Snape and Dumbledore: Joint Character Analysis

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by SadiraSnape

Especially considering DD is so powerful an Occlumens/Legilimens himself. It might be LV started Severus' education in O/L, and DD finished it.

On the other hand, at Malfoy Manor (DH) Voldemort appears to have no idea that Snape is an occlumens.

"Saturday . . . at nightfall," repeated Voldemort. His red eyes fastened upon Snape's black ones with such intensity that some of the watchers looked away, apparently fearful that they themselves would be scorched by the ferocity of the gaze. Snape, however, looked calmly back into Voldemort's face and, after a moment or two, Voldemort's lipless mouth curved into something like a smile. (pgs. 3 & 4, DH Scholastic ppbk)

[SadiraSnape]

Ah, but if LV decided not to keep teaching his minion, then he wouldn't have a reason to think Severus is an Occlumens/Legilimens. The Dark Lord giveth, the Dark Lord taketh away, and sometimes the Dark Lord giveth just a little until he changeth his mind...

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by SadiraSnape

Ah, but if LV decided not to keep teaching his minion, then he wouldn't have a reason to think Severus is an Occlumens/Legilimens. The Dark Lord giveth, the Dark Lord taketh away, and sometimes the Dark Lord giveth just a little until he changeth his mind...

But see if Voldie taught Snape even a little bit of Occlumency then he might have been lying to DD all along and I don't like to even consider anything like that!

[The_Green_Woods]

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

I think it was a precaution. Dumbledore wouldn't have known how the Prophecy would play out-- if at all-- but it must have been intriguing enough given the plight of the Wizarding World that he decided to keep the Prophecy's maker close by.

Could be. Though I think it was because he wanted to protect her. In HBP he says so to Harry when Trelawney is jealous of Firenze. He says that he can't allow her to leave because she would not be safe as Voldemort would want to know the rest of the Prophecy and Dumbledore was keeping that from him. In OOTP too, the whole year was spent in protecting the Prophecy in the Dept. of Mysteries. Dumbledore did not want Voldemort to know the rest of the Prophecy IMO.

The sequence of events that night was like this IMO.

Dumbledore stood up and turned to leave when Trelawney started sprouting the Prophecy. The Prophecy itself takes only about a half a minute or less to say. Snape was caught by Aberforth who dragged him in at once but in that little time Trelawney had finished and Snape did not hear the rest of the Prophecy.

Dumbledore knew Voldemort would believe in the Prophecy and when Aberforth caught Snape, I can't believe or agree that the same Dumbledore who even as heard Harry's events of the graveyard which was terrible and horrible and where Hogwarts lost a student, had the gleam of triumph in his eyes, when he heard about the blood transfusion; from which time Dumbledore started preparing for Harry's survival after removing the soul bit, would be so naive in the Hog's Head that he simply sent Snape away.

The WW was in the middle of a terrible war that was going badly for them and they had been fighting that war for over 10 years at that time. I don't think Dumbledore would send Snape away without enquiring into what Snape was doing there and why. Trelawney's room was on the first floor and so Dumbledore must have known that Snape meant to eavesdrop and he was not there for any legitimate business, which in the times of war was suspicious, especially when someone was following a man who was in effect the leader of the resistance against Voldemort IMO.

Dumbledore in OOTP says that he was forced to stun Dawlish some three times when Dawlish was following him after he escaped with Fawkes; and if Snape had followed him into Hog's Head or was following him, I can't believe that Dumbledore would not have known.

After Snape was apprehended, I am quite sure Dumbledore would have questioned him and would have either known or at least suspected that Snape was a DE and if he let Snape leave with what he had heard, I am quite sure it was deliberate.

JMO.

Aberforth didn't bring Snape inside going by the quote-- the door to the room flew open and Albus and Trelawney saw Aberforth and Snape. Snape was stammering excuses and Aberforth threw him out of his bar. Albus didn't send Snape away. It was Aberforth's establishment and he sent Snape packing (and I have a hard time believing that Snape wanted to hang around to be questioned, anyway. I will bet that he was happy to make a quick Apparating getaway on Aberforth's orders).

Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape

I think Aberforth threw the door open to tell Dumbledore about the eavesdropper.

Dumbledore is never said to question him. He saw Snape at the door-- and apparently that is all.

I agree we don't see Dumbledore questioning him; but do you mean to say that after a Prophecy that Dumbledore clearly thought was important enough to protect that he gave Trelawney a job, did not question Snape when Aberforth brought him inside? I think Dumbledore would have questioned him and I think he let Snape go with his memory intact because he had not heard the whole of the Prophecy.

I am convinced that if Dumbledore had questioned him, Snape's Occlumency would have been up to the task of successfully lying to Dumbledore, as it was good enough to trick Voldemort.

Much as I love Snape and you have a fair idea of how much I do , I disagree with you on this point. I think Snape in those days was vulnerable in more ways than one and even if he was an Occlumens, I think Dumbledore would have got the better of him. Believe me, I would love to agree with you on this, that Snape can beat Dumbledore in the Occlumency area when he was 20 years, but I don't think that's true, not at that time, maybe not ever.

But, all that seems to have happened was Dumbledore saw Snape at the door, right before Aberforth threw Snape out. There was no questioning or Legilimency or Occlumency or Obliviating going on, because there was no interaction between Dumbledore and Snape at that time.

If Dumbledore did nothing, I must say as the leader of the Order and probably the only resistance against Voldemort, he failed very badly in his duty as leader.

But I don't think he did. I think he knew Snape was a DE; I think he made sure how much Snape had heard and then I believe he sent Snape away.

Originally Posted by SusanBones

If I remember correctly from Snape's memory's in The Flight of the Prince chapter, Dumbledore was furious that Snape told Voldemort the prophecy. I got the impression that Dumbledore hadn't expected that to happen.

Where in the Flight of the Prince?

I never could figure out why Dumbledore let Snape go that night.

I think he did so deliberately. He had the whole Prophecy and knew that if Voldemort came he could be prepared.

