Intriguing though it might be, Snape as “Machiavellian Seeker” has the problem that in the books, Ms. Rowling presents us with a number of unscrupulous, ambitious people, everyone from the Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge, to Percy Weasley, and from the likes of Delores Umbridge to Gilderoy Lockhart to even Argus Filch (when he toadies up to Ms. Toad, Umbridge) but does Severus Snape appear to be much like these wretches? Surely Lucius Malfoy is the archtype “Machiavellian Seeker” in the series, and Snape is obviously close to the Malfoy family, father, son, and mother. But does the Potions Professor seem much like them?

Ms. Rowling shows us the “Machiavellian Seekers” to quite a surprising depth, considering that she tells the story from Harry’s prespective. And assuming that to be a “Machiavellian Seeker” means indeed that Snape ‘is a powerful mage that wants to be the ruling wizard, be it as Minister of Magic or Dark Lord. Dumbledore and the Dark Lord stand in his way,” as Professor Granger says, the only time I can think of when Harry notices Snape being given something remotely like this to react to, is in Chamber of Secrets. In the Aragog chapter, Draco Malfoy coaxes Snape to apply for the Headmaster’s position, Dumbledore being removed at Lucius Malfoy’s Machiavellian machination. “Now, now, Malfoy, said Snape, though he couldn’t suppress a thin-lipped smile, “Professor Dubledore has only been suspended…. I daresay he’ll be back with us soon enough.” At Draco’s furthering toadying to him, Snape merely smirks and sweeps on off on his potion-inspection rounds.

Please correct me if I’m missing another instance of anything like this. But unless there is something else along these lines, Snape’s motivation in being a “Machiavellian Seeker” doesn’t seem to be there. The best portrait of a “Machiavellian Seeker” we have in the series is, of course, Percy Weasley. Percy’s story is definitely one long and very detailed ‘Fall from Grace.’ He is the scion of a leading pure-blood family, the members of which Rowling again and again shows to be generous, faithful, ‘noble’ in the true sense (and hence the polar opposite of the would-be wizard nobility, such as the Malfoys or the ‘Ancient and Noble House’ of the Blacks. But in Chamber, his brother Ron finds him in a junk shop in Diagon Alley, “deeply immersed” in a book called “Prefects Who Gained Power, A study of Hogwarts Prefects and their later careers.” Ron tells Harry, “He’s very ambitious, Percy, he’s got it all planned out…he wants to be Minister of Magic.”

Why is this book in a junk shop, anyway? Why not the used section in Flourish and Botts. Ginny gets her books from there, in the same chapter. Ms. Rowling has an antique attitude toward ambition, it seems. Modern Muggle bookstores have whole sections on how to ‘Get Ahead.’ But for Shakespeare, for instance, one of the worst passsions is ambition. For premoderns, ambition is a cause of endless intrigue, murder and mayhem. Or at least political ambition is. Hermione is a wonderful character, yet very ambitious for good grades—although her grades for her reflect what she has learned rather than something to show-off about. Throughout the books, she puts what she learns to good use, from that first moment when she opens the locked door to Fluffy’s hallway in order to help Harry, Ron and Neville escape from Filch. Hermione and her eagerness to learn exasperates Harry and Ron, but in a good way.

Percy, on the other hand, always, always comes across to Harry as pompous, even when he welcomes his brother Ron to the Gryffindor table at their first dinner at Hogwarts. He sinks lower and lower in Harry’s (and his whole Weasley family’s) estimation, breaking with his family and only showing up at their festivies in Half-Blood Prince on the orders of the new Minister of Magic. He’s even unlike Hermione in that he never is seen to be using magic, at least, that I can think of. He is an utter, utter wretch. Ms. Rowling wants us to see him that way, and similarly, the rest of the “Machiavellian Seekers” in the books. If anyone is to be a new Voldemort, surely it is a wretch like Percy, who can easily turn to evil in a hate-filled reaction to his father’s eventual vindication—indeed, I expect Arthur Weasley to end up as Minister of Magic (but then I think Trevor the Toad is Regulus Black, so don’t bet on Mr. Weasley’s promotion)—and not the powerful, mercurial, mysterious brewer of fame who puts a stopper in death.

