Why didn't Dumbledore expose Tom after Myrtle's death? A reconsideration
For several years (after gradually, reluctantly losing all faith I once had in Dumbledore), I’ve accepted that the most likely reason Dumbledore didn’t reveal Tom’s youthful crimes, expose him as a Parselmouth, and suggest that the monster was a basilisk after Myrtle’s death was that in doing so, he would implicate himself-for knowing what he did about Tom and not warning anyone earlier.
But on second thought, would anyone have found him culpable?
Say that Dumbledore lays everything he knew before Dippet and the Board of Governors and whatever other authority figures might be involved. He says, “The matron at Tom’s orphanage mentioned that a child’s pet died in a way that couldn’t be explained after its owner committed some offense against Tom, and that two children were so badly frightened by something he showed them that they never quite recovered from the shock-though they never told anyone what they saw. Naturally, I assumed that the boy unconsciously lashed out with his magic when he was angry or frightened, as most magical children do at one time or another. And living in such a grim institution where he would have been grossly misunderstood, who would wonder if he were upset a little more often than usual? Nor is it surprising that Muggle children would be frightened of something they could not possibly comprehend; they were unharmed, so it seemed that whatever happened could not have been too terrible.
“The boy himself told he that he could hurt people, but he was excited to learn that his abilities were real and seemed to be boasting in hopes of impressing me, so it never crossed my mind that he might truly have been capable of controlling his magic at that age. For the same reason, I did not entirely credit his claim to be able to speak to snakes. But that would hardly be a reason to mistrust him in any case-after all, many of our great and good have shared that talent. He had stolen a few trinkets from other children, which didn’t seem unusual for a young orphan seeking attention, and he returned them after I warned him that we do not tolerate such behavior. I thought the matter was settled. Indeed, he has seemed a model student for the past five years. All the staff will confirm that he is personable and hard-working, and that they like him a great deal. I thought that being brought into an environment which accepted and supported his abilities, a true home among his own kind, had been enough to help him overcome his early hurts and put him on the right path.
“However, in light of the recent tragedy, I am forced to admit that I may have been mistaken. Perhaps he has charmed us all into overlooking his true nature. A basilisk would fit the manner of Miss Warren’s death, and as a Parselmouth, Tom would be able to control the creature. And in hindsight, could his accusation against young Rubeus have been a deliberate attempt to cast suspicion away from himself?
“I hope my suspicions prove unfounded, but I believe we must investigate.”
Would anyone truly have responded with, “That’s a nice story, Albus, but I think frightening Muggles and harming a single animal is so disturbing that you should have realized immediately the boy was evil! Why don’t we investigate you along with him?”
I mean, this is a society which considers terrifying a Muggle family good fun after a few drinks. (The marchers at the Quidditch World Cup were not all Death Eaters; the crowd grew as drunken revelers decided to join.) And that’s fifty years later, after two wars with pureblood supremacist leaders, which one would hope has made Muggle-baiting less socially acceptable than before. In 1943, Walburga’s cousin Araminta Melliflua may have been trying to force through that bill to legalize Muggle-hunting, and Sirius doesn’t say she was socially ostracized for it. How many wizards would really find it troubling that Tom terrified two Muggle children with an unspecified magical outburst? Clearly, their tiny Muggle minds just couldn’t cope. And they’re only Muggles. Lashing out at a few more children in ways the children couldn’t explain? As long as Secrecy isn’t threatened, what’s to worry about?
And Hogwarts teaches children to transfigure animals every day-usually unsuccessfully, at first, in ways that must be very uncomfortable for the animals. And also Vanish them, when we have circumstantial evidence that you can’t un-Vanish things, so they’re basically killing the animals. After all those hours practicing turning rabbits into rabbit slippers and murdering kittens, how many will gasp, “No! Not a bunny rabbit! The fiend!”
So it seems possible, even likely, that they would believe that Dumbledore couldn’t possibly have known the boy was trouble. Dumbledore’s reputation would be safe.
Furthermore, he probably had enough influence (as a respected schoolmaster who has taught Tom for five years, as Flamel’s junior partner, as the guy who can do things with a wand you’ve never seen, as the world’s best hope of defeating Grindelwald, etc.) that they’d at least have investigated Tom. They might even have gotten lucky. Tom killed his Muggle family during “the summer of his sixteenth year.” Which means he was fifteen at the time, and it was the summer between his fourth and fifth years. Which means he’d already committed those murders by the time he opened the Chamber of Secrets, and might already have been wearing that ring. Now, wizards are terrible investigators, so maybe they wouldn’t have uncovered any of that… but maybe they would have. We’ll never know.