The Prophecy read like this ::

The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies ...

Snape heard only up to this ::

The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ...

OOTP - The Lost Prophecy He heard only the beginning, the part foretelling the birth of a boy in July to parents who had thrice defied Voldemort. Consequently he could not warn his master that to attack you would be to risk transferring power to you, and marking you as his equal..... He did not know that you would have power the Dark Lord knows not -

This was the reason Dumbledore sent Snape away. Voldemort by attacking the chosen child would not just mark him, but transfer the power and mark the chosen child as Voldemort's equal. Plus the chosen child according to the Prophecy would also have a power that Voldemort will not be aware of or know about it. With the chosen child as Voldemort's equal because of the marking and the child having a power that Voldemort would not know, made the child better than Voldemort and since only one of them would survive, Dumbledore may have felt that the child with it's powers would be superior to Voldemort and so would vanquish him IMO.

Since Snape had not heard the Prophecy completely, Dumbledore sent him away, knowing that he would go to Voldemort and then took steps to prevent Voldemort from getting to Trelawney by bringing her to Hogwarts and keeping her safe, intending to do the same to the child when it's born IMO.

[eliza101]

Originally Posted by SusanBones

If I remember correctly from Snape's memory's in The Flight of the Prince chapter, Dumbledore was furious that Snape told Voldemort the prophecy. I got the impression that Dumbledore hadn't expected that to happen.

I never could figure out why Dumbledore let Snape go that night.

I don't know if Dumbledore did 'let' Snape go that night. I don't think he had the power to stop him. Dumbledore had already been down the road of making people do what he wanted, (in theory). He had too much respect for someone's autonomy to impose an illegal and immoral restriction on their coming and goings. Snape had not broken any laws and Dumbledore had no right to detain him. He had to let Snape leave, to do otherwise was to start down the same path as Voldemort, riding roughshod over peoples rights. That Dumbledore would never do, lower himself to Voldemort's level. It was up to Snape what was to be done with the information and it seems he went straight to Voldemort. He then told him everything that he had heard regardless of the fact that voldemort was a known murderer and was ruthless when it came to his personal safety and power. It was Snape's actions that have to be questioned and question them we do.

[SadiraSnape]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

But see if Voldie taught Snape even a little bit of Occlumency then he might have been lying to DD all along and I don't like to even consider anything like that!

I don't see where that follows. We're talking about someone who may have started out taking piano from one teacher, then continues their education under a different, better teacher.

Just because Severus may (or may not) have learned a little O/L under LV doesn't mean he didn't learn more and better under DD, and it certainly doesn't mean he was a triple agent -- I think the memories in TPT clear that up admirably. Severus was Dumbledore's man, through and through.

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods

The sequence of events that night was like this IMO.

Dumbledore stood up and turned to leave when Trelawney started sprouting the Prophecy. The Prophecy itself takes only about a half a minute or less to say. Snape was caught by Aberforth who dragged him in at once but in that little time Trelawney had finished and Snape did not hear the rest of the Prophecy.

Neither Trelawney nor Dumbledore in their respective descriptions of the event say that Snape was dragged in from anywhere. The door opened, and they saw Snape and Aberforth, presumably in the hallway. So I can't agree with you that it happened like that.

Dumbledore knew Voldemort would believe in the Prophecy and when Aberforth caught Snape, I can't believe or agree that the same Dumbledore who even as heard Harry's events of the graveyard which was terrible and horrible and where Hogwarts lost a student, had the gleam of triumph in his eyes, when he heard about the blood transfusion; from which time Dumbledore started preparing for Harry's survival after removing the soul bit, would be so naive in the Hog's Head that he simply sent Snape away.

The events as described don't say that Albus Dumbledore sent Snape away. Aberforth did, by throwing Snape out of his bar.

The WW was in the middle of a terrible war that was going badly for them and they had been fighting that war for over 10 years at that time. I don't think Dumbledore would send Snape away without enquiring into what Snape was doing there and why. Trelawney's room was on the first floor and so Dumbledore must have known that Snape meant to eavesdrop and he was not there for any legitimate business, which in the times of war was suspicious, especially when someone was following a man who was in effect the leader of the resistance against Voldemort IMO.

Dumbledore in OOTP says that he was forced to stun Dawlish some three times when Dawlish was following him after he escaped with Fawkes; and if Snape had followed him into Hog's Head or was following him, I can't believe that Dumbledore would not have known.

Dumbledore went to the Hogshead to conduct a job interview, and from the way he tells the tale it does not seem to me that he expected anything significant to happen while there, least of all involving Trelawney. Dumbledore may or may not have come there from Hogwarts. Snape may or may not have been in town to apply for the DADA job (Trelawney seemed to think that Snape was listening at doors to get job interview pointers). Dumbledore wasn't trying to escape from Snape on his way to the bar, as far as I know.

After Snape was apprehended, I am quite sure Dumbledore would have questioned him and would have either known or at least suspected that Snape was a DE and if he let Snape leave with what he had heard, I am quite sure it was deliberate.

From the information we have, though, nothing is said about Dumbledore questioning Snape at that time.

Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape

I think Aberforth threw the door open to tell Dumbledore about the eavesdropper.

That's quite likely.

I agree we don't see Dumbledore questioning him; but do you mean to say that after a Prophecy that Dumbledore clearly thought was important enough to protect that he gave Trelawney a job,

I don't think Dumbledore gave Trelawney the job to pretect her until after Snape was thrown out of the bar by Aberforth. Even someone as smart as Dumbledore might need a few moments to figure out that it was a real Prophecy, what the heck it could mean, and what should be done about it.

did not question Snape when Aberforth brought him inside?

I'm not sure where you are getting that Aberforth brought Snape inside anywhere. Neither Trelawny nor Dumbledore say that Aberforth brought Snape inside.

Much as I love Snape and you have a fair idea of how much I do , I disagree with you on this point. I think Snape in those days was vulnerable in more ways than one and even if he was an Occlumens, I think Dumbledore would have got the better of him. Believe me, I would love to agree with you on this, that Snape can beat Dumbledore in the Occlumency area when he was 20 years, but I don't think that's true, not at that time, maybe not ever.