Snape doesn’t fit their mold. But then, he doesn’t readily fit into anyone’s. That is as it should be. He is the best character in the series, (as Brett says above, though I think in the world of larger literature Stephen Maturin is just as interesting a character as SS) tough, extremely capable and talented, but totally musterious, ‘unfathomable,’ is Rowling’s favorite adjective for him, I think. If he dies in DH, I am sure he will leave unfathomable mysteries after him. Ms. Rowling might lay to rest the ‘Ship Debates’ but she might not do so with the dark potions emperor.

Raghn

Jena

(1) I should be more careful throwing about the words “relativist” and “deconstructionist.” I may have lived with English Ph.D candidates when I was in graduate school, but that don’t make me one of ‘em. Also, I did not consider the implications of Dumbledore’s being fully aware of Snape’s interests, yet allowing him to be sadistic and cruel to students for so many years, all in the name of “the plan.”

(2) In my zeal to throw Snape to the dementors based on my reading of the story tea leaves (“My dear, you have the GRIM!”), I completely missed the importance of Snape’s forgiveness and conversion opportunity to Harry’s final journey. Dumbledore clearly despises the dementors, & in “Prisoner,” Lupin baits Harry about the dementors by asking him, “Do you really think someone deserves that?” Harry, thinking of Sirius as his parents’ betrayer at that moment, says, “Yes, for some things…” I think Dave is really onto something with the suggestion that Harry offers forgiveness & yet another chance for Snape to convert in Deathly Hallows by using “Expecto Patronum.” Harry sending James the Stag to rescue Snape nicely mirrors both Lily’s rescue of Snape in the pensieve as well as James’ rescue of Snape from the transformed Lupin when they were kids. Will Snape take this one last opportunity, now offered by Harry, to convert? Or, as johnumbland suggests, despair and throw himself away? Snape didn’t act too grateful when Lily helped him out…

Also, on johnumland’s points about the “Gospel trajectory” of the storyline with Snape as “Judas…” I started re-reading Prisoner a few weeks ago & just wrote up some more thoughts on “Snape the Betrayer.” In short, I believe that Ms. Rowling uses the symbols of the fox (Machiavellian) and the vulture (Biblical) to reveal Snape’s motivations and role as Dumbledore’s betrayer in Prisoner, just as she quite literally exposes Pettigrew as the real betrayer of James & Lily.

A few quick examples: Neville describes his grandmother’s outfit in the boggart scene as a green dress, fox-fur scarf, and vulture hat. When the Snape boggart actually transforms, it is wearing a lacey dress, no scarf, but with the vulture hat (so maybe Snape is not a true-to-form Machiavellian Prince, but he is still the great Betrayer?). One of Trelawney’s first “predictions” to a student, Lavendar, is that “the thing you fear will happen will on October 16.” The “thing” winds up being a fox killing her pet rabbit. Hermione, by the way, throws us off this symbolic trail by interrogating Lavendar about whether she expected the rabbit to die.

The vulture image appears again at the Christmas feast dinner. Other fans have pointed out that this scene mirrors the Last Supper. Trelawney, in an argument with Prof. McGonagall this time, is a distraction with her “13 is unlucky” at the table and that “the first to rise will die.” The key part of this scene is that Dumbledore & Snape share a Christmas cracker, from which a vulture emerges. Snape hands it to Dumbledore, who puts it on his own head & says, “Let’s eat.” Harry & Ron, by the way, rise first as a pair, which confuses Trelawney greatly.

I have also encountered some passages involving vultures from the Bible that – on a GIGANTIC SWAG, here – support the revelation of Snape as the betrayer & point to his fate (All quotes are from the Harper Collins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version, 2006, and my readings of the verses greatly dependent upon the Contributing Authors’ study notes! ).

First, Hosea 8, points to Israel’s faltering in its trust and dependence on God, its failing monarchy and political system, and its appointing of “kings and princes,” but not through God. The first two lines read “Set the trumpet to your lips! One like a vulture is over the house of the Lord!” (Note the vulture sitting on top of Dumbledore’s head at the Christmas feast table, who gave it to him, and the fact that the political leaders in the Ministry of Magic completely fall apart when the BIG EVIL GUY returns in the next book.)

