14

In another question, a good answer is given regarding how Snape shot down suspicions that he was a double-agent by explaining his opposition to Quirrell in the matter of the Philosopher's Stone. Snape didn't know that Voldemort was back (possessing Quirrell), and he was opposing Quirrell, not Voldemort. Snape was brilliant.

But it doesn't seem to me that this would also explain why Snape would stop Quirrell killing Harry Potter during the Quidditch match. In the movie, Quirrell tells Harry what happened and of course Voldemort's right there hearing it all from the back of Quirrell's head -- if he didn't know from the start, or perhaps even directed Quirrell's efforts to kill Harry in the first place.

Wouldn't Snape's defense of Harry raise a second suspicion that could not be as easily answered as the first?

SQB
  • 38,680
  • 33
  • 212
  • 350
Wayne
  • 1,106
  • 1
  • 12
  • 12
  • "Wouldn't Snape's defense of Harry raise a second suspicion that could not be as easily answered as the first?" I don't see why it would. Why do you think that would raise suspicion? – Kevin Jan 25 '15 at 23:49
  • Harry was Voldemort's biggest problem in many ways, ranging from being a living example of Voldemort's lack of power, to being the son of two opponents of Voldemort and the favorite of Voldemort's strongest opponent, Dumbledore. On top of this, Snape has no reason to be fond of Harry, and in fact seems to hate him. Seems to me that it's easier to dodge a single accusation of not being DE-like (Quirrell and the Philosopher's Stone) than two (Quirrell and Harry Potter). – Wayne Jan 26 '15 at 00:19
  • However much Snape hated Harry, it would be a really bad idea for him to just let him die, especially at Hogwarts. – Kevin Jan 26 '15 at 00:29
  • 3
    Why? Snape's supposed to be a DE, so killing, watching a killing, or standing idly by while someone's killed should be second-nature. Assuming he's a real DE, if he'd just taken his leave from the box to go to the bathroom -- so as to avoid suspicion if accused by Harry's suspicious friends -- and let Harry die, it'd have been clever and easy. Heck, if he'd managed to reveal it was Quirrell, he kills two birds with one stone. Instead, he's evidently actively watching over Harry, and actively -- and visibly -- jumps in to help him. Odd for a DE. – Wayne Jan 26 '15 at 00:38
  • Seems like just another of the various plot holes in the series. Unfortunately, it's common with series to be like that. Only speculation can suggest that that early on in the book, Quirrel was unwise to the fact that Snape was protecting Harry, and so Voldemort was none the wiser. – Dragona13 Jan 26 '15 at 03:24
  • What makes you think that Quirrell knew that Snape opposed him in killing Harry? – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jan 26 '15 at 04:37
  • 1
    Harry was not Voldemort's biggest problem. At least there was no way of knowing it for sure. This was long before the Death Eaters started looking for the prophecy. Voldemort's biggest problem was Dumbledore, as well as the host of wizards surrounding him. Sure, Harry was a reminder of Voldemort's limits, but this was a symbolic problem, not a practical one. If Voldemort wanted to take care of Dumbledore, he would get much more use out of a well-placed double agent supposedly making sure Harry stays alive than he would out of Snape killing Harry. – Misha R Jan 26 '15 at 08:56
  • 1
    With Harry dead, Snape could no longer see the beautiful eyes of the women he truly loved ! – Stephane Mathis Jan 26 '15 at 14:54
  • 1
    @DVK: In the movie, at least, Quirrell explains to Harry that it was he, not Snape, trying to kill Harry and that it was Snape who was counter-spelling to attempt to stop him. So Quirrell knew. – Wayne Jan 26 '15 at 17:07
  • 1
    Possible duplicate of How can Voldemort trust Snape after the events of the first book? – TGar Jun 13 '17 at 14:29
  • @TGar Why is this a dupe and not the other way? – Edlothiad Jun 13 '17 at 14:48
  • @Edlothiad It was discussed there, but the comments were deleted. I think the question is a duplicate, but the answers are better there. According to this: https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4749/66567 I think this should be closed. The other question was even closed for a while, but then it was reopened. – TGar Jun 13 '17 at 15:24
  • So a question that was asked 2 years after this one is not a duplicate? – Wayne Jun 13 '17 at 22:04
  • @Wayne They're duplicate to each other. But according to posted meta answer, the one with better answers should be closed. I didn't know that either (and I closed my question) but then I was corrected (and the question was reopened). Closing as a duplicate doesn't mean some of the questions is wrong, it serves to better find the answers. – TGar Jun 15 '17 at 10:43
  • @TGar: I disagree 100% with the meta answer. It was very mistaken. The goal of eliminating duplicates is to encourage people to find answers that already address their question, and secondarily to consolidate answers. The mistaken meta answer encourages question sniping and laziness by questioners, and discourages participation and hard work. Absolutely 100% ridiculous to close an established question unless it never had any good answers. – Wayne Jun 15 '17 at 21:55
  • @Wayne I am not probably the right person to discuss this (I only followed orders by more experienced :) ), this discussion doesn't belong here anymore, but on the meta or chat, I think. I have no problem with closing my question, I just don't know what is the correct approach (it actually is already closed as a duplicate of something else). – TGar Jun 16 '17 at 10:33

1 Answers1

29

Snape's explanation to Bellatrix:

"I should remind you that when Potter first arrived at Hogwarts there were still many stories circu­lating about him, rumors that he himself was a great Dark wizard, which was how he had survived the Dark Lord’s attack. Indeed, many of the Dark Lord’s old followers thought Potter might be a standard around which we could all rally once more. I was curious, I admit it, and not at all inclined to murder him the moment he set foot in the castle."
(Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 2, Spinner's End)

"I have done my utmost to have him thrown out of Hogwarts, where I be­lieve he scarcely belongs, but kill him, or allow him to be killed in front of me? I would have been a fool to risk it with Dumbledore close at hand.”
(Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 2, Spinner's End)

Voronwé
  • 26,367
  • 9
  • 122
  • 180
Don_Biglia
  • 568
  • 7
  • 9
  • 2
    The second comment nails it. His excuse is that he couldn't have avoided blowing his cover. Plausible enough. (Though personally, I still think an opportune trip to the bathroom or some other magic that would reveal Quirrell after the fact -- "If only I'd been there", "Alas, I was too late!" -- would have also been an option for a true undercover DE.) – Wayne Jan 26 '15 at 17:09
  • 3
    You're right, there was some wiggle room left if he wanted. And Bellatrix was also not that convinced by his answer, but does not go into it because he has Voldemorts trust apparently. "Bellatrix looked still unhappy,..." But for some reason, Voldemort (wanted) to trust him. – Don_Biglia Jan 26 '15 at 20:15
  • 3
    @Wayne He wasn’t an undercover Death Eater at the time, not even by claim. He and everyone else thought/assumed Voldemort was dead and gone. The Death Eaters were disbanded. Snape had simply moved on and become a teacher at Hogwarts. Even that opportune trip to the bathroom would have been risky, and there was no reason at all for Snape to risk his neck like that—particularly not with Harry Potter. Snape’s convenient absence would have been enough to start questions that he was still clinging on to Voldemort(’s memory), and possibly get him fired. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Aug 12 '15 at 21:10