I'm not sure it matters too much, since Dumbledore does not seem to have questioned Snape. But Snape went to Voldemort at some point within the next two years and tried to get Voldemort to spare Lily. Snape may not have used Occlumency and Voldemort may not have used Legilimency in that exchange-- we just don't know. But it's a good indication that Snape could hide his thoughts from Voldemort and get away with it while in his early 20s.

[arithmancer]

Originally Posted by SadiraSnape

Just because Severus may (or may not) have learned a little O/L under LV doesn't mean he didn't learn more and better under DD, and it certainly doesn't mean he was a triple agent -- I think the memories in TPT clear that up admirably. Severus was Dumbledore's man, through and through.

I find it plausible that Snape could have lied to Dumbledore or otherwise deceived him in the Hog's Head. While the books do not go into great detail on Occlumency, it seems that there are at least two levels of skill achievable. One is the basic, which Draco exhibits in HBP. Snape (at least without waving his wand or taking other steps) is not able to see what Draco is thinking, because Draco blocks him out. This blocking out is obvious to Snape.

Another form, which Snape seems able to do, is to selectively hide the things he does not want someone to see. In so doing, he is able to make his attacker believe he is seeing the whole truth, if the memories and emotions he permits to be seen hang together in a believable way that seems complete. Snape could have done this latter in the Hog's Head, and Dumbledore could have been fooled (once).

However, if this indeed is what happened and Dumbledore only later learned Snape was indeed a Death Eater, Dumbledore would have realized at that point that Snape fooled him the first time, which would presumably make him a lot harder to fool a second time.

(I don't think Voldemort ever caught Snape in a lie to him. I figure Snape would not have survived that.)

That said, it seems clear that the primary basis of Albus's trust in Severus was not a magical ability to defeat Snape's Occlumency. We see them together in those first two scenes, and no hint is given that Albus is performing Legilimency. Elsewhere in the books, we are given outward signs of this activity, in the form of long or intent stares while making eye contact, or the use of a wand to cast the Legilimens spell. It seems that Albus trusted Severus on the basis of his personal experience of him, an experience that is far more extensive that we have been shown, seeing as how it included several months of the first war and many years after it.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by SadiraSnape

Just because Severus may (or may not) have learned a little O/L under LV doesn't mean he didn't learn more and better under DD, and it certainly doesn't mean he was a triple agent -- I think the memories in TPT clear that up admirably. Severus was Dumbledore's man, through and through.

Of course he was and in no way did I mean to infer otherwise. I just don't believe that Voldie would teach Occlumency to a minion. I know Bellatrix knows how, but being a Black it could be something passed down in the family.

[SadiraSnape]

Originally Posted by arithmancer

While the books do not go into great detail on Occlumency, it seems that there are at least two levels of skill achievable. One is the basic, which Draco exhibits in HBP. Snape (at least without waving his wand or taking other steps) is not able to see what Draco is thinking, because Draco blocks him out. This blocking out is obvious to Snape.

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

Of course he was and in no way did I mean to infer otherwise. I just don't believe that Voldie would teach Occlumency to a minion. I know Bellatrix knows how, but being a Black it could be something passed down in the family.

I'm wondering if a basic ability to block low-level Legilimency (a nascent Occlumens, if you will) isn't part of being a Slytherin? It's essentially a poker face applied to your thoughts, hiding "tells". We know Slytherins are cunning, resourceful, etc. etc. Maybe they're also really good at lying and blocking psychic intrusions, too.

It would certainly explain quite a bit. It would also explain why LV seemed to draft his minions from the ranks of Slytherin -- they're already good at hiding their inner motivations. I wouldn't be surprised if LV took the native ability to have a poker mind and tuned it up a little, to make sure none of his DE's were running around broadcasting their intents. You just know crazy Bella would...

[The_Green_Woods]

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

Neither Trelawney nor Dumbledore in their respective descriptions of the event say that Snape was dragged in from anywhere. The door opened, and they saw Snape and Aberforth, presumably in the hallway. So I can't agree with you that it happened like that.

"Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, although I'm afraid that I myself rather thought he had been apprehended eavesdropping on my interview with Dumbledore -- hoped to pick up tips! - HBP - The Seer Overheard.

Trelawney when in a trance does not notice anything. She makes the Prophecy and then forgets about it. She noticed Aberforth standing with Snape in the doorway after a slight commotion according to her. Dumbledore in OOTP says that Snape eavesdropped and heard one half of the Prophecy, so that's canon. It is also canon that Aberforth brought Snape to Albus, whether he was dragged in, brought in, stopped in the doorway is IMO immaterial; the fact is and it is also canon that Dumbledore saw Snape and knew that Snape had overheard IMO.

Where I differ from you is I firmly believe that Dumbledore would not have let Snape leave without questioning him and if he let Snape leave with what he knew it was only because Dumbledore felt that even if Snape would go to Voldemort, Dumbledore felt that that could be tackled and dealt with.

From what I understand of Dumbledore; and from the importance he attached to Trelawney's safety by offering her a job, I feel that Dumbledore was well aware of one half of the Prophecy reaching Voldemort through Snape; he allowed it IMO.

The events as described don't say that Albus Dumbledore sent Snape away. Aberforth did, by throwing Snape out of his bar.

Without Dumbledore's agreement that Snape be thrown out? I disagree. Snape may have been thrown out by Aberforth, but only because Dumbledore let him IMO.

Dumbledore went to the Hogshead to conduct a job interview, and from the way he tells the tale it does not seem to me that he expected anything significant to happen while there, least of all involving Trelawney.

I agree.

Dumbledore may or may not have come there from Hogwarts. Snape may or may not have been in town to apply for the DADA job (Trelawney seemed to think that Snape was listening at doors to get job interview pointers). Dumbledore wasn't trying to escape from Snape on his way to the bar, as far as I know.

