Why did Snape store memories in the Pensieve?

[Judy]

While once again contemplating my favorite character, a new question 
occurred to me.  In Book 5, Snape stores some of his memories in 
Dumbledore's pensieve while he gives Harry Occlumency lessons, as a 
means of trying to prevent Harry from seeing them. At the time, this 
seemed to make perfect sense -- the pensieve was the only method of 
storing memories that we had seen.

However, in Book 6, we repeatedly see memories stored in bottles. So, 
why didn't Snape just bottle the memories he wanted to keep Harry 
from seeing, and stick them in his pocket?  Using the pensieve 
required borrowing it from Dumbledore, plus it turned out not to be 
secure at all. 

I can think of two possibilities why Snape might have used the 
pensieve. (Apart from "JKR needed a plot device so that Harry would 
see Snape's memory.")  One is that perhaps memories can be put *into* 
bottles, but can't then be transferred back into one's head.  Perhaps 
the only way the memories can be kept in a form suitable for re-
integration with other memories is to put them directly into the 
pensieve.  

Another possibility is that Snape doesn't know how to put his 
memories into a bottle.  This seems unlikely to me.  Slughorn did it, 
and Snape certainly seems as competent as Slughorn.  Of course, it is 
possible that Dumbledore taught Slughorn the method of putting 
memories into bottles, but didn't teach Snape.  The only reason I can 
see for Dumbledore doing that, however, is if he *wanted* the 
memories to be in the pensieve where Harry might see them -- and I 
don't think Dumbledore would trick Snape that way.


               *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

While on the topic of Snape's putting memories in the Pensieve, a 
couple of other thoughts occurred to me.  Back when Book 5 first came 
out, a lot of people questioned the title of the chapter: "Snape's 
Worst Memory."  Snape, being a Death Eater, presumably has worse 
memories than being turned upside and having his mouth washed out 
with soap.  But, since I'm a big LOLLIPOPS [Snape loved Lily] 
supporter, I'm now of the opinion that this was his worst memory 
because, in his rage and humiliation, he referred to Lily as 
a "filthy little mudblood" -- and right after she had helped him, 
too.  (Others probably have mentioned this.)

Also, the first occlumency lesson shows Snape removing precisely 
three strands of memories and putting them into the pensieve. Does 
this indicate he was hiding three specific events?  If so, his 
victimization at the hand of James & Sirius is one -- what are the 
other two?  Would overhearing and revealing the prophecy be number 
two, or would that not need to be protected, since Harry hadn't known 
of the prophecy at the time of the occlumency lessons?  

If the victimization and the prophecy are in fact numbers 1 & 2, then 
number 3 would presumably be Dumbledore's reason for trusting Snape, 
whatever it is. I of course favor the idea that it involves Snape 
confessing his love for Lily and begging Dumbledore to save her, 
although it kind of surprises me that this would involve just *one* 
memory -- what, Snape & Dumbledore never talked about it again?  Not 
even the day Lily died?  (Hmmm, well, knowing Snape, maybe not.)


               *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

One more point on storing memories.  It was asked before whether 
memories that are put into the Pensieve or a bottle are copies 
(leaving the memory still in the person's head) or originals (thereby 
erasing the memory from the person who had it.) Clearly, it can work 
either way -- it can be "copy" or "cut", as Randy put it.  Snape is 
removing the memories that he stores in the pensieve, and Dumbledore 
talks of siphoning off excess thoughts.  Slughorn, however, must have 
given Dumbledore a (altered) *copy* of the horcrux memory, because he 
still remembered his conversation with Tom Riddle well enough to 
bottle it again for Harry.  

               *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

My, this is getting long.  Ok, "Snape's Worst Memory" brings me to a 
point discussed here recently.  We see only two people -- James & 
Sirius -- attack Snape. So, at the end of Book 6, why does Snape say 
that James would only attack him when it was "four against one"?  
Like Pippin, I think it was really four against one.  The point that 
Remus was a prefect was a good one, which I hadn't thought of.  Even 
without Remus being a prefect, though, I'd still see it as four 
against one.  Maybe we see Remus and Peter do nothing because, on 
that occasion, they didn't need to do anything; Snape was losing. But 
maybe they would have helped out if Snape were actually winning.  If 
Snape managed to disarm Sirius and James, wouldn't Peter or Remus at 
least hand their wands back to them? Without anyone to help Snape 
that way, he would be at a major disadvantage. 

-- Judy, who somehow can write thousands of words here in the amount 
of time it takes her to write a few sentences of her book