the magic of harry potter
TRANSCRIPT
The Magic of Harry PotterBy Taure
ContentsIntroduction ........................................................................................................................... 2
In Defence of Harry Potter Magic....................................................................................... 2
Previous versions .............................................................................................................. 4
Canon................................................................................................................................ 4
Magical Power ...................................................................................................................... 5
Contributing factors ........................................................................................................... 5
Mechanical factors ......................................................................................................... 5
Mental performance ....................................................................................................... 6
Knowledge..................................................................................................................... 7
Practice........................................................................................................................ 10
Intuition ........................................................................................................................ 11
Natural predispositions................................................................................................. 12
Emotional state ............................................................................................................ 13
Willpower ..................................................................................................................... 14
Adulthood..................................................................................................................... 16
Wand ........................................................................................................................... 18
Events.......................................................................................................................... 21
Authority ...................................................................................................................... 21
Forming a system............................................................................................................ 23
The nature of power itself ................................................................................................ 25
Witchcraft and wizardry....................................................................................................... 30
Case Study: The Shield Charm ....................................................................................... 30
Spells as ideas given magical reality ............................................................................... 33
Magical Theory................................................................................................................ 37
Transfiguration ................................................................................................................ 39
What Transfiguration can do ........................................................................................ 39
How Transfiguration Works: Relevant Factors ............................................................. 44
How Transfiguration Works: Limits............................................................................... 47
Charms............................................................................................................................ 52
Dark Arts and Duels ........................................................................................................ 52
Potions ............................................................................................................................ 52
Wizarding Physiology.......................................................................................................... 52
The Fundamental Nature of Magic ...................................................................................... 52
Odds and Ends ................................................................................................................... 52
Common misconceptions ................................................................................................ 52
The Trace .................................................................................................................... 52
The Fidelius ................................................................................................................. 52
Sacrificial magic........................................................................................................... 52
Occlumency ................................................................................................................. 52
Veela ........................................................................................................................... 52
Voldemort’s appearance .............................................................................................. 52
Horcruxes and Souls.................................................................................................... 52
Squibs and Muggles .................................................................................................... 52
Speculation ..................................................................................................................... 52
Arithmancy, Spell Creation and Spells in Other Languages ......................................... 52
Average wizarding competence ................................................................................... 52
Magic and electricity .................................................................................................... 52
Water blocks apparition................................................................................................ 53
Magical language learning ........................................................................................... 53
Content of magical theory ............................................................................................ 53
Society ............................................................................................................................ 54
Wizarding economy ..................................................................................................... 54
International wizarding politics ..................................................................................... 54
Wizards vs. Muggles.................................................................................................... 54
Introduction
In Defence of Harry Potter Magic
The magic system of the Harry Potter (HP) world gets a bad rap. Within fantasy and sci-fi
circles, it is often considered a particularly weak example of worldbuilding: vague,
unexplained, and at times prone to inconsistencies driven by the plot. I believe this to be an
unfair characterisation. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, I believe we know a lot more about the HP magic system than most casual readers
think. The absence of one character explaining magic comprehensively to another does not
mean that the magic system is unexplained. It is in fact a common maxim of good writing to
show rather than tell: readers buy into ideas more when they see them in action rather than
when they are told about them. And in the HP books we see a lot of magic, hear characters
discussing magic, and witness the results of magic on the social structure of the wizarding
world. All these scenes give clues that the attentive reader can piece together to gain insight
of surprising depth into the HP magic system.
Secondly, I think JK Rowling does a very different kind of worldbuilding to an author like
Brandon Sanderson, who is famous for his “First Law of Magic”1:
An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL
to how well the reader understands said magic.
I like Brandon Sanderson’s books. There’s no doubt that they have inventive and well
thought out magic systems. However, a result of this approach to magic is that it ends up
feeling like something out of a video game, or a tabletop RPG. It’s easy to see why: for
something to be understandable and predictable in the way required by the above law, it has
to be mechanistic. Everything has to fit together. It has to function.
The problem with this is that the real world is complex, and our attempts to describe and
explain it are messy. Our scientific theories are incomplete, sometimes contradictory (for
example, the famous tension between quantum field theory and general relativity), and fail to
answer more fundamental, philosophical questions about why. Perhaps as a result of this,
we naturally associate messy complexity with realism. Brandon Sanderson’s magic systems,
for all their functionality for storytelling, feel far too simple and too neat to be real. You should
not be able to summarise how the world works in a paragraph.
The truth of the matter is that no author can hope to simulate the complexity and mess of the
real world. Any magic system that you attempt to explain comprehensively so that the reader
“knows how magic works” will feel too simple. If you want your world to feel real, the reader
shouldn’t really know how magic works, just as we don’t really know how the natural world
works in real life. And I propose that this is the type of worldbuilding JK Rowling is
attempting: she wants her wizarding world to feel authentic, and to do that you have to
sacrifice Sanderson’s first law.
So what is JK Rowling’s approach to worldbuilding? I believe it is what we might call
“worldbuilding by allusion”. The books do not explain magic to the reader, but rather allude to
the existence of explanations. Like the real world, these explanations are incomplete and at
times contradictory. This helps the world feel authentic. Like in the real world, wizards are
attempting to understand the world around them, and we as readers can glimpse this
activity.
