The Dumbledore-Snape Dilemma

Regarding Snape at Hogwarts, I don’t know if the final say about everything rested with Dumbledore. There’s other factors at work including representation of the Houses, in this case Slytherin. Snape appears to be a exemplary Slytherin and this shows by his position as head-of-house. We know that Slughorn was a former Head of Slytherin and even though he wasn’t a fan of Horcruxes he was very fond of Tom Riddle. So where do his loyalties lie? It seems to be for himself and whomever can improve his connections. What I’m trying to say is- was Dumbledore bound to select teachers and heads that best represent the houses or just whomever he fancied?

Also, loyalty to Dumbledore does not mean loyalty to Good, or to the fight against Voldemort. Now that Snape doesn’t have an active loyalty to Dumbledore he’s playing his own game as I suggested back here:

http://swordofgryffindor.com/2005/09/21/is-harry-a-horcrux/

post 42

Matthew

Travis, the quote about horrible teachers is from the Barnes and Noble Chat, October 2000 and I found it here:

http://www.darkmark.com/c.c?l=interview5&t=J.K.%20Rowling:%20Barnes%20and%20Noble%20Chat

“Why does Professor Dumbledore allow Professor Snape to be so nasty to the students (especially to Harry, Hermione, and Neville)?”

JKR: “Dumbledore believes there are all sorts of lessons in life; horrible teachers like Snape are one of them!”

I agree, that the strongest Evil!Snape argument is the one, that doesn’t right out put him in the Voldemort camp, but presents a more nuanced view of evil.

And the Dumbledore argument is the one that convinces me most, that Snape is trustworthy after all. Had Dumbledore not known just how nasty Snape normally was to his students, it wouldn’t be very convincing, either. But I think he must have been aware of this fact, and still trusted Snape. He reminded Harry on several occasions to call him “Professor”, to show him some respect.

Lupin really came to the point, when he said to Harry (HBP, British edition, p 311): “It comes down to whether or not you trust Dumbledores judgment. I do; therefore, I trust Severus.” That’s what it all boils down to. Since I believe, that while JKR writes about evil in all it’s different shades, she also has a point to make about goodness, and Dumbledore really exemplifies that.

Basically, I trust Snape because I trust Dumbledore.

First time commenter here.

To me, Dumbledore plays a God-like role in the series. Certainly, he isn’t omniscient or omnipotent, but his role is still God-like. Book after book, he teaches Harry exactly what he needs to know to confront the challenges of that book. Then he appears at the end of each book to dispense wisdom and clarify what was taught. He never interferes in Harry’s mission except when absolutely necessary, such as in OotP and HBP. If Harry could do it on his own, Dumbledore would let him. If Harry needed help, Dumbledore was there to provide it.

That being said, like God, Dumbledore allows adversity and challenges to exist within his domain. God is not evil just because evil exists or because of bullies or sadistic teachers. Yet he allows them to exist and to vex us. Indeed, sometimes it seems such things are there purposefully to test us and to try us.

Likewise, Dumbledore is perfectly aware of all of Snape’s shortcomings. I am sure he wishes Snape were a kinder person. I am also sure that he wishes that Harry and Snape could learn to get along. Snape is a necessary lesson that must be taught. Some lessons are more difficult to teach and to learn than others.

Reyhan, I don’t see Dumbledore as being Godlike, too, even though his willingness to forgive and to protect even his worst enemies is almost divine. In this, he is Christlike, but not, I believe, in allowing evil. I’d say that no man has the right to *allow* evil, in the way God *allows* it, especially not, when children are concerned.

Dumbledore immediately stepped in, when Dolores Umbridge manhandled Marietta and told her angrily, that he cannot allow this. Neither would he allow Snape to teach if he saw him as a thoroughly sadistic person, I trust. Snape clearly abuses his power and it is fully understandable why Harry hates him and sees him as an evil man. But, like Hermione said at the end of HBP “evil is a hard word.”

