Knave or Fool?

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

“Tell me honestly . . . do you think me most a knave or a fool ?’” asked John Willoughby of Miss Dashwood, and I think it’s time we addressed that question directly with regards to our friend and mentor Albus. 




Just because I love Jane Austen (and so, allegedly, does Rowling), here are two quotes in which a heroine is trying to figure out the true nature of a man of her acquaintance. 

First, Lizzie Bennett abour Willoughby:
“As to his real character, had information been in her power, she had never felt a wish of enquiring. His countenance, voice, and manner had established him at once in the possession of every virtue. She tried to recollect some instance of goodness, some distinguished trait of integrity or benevolence, that might rescue him from the attacks of Mr. Darcy; or at least, by the predominance of virtue, atone for those casual errors, under which she would endeavour to class what Mr. Darcy had described as the idleness and vice of many years continuance. But no such recollection befriended her. She could see him instantly before her, in every charm of air and address; but she could remember no more substantial good than the general approbation of the neighbourhood, and the regard which his social powers had gained him in the mess. “ (Pride & Prejudice)

Second, Anne Elliott about her cousin:
“Though they had now been acquainted a month, she could not be satisfied that she really knew his character. That he … talked well, professed good opinions, seemed to judge properly and as a man of principle, this was all clear enough. He certainly knew what was right, nor could she fix on any one article of moral duty evidently transgressed; but yet she would have been afraid to answer for his conduct. She distrusted the past, if not the present…. The names which he occasionally dropt of former associates, the allusions to former practices and pursuits, suggested suspicions not favourable of what he had been. She saw that … that there had been a period of his life (and probably not a short one) when he had been, at least, careless in all serious matters; and, though he might now think very differently, who could answer for the true sentiments of a clever, cautious man, grown old enough to appreciate a fair character? How could it ever be ascertained that his mind was truly cleansed?

“Mr. Elliot was rational, discreet, polished, but he was not open….”  (Persuasion)

(“Not open” as an indictment!—chokes on tea….)


So.  Is our friend Albus in truth a heartless, even soulless villain like Tom, with the primary difference being that unlike Tom, Albus was “a clever, cautious man grown old enough to appreciate a fair character”? 

Or can we find "some distinguished trait of integrity or benevolence," that might rescue Albus from the attacks of marionros, oneandthetruth, the_bitter_word, and, er, me, among others; or at least, by the predominance of virtue, atone for those casual errors, under which we might endeavour to class what JKR has depicted as the idleness and vice of many years continuance?

I seriously don’t know the answer here.  I look forward to the discussion.

I’ll start the ball rolling by saying that I see two things (and two only) that I don’t see how to explain by the “knave” theory. 

One is Albus’s giving up both Gellert and the pursuit of world domination after his sister’s death.  Why, unless continuing to pursue that shared dream had become impossible to reconcile with his own image of himself as a decent (ish) man?  Even if he shook off Gellert only in disgust for Gellert's having abandoned him to the mess of hushing up their mutual murder, why abandon his grandiose dreams if he hadn’t had a change of heart—and therefore, a heart to change?

The second is the Birdbath of Doom.  What was Albus sniveling about after drinking Tom’s potion, if he wasn’t feeling remorse or something like it?

Can anyone else find any irreducible attestations to virtue in his behavior, or conversely, unarguable evidence of his villainy?

I look forward to your responses!

Comments

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

I've just thought of something else: I'm going through OotP for purposes of abridging, and I realize that Dumbledore actually does appear to be aware and faintly sorry about the way wizards treat non-magicals (in some cases)--he is willing to give Dobby money if he asks for it, for example, and he recognizes that the wizards are pushing the giants to marginal areas and that the fountain in the MoM is wrong to show other creatures being happy that witches and wizards are in charge. So that, at least, suggests that he is aware of right and wrong, in a way that goes beyond simply knowing how to fake it. Of course, this in and of itself is not a testament of goodness--evil isn't a sliding scale in which everyone who does X is guaranteed to do A-W as well.

[sunnyskywalker]

He does manage to identify some structural injustices in the ww and to look beyond the obvious explanations--e.g. that the giants are particularly violent right now because they're overcrowded, not just because they're "naturally savage." But as you say, just being aware doesn't automatically equal goodness. I think there's a tendency to feel that someone who avoids blatant prejudices like "well giants must just be awful then!" or "house-elves should be treated like dirt because they are dirt!" therefore is fair and empathetic, when sometimes they just have a more thorough intellectual understanding and more subtle, or at least different, prejudices. Possibly he recognizes that overcrowding of a species can lead to increased violence, and considers this a problem mainly because it could negatively impact wizards eventually, so wizards should not cause problems which will come back to bite them in the long term.

It also occurs to me that, for Gilderoy Lockhart to think that "harmony between magical and non-magical peoples" was something that would gain him popularity points, there must be some kind of... probably not an equal rights for all species faction, but at least a pro-tolerance-for-most faction or something in the ww even though we never see much of it. There might be people writing letters to the editor in the Prophet about the wretchedly old-fashioned and very much in poor taste statue in the Ministry. Dumbledore pays attention, and has cast in his lot with this side, but might be just quoting others' ideas rather than actually thinking these things up himself.

Whether he chose that side out of good motives or some sort of pragmatic purpose (like, he thinks it will win in the long run--certainly it doesn't take a genius to recognize that a decreasing number of inbred isolationist families might not actually be a good bet) is harder to judge.