![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Love: who did he care about saving?
Having dealt with Severus' actual ability to save each of the Potters, let us turn to the issue raised by Dumbledore's other specific accusation, that of who Severus cared about saving. As I said at the beginning of this essay, the outright demonization of Severus in some quarters based on the fact that Lily was the emotional focus of his efforts bothers me. I don't argue 21-year-old Severus actually did care hugely about James and the infant Harry (we are dealing only with the end of the first war here, not his attitudes later) and simply hid it well. When it comes to his actual feelings (versus actions) in the matter he was, as I mentioned above, mostly concerned for Lily. What I do disagree with is the conclusion that this makes him a monster, a moral incompetent hardly better than Voldemort himself or at least seriously behind most others on the "light" side in moral development.
I'm not arguing that at 21 he was a saint, either, of course. I think he was in many respects a rather ordinary, if isolated, abused, insecure and desperate young man who was angry, who'd made some seriously bad choices, but who had an innate capacity for gentleness (when treated well) and extreme loyalty and a marvelously strong will to survive, and to whom doing the right thing eventually came to matter very much. That as a very young man, faced with the fact he had put a family in danger, he focused the greatest share of his emotional energy on the woman who apparently had been one of the few people to ever treat him with anything approaching compassion or respect for him as a human being is, to me, perfectly understandable and natural.
So yes, he does focus on Lily. It may not be the ultimate height of moral and spiritual development to be concerned mainly with those whom you have had positive relationships with in the past, above others, but it is not the depths of perversion, either. It's...rather depressingly normal human nature to focus first, and mainly, on those closest to us and to be concerned for those who have no relation to us, or even who have hurt us, later if at all.
With regard to the accusation that he does not care at all about James or Harry: it is true that he goes silent when Dumbledore accuses him of not caring, indicating most likely that this accusation struck home in some way, that he cares less about what happens to James and Harry than about what happens to Lily. Dumbledore certainly has more to go on here than he does with his specious argument about exchange. I'm not entirely certain that the text makes absolutely clear that he does not care at all, in the least, what happens to either of them, or if he feels a niggling twinge of something, perhaps particularly about Harry (he obviously feels guilty enough about it to go silent in the face of Dumbledore's accusation). But no, at this point he does not seem to be deeply concerned with them the way he is about Lily, I grant that.
I find his lack of concern least defensible with regards to the infant Harry, an innocent one-year-old child and the son of the woman he loved. He ought to have felt something, even if he could have done nothing directly to save him (beyond warning Dumbledore) the way he attempted to save Lily by asking Voldemort for her life. Perhaps he did feel some twinge, but it does not seem to have been very strong.
However, while I wish he had felt something, and must condemn him somewhat for not being more concerned, I also don't think that this is proof of depravity or utter callousness on his part. I find it understandable, if lamentable, that he failed to be deeply moved by the possible fate of an infant he had likely never even seen and so who existed for him only in an abstract way. Severus is not only a rather young man at the time (and unconditional love, real love for strangers and for one's enemies, is something I believe does need to be learned over time), he is also someone with pitifully little experience of love, not only in the giving but also the receiving. That he is able to go as far as he does, now and later, in loving others who have not loved him based on what little love he does receive is rather astonishing to me; the fact that he tries at all, ever, indicates that he's not lost completely; he recognizes its importance and does his best, eventually. But to expect someone with his history, in his position, to suddenly develop an enormous concern for the fate of what is to him an abstract entity is, I think, unrealistic. I doubt he knows how to love like that at this point, and to seriously demand it of him as if he were someone with much greater experience of love to draw on is, I think, just a touch unjust. He ought to feel more, yes, but a certain (small) allowance can be made for him I think.