That’s why I hesitate to call Snape “evil”. Hermione never did, even though Snape was pretty nasty to her at times. She seems to be a very reasonable, almost “Dumbledoresque” girl, and I tend to trust her judgment more than Harry’s, who’s determination to hate Snape might make it impossible for him to judge Snape fairly.

You know, Mia, I have read a lot of talk about “Harry’s determination to hate Snape” and I just don’t see it.

Harry has been treated abominably by Snape from their first encounter. Snape’s behavior as a teacher has been truly outrageous, not just to Harry but to others including Neville and Hermione – and Harry has been watching this for six years! If anyone has had a determination to hate, it has been Snape himself, whose hatred of Harry was complete, instant and without reason or excuse – not to mention its incongruity with his duty of care.

As I see it, there would be something seriously amiss if Harry witnessed all this and did not react negatively. It would be a troubling sign – of acutely unhealthy masochism in him.

The fact is, you don’t have to be *determined* to hate someone who treats you to such an unrelenting barrage of abuse – in fact it would take extraordinary determination *not* to hate them. Harry’s feelings are not a result of determination on his part, but are a natural reaction on the part of a young person, to rampant cruelty, malice and injustice.

What particularly troubles me about all this insistence on the idea that Harry’s feelings towards Snape must result from a determination to hate on Harry’s part, is that it implies a denial of the validity or magnitude of the reasons for his reactions. As such it amounts to a shifting of culpability from Snape to his victim.

We have seen rather a lot of “blame the victim” around here and it’s just not pretty.

Good points, Mia.

I think you picked the right quote there from Lupin. He seemed to be a part of the old fued between the Marauders and Snape and has matured while Sirius and Snape didn’t. Although Snape seemed civil enough to Lupin when he brought him the Wolfbane potion. But then we see him get shirty with him and try to reveal him being a werewolf to his class. Was that because he thought Lupin was letting Black into the castle?

I think it’s a good point also that we only see Snape’s bullying of a very few people. the trio, Neville and subtle adult bullying of Pettigrew. His bullying seems to be very selective. We don’t see any bullying of Slytherins at all. I think he makes disparaging remarks about Crabb and Goyle somewhere, but hardly bullying. Plus, we only see a fraction of hundreds of potions classes Harry’s been in. I’m sure he’s not a teacher any student would want to cross.

S_B, YOu make the point about Snape’s actions being against his duty of care like Hogwarts was some muggle institution. For some reason I cannot see the Hogwarts professors being sat down to do their seminars on Duty of Care and all that jazz.

Matthew

I’ve been wondering if Dumbledore can see what others see in the Mirror of Erised. I know that the magical rules of the mirror prevent one person from seeing what another does, but…what if Dumbledore could? I’m sure it isn’t a stretch to say he deduced what Harry would see in the mirror from what he knew of Harry and Harry’s longing for his family. But what if? And Dumbledore doesn’t need a cloak to become invisible, something that we used to think was always neccesary. So, what if he could see what others saw in the mirror? Could what he saw in Snape’s mirror have been his “ironclad” reason to trust Snape? And what would it be? Just a thought.

korg20000bc wrote: we only see Snape’s bullying of a very few people. the trio, Neville and subtle adult bullying of Pettigrew. His bullying seems to be very selective.

I have a hard time buying Travis’ statement that the best argument for Evil!Snape is his classroom behavior for exactly this reason. I certainly agree that Snape’s treatment of Harry & his friends is unconscionable coming from a teacher – but we KNOW that Harry is a very special case for Snape, and that their contentious relationship is absolutely central to the series. We don’t have canon to suggest that Snape treats all his students in this fashion. We never see him abuse, say, Lavender or Pavarti or Dean or Seamus in this fashion.

And overall, Snape seems to get good educational outcomes. He shows favoritism towards Draco, but Draco earned an O on his OWL so he’s obviously skilled at the subject – there’s no hint that Draco got to take NEWT Potions only because of Slughorn’s return!

I also agree that Dumbledore is very protective of his students. If he thought Snape was engaging in systematic abuse of the student body, I cannot believe he would allow it to continue. I think for Dumbledore, also, Harry is a special case, and that Dumbledore does not judge Snape solely on his treatment of Harry.