Secondly, Proverbs 30 contains multiple verses that are reflected in Harry’s story. Verses 11-14 encompass the 4 groups Ms. Rowling routinely skewers, “the unfilial, the hypocritical, the proud, and the avaricious.” Verse 17 warns of the fate awaiting those who scorn their fathers and disobey their mothers – death and (worse still) a corpse desecrated by vultures. The messages of verses 24-28 on wisdom, cooperation, and the false lure of power are echoed in the teachings of Dumbledore throughout the series thus far, and the “positive image of the mighty” painted in verses 29-31 have indirect parallels to symbols and images Ms. Rowling uses for Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Ginny. The next to last verse, Proverbs 30:32, reads, “If you have been foolish, exalting yourself, or if you have been devising evil, put your hand on your mouth.”

Snape should cover his mouth, and quick! Or else accept Harry’s forgiveness (patronus? the “expectation of the father’s protection?”) and turn toward the Light of Love????

Okay, all that interpretive Bible reading may only be good for “the bin,” but since johnumland brought up the Judas image in his post, I thought I’d share the symbolic evidence I’ve found that maybe points to such an interpretation.

Thanks again, everyone!

Sally

Thanks to John and Sally and all of you. I just read the entire series in prep for the 7th book and now, I’ve got to do it all over again!!!!!

Lovely work. Thoughtful work.

Dave, I’m totally with you in the last paragraph.

But I also agree that none of us know the full extent of Snape’s motivations until DH comes out. There’s too much about the Astonomy Tower scene that is unexplained. I just can’t buy into the notion that Snape didn’t think Harry was close by. And if he really is Voldemort’s crony, why didn’t he at least drag the incapacitated Harry back to Voldemort? It’s interesting to be shown a murder in a mystery book with such vivid, rich detail, yet still find myself completely in the dark about what actually happened!

In terms of Mrs. Palmer’s essay, I think she has Snape pegged as a manipulative, vengeful Machiavellian character. But, I don’t think Snape is a moral relativist (or a deconstructionist). I’m also in line with BigDhog that Voldemort is the one character set up for a Dementor’s kiss, if one is to happen (I’ll explain in a bit).

In the popular sense of moral relativism, Peter Pettigrew is closer to the idea than Snape. He sways his allegiances with the prevailing morality that will afford him the most comfort and protection. But this is more a utilitarian principle than a relative one. If we look at a relativist as one who can rationalize and justify contradictory moral codes, the closest depiction in the books (to my mind) is actually Dumbledore. He can clearly empathize with those even diametrically opposed to his own character. And he can rationalize Kreacher’s actions as being driven by his social caste, despite the fact that said actions led to both conflict and murder. Albus doesn’t take the crucial step of justifying the “evil” actions of others based on their own merits, which is an important distinction.

But he is willing to let them happen. There’s no easy way to justify Snape’s continued employment as a teacher unless we accept the unsavory premise that Dumbledore compromised his own principles of respecting and nurturing students in favor of Snape’s protection/utility to Dumbledore’s plans. In other words, Dumbledore can be rather utilitarian, too. He’s not justifying Snape’s actions based on the validity of Snape’s motives or morals. Dumbledore’s just making a hard decision, assessing one set of consequences against others in the name of a “greater good”. Pettigrew is out for himself.

(And I simply refuse to believe that Dumbledore doesn’t know of Snape’s emotional and physical sadism directed at students [for more than a decade?].)

The only hardline moral codes espoused in the books are by the obvious bad guys. Voldemort’s ideology essentially boils down to “Those who are not with me are against me, and I get to say who they are.” But the only moral abstractions Dumbledore constantly espouses are love and choice. He spends almost no time in the books enumerating distinctions between “good and evil” per se. Instead, GoF ends with the recognition of a choice between “what is right and what is easy”. And there is nothing about that statement that is as obvious we might think (including myself). The statement might mean “right” versus “wrong”. But, if so, what does “easy” have to do with “wrong”?