I'm surprised he's as unswerving in his love for Lily as he is, really, considering that what we see of their relationship does not give one the impression of deep, unbounded affection for him on her part, ever. (I rather think lingering guilt over the over the mudblood incident may play a slight role here, actually, but I think he does truly, deeply care about her as well.) After all, he's otherwise seemingly the type to become bitterly angry over any snub or injury, and he did try to apolgize to her before being turned away (whatever we think of that incident, I'm saying, I'm surprised it didn't become a point of bitterness towards Lily for him. In fact, perhaps it did and he's simply in deep denial. That would rather help explain his behaviour towards Harry at school).
His lack of concern for James, while hardly noble, is to me less troubling. Let's be frank: whatever the man was like after he left school, he made Severus' life a living hell for seven straight years, abusing him physically/magically, verbally and sexually (though forcibly exposing his genitals to half the school is not quite on the same level as rape, it is a form of sexual assault). All for the crimes of 1) fighting back when attacked, 2) trying for his expulsion in retaliation for being attacked, 3) being interested in things James did not approve of (given no coherent definition of the Dark Arts I cannot take James' dislike of them seriously as a specifically moral issue), 4) belonging to a House James did not approve of, and 5) "existing." We are clearly shown that James was the one to initiate the conflict, and that his normal method was to fight dirty, four-on-one. At one point the abuse became life-threatening. Even if James himself was not directly involved in the planning/execution of it, certain of his friends were, and apparently James approved their conduct enough to continue to associate closely with them afterwards. Any argument that his dive into the tunnel to save Severus indicates that he ever had any regard for Severus' worth as a human being is, I think, fatally undermined by the fact that he continued to flagrantly and unrepentantly abuse him afterwards, no longer even bothering with excuses but simply attacking him for "existing."
Failing to ask Voldemort specifically for the life of his torturer, even if he could have gotten it, is not perhaps an illustration of the highest virtue, but I find it quite understandable and more excusable than his lack of concern for the infant. Failing to be deeply concerned about his possible death, again though not noble, extremely understandable. I just can't quite condemn a man with little experience of love for failing to be deeply torn about the fate of the man who unreasonably tormented him for years and never expressed remorse for it. I wish that he could have reached that level of spiritual development, the way I wish most other people and myself would get there. But I can't condemn him as a monster for not doing so. Otherwise I'd have to condemn every other person who ever failed to express regret at the suffering or death of someone who viciously hurt them - and most such people seem to go right along being considered normal, generally morally healthy people. After all, while we never see Severus express concern for James, he's not shown salivating at the thought of having put his life at risk either, wondering how he can make sure James is killed and Lily not (notice how even in his little "exchange" speech Dumbledore never mentions James?) If he ever actually wished for James' death, it was in the abstract, and not deeply enough to refuse to act to protect him.
Severus hated James, clearly. He never considered him anything other than a mortal enemy, and there is no indication that James ever felt anything but the same towards him. Nor do I think Severus ought to have considered him differently; James never treated him like anything but an enemy. And while unilaterally forgiving your enemies and risking your life to save theirs are generally considered morally good things to do, they are not considered the basics which you are simply expected to follow as part of being a normal, fallible person - they are usually things considered quite rare and correspondingly extremely noteworthy signs of high moral achievement (though we are all urged to attempt to reach this level eventually, failing to do so is not a mortal sin). Considering the fact that it was partly Severus' own actions that put James' life in jeopardy in this particular instance (James was no innocent civilian in the war after all), perhaps he did have slightly more responsibility to save it than he otherwise would have. But he did not at the time know it was James (among others) he was putting into danger, and when he did learn this he acted to save him in that he warned Dumbledore of the danger, and in fact asked him to preserve the whole family. That warning alone, regardless of how it was phrased, would have alerted Dumbledore to the danger James (among others) was in and would have cost Severus his life if it had been discovered. There simply was no way he could have risked his life there only for Lily, regardless of what he felt about James (or the child). Yet knowing that he would be putting himself at risk in part on behalf of his hated torturer, Severus chose to risk his life anyway. That's more consideration than James ever showed him (for James, as an animagus, was never in true danger in the tunnel, remember. And having never actually been at risk, I can't say that James is owed a "life-debt" by Severus whatever Dumbledore says, even setting aside James' atrocious behavior after the incident.)