I agree. But along with Trelawney, Dumbledore also seems to think the same thing; that Snape eavesdropped. Dumbledore knew that he heard only one half of the Prophecy IMO.

From the information we have, though, nothing is said about Dumbledore questioning Snape at that time.

No; there is no explicit questioning of Snape by Dumbledore, I'm afraid I have no canon for that. But it is also not mere speculation, because the man who caught Snape was Dumbledore (I mean Aberforth caught him, but brought him to Dumbledore's presence) and seeing Dumbledore's intelligence, capability, his manipulation and his understanding of everything and knowing that the WW was in the middle of a horrible war, I just find it extremely unbelievable that Dumbledore should have allowed Aberforth to throw out Snape without questioning him. JMO.

I don't think Dumbledore gave Trelawney the job to pretect her until after Snape was thrown out of the bar by Aberforth. Even someone as smart as Dumbledore might need a few moments to figure out that it was a real Prophecy, what the heck it could mean, and what should be done about it.

Again I differ from you. I think Dumbledore came to understanding very, very quickly, in the middle of the tale so as to speak. One example is the gleam of triumph, even as Harry, exhausted and saddened by Cedric and frightened by Voldemort, spoke of the events that happened in the graveyard. While yes, he must have taken his time to prepare the plan later on, the fundamental understanding was lighting quick. Eighteen to twenty years before the GOF, I can only presume Dumbledore would have been sharper and quicker.

And in the war that was raging, Dumbledore would have also been terribly suspicious of anyone lurking around him and certainly of anyone eavesdropping his conversations. Those who were caught trailing him or eavesdropping on him IMO would be questioned, for it is only natural for anyone, especially for the leader of the Order IMO.

I'm not sure where you are getting that Aberforth brought Snape inside anywhere. Neither Trelawny nor Dumbledore say that Aberforth brought Snape inside.

I don't mind if Snape was standing outside or on the threshold; my point is Snape was thrown out, let go, sent away with what he knew deliberately.

I'm not sure it matters too much, since Dumbledore does not seem to have questioned Snape.

This is where I completely disagree with you.

But Snape went to Voldemort at some point within the next two years and tried to get Voldemort to spare Lily.

I have problems with the timing of this too.

Snape may not have used Occlumency and Voldemort may not have used Legilimency in that exchange-- we just don't know. But it's a good indication that Snape could hide his thoughts from Voldemort and get away with it while in his early 20s.

I disagree with you here as well. I think it was because her saw the stark love and desperation in Snape's soul that I think Voldemort decided to use it to his advantage by sparing Lily and binding Snape's loyalty to him IMO.

I don't think Snape employed Occlumency even if he knew, to Voldemort. I think he was too young and too scared. He may have learnt Occlumency earlier, but I think it took him until after he met Dumbledore on the hill to start lying to Voldemort and until then, I don't think he had any reason to practise Occlumency, not when he knew about Voldemort's legendary strength of Legilimency. A mild slip would have brought him death. I don't think Snape would have risked it, until it became necessary for him to do so IMO.

[eliza101]

=The_Green_Woods;5687826][i][SIZE="
Without Dumbledore's agreement that Snape be thrown out? I disagree. Snape may have been thrown out by Aberforth, but only because Dumbledore let him IMO.

It was Aberforth's establishment. Dumbledore couldn't tell him what or what not to do. Dumbledore was not the dictator of the WW.

I agree. But along with Trelawney, Dumbledore also seems to think the same thing; that Snape eavesdropped. Dumbledore knew that he heard only one half of the Prophecy IMO.

And eavesdropping is not a crime

No; there is no explicit questioning of Snape by Dumbledore, I'm afraid I have no canon for that. But it is also not mere speculation, because the man who caught Snape was Dumbledore (I mean Aberforth caught him, but brought him to Dumbledore's presence) and seeing Dumbledore's intelligence, capability, his manipulation and his understanding of everything and knowing that the WW was in the middle of a horrible war, I just find it extremely unbelievable that Dumbledore should have allowed Aberforth to throw out Snape without questioning him. JMO.

What right did Dumbledore have to question Snape about anything?

Again I differ from you. I think Dumbledore came to understanding very, very quickly, in the middle of the tale so as to speak. One example is the gleam of triumph, even as Harry, exhausted and saddened by Cedric and frightened by Voldemort, spoke of the events that happened in the graveyard. While yes, he must have taken his time to prepare the plan later on, the fundamental understanding was lighting quick. Eighteen to twenty years before the GOF, I can only presume Dumbledore would have been sharper and quicker.

That may be true. At the time Trelawny made the Prophecy Dumbledore did not have any idea that Voldemort had been making Horcruxes. That took a great deal of time for Dumbledore to figure out. Also he did not know that Snape was a Death Eater.

And in the war that was raging, Dumbledore would have also been terribly suspicious of anyone lurking around him and certainly of anyone eavesdropping his conversations. Those who were caught trailing him or eavesdropping on him IMO would be questioned, for it is only natural for anyone, especially for the leader of the Order IMO.

The Order was not the legal authority. It was in fact by the strictest sense of the law a group of vigilantes. Dumbledore had no legal right to hold and question anybody.

I don't mind if Snape was standing outside or on the threshold; my point is Snape was thrown out, let go, sent away with what he knew deliberately.

No not deliberately, he was let go because,
1) He had not broken any laws.
2) Suspicion, even by Dumbledore is no reason to detain and question anybody, least of all someone who may have been eavesdropping.

Dumbledore was not a criminal and he did not act in a criminal manner. He had no choice but to let Snape walk out the door. Snape had the choice. He made the choice, of his own free will to conspire with his leader in criminal activites to target a child and that child's family with murder. Detaining and questioning Snape would have been an illegal and immoral act. There was no proof of any kind that Snape was a criminal. We know at this time he was, but Dumbledore did not. He did not send Snape on his way to trigger the murders of an innocent family and to trigger the events that would bring about the downfall of Voldemort. Dumbledore was a very intelligent man but even he needed some time to digest the Prophecy and he had to wait and see exactly what Voldemort would do.

