![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Jodel has a very nice analysis about what was going on behind the scenes in PS:
http://www.redhen-publications.com/Quir
I agree with a lot of it, but as a Snape fan I have a problem.
Quirrell was first an agent of Riddle’s and then possessed by him. He was working in Riddle’s interests, and trying to steal the stone.
And trying to kill Harry, on the side.
Now, in retrospect it’s clear why that fact wouldn’t much worry Dumbles. But Snape? The man who’s pledged his life to “help [Dumbles] protect Lily’s son”? Why did Snape continue to go along with Dumble’s insistence on setting a clever little trap and spending months trying to lure Riddle into it rather than getting rid of the man, after the first time Quirrell tried to murder Harry?
When did Snape realize Quirrell was Tom’s agent? When did he realize Quirrell was Tom’s possession? And why was he content to do no more than just “keep an eye on Quirrell” and interfere with such murder attempts as he spotted? I mean, keeping his cover only goes so far: what's Snape care if his reputation with Tom is intact when Lily's child is dead?
What did Snape think was going on?
Answers, anyone?
http://www.redhen-publications.com/Quir
I agree with a lot of it, but as a Snape fan I have a problem.
Quirrell was first an agent of Riddle’s and then possessed by him. He was working in Riddle’s interests, and trying to steal the stone.
And trying to kill Harry, on the side.
Now, in retrospect it’s clear why that fact wouldn’t much worry Dumbles. But Snape? The man who’s pledged his life to “help [Dumbles] protect Lily’s son”? Why did Snape continue to go along with Dumble’s insistence on setting a clever little trap and spending months trying to lure Riddle into it rather than getting rid of the man, after the first time Quirrell tried to murder Harry?
When did Snape realize Quirrell was Tom’s agent? When did he realize Quirrell was Tom’s possession? And why was he content to do no more than just “keep an eye on Quirrell” and interfere with such murder attempts as he spotted? I mean, keeping his cover only goes so far: what's Snape care if his reputation with Tom is intact when Lily's child is dead?
What did Snape think was going on?
Answers, anyone?
So if Quirrell was an independent threat, it is important for Severus that whatever he does to Quirrell, he remains alive and free to be able to protect Harry from Voldemort whenever he shows up. (Consider Molly's criticism of Sirius' effectiveness as godfather from Azkaban.)
Alternately, if he knew exactly where Voldemort was - he may have realized he couldn't eliminate Quirrellmort. He had a hard enough time countering the broom curse. He couldn't catch Quirrell unawares - the man had eyes in the back of his head! It was useless to poison him if he was drinking unicorn blood. In fact, once the unicorn hunt started many forms of death would no longer work.
Or perhaps Albus said something that convinced Severus that the prophecy was true, and only Harry had the ability to kill Voldemort. Thus attacking Quirrellmort directly was useless.
Threat posed by Q
But once Q has openly tried to kill Harry (whether as independent agent or Riddle's)--what good is a perfect cover if the boy is killed? (From Sev's point of view, not Dumble's; Dumbles at this point would like Harry killed and Sev still his man, he thinks Harry's death--at Quirrell's wand--would eliminate Voldemort, and he'd still have an agent spying on Voldie's former followers.)
Unless Severus is vain enough to be 100% certain that he can run interference indefinitely between the boy and the would-be killer. I can see the Twinkly One adopting this attitude, but not Snape.
He may be Dumbledore's man, but we saw in PoA that when Dumbles wouldn't listen to him about dangers posed to Harry, he monitored the situation independently and acted against Twinkle's supposed wishes when he saw the need.
Now, if he'd figured out Quirrell was Quirrell!mort (not an independent agent and not just Tom's agent), he might well decide he couldn't take him out himself and that Dumble's game of smoking him out with the Stone was the only possiblity.
But I utterly hate the idea that Sev might have believed the Prophecy. (Which doesn't make it untrue, of course.)
The only thing I can really cite against it is that if Severus himself believed in the Prophecy (or rather, the bit he knew), and/or he understood that Albus was always trying to bring about the Prophecy's fulfillment, he should at least have considered the possibility that Albus might expect Lily's child to die in vanquishing the Dark Lord. It would still come as a shock that it's only BY DYING that Harry could do so, but he should long since have figured out that Albus was raising Harry as a warrior to be (maybe) sacrificed. Instead, poor naive fool, Severus really seemed to have thought all along that they were there to protect Lily's son.