I'm sorry, but that all doesn't add up to "monster" to me.
Love Thine Enemy: risking oneself for an enemy in the Potterverse
Considering that we are being asked to judge Severus for failing to care about the fate of his mortal enemy, who he nevertheless risks his life in part to protect, it may be enlightening to examine who else in the Potter books risks themselves for an enemy, and their reactions afterwards. janus and I went through the named characters, doing our best to find everyone who could conceivably be seen as having knowingly risked their lives specifically for their enemies (rather than for friends or for the nameless, faceless mass of ‘the greater good’). Here is what we found, stretching our definition to the breaking point to include extreme generosity in consideration of 1) risk (not only death but merely serious risk to reputation and freedom), 2) who could be classed as an enemy (to the point where Triwizard Tournament opponents count), and 3) circumstances of rescue.
Character – Enemy/Enemies in Question – Circumstances
Harry – Draco, Dudley, Fleur, Stan Shunpike – rescued from RoR Fiendfyre; rescued from Dementors (though he had limited option of only saving himself); rescued her sister from drowning despite merpeople; disarmed rather than killing DE-Stan
Severus – Harry (if you insist he considers him an enemy), James, Lupin, Sirius? – multiple times, including years of spying and the original warning; the warning again; failed attempt during flight of 7 Potters; whatever risk he incurred from Umbridge and/or Voldemort in his managing of the DoM fiasco
Pettigrew – Harry – cellar of Malfoy Manor (problematic, since Voldemort supposedly wanted Harry alive, but he pays with his life anyway)
Narcissa – Harry – lies to Voldemort
Petunia and Vernon – Harry – take him in and shelter him for years (abuse aside) despite terror of magical world and threat of Voldemort, at risk to themselves and their own son (it is implied that Petunia must consent for the magic to work, and Vernon never goes against her)
Draco – DA, Trio – knew about the Protean-charmed coins 7th year but never betrayed the DA (which would have cost his life likely if discovered); possibly lied at Malfoy Manor (tho he may also have simply been uncertain of their identities)
Remus – Sirius (at time believed him Potters’ betrayer) – kept animagus abilities secret at risk to his reputation, freedom and possibly (as werewolf) life if discovered
Scrimgeour – Order/Harry (who he was not allied with, tho not an enemy like Voldemort) – tortured to death for information
Barty Crouch's parents – Barty Crouch Jr. – believed him a faithful DE, father risked reputation and freedom to hide him at home, mother died in Azkaban for him
Firenze – human children (Trio) – risked herd’s vengeance for protecting them, was driven out of Forest
Regulus Black – anyone fighting against Voldemort (tho perhaps this is ‘greater good') – drank potion and died in cave to get at locket Horcrux
Ollivander – Voldemort/Riddle (assuming he was not simply a true neutral/slightly on his side) – knew who Riddle/Voldemort was (by the wand) but never told
Voldemort (to be extremely generous) – Lily – offered to spare life of his declared enemy, a choice that had magical consequences disastrous for him (tho he could not have predicted the specificity of them, he may have been aware of the theoretical possibility of ancient magic coming into play. A stretch.)
James: no, because he was never in danger in the tunnel.
Dumbledore hiring Severus, an active DE: no, because 1) Severus was working for him at that point, not Voldemort, and 2) he’s weathered that criticism and others before and had little problem regaining his status. He (like Remus with Stan Shunpike) in fact warns Harry away from showing compassion towards an enemy (Voldemort’s helpless, screaming remnant of soul).
So, apart from Severus himself and Harry, who is widely lauded as (supposedly) being extremely pure of heart and loving, who do we see risk their lives for an enemy? At our most generous we have: Remus (in a situation where his risk is actually part of an immoral abdication of responsibility); Ollivander (protecting Riddle); Crouch’s parents on behalf of their own son; Scrimgeour; a centaur; the adult Dursleys; four Death Eaters; and Voldemort himself.