[The_Green_Woods]

Originally Posted by eliza101

It was Aberforth's establishment. Dumbledore couldn't tell him what or what not to do. Dumbledore was not the dictator of the WW.

It may be Aberforth's establishment, but I am sure he would not stop Dumbledore from questioning Snape. It was Aberforth who brought Snape to Dumbledore's attention; if he thought that since he was the Lord of the Manor so as to speak, he would not brought Snape to Dumbledore's presence to allow Dumbledore to tackle him. He would have asked Snape to get out himself without bringing him to Dumbledore IMO.

Plus Aberforth was also an Order member; he would want Dumbledore to know someone thought his conversation with Trelawney worth eavesdropping upon and if Dumbledore would want to question him, I think Aberforth would not mind.

And eavesdropping is not a crime

In a war, and when one is eavesdropping on a leader of one side? I am sure any leader worth his salt would want to know who the eavesdropper was, where he came from and why he was there spying.

What right did Dumbledore have to question Snape about anything?

The right of wanting to know why anyone wanted to come one flight of stairs to eavesdrop on a private conversation; and if it was eavesdropping on a man who in effect led the resistance against Voldemort, I think he would want to know details. That's just my opinion.

That may be true. At the time Trelawny made the Prophecy Dumbledore did not have any idea that Voldemort had been making Horcruxes. That took a great deal of time for Dumbledore to figure out. Also he did not know that Snape was a Death Eater.

I never said anything about horcruxes. I gave the example of Dumbledore's gleam of truimph to say that he could understand facts lightening quick. That's all.

The Order was not the legal authority. It was in fact by the strictest sense of the law a group of vigilantes. Dumbledore had no legal right to hold and question anybody.

The IRA for example was not legal; if it was please assume another organisation that was not recognised by the Govt and was seen as a group of vigilantes or even rowdy elements taking up the fight on their own.

Assuming someone from the opposition, whom these vigilantes are trying to defeat was eavesdropping on their leader, I think the eavesdropper would be extremely roughed up; demanded to know all about the reasons why he was eavesdropping in the first place, and if the eavesdropper was sent off, it must have been because of a satisfaction that he had heard nothing relevant or what he heard was so incomplete it might actually work for the vigilantes in some way IMO.

I see Dumbledore's actions in the same way.

No not deliberately, he was let go because,
1) He had not broken any laws.
2) Suspicion, even by Dumbledore is no reason to detain and question anybody, least of all someone who may have been eavesdropping.

Have answered in the previous paragraph.

Dumbledore was not a criminal and he did not act in a criminal manner.

I never said he did.

He had no choice but to let Snape walk out the door.

Absolutely. After he questioned Snape IMO. Otherwise he would not have known that Snape had overheard some of the Prophecy for example IMO.

Snape had the choice. He made the choice, of his own free will to conspire with his leader in criminal activites to target a child and that child's family with murder.

Snape's culpability was going ahead and handing what he knew to Voldemort even after he knew this would mean the death of a baby and/or a family.

But, he could have been stopped from doing that IMO.

Detaining and questioning Snape would have been an illegal and immoral act.

Why?

There was no proof of any kind that Snape was a criminal.

It was precisely to know that Snape was not a criminal that he would have been questioned IMO.

We know at this time he was, but Dumbledore did not.

I'm afraid we don't know. We don't know what criminal acts Snape was supposed to have committed by this time to call him one. But if you want to say that he was a DE at this time and should have been punished for being a DE, because the Ministry rules say so, I agree.

He did not send Snape on his way to trigger the murders of an innocent family and to trigger the events that would bring about the downfall of Voldemort. Dumbledore was a very intelligent man but even he needed some time to digest the Prophecy and he had to wait and see exactly what Voldemort would do.

Why Dumbledore sent Snape away is highly intriguing IMO. He did sent Snape knowing that Snape carried with him one part of the Prophecy. I think Dumbledore knew Voldemort would set store by the Prophecy and so fulfil it by being vanquished.

[eliza101]

=The_Green_Woods;5687962]It may be Aberforth's establishment, but I am sure he would not stop Dumbledore from questioning Snape. It was Aberforth who brought Snape to Dumbledore's attention; if he thought that since he was the Lord of the Manor so as to speak, he would not brought Snape to Dumbledore's presence to allow Dumbledore to tackle him. He would have asked Snape to get out himself without bringing him to Dumbledore IMO.

Aberforth did not take Snape to Dumbledore. The door flew open and they were standing on the landing. Dumbledore was not Lord of any Manor. He was a headmaster at a school. Yes, he was very respected and he was the Leader of the Order. But he was not a dictator and he had no right to question or detain Snape, what so ever. Aberforth grabbed Snape on the landing and it was Aberforth's pub. He owned it, not Dumbledore.

Plus Aberforth was also an Order member; he would want Dumbledore to know someone thought his conversation with Trelawney worth eavesdropping upon and if Dumbledore would want to question him, I think Aberforth would not mind.

Was Abeforth a member of the Order at this time? Do you know that for sure? I don't.

In a war, and when one is eavesdropping on a leader of one side? I am sure any leader worth his salt would want to know who the eavesdropper was, where he came from and why he was there spying.

I dare say he would. Does it give him the right to question and detain the person doing the eavesdropping? I don't think so. Why would anybody play into their enemy's hands like that? Dumbledore played it down, IMO that was the right thing to do. But it was also the only thing he could do. He did not have the right to stop Snape from leaving.

The right of wanting to know why anyone wanted to come one flight of stairs to eavesdrop on a private conversation; and if it was eavesdropping on a man who in effect led the resistance against Voldemort, I think he would want to know details. That's just my opinion.

As I said earlier, Dumbledore may have wanted to know, but he could not force Snape to tell him anything. Snape was not even suspected of being a Death Eater. We know that. Dumbledore may have become suspicious but that was all he could do. Watch Snape for confirmation of his guilt. He got it.