It seems to me that Dumbledore’s statement here is also an admonition to avoid simple, binary oppositions as the method for understanding one’s moral compass. After all, such a thing would be “easy”: You’re good if you do A, B, and C, while you’re evil if you do X,Y, and Z. Dumbledore never espouses anything at all similar in nature to the dictums of the Ten Commandments, the Eightfold Noble Path, or Sharia Law. He’s not a thoroughgoing relativist (I don’t know that any character is in the books), but Dumbledore is very weary of legalistic moral codes. So, he’s cautious of both Voldemort and the Ministry because he sees this legalism as a sinister problem eminating from both. And, he’s constantly arguing for the inclusion of “others”, not their exclusion.

If Machiavellian!Snape is the prevailing theory, then Snape has a moral code. It just isn’t Dumbledore’s or Voldemort’s. He’s clearly motivated by revenge. What has vengeance birthed in him? Is he still just a super-pissed emo kid who grew into the same adult, harboring grudges from childhood? Snape’s a brilliant guy, and this seems rather superficial. But, then again, playing intellectual brilliance against emotional superficiality could be the perfect bit of misdirection on the part of our dear author.

And, as for the Dementor’s kiss, the action described as the kiss clearly parallels Voldemort’s designs for immortality. It would be very Dante-like for this to be his punishment, and John and others have documented well Rowling’s affinity for the Renaissance.

But I would also be willing to bet that Harry would stop any such event with a timely Patronus, as an offer of compassion and forgiveness, or love. Removing one’s soul (whether Voldemort’s or Snape’s) removes the exigency for choice that the books have made so central. If the soul is gone, what’s the purpose of choosing to seek forgiveness? One must ask for forgiveness before it can be given, and doing so is a conscious choice. Denying that choice in the ultimate climax of the books would a thoroughly deconstructionist move on Rowling’s part…

I don’t know much about alchemy or Machiavelli or Magick or any other sources that Rowling derives ideas from. These are all good trails to pursue, but I thought the greatest betrayal story hasn’t been acknowledged lately in the Snape discussion. What if Snape’s story is inspired by Judas Iscariot? In the beginning of the HBP we see him in council with the enemy, having finally gotten fed up with the ever-forgiving, non-aspiring Messiah, the one who has power to take over but doesn’t. He is also fed up with not being included in the inner-circle of disciples, Peter, James and John.
The permutations can run out pretty far and I won’t do that work here, except that Peter/Harry is being groomed for the next head master job…

So if the Gospel story is the trajectory JKR is following then I understand Dumbledore telling his betrayer to do according to the plan. None of the disciples understood what Jesus meant when he sent off Judas, but Judas did. It is not unlike Christ for Dumbledore to pick someone who he knew would betray him. In DH I expect to see Harry in depression and doubt. I expect to see Dumbledore reappearing to Harry and crew with encouragement. I expect Snape to despair also and kill himself. I expect Harry to triumph over Voldemort, but don’t we all.

Not much new here, I expect, but another plot trajectory to play with some.
God is good
jpu

Ahhhhhhh … how all of us enter into the frantic “rethinkings” of the “11th hour” before the release of book 7, trying to “sure up what remains” and second-guessing ourselves silly But that includes me and I would not want at all to be implying this to be randomly franctic second guessing. I have not looked over it all thoroughly but what I have perused looks to be very good. Ineed, all of this is, I think, a testament to exactly how richly and complexly Severus Snapes’ character has been written in Harry Potter books 1-6 … truly, I think, the best character in any literature of our day, and that is saying alot in my book.

My own recent “recap manifestos” (or maybe “madcap’s recaps” would be a better designation lol) over on Muggle Matters have been two big ones, but here I was wanting only to chime in ever-so-briefly with one tidbit that I lit upon recently in those travels, on Snape. This comes from the second “follow-up” comment I made just tonight on the second of those two large posts over there (a piece on the image of insanity, or psychological malady, in the structure of the series) but I will synopsize the pertinent stuff here for ease.

This is in the context of discussing the dark mark, the spell to conjure it and imagery of “invasion” as psychic violence – and I have highlighted the most pertinent part here in bold (cutting much out, but leaving in also just material that gives the basic context of the connected dark mark material):

The spell to conjure the mark, MORSMORDRE (GOF 128), literally means “to eat death.” The first word, mors, is Latin for death [here I cut out a large explanatory digression on the use of the nominative case instead of the accusative case ... basically the jist was "who cares?!?!?! it's legit artistic license."]. The second word, mordre, is French for “to eat” … and this is where it gets interesting with regards to what I was saying in last comment, about invasiveness and killing etc. Mordre is NOT the usual simple French word for eating, “manger.”