Wow. I mean, the unconditional love is just flowing off the page. One of the few moments where a character other than Severus actually seriously risks his life for the sake of a declared mortal enemy is the moment (one of the few worthwhile lines in DH) when Harry dives into the burning Room of Requirement to rescue his long-time enemy and new DE recruit, Draco. This rather makes up for his attack on him in HBP, and is one of the few moments of real selflessness we see from him. That Harry, the pure and oh-so-loving Chosen One, is perhaps the only character I can compare to (adult) Severus in terms of selflessness speaks volumes about 1) Severus’ eventual growth and 2) (more pertinently here) the books’ moral…incoherency is the nicest word for it.
Are we seriously supposed to condemn young Severus, fresh from the DEs, as an inhuman monster for failing to be as perfectly selfless as the authorially-anointed Christ figure of the entire series very occasionally is? How then are we supposed to judge the rest of the Order, and those like Dumbledore and Remus who urge our Hero™ not to be compassionate?
Unconditional love
You and Janus discussed who in the Potterverse was REALLY guilty of showing Love (in action, not in word) to their Enemies.
You were overly generous. Not that one would wish to discourage Generosity, but here's my revision:
Of the examples you gave, Remus and Voldemort acted out of self-interest. Remus explicitly admitted that he hid Sirius’s secrets to hide his own and protect himself from Dumbledore’s displeasure. Voldemort expected to use Lily against Severus (or alternatively, to derive amusement from watching him abuse her, depending on whether he believed Severus to care about Lily or to want to take her for revenge).
At first I thought Narcissa was acting out of [maternal]self-interest as well, but then I realized that she could have gotten the information she wanted from Harry and then betrayed him. So keeping her implicit bargain was, as you claimed, a dangerous act to save an enemy.
Scrimgeour and Regulus were both, arguably, motivated by considerations of the greater good, little though I like to use that term. Mrs. Crouch was motivated by maternal love, Mr. Crouch by uxorial (his deathbed promises to his wife). Vernon Dursley, likewise, deferred to his wife’s stated wishes, so he too was motivated by uxorial love.
Ollivander, I argued elsewhere, had no reason to reveal information that the most powerful wizards ON BOTH SIDES clearly wanted kept hidden. (See my essay “The Secret Riddle” for my argument that Albus colluded with Tom in hiding ‘Lord Voldemort’s’ true identity.)
Peter’s lapse was momentary, and it’s implied that he repented immediately (and that he had never for a moment actually intended to put his own life on the line for Harry).
So we’re left with Firenze, Draco, Narcissa, Petunia, Severus, and Harry, who knowingly saved an enemy or enemies at great risk to him/herself with no apparent reason other than "the love that moved the sun and other stars." Or, choosing a lesser poet, "doing what is right rather than what is easy."
It being relatively easy to love the ones we like (even Bellatrix and Barty Jr. clearly managed that much, and one would scarcely take them as role models), and rather hard to practice love-in-action to those we don't like.
One non-human outcast, three Slytherin Death Eater scum, one o’ the worst Muggles Hagrid has ever seen, and Our Hero.
Of whom only one is exalted by the narrative voice, and four are deliberately diminished.
On the other hand, it's comforting to confirm that our friend the Sorting Hat was right: Harry really did fundamentally belong in Slytherin, where his underlying capacity for love, however damaged by years of Dumbledore's manipulations, placed him.
What the Hat said FIRST about the houses, after all, was:
"Gryffindor, where dwell the brave at heart...
Hufflepuff... just and loyal...
... wise old Ravenclaw, If you've a ready mind...
Or perhaps in Slytherin you'll make your real FRIENDS."
There you have it, book One. The capacity to place friendship (the capacity for love) FIRST is the cut that puts one in Slytherin.
Tom was a pyschopath, incapable of connecting with other humans save through fear/pain/torture. And he did clearly crave connecting in that manner, the only way he was capable.
