasted off the tapestry for marrying a Muggle, but she need not have been a Black to have a family knowledge and interest in the Dark Arts.

Did she, like Merope and Tonks, lose some of her powers due to the lack of reciprocated love? Perhaps, but her powers would be different from her knowledge. If she was mistreated, her love for her son might have lead her to make sure he could protect himself from his father, especially if something happened to her.

As for Dumbledore allowing Voldemort to wander freely, doesnt he tell Harry that Voldemort had no opportunity to make a Horcrux at Hogwarts during his visit? The line struck me as an attempt by JKR to clearly and concisely eliminate a possiblity, like having Hermione tell us all the Time turners had been smashed.

I have long wondered if Snape's juvenile hatred of Harry and his father might not be a smolke screen to protect him from Voldemort. But Harry has seldom been given the chance to develop skills to use against Snape except from Snape himself. So I don't think his nastiness is meant to cause Harry to learn defense. Besides which Harry already knows Voldemort is after him. Does he need more enemies to motivate him to learn?