Of essence divided?

[annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 154420

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Annemehr:
> 
> > I don't believe that what you are saying actually does 
> > follow from Peggy's assumption.  The orders, if they were 
> > actually given, need not apply to this particular mission 
> > alone, but can be something very general that LV told all 
> > his DEs at some earlier time: "Whatever happens, no one is 
> > to harm Potter; he's mine."
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> But there is no evidence that he did so.  
> This an appeal to ignorance.

Annemehr:

It's an appeal to logic, actually, and you're changing the subject.

You originally asserted:
houyhnhnm earlier:
> I see what you are saying. That Snape could only have
> dared to make such a claim if they *had* been given
> such orders and Snape knew about it and the DEs knew he knew.
>
> But see what follows from that assumption. For it
> to be true, Snape would have to have been in on the
> plans to bring Death Eaters into Hogwarts. Draco
> says he wasn't.<snip>

But your second paragraph does not logically follow from the first.  
My only intent was to point out the existence of a perfectly 
plausible alternative, not to prove such an alternative had in fact 
happened.  The plausibility of the alternative means that Snape 
*could* know of such an order and still not be a loyal DE or privy 
to Draco's plans.

> Annemehr:
>  
> > In fact, there is actually some corroborating evidence, 
> > in GoF, at the end of ch. 34: "Stand aside! I will kill him! 
> > He is mine!" shrieked Voldemort, as Harry ran for the Portkey.
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> Voldemort did claim Harry in the graveyard when he 
> already had Harry in front of him, but that is not 
> the same thing as saying that the DEs are to leave 
> him for LV under all circumstances.
> 
> After Harry came back, Barty Crouch, Jr. said, "Imagine 
> how he will reward me when he finds I have done it for 
> him.  I gave you to him--the thing he needed above all 
> to regenerate--and then I killed you for him.  I will
>  be honored above all other Death Eaters." (GoF35)

Annemehr:
I remember that -- and how the common opinion around here was that 
Barty would have been toast had he actually managed it.

There was no reason at that time for LV to have issued any order 
about saving Harry's death for LV's hand, since Harry was meant to 
have died in the graveyard in the duel with LV, as the Dark Lord 
himself proclaimed to the DEs present.

It was, however, nicely illustrated even then that LV cared about 
who should kill Harry Potter.


houyhnhnm:
> During the confrontation in the Department of Mysteries, 
> Lucius Malfoy told the DEs, "Be gentle with Potter until 
> we've got the prophecy, you can kill the others if necessary...."
> 
> "Until we've got the prophecy" sounds like it's okay 
> to do whatever they want with Potter after they've 
> retrieved the prophecy.  Surely Lucius would have told 
> them specifically not to kill Harry, if those were 
> Voldemort's orders.

Annemehr:
It's hard to tell; Bellatrix had only tried to stun Harry by that 
point -- why didn't she fire an AK instead?  It was Lucius who first 
brought up killing, and then only in the context of Harry's 
companions.

Also, of course, since the whole point of the mission is to get a 
prophecy *about* Harry, it would make sense that they weren't 
supposed to try and *kill* Harry in the meanwhile, whether or not 
the DEs knew exactly why LV wanted the prophecy in the first place.

houyhnhnm:
> Finally, there is no mention of any such order in the 
> conversation at Spinner's End.  Since the issue of Harry's 
> life does come up in that conversation, it would be the 
> logical place for the author to insert some corroborating 
> evidence for Snape's command to the Death Eaters on the lawn.  
> There isn't any.

Annemehr:
I do not see what place such a mention would have in the Spinner's 
End chapter.  Before LV's return, there could of course have been no 
such order.  After the events in the graveyard, Snape's role is once 
again to "spy" on Dumbledore for LV, and as Snape mentions, killing 
Harry would tend to make DD suspicious of him.


houyhnhnm:
> In short there is no evidence to back up Snape's claim 
> that Harry is to be left for the Dark Lord.  On the other 
> hand, it is odd that Snape used that claim to stop the DE's 
> from performing cruciatus on Harry.  No one had tried to 
> use the Avadra.  Why would Voldemort care if Harry got 
> tortured a little?  Fenrir had already tried to take a 
> nibble.  And why not kidnap Harry and take to Voldemort 
> if he belongs to the Dark Lord rather than leaving him 
> behind to continue being a threat?
>

Annemehr:
I don't understand your objection to the plain reading of Snape's 
statement in itself: "Have you forgotten our orders?  Potter belongs 
to the Dark Lord -- we are to leave him!"  I agree with Peggy's 
original conclusion that for Snape to phrase it that way implies 
that there is indeed such an order for the DEs to remember.

Of course, often enough the plain reading is misleading.  Do you 
have a better, hidden one for this case?  With canon?

I believe he stopped the DE torturing Harry because he's actually on 
Harry's side.  And why not kidnap Harry?  Because either LV has no 
plan for dealing with him yet (since he failed to hear the 
prophecy), or else having Harry brought to him on the night in 
question is not it.

Fenrir's a loose cannon; he wasn't even supposed to be there.  He 
may not even have realised who he was trying to bite.

Annemehr
who's thinking that many a DE may just as soon *not* try firing an 
AK at The Boy Who Lived, thank you very much