Severus Snape Will Survive!I was reading the icon Slytherin text this summer, Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince, and I found it on page 52: The best sentence in the whole book for a Snape fan:
Cheers! Cheers. Cheers? Now, doubtless, you are now coming out of your relief and plunging into dismay, "What do you mean, all of them?" You're wondering if everyone else dies. Harry, Ron, Hermione, Lupin, Hagrid...? I answer: No...but probably the other Death Eaters will come to a bad end. Say hello to Chapter XIX in The Prince. It's titled, "THAT A PRINCE SHOULD SEEK TO ESCAPE CONTEMPT AND HATRED." In this chapter, Machiavelli outlines the virtues and flaws of the most notable Roman Emperors. He explains why "all of them, except Severus, came to a bad end." What can Machiavelli teach us? It's unlikely that Snape will try to get Death Eaters to rebel against Voldemort. Machiavelli says: He who conspires cannot do so alone, nor can he assume as his companions any save those whom he believes to be discontent; but so soon as you impart your design to a discontent man, you supply him with the means of removing his discontent, since by betraying you he can procure for himself every advantage; so that seeing on the one hand certain gain, and on the other a doubtful and dangerous risk, he must either be a rare friend to you, or the mortal enemy of his Prince [i.e. Voldemort], if he keep your secret. (p. 48) Voldemort won't trust his Death Eaters. Machiavelli says: A Prince has little to fear from conspiracies when his subjects are well disposed toward him; but when they are hostile and hold him in detestation, he has then reason to fear everything and every one. (p. 49)We have already seen some of this distrust in Goblet of Fire. Consider the scene with Pettigrew in the beginning and the scene of the Death Eater reunion at the end. Snape is biased in class to keep the loyalty of the Slytherins. Yes, it's obvious, but just for fun, see what Machiavelli says: Hatred is incurred as well on account of good actions as of bad; for which reason,..., a Prince who would maintain his authority is often compelled to be other than good. For when the class,..., whom you judge it necessary to rely on for support, is corrupt, you must adapt yourself to its humours, and satisfy these, in which case virtuous conduct will only prejudice you. (p. 51) Cruel, but successful, but Severus Snape? Machiavelli begins explaining why Snape acts cruelly in the classroom and it works, but the end falters a little. Severus Snape isn't quite as powerful with the school as Emperor Severus was with his empire. Should we worry, then? When we turn to consider the characters of Commodus, Severus, and Caracalla, we find them all to have been most cruel and rapacious Princes [note: This line is why I think the other Death Eaters will some to a bad end], who to satisfy the soldiery, scrupled not to inflict every kind of wrong upon the people. And all of them, except Severus, came to a bad end. But in Severus there was such strength of character, that, keeping the soldiers [i.e. the Slytherins] his friends, he was able, although he oppressed the people [i.e. Gryffindors, Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs], to reign on prosperously to the last; because his great qualities made him so admirable in the eyes both of the people and the soldiers, that the former remained in a manner amazed and awestruck, while the latter were respectful and contented. (p. 51-52)Does Snape keep the school "amazed and awestruck"? He's a powerful wizard and a formidable teacher who scares most of his students. He's a Potions Master who knows what he is doing; although the oppressed 3/4 of the school don't feel any fondness for him, they have to admit that he's talented (even Harry didn't seriously think Umbridge would find him unqualified). The school is unlikely to openly rebel against him. They fear him. Fear is better than love, but love is better than hate. Snape should be careful. Machiavelli says: It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. (p. 43, chapter XVII)Machiavelli goes on for a while about how smart Princes should not meddle with their people's property. This doesn't transfer well to the school-as-a-kingdom metaphor, so it leaves ambiguity. Do points count as property? They are collective property, not personal property, so they don't work well. What personal property can Snape take or interfere with? I can think of a few things: dignity (Neville), privacy (Harry's mind), free time (detentions), and social status (Harry, Hermione, Neville). Still, as only a teacher, Snape's power over the school is limited. Severus was successful because he knew how to play the dual roles of the lion and the fox. Going back one chapter, Machiavelli explains the dual roles: But since a Prince should know how to use the beast’s nature wisely, he ought of beasts to choose both the lion and the fox; for the lion cannot guard himself from the toils, nor the fox from wolves. He must therefore be a fox to discern toils, and a lion to drive off wolves.Snape is loyal to Dumbledore, but he is not to Voldemort. |