A key aspect of this is that we are drip fed bits and pieces of these explanations, not as a
genuine attempt to educate the reader, but to help us buy into the idea that magic is a
complex thing which wizards are attempting to understand. The bits and pieces of magical
theory we do hear add flavour and depth to the world, and give some clues as to the type of
explanations which exist. Without these pieces of information, the magic would feel
1 https://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/
characterless and shallow. There is an important difference between alluding to the
existence of explanations and simply providing no explanation at all -- if you don’t give
enough flavour then it just leaves an empty void, like you’ve come up with your world on the
back of a beer mat. An example of this type of worldbuilding would be Lev Grossman’s The
Magicians.
So saying JK Rowling is bad at worldbuilding is unfair. Nonetheless, a side effect of her
approach is that, yes, readers have to work hard to piece together information about magic if
they want to get a feel for the system. And that’s what this document is about: attempting to
piece together the clues in the books to understand the way HP magic works.
Previous versions
This document is far from my first attempt to explain the HP magic system. Many of you may
be familiar with my previous attempt2. But I had three problems with that document. The first
is the structure. It is too bare, failing to explain and argue the points made in detail, and
separating out the evidence from the conclusions in an unhelpful manner. The second is the
overly mechanistic impression it gives with regards to the nature of HP magic, an unfortunate
byproduct of its deductive format. The third is the order in which the document progressed,
starting with the base nature of magic. But in fact we often have the least evidence about
those matters, so it makes little sense to put them first, even if they are ontologically
fundamental. In this new document we will work our way down to the deepest matters,
starting with those surface matters about which we can say the most.
Before we can proceed any further, however, we must say something about the HP “canon”.
Canon
It is impossible to make arguments based on authoritative sources without first establishing
which sources are authoritative. In doing so I will be taking a hierarchical approach, with
some sources as having greater authority than others.
Several principles have been adopted. Firstly, that JK Rowling is the only source of canon.
Secondly, that officially released materials have greater authority than informal comments.
Thirdly, that the written word has priority over other media such as movies. Fourthly, that
materials embedded within a story have greater authority than commentary. This produces a
hierarchy of canon as follows:
1. The original 7 Harry Potter books.
2. The side books (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Quidditch through the
Ages, and Tales of Beedle the Bard).
3. Pottermore and JK Rowling’s old website (accessible via the Way Back Machine).
4. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (movie script).
5. Harry Potter and the Cursed Child (play script).
2https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VOF1eu_B7qpTeTUykW5ZGK2HJmVAG5WouY71a5AiRPo/edit
6. Merchandise materials created by JK Rowling herself, such as the Chocolate Frog
cards.
7. JK Rowling interviews, tweets, and other informal statements.
The original Harry Potter movies are not considered canon, as they frequently directly
contradict the prime source of canon (the original 7 books) and they are also not written by
JK Rowling. Also not considered canon are video games and merchandise not created by JK
Rowling.
A word must be said about The Cursed Child. JK Rowling has stated that she considers this
canon, but we must account for its nature as a play. There are certain aspects of the format
which make it problematic. Over time the cast will change, as will staging decisions. These
therefore cannot be considered canonical. Furthermore, we must consider theatrical licence.
For example, during Harry and Draco’s duel in Cursed Child, each one pauses to allow the
other to cast their next spell. This is obviously not how duels happen in the books, nor how
two people fighting would realistically act. It is a writing decision driven by the desire to show
off the clever special effects on stage: the audience has time to appreciate the effect of each
spell before the duelists move on to the next. This is fine for the stage, but it makes The
Cursed Child’s status as canon difficult. The position I shall adopt, therefore, is that we can
take the broad strokes of Cursed Child as canon (such as the fact that a new type of Time
Turner was invented with different effects from those in Prisoner of Azkaban), but that we
cannot rely on the fine detail. In any case, there is not a lot of worldbuilding in Cursed Child
and it will not occupy an important place in this document.
Now, with those preliminaries out of the way, let us dive right in.
Magical PowerWizarding inequality is a fact of the HP universe. Gregory Goyle is not Albus Dumbledore.
But what accounts for this difference? This turns out to be a rather complex question which
touches upon many parts of the HP magic system, so we’re going to take it in stages.
Contributing factors
First we will simply come up with a list of the factors which we see contributing towards
magical performance. At this stage we will not attempt to put them together into any system
or theory, we will simply note them.
Mechanical factors
By mechanical factors, I mean those physical actions which a wizard must actively perform
at the time of performing magic. In the case of a spell, this will be the incantation and the
wand movement.
These are the most visible elements of casting magic, but it may well be that they are among
the least important. When Harry first started learning magic in Philosopher’s Stone, the
following was noted:
There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your
wand and saying a few funny words. (Philosopher’s Stone, Chapter 8)
Further, logically speaking, differences in incantation and wand movement would not be
nearly sufficient to explain the huge range in magical ability that we see. It simply cannot be
the case that the difference between Albus Dumbledore and Gregory Goyle is their ability to
pronounce an incantation correctly. This is doubly true given that incantations can be made
non-verbal, and wand movements often seem to be dispensed with once a wizard is familiar
with a spell, with adult wizards performing complex tasks with simple flicks and waves of
their wands rather than complex movements.
