Dumbledore's reason to trust Snape: my theory......

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 167050

audreynstuff wrote:
>
> I was rereading Half Blood Prince last night and at the very end of
the book , just after Dumbledore gets killed, everybody had gathered
in the hospital wing to discuss what had just happened. When the
discussion turned to how Dumbledore always had an ironclad reason for
trusting Snape, I got an idea that maybe Snape had made an Unbreakable
Vow with Dumbledore renouncing his loyalty to Voldemort and pledging
to help the Order from then on. Does anybody have any opinions?.

>
Carol responds:
That idea has been suggested by a variety of people. (I tried to
search for old posts on the subject, but the server was busy.) I agree
that we have not yet heard Dumbledore's "ironclad reason," but I doubt
that it's an Unbreakable Vow, which strikes me as very Dark magic
indeed since breaking the vow results in death. (Or so the only canon
we have so far indicates.) I think that even if young Snape had
offered to make such a vow, Dumbledore would have refused.

Moreover, a UV requires a Bonder, a third party who would be in on the
secret, and the only other person besides Dumbledore who seems to
trust Snape completely (at least until he sees DD's body) is Hagrid,
whom DD would trust with his life but would be foolish indeed to
entrust with a secret.

I think that "trust completely" means what it says: Dumbledore trusts
Severus Snape completely, not because Snape has made an Unbreakable
Vow with him (as opposed to the one we know he took with Narcissa) but
because Snape has proven himself worthy of Dumbledore's trust by,
among other things, spying on LV "at great personal risk," saving
Harry's life, revealing his Dark Mark to Fudge, reporting Harry's
dreams from the Occlumency lessons to DD, sending the Order to the
MoM, and stopping the curse from the ring Horcrux from killing
Dumbledore. None of these incidents is likely to be his "ironclad
reason," which evidently predates all of them except perhaps the
spying, but IMO they reinforce the trust DD has already placed in him.

IMO, "trust completely" means that Dumbledore confidently expects
Snape to do what he must do to fight against Voldemort and protect
Harry. It means that DD has no fears or misgivings relating to Snape's
motives or methods (including taking a UV with Narcissa to "do the
deed" should it prove necessary. He knows (or believes that he knows)
exactly where Snape's loyalties lie. (As a DDM!Snaper, I'm quite
confident that he's right.)

Trust is not enforced. A UV would indicate a *lack* of trust.
Certainly, Bellatrix the Bonder doesn't trust Snape, as she states
openly to his face. It appears that Bellatrix's doubts, or her own
knowledge that DEs often work against each other, prevent Narcissa,
too, from trusting Snape completely, so she begs him to bind himself
to keep his word. 

Look at the imagery: chains of fire ominously *binding* Snape:

"Bellatrix's face glowed red in the blaze of a third tongue of flame,
which shot from the wand, twisted with the others, and bound itself
thickly around their clasped hands, like a rope, like a fiery snake"
(HBP Am. ed. 37).

I found that passage more terrifying than almost anything in the books
so far. The imagery is hellish, or, rather, the fire suggests hell,
the chains and rope suggest binding, the snakes suggest Slytherin.
Snape has just robbed himself of his free will; he must either keep
the vow or die (though, IMO, he fights to the last to "slither out" of
his fiery chains, and it's only Dumbledore's pleading that leads him
to keep rather than break the vow).

Would Dumbledore, who believes in choice, who tells Harry that he is
free to disregard the Prophecy, *bind* Snape to keep his word? If the
UV is indeed Dark magic, would he stoop to using it? Such an action
seems to me completely inconsistent with a man who would keep an eye
on young Tom Riddle but say nothing about him to the other teachers;
who would allow Draco to continue his unknown preparations to kill
him, again only watching him through Snape and perhaps other trusted
spies; who gave other characters, notably Hagrid, second chances based
on trust alone (but extended no such trust to Voldemort when he
applied to teach at Hogwarts or to Lucius Malfoy when he was revealed
to have placed the diary in Ginny's cauldron).

No doubt others disagree with me. I'm only presenting my own views and
my reasons for holding them. But I, for one, am hoping for an ironclad
reason based on *trust* and not compulsion.

Carol, who still can't get Yahoo!mort to cooperate but remembers
writing at least one previous post on this topic