I meant to say, he’s normally able, and on his word alone.

I’ve had hateful teachers like Snape,too. I had one female teacher who obviously preferred the male students. We girls were dirt under her feet. She was cold, mean and sarcastic, and gave us little help in class, but I’d hardly consider her evil. I didn’t know enough about her to declare her to be evil. Snape is a bit more complicated, but I still don’t have enough information about him to make the assumption of evil. I don’t like him or how he treats some of his students, but I believe in Dumbledore’s wisdom. Dumbledore makes mistakes and slips of judgement, but he seems quite aware of what Snape was and is, knows how he acts, what he’s done and is capable of doing. He’s the wisest and most powerful wizard, we’re told. Would a man of such wisdom take such a chance with his young charges’ lives? I prefer to believe he wouldn’t.

Could Dumbledore be trying to teach Snape something as well?

Travis, is the question whether Snape is in fact a good teacher, somehow justifying Dumbledore giving him a job at Hogwarts?

There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that he is very knowledgeable about Potions – as well as the Dark Arts. So he is qualified as to knowledge. But can he teach?

As far as I can tell, his teaching consists of writing potion formulas on the board, letting the students mix the ingredients, and grading them at the end. With sarcastic and cutting comments sprinkled throughout. I don’t remember him actually teaching – does anyone?

Mind you, I can’t recall many of the other teachers doing what I would call teaching. Lupin is the outstanding exception: he tells the kids what to do, supervises their efforts carefully and gives them constructive feedback. And maybe Sprout is an exception, as well – she appears more hands on than the others. Hagrid is also hands on, of course, although he has other liabilities as a teacher – placing his students in harm’s way out of a mistaken faith in the good disposition of dangerous creatures.

You know who would make a good teacher? Harry. Both he and his peers really enjoy the secret lessons he gives in defense against the dark arts.

So maybe the professors at Hogwarts are expected to teach more like professors at a university, where students are expected to manage their own learning, rather than teachers at a middle school or high school. You don’t need a degree in teaching to teach at a university – just to be a master in your own field.

Travis said: As has been said lots of times here, “sadism” and “bullying” certainly come down on the side of evil, in one way or another.

So when James Potter proved himself a sadistic bully at age 16, did that mean that he was on the side of evil? Or did it mean that he had some personal flaws, but could still choose to be on the side of good?

I just don’t think Snape’s personal shortcomings or his weaknesses as a teacher tell us very much about his loyalties. Dumbledore was willing to accept people with all manner of flaws in the Order (think Mundungus!) as long as they were willing to choose to fight Voldemort.

Said a bit differently, the Snape-Dumbledore-Harry triangle is central to JKR’s story. Harry’s relation with these two men is not typical of their relationships with their students, and it’s misleading to think that it shows us all the keys to their characters. Instead, these are the relationships between the protagonist and two major characters, and they have been developed to set up the loyalties and conflicts JKR needs to finish her tale.

I said this on another post, I think, but it’s hard to know how the teachers conduct class outside of Harry’s perspective. The students almost never discuss their classes or teachers so that we hear it, and I can’t recall any significant discussion about the teachers’ classroom conduct between any of the students from different houses or years.

Snape is clearly a horrible teacher. He’s more intent on flustering his students (at least the Gryffindors in Harry’s class) than he is in imparting knowledge. And as someone who has spent his time pining for the DADA job, I often wonder how much he really likes potions despite his obvious knowledge and talents.

Snape reminds me of a teacher I had as an undergraduate who taught both the Bible as Literature and the Romantic Poets (his actual specialty). I took him for both Romanticism and Old Testament Literature. In the latter course, he delighted in baiting students into answering questions, then lecturing for five minutes about why they were wrong. To complicate matters, most of the students in the class were from the the campus faith-based student unions (generally Methodist, Baptist, and Catholic) and were more interested in theological debates, not discussions of the literary modes and elements within the Old Testament. He was (almost) never as overtly aggressive or hostile, but his pedagogy and demeanor in class remind me quite a bit of Snape.