Do we see any Slytherins who didn't put connecting with others (or a specific other) fiirst, once we look at it in that way? Not those who sacrificed themselves for beloved-Tom, like poor lunatic Bellatrix; not Slughorn, who DEFINED himself by the connections he forged; not the Malfoys, each willing to die to protect the others; not Regulus, willing to first to die for (abhorrent) ideals and then die for Kreacher; not Andromeda Black, throwing her family and lifelong beiliefs over for Ted. Certainly not Severus. Any counter-examples?
Those who put self-aggrandizement first, go to Gryffindor; group loyalty, to Hufflepuff; solitary intelligence, to Ravenclaw; love, to Slytherin.
Glad to have that settled.
Re: Unconditional love
I'm afraid, no. but another one from the very first Slytherin.
Feeding on our faults and fears.
The houses that, like pillars four,
Had once held up our school,
Now turned upon each other and,
Divided, sought to rule.
And for a while it seemed the school
Must meet an early end,
What with duelling and with jighting
And the clash of friend on friend
And at last there came a morning
When old Slytherin departed
And though the fighting then died out
He left us quite downhearted.
..."
The Sorting Hat is a reliable witness IMO and look what he says:
- The houses turned on one another, not three on one.
- Each single house sought to rule the other three.
- There's no indication that Slytherin was about to lose the fight.
- He left after and perhaps, because the disagreement turned violent. After
The last two lines sound more like the other three came to their senses, after he left and stopped fighting each other.
Re: Unconditional love
Salazar
But Binns's "Reliable historical sources," from which he gets this, can't even tell him the year (or even decade!) Hogwarts was founded. When there's a Hat in the office and the Ravenclaw and Slytherin House Ghosts who could be asked!
So you're right, we should take the eyewitness account (and from a witness likely to be biased, if at all, against Slytherin) over Binns's.
In fact, I'm almost reminded of another famous Slytherin who left the school abruptly rather than duel and hurt his former friends. And whose reputation was traduced in absentia for this forbearance.
Re: Salazar
Must meet an early end,
What with duelling and with jighting
And the clash of friend on friend
And at last there came a morning
When old Slytherin departed
And though the fighting then died out
He left us quite downhearted."
You don't need to change a word, really.
Re: Salazar
Re: Unconditional love
I strive for a pleasant, even tone precisely because I really want to rant and rave and foam at the mouth and maybe hit someone when they make arguments like the one in question, but Severus has taught me better. *g*
We were rather overly generous. Partly because we wanted to make absolutely sure we weren't missing anyone (I am still so blown away at the actual list that I have this urge to go page by page through the books - I feel I MUST be missing some examples by Order members and so on. I just can't believe it.) Partly, though, it was also to make a point. For books about the Power of Love(TM), there's rather little meat here (it's all behind the Ministry's Locked Door!). I agree with your list, really.
And WORD - word, word, word - about Slytherin. Very nice catch with the Hat's phrasing. Slytherin, the House of water and emotion, whose color is green (traditionally the color of life, nourishment, healing (lime green robes!) and the Heart chakra, the center of the body). Slytherin, which in the imbalance in which we see Hogwarts existing, becomes on the one hand the shadow of the other Houses (Gryff in particular), apparently expressing all the hate, prejudice, etc. they deny in themselves, and on the other becomes their scapegoat for the same things; Slytherin, the House for the abused and unloved who nevertheless keep trying and want to survive (the most basic ambition, in such a situation).
No wonder Dumbledore defined love as wanting revenge in that conversation with Harry in OotP. That's the only way he could skew Harry's perceptions of the Houses enough to keep him in line.