Despite this, and however much skilled, well-practiced wizards may be able to dispense with
these elements of spell casting, it is clear that the student must be very careful in getting
them right:
“Swish and flick, remember, swish and flick. And saying the magic words
properly is very important, too — never forget Wizard Baruffio, who said ‘s’
instead of ‘f’ and found himself on the floor with a buffalo on his chest.”
(Philosopher’s Stone, Chapter 10)
Moreover, we see in Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 24, that Harry is able to cast Snape’s
Cutting Curse (“Sectumsempra”) with the incantation, without knowing the effect of the spell.
We will go into this incident in more detail later -- for now let us simply note that, contrary to
how magic is often portrayed in the fandom, there is an important objective nature to magic
beyond one’s subjective intent.
Before we move on, we should note two things. Firstly, that some spells have further
mechanical requirements. For example, the Riddikulus Charm requires laughter. Secondly,
that spells are not the sum of all witchcraft and wizardry. Mechanical factors in Potions would
be the preparation and manipulation of ingredients, as well as the interaction with the Potion.
Another example is Apparition, where the mechanical factor is turning on the spot.
Mental performance
Mental performance is another “active” element of performing magic, along with the
mechanical elements above. For example, the Summoning Charm requires you to
concentrate on the object you wish to summon:
“Just as long as it works tomorrow,” Harry said. “The Firebolt’s going to be much
farther away than the stuff in here, it’s going to be in the castle, and I’m going
to be out there on the grounds…”
“That doesn’t matter,” said Hermione firmly. “Just as long as you’re
concentrating really, really hard on it, it’ll come. Harry, we’d better get some
sleep… you’re going to need it.” (GoF Chapter 20)
The Patronus Charm is another example, which requires you to concentrate on a happy
memory or thought. Apparition requires one to either “know the terrain” of the location, or
otherwise to visualise it3.
However, it should be noted that the vast majority of spells do not appear to have a mental
performance involved in their casting.
That completes our tour of the active elements of casting a spell. You may be thinking that
we’re rather short on material which we can use to build a theory on why some wizards are
so much better at magic than others. This is because we have yet to consider the passive
factors which contribute to magical performance: those things which strongly influence the
success and power of magic, despite not being actively “in play” at the time of casting. We
will soon see that magic is like an iceberg, in that the greatest determinants of magical ability
are passive.
Knowledge
Throughout the books, we see that Hermione is able to both pick new spells up faster than
her peers, and able to learn more advanced magic (such as the Protean Charm in OotP, the
NEWT-level spell used to make the DA coins). We are led to believe that this is possible
because Hermione studies how magic works, both in terms of conscientiously completing
her school work and also in terms of performing additional reading. This is even explicitly
described:
Harry still hadn’t mastered Summoning Charms, he seemed to have developed
something of a block about them, and Hermione insisted that learning the theory
would help. They consequently spent a lot of time poring over books during their
lunchtimes. (GoF Chapter 19)
This is a theme that we see throughout the HP series: being strong academically and being
good at casting magic go hand in hand. For example, see how Dumbledore talks about Tom
Riddle:
Dumbledore took the diary from Harry and peered keenly down his long,
crooked nose at its burnt and soggy pages.
“Brilliant,” he said softly. “Of course, he was probably the most brilliant student
Hogwarts has ever seen.” (CoS Chapter 18)
Another example is to be found in Dumbledore’s obituary:
In a matter of months, however, Albus's own fame had begun to eclipse that of
his father. By the end of his first year he would never again be known as the
3 “Apparition becomes increasingly risky over long distances. As with most magic, much depends onthe skill of the spell-caster: Apparition requires knowledge of the terrain to which one is moving, or theability to visualise it clearly. Cross-continental Apparition would almost certainly result in severe injuryor death.” https://www.jkrowling.com/welcome-to-my-new-website/
son of a Muggle-hater, but as nothing more or less than the most brilliant
student ever seen at the school.
[...]
He not only won every prize of note that the school offered, he was soon in
regular correspondence with the most notable magical names of the day,
including Nicolas Flamel, the celebrated alchemist; Bathilda Bagshot, the noted
historian; and Adalbert Waffling, the magical theoretician. Several of his papers
found their way into learned publications such as Transfiguration Today,
Challenges in Charming, and The Practical Potioneer. (DH Chapter 2)
And also see how Madam Marchbanks talks about Dumbledore:
“But I daresay the Ministry of Magic will track him down soon enough.”
“I doubt it,” shouted tiny Professor Marchbanks, “not if Dumbledore doesn’t
want to be found! I should know… examined him personally in Transfiguration
and Charms when he did NEWTs… did things with a wand I’d never seen
before. (OotP Chapter 31)
And in turn what Rita Skeeter has to say about Grindelwald:
Educated at Durmstrang, a school famous even then for its unfortunate
tolerance of the Dark Arts, Grindelwald showed himself quite as precociously
brilliant as Dumbledore. Rather than channel his abilities into the attainment of
awards and prizes, however, Gellert Grindelwald devoted himself to other
pursuits. At sixteen years old, even Durmstrang felt it could no longer turn a
blind eye to the twisted experiments of Gellert Grindelwald, and he was
expelled. (DH Chapter 18)
And what Aberforth has to say about both of them:
“Grindelwald. And at last, my brother had an equal to talk to, someone just as
bright and talented as he was…” (DH Chapter 28)
Taking a step or two down the scale of magical talent, we also see that Sirius and James,
noted for their magical abilities, are excellent students of magic (notwithstanding that they
don’t apply themselves to study):
“Well, I thought that paper was a piece of cake,” he heard Sirius say. “I’ll be
surprised if I don’t get ‘Outstanding’ on it at least.”