I never said anything about horcruxes. I gave the example of Dumbledore's gleam of truimph to say that he could understand facts lightening quick. That's all

.

It doesn't matter how quickly he could put things together. His reasoning powers do not give him the right to illegally detain and question anybody.

The IRA for example was not legal; if it was please assume another organisation that was not recognised by the Govt and was seen as a group of vigilantes or even rowdy elements taking up the fight on their own.

The IRA was and is a bunch of murdering terrorists. I don't know why you have mentioned such an abhorrant group of murderers in this conversation, but as you have, they are analogous to the Death Eaters and Voldemort. The main difference between the Order and a bunch of terrorists is the the Order did not ever attack innocents and they never murdered anybody either. If anything they worked to prevent murders. That still does not make the organization legal in the strictest sense of the word.

Assuming someone from the opposition, whom these vigilantes are trying to defeat was eavesdropping on their leader, I think the eavesdropper would be extremely roughed up; demanded to know all about the reasons why he was eavesdropping in the first place, and if the eavesdropper was sent off, it must have been because of a satisfaction that he had heard nothing relevant or what he heard was so incomplete it might actually work for the vigilantes in some way IMO.

Dumbledore could not prevent Snape from leaving the Inn. Snape was a free man who had not committed a crime that Dumbledore could hold him on till the Aurors got there. There is still that little thing about human rights, proof of guilt etc., etc. that Dumbledore believed in and respected.

I never said he did.

Detaining Snape would have been a criminal act.

Absolutely. After he questioned Snape IMO. Otherwise he would not have known that Snape had overheard some of the Prophecy for example IMO.

What grounds did he have for questioning Snape? Had Snape committed a crime that evening?

Snape's culpability was going ahead and handing what he knew to Voldemort even after he knew this would mean the death of a baby and/or a family.

But, he could have been stopped from doing that IMO.

Snape had free will. We could all walk out of our homes and break the law, if we wanted to. Till the law has been broken we cannot be held or questioned. After the law has been broken we face the consequences, till it has been broken we are free to walk up stairs and down corridors in a public establishment. We are even free to eavesdrop. No one can stop us as long as we don't break the law. Dumbledore is not to blame in this case, the only one who is to blame is Snape. He could have stopped himself at anytime, but he did not.

Why Dumbledore sent Snape away is highly intriguing IMO. He did sent Snape knowing that Snape carried with him one part of the Prophecy. I think Dumbledore knew Voldemort would set store by the Prophecy and so fulfil it by being vanquished.

Dumbledore did not send Snape anywhere. Snape left because neither Dumbledore or Aberforth had the right to prevent him. Dumbledore was a very smart man but he could not read the future. I am afraid that to say he knew what Voldemort would do is giving him far too much credit. If he knew what Voldemort would do he could have prevented him from starting the war in the first place. But he did not know as fortune telling was never Dumbledore's strong point.

[Kat_Suki]

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods

It may be Aberforth's establishment, but I am sure he would not stop Dumbledore from questioning Snape. It was Aberforth who brought Snape to Dumbledore's attention; if he thought that since he was the Lord of the Manor so as to speak, he would not brought Snape to Dumbledore's presence to allow Dumbledore to tackle him. He would have asked Snape to get out himself without bringing him to Dumbledore IMO.

I disagree. It was the scuffle at the door and it bursting open, that brought attention to both Aberforth and Snape. There's no evidence via the snippet of canon to show that Snape stepped one foot inside the room. Only that they were outside the door.

So there's not anything really to support the idea that the door flew open and Aberforth dragged Snape into the room, right up to his brother Albus, and then nothing happened. IMO there is strong canon evidence to show that in fact, rather than have Snape hang about and continue to eavesdrop and/or hear more of the prophecy he was promptly escorted down the stairs and off the premises. The evidence of that is the fact that Severus only had three lines to give his Master, not more than that, and certainly not the prophecy in its entirety. And since Albus remained with Trelawney to hear the rest of the prophecy then the only one who could do the escorting is the one who caught Snape in the first place: Aberforth, owner and operator of the Hog's Head Pub and Inn.

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods

Plus Aberforth was also an Order member; he would want Dumbledore to know someone thought his conversation with Trelawney worth eavesdropping upon and if Dumbledore would want to question him, I think Aberforth would not mind.

We know that Aberforth was an Order member sometime in the VWI. Do we know when exactly he joined up? All we know is that Moody had met him the once at the photo taking, and at least six months later Marlene McKinnon was murdered. For some strange reason HP Lexicon has her death listed as July 1981. Now, I've yet to find where that info came from so I'm not at all sure exactly how accurate it is.

IF it turns out to be accurate however, it establishes Aberforth's official designation as an Order member was known from that point, and that join point is well after the prophecy was given and even after Harry's birth too. I do not want to lend to much credence to it, because I'm unsure where that date came from personally.

Even without it, we still don't know Aberforth's join date, be it before/after he tossed Snape so we cannot say definitively that he was a member of the Order at that point in time.

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods

Snape's culpability was going ahead and handing what he knew to Voldemort even after he knew this would mean the death of a baby and/or a family.

Snape's culpability does not stop there, though, IMO. It begins with his becoming a DE and following orders from a power hungry monster. He was there that night because he was ordered to be there and that cannot be laid at Dumbledore's feet IMO.

Outside of illegal detention, which IMO would have made things worse, as he'd have heard ALL of the prophecy rather than a bit of it, it still has yet to be established that Dumbledore knew or suspected Severus was a DE at that particular point in time. Remembering that not even the rest of the Order - including James, Sirius, Remus, and Lily - were aware of any rumors linking Severus Snape to the Death Eaters and Voldemort.

I will however add that Dumbledore was not adverse to potential illegal restraint IF the individual had proven themselves allied to DEs/Voldemort and I use his own threat against Kreacher's being allowed to return to Bellatrix to validate that.

IMO, I feel that the instance with Kreacher supports the idea that Dumbledore required proof of involvement with DEs/Voldemort before he'd stoop that low. He was the voice of reason, remember, he never advocated the policies that the Ministry, Barty Sr., or even Moody himself, did.