I think there are several reasons why Dumbledore allows Snape to teach at Hogwarts even though he is often cruel and mistreats the students.

The first reason is what you have already pointed out: that JKR believes Dumbledore understands that his students need to learn to cope with all kinds of people, not just good and kind people, in order to prepare them for life. I don’t view this as a conflict with Dumbledore’s goodness because he is still ultimately in control of what happens to any student, so they are not in any serious danger from Snape. Add to that the fact that Dumbledore knows Snape alot better than anybody else does; I believe DD trusts that while Snape may be unplaesant and harsh, he will not actually betray DD by really harming a student.

In light of this argument, we must also remember that DD chose to put Harry in the Dursley’s home to be raised, a place where he knew Harry would be scorned and mistreated, yet he did so because he thought it would cause Harry greater harm to be raised in the wizarding world where he would likely have been spoiled and exalted as a hero while growing up. Clearly, DD is a man who believes (and I think very wisely) that adversity breeds character. And so I think this is consistent with what we see in him allowing the students to experience Snape.

Also, I think DD pities Snape. As a repentant Death Eater, Snape has nowhere else to go where he’d be safe, so DD tolerates his ill-treatment of the students rather than turn him out and over to LV.

Legilimency,
Sorry about the 2nd post but I also disagree with your comment:
“Also, I think DD pities Snape. As a repentant Death Eater, Snape has nowhere else to go where he’d be safe, so DD tolerates his ill-treatment of the students rather than turn him out and over to LV.”

The other Death Eaters believed that he was still loyal enough. I mean, who was left for them to be loyal to? Voldemort seems to be happy with him or he would have destroyed him when he came back. All the other DE’s seem to hold him in very high regard as seen on the tower when Dumbledore was killed. He always seem to be held in high regard by Lucius Malfoy too. Karkaroff also, trusts him as a Death Eater.
Would you explain you arguement a little further please?

Matthew

Sorry, that would be Matthew, not Michael.

Legilimency, I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth, after all, you mentioned “adversity“. “Cruelty” and “neglect” were Dumbledores words, which describe the treatment Harry received from the Dursleys only too well. Dumbledore was aware of this, I believe, yet left Harry with the Dursleys, in order to protect him from Voldemort. He couldn’t foresee how they would treat Harry during his conversation with McGonagall, but still hoped they would care for him as a son. McGonagall didn’t see Petunia treat Dudley cruel.

I’ve read Travis’ excellent post about teachers in Hogwarts already, and clearly Snape wasn’t the only bully around. But still, I don’t find it wise to allow such behavior towards children. Children shouldn’t be pampered, either, but they should never suffer at the hands of those responsible for them. Harry is a kind and humble person, in spite of the cruel treatment, not because of it.

Legilimency,
You write “I have to disagree with you that the other DE’s knew Snape was loyal to them.”.

I still think this is the case. We have (from memory) Draco telling Snape in ORDER that he should be headmaster and that his father always though highly of him. If there was bad blood between Snape and the other Death Eaters then Draco would have heard that his fater thought highly of him.

Also, we have Narcissa running to Snape for help in PRINCE saying how close Snape always was to Voldemort- “He trusts you so, Severus.”

Matthew

Mia — I agree that there is some truth to the fact that Harry is a kind and humble person in spite of the fact that he’s been abused. DD himself even tells Harry how remarkable it is that Harry is still able to love others in spite of the way he’s been treated. We see other examples, Snape and LV for instance, who were treated badly and appear to have lost this ability. The question of whether suffering produces character or reveals character is an interesting one. I believe it does both.

Yet we also see examples of children who were not bullied or abused, yet they turned out bad. Dudley and James have this in common (though James eventually changed), and in some senses, Draco.

And I still have to disagree with you about DD’s decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys — he may not have known how wicked they were in the beginning, but he certainly knew of this after Harry came to Hogwarts, yet still he does not interfere. Presumably, a wizard as powerful as DD could have done alot to make his stay there more comfortable, but it does not appear that DD’s greatest priority is to protect Harry from suffering, and I’m simply proposing a reason or two as to possibly why.