The first possibility (go over into) is undeniably the language of invasion – and the last one (cut into) moves into the violence we see as typical of the death eaters, but even more closely with the violence we see Harry do (albiet not fully intentionally) in HBP … when he uses Sectum Sempra on Draco in the bathroom (and here may be some support for Granger’s possible switch to the “Evil Snape Camp” … if Snape as the HBP is the one who, being up to his eyeballs in the dark arts, as Lupin told Harry in HBP in the “Very Frosty Christmas” chapter, was the one to think of applying the SS spell to a human being in this way, as in “for enemies” – does not look good for Snape’s character … but of course it must also be taken into account that chronologically this was when he was a kid, before What DD believed to be a genuine change of heart).

The point being: Cutting and invasion images are used of Voldy and the death eaters activity, including the linguistics behind the spell for conjuring the dark mark (this is actually in the context of an argument for a reading of the “physics” of the AK as a personal psychic invasion as a way to kill), and Snape, in the suggesting of the use of Sectum Sempra “for enemies” (in the HBP potions book) coincides with this type of imagery as well.

In the end I wind up exactly where I was the first time I read HBP and then heard the “Good Snape” Theories … waiting to see what Rowling does between two possibilities: the first is that Snape was actually good all along, not necessarily nice or kind or benevolent or innocent of being a sadistic and hurtful jerk to Harry and co., but concretely and materially working committedly for Dumbledore and against Voldemort, at least on the materail level … or that Snape was always working either for Voldy, concretely, or for himself against both sides (I lump these last two together under “Evil Snape”) … I have pretty much been in the “Good Snape” camp, like yourself, but always leaving myself the door open that it is not conclusive in the texts (I mean, there are theories in your WKAD book that Lupin in HBP is actually Wormtail using polyjuice and thus “evil” … that may or may not be the case, but if we ever found out that Lupin himself had ever actually turned to the dark side, this would be radically inconsistent … Snape, however, has remained a genuine open question, no matter which camp one has been arguing from).

The one thing I remain firmly entrenched in is that whether Snape is good (but with a very unhealthy, as you say, grudge against Harry) or whether he is evil, I believe he will be good in the end, through some sort of conversion … Greyback is as gone on the bad-side as Lupin is on the good side, and Worm-tail is pretty far down in neurotic, if not psychotic, addiction to Voldy, but if a swing character as powerful as Snape does not convert in the end, even if on his deathbed, then I will have only one of two choices. The first is to say that Voldy was not completely defeated, if he won as high, skilled and series-wide-central a character as Snape in the end (a stranger inversion of Voldy still losing his life but also gaining the world, and getting to keep it in the form of Snape going down to perdition with him, I think) … or that the story is not, at its most basic level, a comedy, but rather a tragedy in a radical way that I had not gotten any sense of from the books heretofore. Just my take on the matter though.

The only other thing I would add is on your use of the Italian Renaissance material, which is really good. The only thing I would say is to note the possibility of the use of such “diachronic”/source material as another level of narrative misdirection (although not “technically” NM since it is not a narrative in form … but you get the jist: a ruse, knowing people will uncover that and follow it to certain conclusions and then). But I can only list that as a possibility and not even any level of probability without going to levels of conspiracy theory that would make even MadEye Moody either very proud or downright concerned for my sanity lol

- for one it would necessitate Rowling forecasting the popularityfrom the very beginning … since she has said that she has had the major story arc planned since the writing of book 1, and there is no way Snape has played as large a role in the published works if he was not slated to do so from that very beginning. Elements like NM at this level would mean thus predicting that the books would reach the level of popularity where higher level thinkers and academics like yourself would be investigating this type of material … but like I said, just a thought (in truth, I don’t think it would even be at the level of an intentional ruse – I think it would fall more along the lines of that she used this materail not to “copy” or “model” it but to transform it … in other words something along the lines of certain traits in Snape’s character concretely running certain risks of this Machiavellian thing, but the fact that, and how, he did NOT ever become that sort of Prince would be part of central meaning … on a “good Snape” read)

just some thoughts,
Merlin