“Me too,” said James. He put his hand in his pocket and took out a struggling
Golden Snitch.
[...]
“I’m bored,” said Sirius. “Wish it was full moon.”
“You might,” said Lupin darkly from behind his book. “We’ve still got
Transfiguration, if you’re bored you could test me. Here…” and he held out his
book.
But Sirius snorted. “I don’t need to look at that rubbish, I know it all.” (OotP
Chapter 28)
All this points towards a simple conclusion: knowing how magic works is a key component in
casting magic well. While you can get away with putting minimal effort into study and still be
able to cast some spells, if you want to cast advanced magic, or to properly master spells,
you need to learn the theory. It backs up your ability to learn new spells, and is a significant
part of what determines how powerfully you can cast them.
It is remarkable that this conclusion is not more widely acknowledged, given how prominent
it is in the books: the whole premise of the series is that Harry goes to a school of magic. If
knowledge of magic were not necessary for its practical use, then Hogwarts would have no
reason to exist. Magical theory would be something for the rare interested scholar, not an
essential component of every wizard’s training.
Once you go looking for the clues, they are everywhere: the fact that students write essays
about magic; the fact that whole books can be written about single spells (in GoF, Harry had
to read three books about summoning charms as part of his Charms homework); the
existence of such a huge library in the first place. Hermione, as noted above, is a repeated
example, but Harry himself is a good example too: Defence Against the Dark Arts is by far
his best subject, and it is not coincidence that it is also the subject he reads most
enthusiastically in:
Sirius and Lupin had given Harry a set of excellent books entitled Practical
Defensive Magic and its Use Against the Dark Arts, which had superb, moving
color illustrations of all the counter-jinxes and hexes it described. Harry flicked
through the first volume eagerly; he could see it was going to be highly useful
in his plans for the D.A. (OotP Chapter 23)
At the end of fourth year, Harry’s shield charm can barely hold back a jinx:
He was still having trouble with the Shield Charm, though. This was supposed
to cast a temporary, invisible wall around himself that deflected minor curses;
Hermione managed to shatter it with a well-placed Jelly-Legs Jinx, and Harry
wobbled around the room for ten minutes afterward before she had looked up
the counter-jinx. (GoF Chapter 31)
By the end of fifth year, Harry’s Shield Charm is strong enough to hold out against spells
cast by Death Eaters in the fight in the Department of Mysteries. We will discuss the Shield
Charm in more detail below, but let us for now content ourselves with the idea that this set of
books was likely not insignificant in expanding Harry’s knowledge of the Dark Arts (and their
defence), and that his practical ability in casting Defensive magic increased dramatically in
the same timeframe.
Practice
This factor is not a complex one. The simple fact is that practising a spell makes you better
at it. This is best seen in GoF, when Harry is practising the Summoning Charm:
And so they practiced. They didn’t have lunch, but headed for a free classroom,
where Harry tried with all his might to make various objects fly across the room
toward him. He was still having problems. The books and quills kept losing heart
halfway across the room and dropping hike stones to the floor
[...]
He forced down some dinner after Divination, then returned to the empty
classroom with Hermione, using the Invisibility Cloak to avoid the teachers.
They kept practicing until past midnight. They would have stayed longer, but
Peeves turned up and, pretending to think that Harry wanted things thrown at
him, started chucking chairs across the room. Harry and Hermione left in a hurry
before the noise attracted Filch, and went back to the Gryffindor common room,
which was now mercifully empty.
At two o’clock in the morning, Harry stood near the fireplace, surrounded by
heaps of objects: books, quills, several upturned chairs, an old set of
Gobstones, and Neville’s toad, Trevor. Only in the last hour had Harry really got
the hang of the Summoning Charm. (GoF Chapter 20)
You might suppose that the virtue of practice is that it improves the active elements of
casting a spell (incantation, wand movement, and in this example the skill of concentrating
on the object). However, it can also be argued that familiarity itself is a factor.
A good example of this is the Patronus Charm. Harry had the incantation down in the first
class, and there doesn’t appear to be any wand movement involved, and yet over the course
of his classes he progresses in the spell. While he doesn’t make the leap to success until he
comes across more powerful happy memories, nonetheless he was making progress when
the only thing that was changing was his familiarity with the spell:
To make matters even worse, Harry’s anti-Dementor lessons were not going
nearly as well as he had hoped. Several sessions on, he was able to produce
an indistinct, silvery shadow every time the Boggart-Dementor approached him,
but his Patronus was too feeble to drive the Dementor away. All it did was hover,
like a semitransparent cloud, draining Harry of energy as he fought to keep it
there. Harry felt angry with himself, guilty about his secret desire to hear his
parents’ voices again.