Re: Unconditional love
You left out Ron and Hermione who also went back into the flames of the RoR and saved Goyle. They don't count though, because they're only copying Harry, and if they think it through at all, their motivation is to get Harry out of the RoR sooner. If they hadn't saved Goyle, Harry would have tried to.
duj
Re: Unconditional love
Terri, are you familiar with Elkins' theories about the Crouch family? She suggests that Crouch Sr was motivated by a combination of will to rehabilitate his son - which got transformed into the kind of brainwashing and 're-education' we heard of in assorted totalitarian regimes, possibly combined with guilt over his son getting caught in the first place, if one believes Crouch Sr was involved in causing the Lestranges to go after the Longbottoms - with the purpose of catching one more Death Eater to restore his own popularity (all going pear-shaped when one of the Death Eaters turned out to have been his own son).
I have one or more instances of people saving enemies to add, depending on how you count things.
If we're counting Triwizard Tournament opponents as enemies, Harry warns Cedric about the dragons. That really does help keep Cedric safe, even if Harry didn't risk anything to tell him.
Also, Cedric helps Harry with the Second Task, although I don't know that Harry would have been in any danger if he'd been unprepared. He would probably have just lost at that task.
But here's a real instance of saving an enemy. Viktor Krum, under the Imperius himself, cast the Cruciatus on Cedric. Harry and Cedric didn't know he was under the Imperius, though, and thought he was a real enemy. Here's the key part of the following conversation after Victor is stunned:
"Did you hear Fleur scream earlier?" said Harry.
"Yeah," said Cedric. "You don't think Krum got her too?"
"I don't know," said Harry slowly.
"Should we leave him here?" Cedric muttered.
"No," said Harry. "I reckon we should send up red sparks. Someone'll come and collect him... otherwise he'll probably be eaten by a skrewt."
"He'd deserve it," Cedric muttered, but all the same, he raised his wand and shot a shower of red sparks into the air, which hovered high above Krum, marking the spot where he lay.
Harry and Cedric both should get credit for that, I think. Cedric signals for help even though he's angry. Harry wasn't attacked, but considering that Cedric had been that they thought Fleur might have been, ViKtor seemed like an enemy of all the other champions. Harry technically wasn't the one to signal for help, but he would have if Cedric hadn't.
Lynn
:)
Partially because I'm not sure how many more instances you'd get even if you set that criteria aside. The one or two I mentioned, and perhaps James saving Severus from Remus, although possibly not the latter since saving Severus might be incidental to protecting Remus from prosecution. Maybe I just haven't been thinking long enough, but I can't think of any other cases off the top of my head where someone deliberately acts to save an enemy *without* risking themselves.
Lynn
And IF one believes Voldy's speech in GoF, then Snape is returning to a Voldy who is already considering killing him because Voldy 'believed he had left him forever'. Must have taken a great deal of 'testing' and occlumency for Sev to get to leave alive.
So, not to save a particular someone (unless you read it as going as part of his promise to protect Harry), but for the protection of all? -- Hwyla
He saves Peter from Sirius and Remus in PoA - not that he does it at risk to himself, but Peter is an enemy by then. -- Hwyla
And wrt Severus returning to Voldemort: that is certainly one of the greatest instances of courage and selflessness displayed by anyone in the books, yes. In so far as it was for Harry (if you consider Harry his 'enemy') then it is already covered in the list; in so far as it is for all, then it is for the greater good and so beyond the terms of the definition. But definitely a moving act of heroism, in any case.
returning to Voldy
Snape didn't actually *know* this, however, because it was Sirius who got to hear Harry's account of Voldy's return alongside Dumbledore, not Snape. And there is no moment at which Dumbledore pulls Snape aside to brief him before he goes
duj
Re: returning to Voldy
Now it IS possible that Voldy MIGHT be in a bit of a good mood since he has a body back, however, I believe that Snape is fully aware that Voldy was 'outing' DEs to each other when he's calling them by their names. Hence 'part' of the shock when Harry names Malfoy.
We then later learn that Snape had to convince Voldy (at some point, not necessarily that night) that Lily's death was not important (probably the main reason Voldy thought Snape had 'left him forever')
Snape might not know that bit, but he had plenty enough to worry about. -- Hwyla