(How young was he when he started following Dumbledore, anyhow?)
Me, I like the Confidere as an explanation....
Re: Threat posed by Q
(How young was he when he started following Dumbledore, anyhow?)
Assuming the hilltop meeting is during late fall or early winter after Harry's birth - almost 21.
Assuming the hilltop meeting is during late fall or early winter after Harry's birth - almost 21.
Why would it be after his birth, when they both seem to refer to a child yet to be born?
Also, this would not line up with Severus's statement to Umbridge in OotP (fall 1995) that he had been teaching there for fourteen years, which counts back to 1981. Given the weather/landscape clues, that meeting was well into the winter, certainly not in the summer before the start of the 1981 school year, therefore it most likely took place at least the previous winter (late 1980-early 1981). And at that point he'd already been employed doing some spying regarding Dumbledore - it's possible the interview where he overheard the prophecy was the previous spring, ca. March 1980. If that's the case he was not long past twenty.
Altho' I also believe he turned to Albus while Lily was still pregnant. That however, would be winter79-80. In 'my' interpretation the eavesdropping on the prophecy takes place in Fall79, Especially since Sybil was apparently teaching for 'almost' 16 years during her interview with Sybil in Sept95 - beginning to teach in Spring80 can hardly be called almost 16 years, but sometime in Oct79 CAN be -- Hwyla
*headdesk* sorry, my brain. (and probably, the spiked cider I was drinking.) I was also totally wrong to say "a child yet to be born" - they both speak of Harry as already existing (they know the sex of the child, for instance, and Severus refers to "them all" rather than "both of them" as he would if Lily were pregnant). So forget everything I said, basically. :P
In 'my' interpretation the eavesdropping on the prophecy takes place in Fall79, Especially since Sybil was apparently teaching for 'almost' 16 years during her interview with Sybil in Sept95 - beginning to teach in Spring80 can hardly be called almost 16 years
It can if she's past 15 and a half, and is stretching things a bit in order to give herself more "weight" (as I imagine she is in this scene). The Lexicon agrees with you that it was 1979. Unfortunatelly all Dumbledore says is that it was a "cold, wet night", which could be either season in that part of the world. We want the prophecy and the hilltop scene to be as close together in time as they can be, I think, because the gap between them is time Voldemort sat on the prophecy apparently doing nothing, and the longer that is, the less believable.
Sybil adds a qualifyier. She says 'almost' 16 years ago. In a formal interview with a Ministry employee regarding her tenure. There is no reason for her to lie or 'shade' the truth. It should be public record. She is also referring specifically to 'school years' - to imply it was almost 16 years when it was barely 15 would actually disadvantage her especially when the matter can be easily checked
It is also difficult to see how Albus could add a class with 3/4 of the school year already passed. Less difficult if only 1/4 year has gone by (or a fifth really - if one presumes it might have taken place on Halloween (approx time of conception) - then 2 months gone out of close to 10).
Personally, I cannot see Umbridge not doing her homework ahead. If Sybil was stretching the truth, Dolores would have called her on it. As we see thru the rest of the school year, part of her purpose at Hogwarts is too rid the school of Albus' appointments and bring in more Ministry appointments. Hence the quick replacement of Sybil with Firenze, blocking Umbridge from bringing in her own choice. -- Hwyla
I didn't mean June 1980. My suggestion of "splitting the difference" lands somewhere like February or March, which is halfway around the year from September when Sybill gives her quote of her tenure. Not "barely 15", but 15 and 6 months, or a little more.
It is also difficult to see how Albus could add a class with 3/4 of the school year already passed.
He speaks of "continuing" with the subject, not picking it up again after a hiatus, so I expect there was an outgoing current instructor he was looking to replace (or perhaps let the subject drop if he found no one suitable). Teachers apparently can and do switch during the year: McGonagall says she began teaching during a December. (Or perhaps Trelawney was some sort of assistant to an outgoing retiree for a little while, not that we see any evidence of such an arrangement in other subjects.)
I don't think he 'did nothing'. First he had to wait for the boys to be born to see which one of them actually was born in late July (rather than in early July or early August). But even after that, he waited because he was plotting to use the momentum from the killing of the prophecy boy to take over the entire Wizarding Britain within less than a year - ie he needed a man at Hogwarts (Severus) and access to major players at the Ministry (Barty Jr). Which means he wasn't going to move on Harry before September 1981 in any case.