So why didn’t Dumbledore expose and accuse Tom, if he wasn’t covering for himself?
Could he have believed that no would take his word for it, and that too many people would suspect him anyway? I can’t see it. Or at least, I can’t see him thinking this out of lack of confidence. He was writing to the most famous scholars of his day while still in school, and getting praise for it, and he obviously had a lot of supporters in 1943. If he had some heavyweight political enemies no one ever mentioned who might have taken advantage of the situation, and who might have succeeded because they had as much or more political capital as Dumbledore, that might be another story. (Maybe Arcturus Black or his father Sirius were rivals for Dumbledore’s influence.) But we have no evidence that he did, so we can’t say how likely it is that Dumbledore would consider it a big enough risk that he’d rather keep his mouth shut.
Was he afraid Tom would kill him in retaliation? Would he believe Tom could manage it? (Was Tom "the only one he ever feared"?) As far as we know, Tom had only attacked and killed relatively helpless people at that point, so it's hard to imagine Dumbledore wibbling about this inexperienced kid getting the drop on him, an experienced adult and one of the most powerful wizards around.
Maybe he thought there wouldn’t be enough evidence to convict Tom, so it wasn’t worth expending any political capital to accuse him and reveal even a possible, tiny error in judgement? But even if Tom was acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence, he’d have that cloud of suspicion hanging over him, which one might at least hope would hamper any nefarious plans he had for the future. So it might have been worthwhile to try even if Dumbledore thought the attempt likely to fail.
At least, it would be worthwhile if he thought hampering Tom’s efforts to gain a following was a worthwhile goal. Maybe he didn’t want to hamper Tom’s rise to power? Maybe it wasn’t a coincidence that Dumbledore waited to defeat the current Dark Lord until Tom had finished school and could devote himself full-time to becoming the next one?
…I’m trying to think of a counter-argument better than “but that would be terrible.”
Anyone else have evidence to contradict that one? Or even any way he could have done it unconsciously rather than as a premeditated plan?
Any other suggestions for a different motive for Dumbledore’s silence?
But on second thought, would anyone have found him culpable?
Say that Dumbledore lays everything he knew before Dippet and the Board of Governors and whatever other authority figures might be involved. He says, “The matron at Tom’s orphanage mentioned that a child’s pet died in a way that couldn’t be explained after its owner committed some offense against Tom, and that two children were so badly frightened by something he showed them that they never quite recovered from the shock-though they never told anyone what they saw. Naturally, I assumed that the boy unconsciously lashed out with his magic when he was angry or frightened, as most magical children do at one time or another. And living in such a grim institution where he would have been grossly misunderstood, who would wonder if he were upset a little more often than usual? Nor is it surprising that Muggle children would be frightened of something they could not possibly comprehend; they were unharmed, so it seemed that whatever happened could not have been too terrible.
“The boy himself told he that he could hurt people, but he was excited to learn that his abilities were real and seemed to be boasting in hopes of impressing me, so it never crossed my mind that he might truly have been capable of controlling his magic at that age. For the same reason, I did not entirely credit his claim to be able to speak to snakes. But that would hardly be a reason to mistrust him in any case-after all, many of our great and good have shared that talent. He had stolen a few trinkets from other children, which didn’t seem unusual for a young orphan seeking attention, and he returned them after I warned him that we do not tolerate such behavior. I thought the matter was settled. Indeed, he has seemed a model student for the past five years. All the staff will confirm that he is personable and hard-working, and that they like him a great deal. I thought that being brought into an environment which accepted and supported his abilities, a true home among his own kind, had been enough to help him overcome his early hurts and put him on the right path.
“However, in light of the recent tragedy, I am forced to admit that I may have been mistaken. Perhaps he has charmed us all into overlooking his true nature. A basilisk would fit the manner of Miss Warren’s death, and as a Parselmouth, Tom would be able to control the creature. And in hindsight, could his accusation against young Rubeus have been a deliberate attempt to cast suspicion away from himself?
