Snape the Iconoclast

[abigailnus]

No: HPFGUIDX 78512

Severus Snape is, arguably, the most fascinating character in the 
Harry Potter series.  The reason for this is clear - there is so little 
that's obvious about him.  His personality, allegiance and 
emotional attachments are shrouded in mystery, but not nearly as 
much as his past.  The two most frequently asked question about 
Snape are, why did he join the Death Eaters, and why did he leave?

The second question has been answered in every way from the 
mundane to the melodramatic.  Snape has lost countless friends 
and family members to the Dark Lord's murderous glee, forcing 
him to rethink his choices.  The famous and popular theory 
LOLLIPOPS suggests that Snape was in love with Lily Potter, and 
that the threat to her life made him switch sides.  Other theories 
suggest that his motives were mercenary - Snape simply chose the 
side he thought likely to win, or, alternatively, he was disappointed 
in his place within the DE hierarchy, and hoped Dumbledore would 
be able to offer him better.  My own personal favorite, George [1], 
suggests that there was no single event that caused Snape to 
change sides, but merely the eventual realization of the immorality 
of his actions.

The first question, however, has not been so frequently addressed.  
Is it sufficient to conclude that Snape came from a muggle-hating 
background, and that his membership of house Slytherin placed 
him on a collision course with Voldemort?  Should we assume that 
the same Love of Lily which later forced Snape to renounce 
Voldemort first sent him into the Dark Lord's arms when Lily chose 
James?  These are all good possibilities, but I would like to offer 
another one.

I've been thinking for several months about Snape's past, and OOP 
has only served to cement my belief that Snape, though his 
wizarding credentials are no doubt impeccable, does not come 
from money.  In fact, I am absolutely certain that Snape's family 
was poor.

In order to explain how this relates to Snape's decision to join 
Voldemort, I'd like to first look at Voldemort himself, and at the 
changes that he sought to bring to wizarding society.  And in order 
to do that, I'd like to first take a look at wizarding society itself.

About a year ago, a discussion broke out on HPfGU about class in 
the wizarding world.  Elkins argued that quite apart from the 
distinctions of purity, wizarding society also made distinctions 
according to class - that is, wealth.  She argued that Hogwarts was 
strictly an upper-class institution, and that working and 
middle-class wizards never even went to school, or at least not to 
Hogwarts.  Elkins suggested that there in fact exist several 
wizarding schools in England, Hogwarts simply being the most 
exclusive. [2]

I disagreed with most of Elkins' conclusions, and still do.  JKR has 
assured us that there is only one wizarding school in the UK, and 
there are enough instances of muggle-born students in Hogwarts 
to counter the assertion that only high-born wizards get to go 
there.  However, I do find quite acceptable the idea that the 
wizarding world is class-conscious as well as blood-conscious.  
Time and time again we see that respectability and power in the 
wizarding world follow the trail of money even more inexorably 
then they follow the trail of pure wizarding blood.  The  Weasleys 
are as old and as respectable a family of pure-blood wizards as 
the Malfoys or the Blacks - so much so that there has been 
intermarriage between the three families - but, as Draco Malfoy 
tells Harry in PS, not all pure-blood families are equal.  The 
difference, as he makes certain to point out whenever Ron is in 
earshot, is money.

It is money that makes Lucius Malfoy as powerful as he is, and 
there is evidence that other powerful pure-blood wizards are also 
wealthy.  Crouch Sr., for example, has a mansion, and can afford 
to keep a house-elf - and he was very nearly the Minister for Magic.  

Where does that leave Voldemort, or more accurately, the young 
Tom Riddle?  He is neither pure-blood, nor wealthy, but he has 
developed a burning hatred of the world he leaves behind 
whenever he comes to Hogwarts.  A different person might have 
chosen to climb the ladder.  To play society's game.  
Class-conscious or not, the wizarding world, like any aristocratic 
society, can be cracked by a newcomer with enough wits and 
determination.  Tom Riddle could have made a name for himself 
- become the youngest ever Minister for Magic - and the world 
would have been a very different place.

He does not choose to do this.  Rather then navigate the currents 
of society until he reaches the top, Tom Riddle chooses to tear 
society itself down.