Late 1980 - early 1981 matches the timeline of arrests/deaths of DEs: Moody started following Igor in early 1981, 6 months before Igor's arrest, which took place after the deaths of the McKinnons (in July, not long before Harry's birthday) but before the deaths of the Prewett brothers and the others in the Order photo, also before the death of Evan Rosier and the arrests of Dolohov, Travers and Mulciber. If those arrests and one death of DEs are the result of tip-offs by Severus (implied by Severus being known to Igor) then this places the beginning of Severus' spying in early 1981 (more than half a year before he started teaching).
In any case, I don't believe even Voldemort would choose whom to attack before he had a definite birth date. Had Lily gone into labor prematurely or a day later Harry wouldn't have matched the terms of the prophecy.
I truthfully believe JKR changed her mind on the date of Snape's conversion.
In several interviews the date moved around before she ever put anything in the books. Usually she tied the Potters going into hiding at around the time of Harry's Christening - that they either had the Christening while in hiding or 'rushed' the Christening, going into hiding immediately after. This made a lot more sense - as it meant Snape went to Albus at about the same time Peter became Voldy's spy. Both sometime around Sept/Oct 1980.
This gives what I see as a much more realistic timeframe - with the Potters in hiding for close to a year before Voldy finally attacks alone. It makes a great deal more sense than waiting until the child is over a year old - unless Peter's spying was all about any magic spurts Harry and Neville might have done. And true - that COULD be the case - I suppose Peter could be expected to hear of Neville's accomplishments during 'afters' at Order meetings.
It really plays out as a much more exciting story for the Potters to be hiding for so much longer - with Peter betraying their 'movements' (new hiding places) as Minerva told us. And with forewarnings coming to Albus from Snape in time to move the Potters once again. It also makes more sense of the POA clues where we heard that 1) the Potters went into hiding when Albus was warned by his spy AND 2) that Albus suggested the Fidelius when they found it so very hard to hide from Voldy (Two separate sentences that many used to insist were one - implying the Potters never hid at all until the Fidelius).
This timing also made sense of the arrests of DEs that we learn of at Karkaroff's hearing. Which I still maintain shows the DEs were speaking of Snape as the Double-Crosser that Sirius overheard (not Peter).
This timing even shows James in a better light - as he's 'bored in hiding' in the letter to Sirius, even tho' the Potters were both apparently still going to Order meeting outside their hiding spot as recently as the Order Photo.
And multiple hiding spots that keep being discovered also makes more sense as to how they could realize the spy must be a Marauder, fingering Remus.
Personally - I think JKR was so peeved when many fans stuck by Snape after Bk6 that she decided that scenario placed him in too heroic a light and so she changed the timing - which takes all those lovely clues and turns them into waste.
Instead - the Potters hide apparently in the easily known location of the Potter ancestral home and never even apparently have a close call - but decide a Fidelius is needed anyways - but only because other Order members are being killed. And without close calls, that leaves the suspicion of Remus down to his being a werewolf rather than being forced to realize it MUST be one of their closest friends.
It also downplays Voldy's evil - why wouldn't the worst dark lord in ages just kill the 2 pregnant women so the child is never even born?
Oryx - I know you disagree on this with me. And while you have come up with a scenario that works for you - it doesn't work for me. They know the sex of the child because they presume it based on the Prophecy. However, there isn't any reason to believe magic didn't have a way to know the sex before birth. After all, in the REAL world that was, since the middle ages, one of the main reasons someone might go to see a hedge witch or gypsy fortune teller - to find out whether the child would be an heir or not. And Potterverse IS concerned with heirs.
I'm not trying to convince anyone out of Oryx's timeline - and I agree it might be right. I only say that for me - it is an open question. Snape turned in winter. Either '79-'80 as he turns 20 or '80-'81 as he turns 21. -- Hwyla
Right, I was not disagreeing that they spent quite some time in hiding before they apparently decided to go with the Fidelius as a last resort. But that's the time between Severus's warning and the murder, not the time between the prophecy and Severus's warning, which I thought is what we were talking about. I am not suggesting that Voldemort held onto this for a year and a half and only started going after the Potters shortly before Halloween 1981. I mean that we should not have it be too long after Harry's birth before Voldemort has decided to target them.