And about teachers mistreating kids — well, it’s happened to all of us, hasn’t it? Teachers are not perfect people, and never will be, no matter how hard we try. Until the day human beings become perfect, it would impossible to insure that no child ever felt hurt by any teacher. I think it’s wiser to teach kids how to deal properly with the hurt than try to eliminate the source of it altogether. I’m not saying teachers ought to be mean, but rather that just because these things happen to us, we need not be ruined by them.

And I still think there is much to be said about the benefits of suffering. I know it seems a contradiction, but I still believe Harry is more compassionate because of what he’s been through. Having been bullied himself, he has a horror of his father bullying Snape, because he knows how it feels. I do not think anyone is correct in flat-out denying this connection. I see it in real life, too. People I know who have been mistreated are often very motivated to be kind toward others, while people who have had very comfortable lives are often apathetic to the plight of suffering individuals.

Just one more thing…you said McGonagall didn’t see Petunia treat Dudley with cruelty, yet when DD visits the Dursleys in the beginning of HBP, that’s exactly what he says their treatment of Dudley has been — cruel! Even worse than their treatment of Harry. This should greatly inform us as to DD’s views on cruelty — spoiling children is even worse than being mean to them.

Well, some excellent points have been made, regarding the essential question, which was:

“The Dilemma: Would Albus Dumbledore, the “epitome of good,” put his students, for whom he cares more than anything in the world, under constant abuse?

To which the answer must, I think be qualified.

The prima facie answer is no – Dumbledore would not deliberately and purposely put students into situations of certain abuse.

However the answer to a slightly different question is *yes* – Dumbledore will suffer his students to be victims of abuse from each other and from adults under certain circumstances.

The examples of this are not limited to Snape and the Dursleys. Filch too is a bully who abuses the authority (such as it is) of his position – yet is tolerated at the school year in and year out by Dumbledore (who, we might suppose, feels some sympathy for his plight). Similarly, Peeves makes a virtue of behaving badly without distinction – yet only his worst excesses draw forth Dumbledore’s intervention.

It is likely (and we’ve virtually been told as much by the author) that Dumbledore does this for two reasons:

As I expect you’re all aware, there is a view – as immortalized in song – which says that “everything is good for you if it doesn’t kill you”. It appears that Dumbledore subscribes to a similar view, as evidenced by the comment from JKR: “Dumbledore believes there are all sorts of lessons in life; horrible teachers like Snape are one of them!” He thinks there are lessons to be learned from adversity – within reason.

Secondly, I think that Dumbledore accepts human failings and hopes for the best from people – hopes for their improvement and redemption. We’ve seen countless examples of this. So while he is doubtless aware of the lapses of judgement and good behavior on the part of various individuals including the Dursley’s, Filch and also Snape, he is tolerant and even indulgent, giving them both encouragement and latitude to reform.

In both respects, Dumbledore’s actions are entirely consistent with his loving philosophy and his inclination to see the best in people and to hope for their improvement. Ie he is well motivated even though the results of his decisions may sometimes appear unfortunate.

Thus, while we might see Dumbledore is getting it wrong sometimes – making judgements that lead to unintended and/or unfortunate consequences, I think it’s possible to see that the decisions he makes are entirely consistent with his role as “epitome of good” within the frame of reference of his character’s path and philosophy as laid out by the author.

In light of this, I have to say I see no inconsistency. In order for Dumbledore to be good and wise, it is not essential for all of those in his service – nor even all of those he trusts – to prove worthy or to behave as Dumbledore himself would (and indeed does) behave.

S_B: Well said — I concur.

Then again… Dumbledore didn’t just hope for the best from Snape, he relied on it. And for Dumbledore, that’s saying something: For him, to trust someone completely, I believe, is to trust them with his life. He saw Snape as a basically good person, worthy of the deepest trust. This is really significant.

S_B, terrible mistakes happen in real life, of course, even to the best of people. But I’m sure, that’s not the point Rowling wants to make regarding trust, forgiveness, redemption, believing in someone, goodness etc. She would be sending out the wrong message, in my opinion.