“You’re expecting too much of yourself,” said Professor Lupin, sternly in their
fourth week of practice. “For a thirteen-year-old wizard, even an indistinct
Patronus is a huge achievement. You aren’t passing out anymore, are you?”
“I thought a Patronus would — charge the Dementors down or something,” said
Harry dispiritedly. “Make them disappear —”
“The true Patronus does do that,” said Lupin. “But you’ve achieved a great deal
in a very short space of time. If the Dementors put in an appearance at your
next Quidditch match, you will be able to keep them at bay long enough to get
back to the ground.” (PoA Chapter 12)
Intuition
This factor is less commonly seen directly but is very important. From the discussion above
about knowledge and practice, you might come to the conclusion that magical ability is all
acquired. But when it comes to the “nature vs nurture” debate, like most abilities, the answer
with magic is “both”.
Take Tom Riddle:
“His powers, as you heard, were surprisingly well-developed for such a young
wizard and — most interestingly and ominously of all — he had already
discovered that he had some measure of control over them, and begun to use
them consciously. And as you saw, they were not the random experiments
typical of young wizards: He was already using magic against other people, to
frighten, to punish, to control…” (HBP Chapter 13)
Another example is Lily Potter (then Evans):
… the girl had let go of the swing at the very height of its arc and flown into the
air, quite literally flown, launched herself skyward with a great shout of laughter,
and instead of crumpling on the playground asphalt, she soared like a trapeze
artist through the air, staying up far too long, landing far too lightly.
[...]
“But I’m fine,” said Lily, still giggling. “Tuney, look at this. Watch what I can do.”
Petunia glanced around. The playground was deserted apart from themselves
and, though the girls did not know it, Snape. Lily had picked up a fallen flower
from the bush behind which Snape lurked. Petunia advanced, evidently torn
between curiosity and disapproval. Lily waited until Petunia was near enough
to have a clear view, then held out her palm. The flower sat there, opening and
closing its petals, like some bizarre, many-lipped oyster. (DH Chapter 23)
It is clear from these passages, which depict magical children developing powers without
study or education, that there is an aspect to magical ability which is not learnt. Certain
people are simply more in touch with magic than others, such that they become aware of it
and gain greater control of it at a younger age, without needing training. This can only be
described as magical instinct or intuition.
We do not need to commit to whether you are born with it or if it rather develops at a very
young age. Most likely, as with other characteristics like intelligence, or musical ability, it is a
mixture of the two.
Nor do we need to commit to the idea that magical instinct is a single property. More likely, it
is the result of many different characteristics coming together.
Natural predispositions
Related to the idea of instinct is a natural predisposition. Just as certain people take to
mathematics over art, or languages over sciences, magical people seem to develop affinities
for certain areas of magic or even particular spells.
We know from Ollivander that these predispositions exist from even before you start learning
magic:
“You have your mother’s eyes. It seems only yesterday she was in here herself,
buying her first wand. Ten and a quarter inches long, swishy, made of willow.
Nice wand for charm work.”
“Your father, on the other hand, favored a mahogany wand. Eleven inches.
Pliable. A little more power and excellent for transfiguration. Well, I say your
father favored it — it’s really the wand that chooses the wizard, of course.”
(PS Chapter 5)
This tells us that wands are predisposed towards certain areas of magic. But it also tells us
that wands match the person they choose. It logically follows that the person whom the wand
matches must have the same predispositions.
Examples of such predispositions are Lockhart’s specialisation in the Obliviation Charm,
Harry’s strength in Defence, and Augusta Longbottom’s skill in Transfiguration while being
bad at Charms. Of course, like predispositions in real life, you still have to work at them, and
they can change based on experience (see Neville, for example).
It may be these predispositions which result in wizards often talking about having “powers”
rather than “power”. If your talent in different areas of magic differs significantly, then it may
well seem to you like each branch of magic is its own separate, isolated power. However, we
also know that there are many wizards who have strong ability in all areas of magic, and
indeed the very strongest wizards - those whose knowledge of magic runs deepest - seem to
be of this type. More on this below.
Emotional state
A person’s emotional state may play an active role in spell casting as a mental performance.
An example of this is the Cruciatus Curse, where we know the caster needs to be enjoying
their victim’s pain for the curse to remain in place4.
However, emotional state also plays a role in spellcasting in a broader sense. For example,
spells cast in anger appear to take on additional force. A good example of this is the
Disarming Charm. Here is what it does normally:
“Expelliarmus!” Lupin shouted.
Harry’s wand flew once more out of his hand; so did the two Hermione was
holding. Lupin caught them all deftly, then moved into the room, staring at Black,
who still had Crookshanks lying protectively across his chest. (PoA Chapter 17)
Functioning normally, the Disarming Charm only disarms. But look what happens when you
cast it in anger:
Snape’s upper lip was curling. Harry wondered why Lockhart was still smiling;
if Snape had been looking at him like that he’d have been running as fast as he
could in the opposite direction.
Lockhart and Snape turned to face each other and bowed; at least, Lockhart
did, with much twirling of his hands, whereas Snape jerked his head irritably.