Let's examine Voldemort's stated purposes - they are surprisingly 
vague.  Apart from his own desire to defeat death and accumulate 
power, Voldemort is eager to eliminate muggle-borns from 
wizarding society and subjugate muggles.  People like Lucius 
Malfoy would have us believe that this is a reaction to the erosion 
of the status of old families over the last century.  Our own eyes 
tell us a different story.  Arthur Weasley's pro-muggle beliefs make 
him a pariah in his place of work.  The Minister for Magic himself 
seems to hold anti-muggle beliefs, and treats Squibs as unworthy 
of his attention.  Wizarding society without Voldemort's influence 
is not nearly as enlightened as we might like to believe, and I 
suspect that 50 years ago, when Voldemort's ideology began to 
form, things were even worse.  It's possible, I suppose, that 
Voldemort felt the changes coming - Dumbledore was already 
shaping up as a figure of power, fresh from his defeat of 
Grindlewald, and may have already made his inclusive philosophy 
clear, but these changes could have been combatted from within 
- see, for example, Dolores Umbrdige's legislative attack on 
half-breeds.  Voldemort chose not to do so.

Voldemort's dream of a return to ancient wizarding values is 
about as true to the form of wizarding society as Hitler's claim 
that the Third Reich was a return to the Golden Age of Germany.  
In truth, what Voldemort was trying to do was to overturn society, 
tear it down, and erect in its place an entirely new social order, 
one with himself and his followers at the top.  Hatred of muggles 
and muggle-borns is as incidental to this plan as Hitler's hatred 
of the Jews and other "inferior" races.

WIthin this atmosphere, being the progeny of an old, wealthy 
wizarding family might be more of a hindrance then an asset.  
These families had benefitted from the social order as it stood 
- the foundations of their status were rooted in the very thing 
that Voldemort proposed to destroy.  When Sirius tells us about 
his brother, we are led to believe that he didn't have the 
stomach to commit the atrocities that Voldemort desired of him, 
but I suspect that there's more to it then that.

>From Chapter 6, The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black, page 
104 in the UK hardcover edition.  Sirius and Harry are discussing 
Regulus:

-----------------------

'"Were - were your parents Death Eaters as well?'

'No, no, but believe me, they thought Voldemort had the right idea, 
they were all for the purification of the wizarding race, getting rid of 
Muggle-borns and having pure-bloods in charge.  They weren't 
alone, either, there were quite a few people, before Voldemort 
showed his true colors, who thought he had the right idea about 
things ... they got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to 
do to get power, though.  But I bet my parents thought Regulus was 
a right little hero for joining up at first.'

'Was he killed by an Auror?' Harry asked tentatively.

'Oh, no, said Sirius.  'No, he was murdered by Voldemort.  Or on 
Voldemort's orders, more likely; I doubt Regulus was ever important 
enough to be killed by Voldemort in person.  From what I found out 
after he died, he got in so far, then panicked about what he was 
being asked to do and tried to back out.  Well, you don't just hand 
in your resignation to Voldemort.  It's a lifetime of service or death.'"

-----------------------

What is it exactly that Regulus, and other early supporters of 
Voldemort, panicked about?  What were the true colors that they saw?  
Was it simply the fact that Voldemort's methods involved murder?  I 
find it hard to believe that Mrs. Black would blanche at the notion of 
killing muggle-borns.  I think it was the realization that Voldemort 
was proposing anarchy.  That he meant to make them all his servants, 
that made these old families reluctant to support him openly, and 
that makes me believe that Voldemort's greatest supporters did not 
necessarily come from those families.

Lucius Malfoy is, I suspect, an anomaly.  He desires power, and 
clearly doesn't believe that the world as it is today will provide him 
with enough of it.  His son, however, is a throwback to those 
pure-blood families who didn't have it in them to support Voldemort.  
Draco enjoys his status too much to be willing to work for more of it.  
Crouch Jr. is obviously an anomaly.  He hates the world he comes 
from because he hates his father - tearing the wizarding world down 
means tearing his father down with it.  Bellatrix Lestrange is a sadist 
- Voldemort offers her an opportunity to indulge her desires, whereas 
her own society might expect her to be a woman of leisure, prettying 
up her husband's arm.

In short, while being a pure-blood wizard is a requirement to join 
Voldemort's ranks, being a member of a wealthy family might very 
well count against you.  Voldemort is looking for iconoclasts.