I think there may be an issue of balance or tension at work here.

Harry has been on the receiving end of extremes throughout the series. He gets great goodness from Dumbledore- more than any other student seems to. He also gets great badness from Snape- more than any other student seems to. These factors seem to balance. The Sorting Hat seems to suggest that Harry could have been equally successful in Slytherin as in Gryffindor. I suggest that this put him in a kind of balance between those houses (vertical axis). He also has good relations on respect of Ravenclaw (Cho Chang- broken up but still respect) and Hufflepuff (Cedric) (horizontal axis). He has the esteem of the champions of Durmstrang and Beauxbatons schools and the House Elfs.

What am I getting at? Just like Dragons were seen to be the at the point where the 4 elements meet, so Harry is at that point. He’s at the crux and balance point of the 4 houses. He’s a uniter – like the Sorting Hat said the Houses need to do.

In regards to Snape and Dumbledore’s behaviour towards Harry, they are both subject to a higher power that is orchestrating the events of Harry’s life to use him as the Uniter. I’m not saying this excuses Snape’s deplorable actions but Harry is fated to face these things to equip him for his role.

Matthew

Perhaps Dumbledore allows Harry to suffer some ill treatment both at the hands of the Dursleys and Snape as a way of preparing him for his final conflict with Voldemort. Snape is tough with Harry when he is teaching him Occlumency telling Harry he must try harder to close his thoughts to outside infiltration. Harry can be a bit (dare i say) lazy and undisciplined of mind – his failure to do homework til the last minute, reliance on Hermione to help him with his homework etc., not trying to work out the Triwizard clues until the 11th hour – could go on… Perhaps Snape’s bullying and harshness is designed to stop him becoming arrogant like James or reckless and undisciplined like Sirius

Some quotes and thoughts about sadism, evil and humour.

I think it is important to read JKR’s words about Snape’s being evil in context:

“Where did you meet the Draco Malfoy of your life?
JKR: Oh, I’ve known about 3. I knew one at school and I’ve known them since. They don’t seem to disappear as you get older, unfortunately, but that’s a facet of life that you’ve got to deal with and I think children actually enjoy watching Harry and his friends deal with it.
What about Snape?
JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don’t think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power. He’s not a particularly pleasant person at all. However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I’ll just say that because there is more to him than meets the eye …”
(WBUR Radio, 12 October, 1999)

The first part about Draco (who, of course, is not a teacher) sounds similar to JKR’s quote about “horrible teachers like Snape” (see Mia’s comment No. 4.) and somehow supports Legilimency’s point of view – at least in my interpretation. The second part could be read as “you should not under-estimate the ability of children to be aware of the inabilities of their teachers and to cope with them”. Dumbledore himself said: “Age is foolish and forgetful when it underestimates youth”.

Compared with the Basilisk, Aragog, or the Blast-Ended Skrewts, I think Snape is quite a lovable beast.

Another quote of JKR about sadism:

“When fans accuse me of sadism — which doesn’t happen that often — I feel I’m toughening them up to go on and read [laughs] John and Stephen’s books. They’ve got to be toughened up somehow. It’s a cruel literary world out there, so I’m doing them a favor.”
(An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp, Press Conference, 1 August, 2006)

Well, yes, she was joking. And, yes, she was serious when talking about sadistic teachers like Snape. However, I think we should bear in mind that JKR is British. I’m quite sure she belongs to those people who like the very British, very special, very nasty, very black humour of Monty Python. It is impossible to enjoy them without feeling sympathy with your own parts of sadism.

Please, don’t misunderstand me. I believe Snape is a very nasty character and his personality is severely damaged to a certain degree. But I also believe that there is a huge difference between the opposites “nice – nasty”, “good – evil”, “soul – personality”. From my PoV, Umbridge is “nice (very superfically) and evil”, while Snape is “nasty and good”. His soul is certainly not as untarnished as Harry’s, but it is whole and capable of (at least undercover) love. Although, he himself is probably not aware of this crucial fact – unlike Dumbledore.