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods

Why Dumbledore sent Snape away is highly intriguing

Again, I think the evidence is quite clear as to which Dumbledore brother sent Snape off and how fast after the door popped open this escort was done.

[eliza101]

Originally Posted by Kat_Suki

I will however add that Dumbledore was not adverse to potential illegal restraint IF the individual had proven themselves allied to DEs/Voldemort and I use his own threat against Kreacher's being allowed to return to Bellatrix to validate that.

IMO, I feel that the instance with Kreacher supports the idea that Dumbledore required proof of involvement with DEs/Voldemort before he'd stoop that low. He was the voice of reason, remember, he never advocated the policies that the Ministry, Barty Sr., or even Moody himself, did.Again, I think the evidence is quite clear as to which Dumbledore brother sent Snape off and how fast after the door popped open this escort was done.

Kreacher belonged to Harry at that point, didn't he? I feel that Dumbledore ordered Kreacher with Harry's consent there.

What really troubles me here is the use of the word 'sent'. Voldemort 'sent' Snape to apply for a job. Dumbledore did not 'send' Snape off with a pat on the head. Snape left under his own power. He was not kept there against his will. That is the point I'm trying to make. He left, freely and without illegal hindrance, Dumbledore had neither the power to 'send' him or to stop him. Snape was a free agent who to all purposes had not committed a crime. Dumbledore's hands were tied, he could not legally stop him from leaving.

[Kat_Suki]

Yes, you're correct Eliza at that point in time the will stated Kreacher belonged to Harry.

If that somehow hadn't transferred ownership, however, then Dumbledore was prepared to prevent Kreacher from going to Bellatrix and passing on more info about the Order. It turned out to be unnecessary, as we know, proper ownership tied Kreacher to Harry.

I agree, I too have difficult with the wording "sent". Because to me this says it was deliberate on Dumbledore's part and I personally do not see that divulged anywhere in the text. To me, and I apologize in advance if that is not the intent, but to me the declaration of "sent" comes across as though Dumbledore deliberately set this into motion and I thoroughly disagree with that idea. The closest I can come is agreeing that Dumbledore failed to prevent Snape from leaving, but yet again, it's not actually established that Dumbledore - either of them - were aware that Snape was a DE at that point in time and IMO to have done so, kept Snape close and questioned him IMO would have exposed Snape to more of the prophecy and so potentially making things much much worse in the end.

I do feel that it takes culpability for Snape's knowledge of the prophecy and relaying it to Voldemort and lays it firmly at Dumbledore's feet rather than this belonging to Severus alone, as it should. It is not down to Dumbledore to make Snape make the right decisions/choices. Snape had free will, he knew what he was doing and who he was doing it for, IMO, and he bears that burden of responsibility.

Short of unlawful detainment {which would have allowed Snape access to more of the prophecy IMO}, what was Dumbledore to do? We've previously explored options and IMO none of them would have been effective. I mean, look at what Lucius got away with and both Dumbledore and Harry knew he was guilty of. He walked away freely, totally unscathed, and Dumbledore had no grounds to hold him, despite all that had happened that year at Hogwarts.

Snape is responsible for his own actions, that of spying, listening at the door, and passing the prophecy to his Master - the same prophecy that led to the murders of the Potters and the attempted murder of an innocent child. Yes, Snape learned of danger to Lily well after the prophecy was delivered and tried to act and protect, but unfortunately it was not enough to prevent their deaths.

[eliza101]

Thank you Kat. I feel that questioning Snape would have made too much of what it was that Snape actually overheard, plus the fact that neither Albus or Aberforth could legally stop him from leaving. They had to watch him walk out that door, no matter what suspicions they had harbouring in their hearts. They were not Death Eaters or Voldemort who would have felt no cumpunction in keeping Snape against his will and even forcing what he knew from him. It it had been the Death Eaters in the same circumstances, Snape would have been treated exactly like Hermione at Malfoy Manor. Screaming under the Cruciatus curse. But neither Dumbledore brother was a Death Eater and Albus certainly respected every single human's basic rights too much to violate those rights. That's what he was fighting for.

[The_Green_Woods]

Originally Posted by eliza101

Was Abeforth a member of the Order at this time? Do you know that for sure? I don't.

Yes he was.

OOTP - The Woes of Mrs. Weasley 'Original Order of the Phoenix,' growled Moody ... 'That's Dumbledore's brother Aberforth, only time I met him, strange bloke...'

I dare say he would. Does it give him the right to question and detain the person doing the eavesdropping?

I don't know whether it would give him rights or not; I know any leader worth his salt would investigate. JMO.

That still does not make the organization legal in the strictest sense of the word.

All the more for that organisation to be careful, especially when they are in the middle of a war. If they caught anyone eavesdropping they would want to know what he knew before allowing him to leave IMO.

Dumbledore could not prevent Snape from leaving the Inn. Snape was a free man who had not committed a crime that Dumbledore could hold him on till the Aurors got there.

Dumbledore would not know whether Snape was a man who had committed a crime or not unless he questioned him IMO. I think Dumbledore questioned him, like you said found him not guilty of any crime so far (as a DE or as a citizen of the WW) and realised that Snape had only heard one part of the Prophecy and let him go IMO.

Detaining Snape would have been a criminal act.

I never said Dumbledore detained Snape. I said Dumbledore questioned Snape and the let him off.

What grounds did he have for questioning Snape? Had Snape committed a crime that evening?

He eavesdropped on a personal conversation that Dumbledore went to great lengths to protect for the next 17 years. That IMO would mean questioning of the eavesdropper.

Dumbledore did not send Snape anywhere.

I agree. Dumbledore did not send Snape anywhere. He allowed Snape to leave after questioning him.

Originally Posted by Kat_Suki

I disagree. It was the scuffle at the door and it bursting open, that brought attention to both Aberforth and Snape. There's no evidence via the snippet of canon to show that Snape stepped one foot inside the room. Only that they were outside the door.