And Sept/Oct 1980 isn't terribly unreasonable for that, although I think the weather/scene clues in the hilltop scene, especially the leafless trees rather than seeing changed leaves still on them, speak of later in the year (late November, or December).
This timing even shows James in a better light - as he's 'bored in hiding' in the letter to Sirius, even tho' the Potters were both apparently still going to Order meeting outside their hiding spot as recently as the Order Photo.
Which must therefore be some time before that letter, although it could be shortly before. It's possible that JKR didn't mean for that letter to imply Fidelius, although it's hard to think what else might mean James was literally stuck in the house (so, her date/math problems, and all).
They know the sex of the child because they presume it based on the Prophecy. However, there isn't any reason to believe magic didn't have a way to know the sex before birth.
But they cannot know that the child will fulfill the date part of the prophecy - the end of July - until he has already been born. So if a target has been identified, then we must chronologically be after his birth. That means that the winter of '79-80 is out.
*sigh* YES, I know. I get the feeling we're actually agreeing with one another and not realizing it.
The average age for a baby being christened in Britain seems to be about seven months (judging from a quick survey of fourteen examples mentioned on Google!), so if she means that the christening was "hurried" in the sense of being rushed into that means it was prior to February 1981, and Snape had already warned them about the security leak and the threat from Voldemort by that point.
A hurried christening does not signify that the Potters were warned prior or even shortly after Harry's birth if it is common for Brits to have christenings several months after a child's birth.
Christenings 'traditionally' (historically) are when you NAME a baby. Hence the term 'christening'. Until the child is christened he literally is not 'named'.
Wizards in Potterverse are not pagans. Note that Harry's parents rated a churchyard burial (as opposed to a graveyard unconnected to a church) along with quite a few other apparent wizarding families. It is most likely this very same church to which they took Harry for his christening.
And an unchristened baby who died could not be buried in a churchyard. It is not really so terribly long ago that waiting a week to christen the child was horrific. I may be wrong, but I think I remember this from Tess D'Urbervilles? But I would guess it was similar in the early part of the 20th century even - before infant mortality rates improved.
But specifically, Albus believes in some form of afterlife and he knows a prophecy might apply to either Harry or Neville and he apparently allowed the eavesdropper to leave to spread word of this to Voldy. In other words, he's quite aware that Voldy might try to kill one or both of these kids. It's bad enough that he doesn't send the parents into hiding until Snape converts - but after all - Voldy has to try for the kid to be marked. But he certainly ought to suggest speeding up the christenings just to be sure the boys could have a christian burial if Voldy succeeds.
Also - any idea whether the seven months before a christening is a statistic of current day or a statistic of 1980. The 80s saw a big change in much of Britain - especially in regards to aristocracy vs yuppies and the 'punk' era of the late 70s. Lily and James were mainstream - they would be more likely to be tradionalists in 'some' things. And I think James' first heir would be one of those things -- Hwyla
Christenings 'traditionally' (historically) are when you NAME a baby. Hence the term 'christening'. Until the child is christened he literally is not 'named'.
Wizards in Potterverse are not pagans. Note that Harry's parents rated a churchyard burial (as opposed to a graveyard unconnected to a church) along with quite a few other apparent wizarding families. It is most likely this very same church to which they took Harry for his christening.
And an unchristened baby who died could not be buried in a churchyard. It is not really so terribly long ago that waiting a week to christen the child was horrific. I may be wrong, but I think I remember this from Tess D'Urbervilles? But I would guess it was similar in the early part of the 20th century even - before infant mortality rates improved.
But specifically, Albus believes in some form of afterlife and he knows a prophecy might apply to either Harry or Neville and he apparently allowed the eavesdropper to leave to spread word of this to Voldy. In other words, he's quite aware that Voldy might try to kill one or both of these kids. It's bad enough that he doesn't send the parents into hiding until Snape converts - but after all - Voldy has to try for the kid to be marked. But he certainly ought to suggest speeding up the christenings just to be sure the boys could have a christian burial if Voldy succeeds.
