DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione

[amiabledorsai]

No: HPFGUIDX 154902

Peggy Richter's already made some excellent points on this topic, I'll
chime in anyway, because I spent too much time thinking about it this
evening, in between dancing, drinking beer, ignoring my diet, and
waiting for the fireworks. 

> AD:
> Snape and Voldemort--we need consider only Voldemort's
> motives, Quirrell's pretty much just the horse he's riding--have
> entirely different motives.
>
> Snape's got a job--probably a much better one than he could get
> anywhere else, given his history--and Dumbledore's continuing
> protection, right up until Dumbledore decides he was wrong
> about Snape, after all. Snape needs to preserve that relationship
> for as long as he can.

Pippin:
Wait a minute. Only DDM!Snape needs Dumbledore's continuing
protection.

AD:
I suppose a better word would have been "patronage", but I mean
"protection" as well.

Not from Azkaban, not directly, but Dumbledore's continuing assurance
that Snape is a good guy, once you scrape off the grease and the
snark, keeps him employed, and gives him (one presumes--we've seen
little of his social life) entrée into circles other than Lucius Malfoy's

The Wizarding world is small and tightly connected--what we've seen of
it reminds me of nothing so much as Chicago's city government,
especially as it existed under the first Mayor Daley. (Perhaps because
I grew up here, and have seen some of the workings up close, through
relative's and friends of relatives who were involved, one way or
another with the city.  It's possible that this POV colors my
perceptions, but bear with me.)  Jobs and social position seem to
depend on family and personal connection as much as anything else. 
Witness the Slug Club.

Snape has a big black mark against him--he was, in fact, a Death
Eater, and some largish slice of the WW is aware of that, even if
Carol's contention that it is not general knowledge is true. 
McGonagall certainly knew:

  "Snape," repeated McGonagall faintly, falling into the chair. "We
all wondered . . . but he trusted . . . always . . . Snape... I can't
believe it. ..."
   
   "Snape was a highly accomplished Occlumens," said Lupin, his voice
uncharacteristically harsh. "We always knew that."
   
   "But Dumbledore swore he was on our side!" whispered Tonks. "I
always thought Dumbledore must know something about Snape that we
didn't. ..." .
   
   "He always hinted that he had an ironclad reason for trusting
Snape," muttered Professor McGonagall, now dabbing at the corners of
her leaking eyes with a tartan-edged handkerchief. "I mean . . . with
Snape's history ... of course people were bound to wonder. . . but
Dumbledore told me explicitly that Snape's repentance was absolutely
genuine
 Wouldn't hear a word against him!" HBP

So McGonagall, at least, knew he was a Death Eater, and trusted, or
tolerated, him on Dumbledore's word.   Presumably, others do as well.

Suppose I'm right, and Snape's background is an open secret.
Should he lose Dumbledore's support, his world and his options
immediately contract to whatever his Death Eater cronies can give him.
 Probably, his best option is to become Lucius Malfoy's sycophant.  

I'm not sure I'd wish that even on Snape.

Carol questions this point:
> While I agree with you that all varieties of Snape want to
> preserve Dumbledore's trust, I'm not sure why you think that
> Snape's history is known to the entire WW. As Pippin pointed
> out, there's no indication that anyone at Hogwarts (except HRH)
> suspects Snape of evil motives (wanting to kill Harry) when he
>  referees the Quidditch match. No parents are refusing to send
> their children to Hogwarts because an ex-Death Eater is teaching
> there.

AD:
Well, as I pointed out to Pippin, McGonagall certainly knows something
discreditable about the Half-Groomed Prince.  Unless she really holds
a grudge from when Severus was a student, I assume it's his record as
a Death Eater.  She takes Dumbledore's word for it that he's reformed.
 Perhaps Dumbledore's word is also good enough for Light families
(like the Weasleys) who might otherwise object.  I admit, this last
point seems thin, even to me.

Let's suppose you're right, then, and Snape's past is known to
relatively few people. In that case, even an investigation that
satisfies Dumbledore could be a disaster for Snape.  If rumors of his
past get out as a result of the investigation, then you may see
families refusing to allow their children to be taught by a Death
Eater.  Even Dumbledore's patronage may not be enough to protect
Snape's job, in that case.


Carol:
 All varieties of Snape have been cleared of charges by
the tribunal. Snape needs protecting only if he expects
Voldemort to return and only if he intends to oppose him. There
are plenty of people with DE history and lovely ministry jobs.
Snape doesn't need Dumbledore's patronage for that.

AD:
Plenty of people who were cleared of willingly being Death Eaters by
pleading Imperius.  Snape is unique, so far as we know, in being a
willing Death Eater who was forgiven his sins as a result of
Dumbledore's testimony that he had made up for them.

I don't know if British wizarding law allows double jeopardy, but
let's assume it does not.  If so Snape is safe from retrial, but if he
is seen to have lost Dumbledore's confidence, again, his world and his
opportunities dwindle alarmingly. 

Carol:
There is a contingent on this list arguing that Snape Wants Harry
Dead But Not Yet. That Snape would certainly act to save Harry's
life regardless of his loyalties. But I thought you were saying
that even if Snape wanted Harry dead, he would not permit
Quirrell to kill Harry in front of him because he, Snape, would
then become a suspect. Is that right?

That seems bizarre to me. Surely if Snape wants Harry dead,
having someone else do the dirty would be a stroke of luck.
Even if it could be shown that Snape had reasons to hate
Harry and could have done the attack, it would be
mighty hard to prove that he'd done it, or even that he
let it happen, especially if he managed to point the finger
at Quirrell.

AD:
Carol, Pippin, other Snape fans--again, I ask: Am I, one of Snape's
biggest critics, the *only* one who doesn't believe him so devoid of
sense, so insane, so utterly batsh*t crazy, that he would rather see
Harry dead than cement his position with Dumbledore by saving him, or
so shortsightedly reckless as to take an entirely unnecessary risk of
losing his position and what reputation he has?

Amiable Dorsai