I don't mind. Inside the door, outside the door, sent, allowed to leave, thrown out.... I only add what canon also says. That Dumbledore saw Snape after he was caught by Aberforth and because of what happened (Trelawney's prophecy) and Dumbledore's intelligence, I think he questioned Snape.

We know that Aberforth was an Order member sometime in the VWI. Do we know when exactly he joined up?

He was the member of the Original Order. He was working for Dumbledore in the second war, bitter though he was.

Snape's culpability does not stop there, though, IMO. It begins with his becoming a DE and following orders from a power hungry monster. He was there that night because he was ordered to be there and that cannot be laid at Dumbledore's feet IMO.

I am not laying anything of Snape at Dumbledore's feet. I am looking at Dumbledore's actions from what's given in canon.

it still has yet to be established that Dumbledore knew or suspected Severus was a DE at that particular point in time.

IMO it is immaterial whether Dumbledore knew Snape was a DE or even knew Snape. This is not about Snape; it is about Dumbledore. He was interviewing Trelawney; he saw Aberforth holding on to a young man who was caught eavesdropping. Trelawney had spoken a Prophecy, which Dumbledore clearly thought was important enough to protect.

Would he, in this light, question the young man who was caught at the door or not? I think he would have. What that young man did has no bearing on Dumbledore and neither what Dumbledore did, allow that man to leave knowing he had heard a part of the Prophecy, have any bearing on the young man IMO.

Remembering that not even the rest of the Order - including James, Sirius, Remus, and Lily - were aware of any rumors linking Severus Snape to the Death Eaters and Voldemort.

That does not mean Dumbledore did not know - after Aberforth caught Snape IMO. Before that he may not have known, unless he was aware of someone following him.

[eliza101]

[

QUOTE=The_Green_Woods;5689500]Yes he was.

When was that photo taken? Was Aberforth a member that evening? The photograph was taken just before Lily and James went into hiding. It could very well be that Aberforth joined up after he threw Snape out of the inn.

I don't know whether it would give him rights or not; I know any leader worth his salt would investigate. JMO.

Investigate Snape's circumstances, yes. Illegally hold and question him against his will when you did not know those circumstances, no. Albus could not/would not break the law. Death Eaters and Voldemort broke the law.

All the more for that organisation to be careful, especially when they are in the middle of a war. If they caught anyone eavesdropping they would want to know what he knew before allowing him to leave IMO.

Dumbledore was not the Lord High Executioner. Snape had not broken any laws that he could be questioned on. Only Snape knew how deep he had sunk and he kept that information to himself. Unfortunately he was not wearing a sign that said he was a Death Eater who would not stop at colluding in the murder of a child and his parents.

Dumbledore would not know whether Snape was a man who had committed a crime or not unless he questioned him IMO. I think Dumbledore questioned him, like you said found him not guilty of any crime so far (as a DE or as a citizen of the WW) and realised that Snape had only heard one part of the Prophecy and let him go IMO.

Duymbledore did not have the right to question Snape about what he had for tea. He couldn't ask him anything.

I never said Dumbledore detained Snape. I said Dumbledore questioned Snape and the let him off.

When?, certainly not that evening in the Hogs Head.

He eavesdropped on a personal conversation that Dumbledore went to great lengths to protect for the next 17 years. That IMO would mean questioning of the eavesdropper.

If you don't have the right, you can't. It's as simple as that. You may want to, but you can't and uphold the law at the same time. Dumbledore was on the side of law and order.

I agree. Dumbledore did not send Snape anywhere. He allowed Snape to leave after questioning him.

Dumbledore never questioned him.

'Yes, 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 apprehended eavesdropping on my interview with Dumbledore - you see, he himself was seeking a job at the time, and no doubt hoped to pick up tips! Well, after that, you know, Dumbledore seemed much more disposed to give me a job, and I could not help thinking, Harry, that it was because he appreciated the stark contrast between my own unassuming manners and quiet talent, compared to the pushing, thrusting young man who was prepared to listen at keyholes - Harry, dear?' JK Rowling Deathly Hallows

That's it, all that we have. Harry demands the ttuth from Dumbledore who tells him Snape was desperatly sorry. He never mentions questioning Snape about anything.

I don't mind. Inside the door, outside the door, sent, allowed to leave, thrown out.... I only add what canon also says. That Dumbledore saw Snape after he was caught by Aberforth and because of what happened (Trelawney's prophecy) and Dumbledore's intelligence, I think he questioned Snape.

But he didn't. He stayed within the law

He was the member of the Original Order. He was working for Dumbledore in the second war, bitter though he was.

That still does not tell us when he joined the Order.

I am not laying anything of Snape at Dumbledore's feet. I am looking at Dumbledore's actions from what's given in canon.

And what's given in canon is that Dumbledore could not question Snape as he did not have the right to do so.

IMO it is immaterial whether Dumbledore knew Snape was a DE or even knew Snape. This is not about Snape; it is about Dumbledore. He was interviewing Trelawney; he saw Aberforth holding on to a young man who was caught eavesdropping. Trelawney had spoken a Prophecy, which Dumbledore clearly thought was important enough to protect.

Dumbledore had reason to be suspicious and he protected Trelawny because of that suspicion. As he told Harry so many Prophecys do not come to anything. He had to wait and see if this one did.

Would he, in this light, question the young man who was caught at the door or not? I think he would have. What that young man did has no bearing on Dumbledore and neither what Dumbledore did, allow that man to leave knowing he had heard a part of the Prophecy, have any bearing on the young man IMO.

Dumbledore had no real reason to question Snape about anything. Perhaps because as far as he could prove, Snape had not broken the law.

That does not mean Dumbledore did not know - after Aberforth caught Snape IMO. Before that he may not have known, unless he was aware of someone following him.

But then there's those pesky human rights and a person's right to come and go freely. If only Dumbledore had behaved like a Death Eater that night and held Snape illegally and questioned him, illegally. Darn Dumbledore and his scruples about those rights.