Also - any idea whether the seven months before a christening is a statistic of current day or a statistic of 1980. The 80s saw a big change in much of Britain - especially in regards to aristocracy vs yuppies and the 'punk' era of the late 70s. Lily and James were mainstream - they would be more likely to be tradionalists in 'some' things. And I think James' first heir would be one of those things -- Hwyla
There is no indication in canon that the Longbottoms were ever in hiding, or that they knew they were threatened because of Neville (rather than because of their role as Aurors and Order members). It isn't even clear if the Potters knew they were being targeted because of Harry rather than because of their own roles as order members, but at least they knew they were being targeted specifically. It is entirely possible that in 1981 the only people who knew of the prophecy were the brothers Dumbledore, Tom, Severus and the relevant Unspeakables.
Re: Threat posed by Q
Ran to Fluffy (and apparently got there before Quirrell) on Halloween
Counter Quirrell's curse of Harry's broom
With Filch monitored the castle at night during Christmas break (only then?)
Volunteered to referee the Gryffindor-Huflepuff Quidditch game
Met with Quirell in the forest ('where your loyalties lie' conversation)
Followed Harry around in the hallways
Commented on how suspicious the trio seemed - staying indoors on a nice day (the day Harry eventually went after the stone).
Do these all fit with the Confidere hypothesis?
We know that in GOF the Dark Marks started darkening as Babymort was becoming stronger. So maybe when Tom moved into Quirrell's head there was a change to the Dark Marks. But this isn't necessarily the case - the DEs in GOF only started becoming concerned about Voldemort's impending return around Christmas, months after Tom acquired his baby-body and returned to the country. And even if the Marks changed, all it would indicate was that Voldemort was in a stronger form, not where he was.
The definitive indication would be if Tom attempted Legilimency on Severus. I'm sure Severus would recognize the mental invasion and its style. But would he? He knows Severus is an Occlumens. And if Severus could get away later with the excuse that he was not aware of Voldemort's involvement then Tom must believe he did not do anything obvious to give himself away.
I dunno that he would. That's what he tells Bellatrix, anyway (that he thought it was only Quirrell) and there must be some truth to that statement if he expected it to satisfy her, not to mention satisfy Voldemort. If Dumbledore knew or strongly suspected, on the one hand he might have been remiss not to tell Severus (but then, that's Dumbles' M.O.), but on the other it may well have worked to protect him.
I know that you know that I know....
Jodel thought Dumbles knew, and would have had to have told Snape just so Snape could protect himself adequately from betraying his loyalties.
From a pragmatic standpoint Jodel's take would be sensible, but this is Dumbles....
The Mark Darkening
Once the Mark started darkening, Lucius was less sanguine, and started casting his Dumbledore-discrediting activities as a welcome-home to his old master....
I suspect that Tom controlled the reaction of the Marks, though--that he allowed them to start darkening as a threat to his, er, loyal followers ("I'm coming....")
But... think about Harry's scar. The first time Harry meets Riddle's eyes (through the turban) his scar hurts. And he reacts immediately and visibly, and Tom is able to cut the connection to protect his/Quirrell's secret. Harry's scar doesn't hurt again in Quirrell's presence (and you cannot persuade me Tom never clapped eyes again on Potter) until Tom allows it to at the reveal.
But the first pain was presumably involuntary.
Similarly, Tom apparently doesn't know initially that Harry's scar is hurting at moments when Tom is near/feeling high emotion, or that it's giving Harry visions of Tom's activities. When he does find out, he sets out to use it, of course; and subsequently assumes he's walled it off.
Now, to what extent is the Dark Mark under Tom's control? If it's completely, the once and future DE's will be aware of nothing until Tom wants them to. If there's leakage--especially at first, while Tom's weakest and least aware....
Of course, I've already assumed there was leakage. One can always revise, however.
Re: The Mark Darkening
The scar hurts before the reveal - when Harry sees Quirrellmort in the forest and then during the following days on occasion. But we can explain that away as Tom losing control as he (or Quirrell) becomes weaker from repeated attempts at the obstacles.
But the Mark, while alerting Severus to something Voldemort-related, doesn't indicate where exactly Voldemort is.
How well Did Severus know Quirrell before the sabbatical? How did he interpret the personality change?
Were Albus' Albananian 'sources' already in place? Did he know Tom had left Albania?
It would have been intriguing to have been a fly on the wall, and to have listened in while he managed to talk his way out of *that* one once Voldemort returned.
Alison