And now we come, full circle, to Snape.  One of my favorite theories 
about the events that drove Snape to join the Death Eaters has to do 
with the Prank, or rather, with the aftermath to it.  This theory 
suggests that Snape was so disgusted with the punishment - or lack 
thereof - that the Marauders received after nearly getting him killed, 
that he lost all respect for Dumbledore.  None of the Marauders are 
expelled.  A dangerous werwolf is allowed to continue studying with 
unsuspecting students.  Snape himself is cautioned against saying 
anything, as though he were at fault.  To add insult to injury, the 
very next year, James is made Head Boy!  According to this theory, 
Snape became disgusted with Dumbledore, seeing his claims of 
fairness and impartiality as hypocrisy, and rejected Dumbledore's 
ethics.

I'd like to fold this theory into a new theory, which I'd like to call 
Iconoclast!Snape.  I think Snape came from a poor wizarding family, 
and that his experience in the wizarding world taught him to 
despise the social order as her perceived it.  Dumbledore, to this 
Snape, would have been a saviour - his philosophy seems to be one 
of judging people by their merits.  Then the Prank happens, and 
Snape sees what he perceives to be Dumbledore aligning himself 
with the wealthy, entitled James and Sirius.  Is it any wonder that 
Snape then turns to the next anarchist on his list?

In suggesting this theory, I'm reminded of the character Steerpike 
in Mervin Peake's Gormenghast trilogy (Titus Groan, Gormenghast, 
Titus Alone).  Gormenghast is an ancient castle, which is in fact an 
entire city, a world governed by ancient traditions, and an 
aristocratic ruling family going back 77 generations.  Steerpike is a 
young kitchen boy with passionate ambitions.  Through guile, deceit 
and treachery he manages to insinuate himself into the ruling family 
of Gormenghast.  Steerpike despises the very things that he tries 
hardest to get, and which he eventually ends up destroying - the 
ruling family of Groan is decimated, and the last scion abdicates 
and leaves Gormenghast.

I see Snape as a sort of Steerpike.  Since he couldn't get the things 
he wanted by gentle means - Dumbledore's way, which he grew to 
believe was false - he chose to tear down the very fabric of the 
society that denied him entrance.

In support of the claim that Snape come from a poor family, I'd like 
to reexamine the parallel that I drew between him and Harry a few 
days ago.  It occurred to me, thanks to Laura's comments on that 
post, that Snape and Harry can be described as opposites as well as 
equals, and then I realized that this is because there are in fact two 
Harrys.  

Muggle Harry is the one without any friends.  He is bullied by his 
cousin and is too weak to fight back.  His family hates him, and his 
home life is miserable.  He is a virtual nobody.

Wizard Harry has powerful and devoted friends.  He is more then 
capable of taking care of himself, and is in fact a sports hero.  He 
has a large adoptive family who love him very much, to the point of 
fighting over him.  He is so famous that every child knows his name.

The problem is that Harry, consciously or not, sees himself as Muggle 
Harry even in the wizarding world.  Laura took me to task for 
comparing Harry to Snape because Harry isn't really bullied in the 
wizarding world, and I pointed out that it is Harry himself who makes 
the comparison.  Whereas Wizard Harry and Snape couldn't be more 
different (and it is this Harry that Snape sees), Muggle Harry seems to 
be an exact fit to the teenage Snape that we see in the Pensieve.

And Muggle Harry is poor.

Harry makes the point of noticing, even, that he can't bring any of 
his wizard money home, because the Dursleys would take it away 
from him.  When he's in the Muggle world, Harry has nothing - 
everything he owns came from Dudley first, and was frequently 
broken.  He often has nothing to eat.  Before PS, he sleeps in 
a cupboard under the stairs.  It is only in the wizarding world that 
Harry has possessions and the ability to purchase more of them.

I think Snape's life was the same (in fact, I'm waiting to find out 
that the shouting man we see in Snape's memory is not his father 
but his uncle).  The only difference is that when Snape came to 
Hogwarts, his life didn't magically change - he was still poor, 
weak and friendless.

No wonder he wanted to tear the world down.

Abigail

[1] This is indeed George the barman from TBAY.  He is the 
anthropomorphic personification of a theory suggested by Elkins 
("Oh my, my very own Snapetheory!  I will love him and squeeze 
him and I will name him George").

[2] This discussion originated with a question suggested by Phillip 
Nel, who wrote a book about Harry Potter.  The discussion begins 
with

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/41210

And continues in ensuing messages.  It was a fun romp.