“I hope my suspicions prove unfounded, but I believe we must investigate.”
Would anyone truly have responded with, “That’s a nice story, Albus, but I think frightening Muggles and harming a single animal is so disturbing that you should have realized immediately the boy was evil! Why don’t we investigate you along with him?”
I mean, this is a society which considers terrifying a Muggle family good fun after a few drinks. (The marchers at the Quidditch World Cup were not all Death Eaters; the crowd grew as drunken revelers decided to join.) And that’s fifty years later, after two wars with pureblood supremacist leaders, which one would hope has made Muggle-baiting less socially acceptable than before. In 1943, Walburga’s cousin Araminta Melliflua may have been trying to force through that bill to legalize Muggle-hunting, and Sirius doesn’t say she was socially ostracized for it. How many wizards would really find it troubling that Tom terrified two Muggle children with an unspecified magical outburst? Clearly, their tiny Muggle minds just couldn’t cope. And they’re only Muggles. Lashing out at a few more children in ways the children couldn’t explain? As long as Secrecy isn’t threatened, what’s to worry about?
And Hogwarts teaches children to transfigure animals every day-usually unsuccessfully, at first, in ways that must be very uncomfortable for the animals. And also Vanish them, when we have circumstantial evidence that you can’t un-Vanish things, so they’re basically killing the animals. After all those hours practicing turning rabbits into rabbit slippers and murdering kittens, how many will gasp, “No! Not a bunny rabbit! The fiend!”
So it seems possible, even likely, that they would believe that Dumbledore couldn’t possibly have known the boy was trouble. Dumbledore’s reputation would be safe.
Furthermore, he probably had enough influence (as a respected schoolmaster who has taught Tom for five years, as Flamel’s junior partner, as the guy who can do things with a wand you’ve never seen, as the world’s best hope of defeating Grindelwald, etc.) that they’d at least have investigated Tom. They might even have gotten lucky. Tom killed his Muggle family during “the summer of his sixteenth year.” Which means he was fifteen at the time, and it was the summer between his fourth and fifth years. Which means he’d already committed those murders by the time he opened the Chamber of Secrets, and might already have been wearing that ring. Now, wizards are terrible investigators, so maybe they wouldn’t have uncovered any of that… but maybe they would have. We’ll never know.
So why didn’t Dumbledore expose and accuse Tom, if he wasn’t covering for himself?
Could he have believed that no would take his word for it, and that too many people would suspect him anyway? I can’t see it. Or at least, I can’t see him thinking this out of lack of confidence. He was writing to the most famous scholars of his day while still in school, and getting praise for it, and he obviously had a lot of supporters in 1943. If he had some heavyweight political enemies no one ever mentioned who might have taken advantage of the situation, and who might have succeeded because they had as much or more political capital as Dumbledore, that might be another story. (Maybe Arcturus Black or his father Sirius were rivals for Dumbledore’s influence.) But we have no evidence that he did, so we can’t say how likely it is that Dumbledore would consider it a big enough risk that he’d rather keep his mouth shut.
Was he afraid Tom would kill him in retaliation? Would he believe Tom could manage it? (Was Tom "the only one he ever feared"?) As far as we know, Tom had only attacked and killed relatively helpless people at that point, so it's hard to imagine Dumbledore wibbling about this inexperienced kid getting the drop on him, an experienced adult and one of the most powerful wizards around.
Maybe he thought there wouldn’t be enough evidence to convict Tom, so it wasn’t worth expending any political capital to accuse him and reveal even a possible, tiny error in judgement? But even if Tom was acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence, he’d have that cloud of suspicion hanging over him, which one might at least hope would hamper any nefarious plans he had for the future. So it might have been worthwhile to try even if Dumbledore thought the attempt likely to fail.
At least, it would be worthwhile if he thought hampering Tom’s efforts to gain a following was a worthwhile goal. Maybe he didn’t want to hamper Tom’s rise to power? Maybe it wasn’t a coincidence that Dumbledore waited to defeat the current Dark Lord until Tom had finished school and could devote himself full-time to becoming the next one?
…I’m trying to think of a counter-argument better than “but that would be terrible.”
Anyone else have evidence to contradict that one? Or even any way he could have done it unconsciously rather than as a premeditated plan?
Any other suggestions for a different motive for Dumbledore’s silence?