Then they raised their wands like swords in front of them.
“As you see, we are holding our wands in the accepted combative position,”
Lockhart told the silent crowd. “On the count of three, we will cast our first spells.
Neither of us will be aiming to kill, of course.”
“I wouldn’t bet on that,” Harry murmured, watching Snape baring his teeth.
“One — two — three —”
Both of them swung their wands above their heads and pointed them at their
opponent; Snape cried: “Expelliarmus!” There was a dazzling flash of scarlet
light and Lockhart was blasted off his feet: He flew backward off the stage,
smashed into the wall, and slid down it to sprawl on the floor. (CoS Chapter 11)
There are numerous other examples in the books of the Disarming Charm also throwing a
person backwards when it has been cast aggressively.
Another example of an emotion altering a spell’s behaviour is Harry’s final Patronus in PoA.
This Patronus is noted as being particularly powerful, and yet Harry provided it not with a
traditional happy memory, but with pure certainty:
4 OotP Chapter 36
“Harry, I can’t believe it… You conjured up a Patronus that drove away all those
Dementors! That’s very, very advanced magic.”
“I knew I could do it this time,” said Harry, “because I’d already done it… Does
that make sense?” (PoA Chapter 21)
Confidence, it seems, goes a long way in casting magic. It’s not just the Patronus Charm
either, because over the course of OotP, HBP and DH we see Neville’s magical abilities
increase significantly along with his confidence. Of course it’s not all confidence -- he is
studying Defence a lot more than before, with greater enthusiasm -- but it’s certainly a factor,
especially in spells which require mental performance.
That brings us onto a related issue, which is a person’s long term emotional state. This can
have profound effects upon a wizard or witch. For example, in HBP, Tonks loses her
metamorphmagus powers when she is depressed:
“It’s survivor’s guilt,” said Hermione. “I know Lupin’s tried to talk her round, but
she’s still really down. She’s actually having trouble with her Metamorphosing!”
“With her…?”
“She can’t change her appearance like she used to,” explained Hermione. “I
think her powers must have been affected by shock, or something.”
“I didn’t know that could happen,” said Harry.
“Nor did I,” said Hermione, “but I suppose if you’re really depressed…” (HBP
Chapter 5)
Note that Hermione misdiagnoses the cause of Tonks’ depression, but the fact of her loss of
ability remains. We also see something similar with Merope Gaunt, who is almost a squib
while under the thumb of her father and brother, but once free from them manages to
recover her powers:
“I think you are forgetting,” said Dumbledore, “that Merope was a witch. I do not
believe that her magical powers appeared to their best advantage when she
was being terrorized by her father. Once Marvolo and Morfin were safely in
Azkaban, once she was alone and free for the first time in her life, then, I am
sure, she was able to give full rein to her abilities and to plot her escape from
the desperate life she had led for eighteen years.” (HBP Chapter 10)
Willpower
Willpower is the primary characteristic involved in some powerful but quite specific magical
skills.
We can divide willpower up into three types of mental state, but they all share a
characteristic in common which separates them out from other emotional states: they all
relate to overcoming.
The first type of willpower can be described as determination (or less charitably,
stubbornness) and is the type of willpower involving wanting (or refusing) something. It is the
type of willpower relevant to overcoming other people. We see it in Harry’s refusal to bow to
the Imperius Curse, as well his determination to overcome Voldemort in the Priori
Incantatem in GoF:
He concentrated every last particle of his mind upon forcing the bead back
toward Voldemort, his ears full of phoenix song, his eyes furious, fixed… and
slowly, very slowly, the beads quivered to a halt, and then, just as slowly, they
began to move the other way… and it was Voldemort’s wand that was vibrating
extra-hard now… Voldemort who looked astonished, and almost fearful… (GoF
Chapter 24)
It is also a crucial part of Apparition:
“Step two,” said Twycross, “focus your determination to occupy the visualised
space! Let your yearning to enter it flood from your mind to every particle of
your body! (HBP Chapter 18)
The second type of willpower is focus, or the ability to concentrate hard on a specific thing.
This is the skill underlying spells with specific mental performance like the Summoning
Charm. It is also the skill behind non-verbal casting:
“An answer copied almost word for word from The Standard Book of Spells,
Grade Six,” said Snape dismissively (over in the corner, Malfoy sniggered), “but
correct in essentials. Yes, those who progress in using magic without shouting
incantations gain an element of surprise in their spell-casting. Not all wizards
can do this, of course; it is a question of concentration and mind power which
some” - his gaze lingered maliciously upon Harry once more - “lack.” (HBP
Chapter 9)
Focus is also a part of Apparition:
“Step one: fix your mind firmly upon the desired destination,” said Twycross. “In
this case, the interior of your hoop. Kindly concentrate upon that destination
now.” (HBP Chapter 18)
The third type of willpower is discipline, or self-control. This is the type of willpower at play in
Occlumency, which is all about mastery of your own mind:
“The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when somebody is lying to
him. Only those skilled at Occlumency are able to shut down those feelings and
memories that contradict the lie, and so can utter falsehoods in his presence
without detection.”
[...]
“Manners, Potter,” said Snape dangerously. “Now, I want you to close your
eyes.”
Harry threw him a filthy look before doing as he was told. He did not like the
idea of standing there with his eyes shut while Snape faced him, carrying a
wand.
“Clear your mind, Potter,” said Snape’s cold voice. “Let go of all emotion…”
But Harry’s anger at Snape continued to pound through his veins like venom.
Let go of his anger? He could as easily detach his legs…
“You’re not doing it, Potter… you will need more discipline than this… focus,
now…”
[...]
“...Master yourself!” spat Snape. “Control your anger, discipline your mind! We
shall try again! Get ready, now! Legilimens!” (OotP Chapter 24)
Discipline may also be considered involved in the third element of Apparition, as
“deliberation” has similarities with discipline:
“Step three,” called Twycross, “only when I give the command… turn on the
spot, feeling your way into nothingness, moving with deliberation. On my
command, now… one —” (HBP Chapter 18)
The three Ds of Apparition therefore correspond nicely to these three types of willpower,
making it the only item of magic we know of which involves all three. Of course, these three
mental attributes are not unrelated, as Snape himself notes:
“I have been told that you have already shown aptitude at resisting the Imperius
Curse. You will find that similar powers are needed for this… brace yourself,
now. Legilimens!” (OotP Chapter 24)
Adulthood
Wizards become an adult at age 17, and when they do there appears to be a subtle change
in their magic. We know, for example, that The Trace is unable to track you after you turn 17,
automatically breaking:
“You – you don’t think you’ve still got your Trace on you, do you, Harry?”
“He can’t have,” said Ron. “The Trace breaks at seventeen, that’s Wizarding
law, you can’t put it on an adult.” (DH Chapter 9)
In addition to becoming immune to the Trace, there is the suggestion that becoming an adult
makes your magic more powerful. This is implied by the fake Mad-Eye Moody’s class in
GoF:
“Avada Kedavra’s a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it - you
could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and
I doubt I’d get so much as a nosebleed. But that doesn’t matter. I’m not here to
teach you how to do it.” (GoF Chapter 14)
Now, on the face of it there’s two explanations for this. The first is that Crouch Jr. is referring
to the normal variation in power between individuals based on the factors we have been
discussing. The second is that there is something else at play, some factor which is common
to the entire class which makes Crouch Jr. confident that none of them has the power to cast
the Killing Curse.
The first explanation doesn’t really work, however. Not only does that class contain some
wizards who are unusually powerful relative to their peers (not least Harry), but we also see
in DH that the spectacularly useless wizard Vincent Crabbe is able to cast the Killing Curse:
“It’s that Mudblood! Avada Kedavra!”
Harry saw Hermione dive aside, and his fury that Crabbe had aimed to kill wiped
all else from his mind. (DH Chapter 31)
So Moody really cannot be referring to the normal reasons for differences in power between
individuals. If he were, then certain individuals in that class would definitely qualify as
sufficiently powerful. That means Moody must be referring to some common factor which the
students share, which is divorced from the regular contributing factors to magical power. Age
stands out as the only contender. The principal difference between the students in the
Fourth Year Defence class and Crabbe at age 17 is adulthood.
This isn't conclusive, of course. It could be argued that education rather than age per se is
the difference. But I’m not sure that a 17/18-year-old Crabbe has a superior knowledge of
magic to a 14/15-year-old Hermione Granger, so that seems like a tenuous counter-
argument.
There is one final clue on the matter. In HBP, when Dumbledore and Harry are to cross the
water within the Cave, Voldemort’s boat is enchanted to only let one wizard across -- to
which Dumbledore says this:
“I do not think you will count, Harry: You are underage and unqualified.
Voldemort would never have expected a sixteen-year-old to reach this place: I
think it unlikely that your powers will register compared to mine.” (HBP Chapter
26)
Absent further evidence from Pottermore, I shall assume that turning 17 does indeed change
a wizard’s magic, one of those changes being an increase in magical strength.
Wand
It is a fact of the HP world that some wands are more powerful than others, in addition to
being suited to some tasks more than others as described above. The Elder wand is the
prime example, but it is far from unique to that legendary wand:
When well-matched, an acacia wand matches any for power, though it is often
underrated due to the peculiarity of its temperament.
[...]
Applewood wands are not made in great numbers. They are powerful and best
suited to an owner of high aims and ideals, as this wood mixes poorly with Dark
magic
[...]
Blackthorn … does not necessarily mean that its owner practises the Dark Arts
(although it is undeniable that those who do so will enjoy the blackthorn wand’s
prodigious power)
[...]
… cherry wood often makes a wand that possesses truly lethal power, whatever
the core
[...]
Strong, durable and warm in colour, larch has long been valued as an attractive
and powerful wand wood.
[...]
… I have known laurel wands perform powerful and sometimes lethal magic.
(Pottermore: Wand Woods5)
Under normal conditions, a wand will be matched to its owner such that their characteristics
suit each other. As the wand reflects the traits of the caster, it will be “power neutral”, neither
adding to nor detracting from the power of the spells cast.
However, we know that there is a way to use other people’s wands effectively, despite a lack
of a personal match. This is by winning the wand’s loyalty:
“Hawthorn and unicorn hair. Ten inches precisely. Reasonably springy. This
was the wand of Draco Malfoy.”
5 https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/wand-woods
“Was?” repeated Harry. “Isn’t it still his?”
“Perhaps not. If you took it –”
“—I did – ”
“—then it may be yours. Of course, the manner of taking matters. Much also
depends upon the wand itself. In general, however, where a wand has been
won, its allegiance will change.”
[...]
“I took this wand from Draco Malfoy by force,” said Harry. “Can I use it safely?”
“I think so. Subtle laws govern wand ownership, but the conquered wand will
usually bend its will to its new master.” (DH Chapter 24)
By this method, you can use different wands to your personal match, which will alter spell
behaviour. If you were to win the loyalty of a wand more powerful than your normal wand,
you would be able to cast more powerful spells than usual. This is the mechanism behind
the Elder Wand.
It is a common misconception that the loyalty of all wands can be won simply by disarming
someone. This is true only of the Elder Wand, which is the ultimately disloyal wand:
Now, the reactions will vary from wand to wand. The Elder Wand is simply the
most dispassionate and ruthless of wands in that it will only take into
consideration strength. So one would expect a certain amount of loyalty from
one's wand. So even if you were disarmed while carrying it, even if you lost a
fight while carrying it, it has developed an affinity with you that it will not give up
easily. If, however, a wand is won, properly won in an adult duel, then a wand
may switch allegiance, and it will certainly work better even if it hasn't fully
switched allegiance for the person who won it. ("PotterCast Interviews J.K.
Rowling, part two" PotterCast #131, 24 December 20076)
This point is further confirmed on Pottermore’s Wand Woods article, where wands of Alder,
Blackthorn, Black Walnut, Cedar, Oak, and Spruce are all noted for being particularly loyal.
Of course, a wizard does not have to use a wand:
“Oh yes, if you are any wizard at all you will be able to channel your magic
through almost any instrument. The best results, however, must always come
where there is the strongest affinity between wizard and wand. These
connections are complex. An initial attraction, and then a mutual quest for
experience, the wand learning from the wizard, the wizard from the wand.” (DH
Chapter 24)
6 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1224-pottercast-anelli.html
Despite the fact that most magic we see is performed with a wand, we should never make
the mistake of thinking that the magic comes from the wand, not the wizard. If that we so,
Muggles could use wands to perform magic.
JK Rowling confirmed the role of wands very early on:
You can do unfocused and uncontrolled magic without a wand (for instance
when Harry blows up Aunt Marge), but to do really good spells, yes, you need
a wand. (Red Nose Day Chat, BBC Online, March 12, 20017)
When it comes to wandless magic, we can divide it into two categories. The first is magic
performed with instruments other than wands, as Ollivander refers to in the quote above.
Potions can be considered such a form of wandless magic (more on this below). The second
category is magic cast without any instrument at all.
Within this second category, we can make a further distinction between accidental magic
and controlled magic. It is clear from the quote above that controlled magic without any
instrument is “unfocused”, and not “really good spells”. So we should not expect wizards to
be casting the Patronus Charm with their hands any time soon. This is because wands both
focus magic and increase its power:
The Native American wizarding community was particularly gifted in animal and
plant magic, its potions in particular being of a sophistication beyond much that
was known in Europe. The most glaring difference between magic practised by
Native Americans and the wizards of Europe was the absence of a wand.
The magic wand originated in Europe. Wands channel magic so as to make its
effects both more precise and more powerful, although it is generally held to be
a mark of the very greatest witches and wizards that they have also been able
to produce wandless magic of a very high quality. As the Native American
Animagi and potion-makers demonstrated, wandless magic can attain great
complexity, but Charms and Transfiguration are very difficult without one.
(Pottermore: History of Magic in North America: Fourteenth Century –
Seventeenth Century8)
(This quote also evidences that JK Rowling considers Potions a form of wandless magic,
and therefore not something which Muggles or Squibs would be able to replicate. In that
respect it is no different to casting a spell, which Muggles cannot do even though they could
say the correct words and make the correct wand movements.)
However, as noted in this quote, particularly powerful or skilled wizards do appear to be able
to perform useful magic within this area. We saw above the examples of Lily Potter and Tom
Riddle. Other examples include Quirrell conjuring ropes to bind Harry in PS Chapter 17,
7 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-bbc-rednose.htm8 https://www.pottermore.com/collection-episodic/history-of-magic-in-north-america-en
Remus Lupin conjuring flames with his hand in PoA Chapter 5, and Severus Snape’s
counter-curse on Harry’s broom in PS Chapter 11.
Note that Grindelwald’s wandless magic in Fantastic Beasts 1, in the ICW scene, is only in
the movie itself, not in the script. Regardless, it is clear that more talented wizards can
indeed perform some moderately complex magic with their bare hands.
Events
This is a topic that will be discussed in detail further below, as it goes to some deep points
about the nature of magic itself. For now we will simply note that events and the context of
an action can have powerful magical effects. The prime example of this is Lily’s sacrifice
granting Harry protection. JK Rowling recognised this source of magic explicitly on her old
website:
It is important to state that I always saw these kinds of magic (the very deepest
life and death issues) as essentially un-scientific; in other words, there is no
“Elder Wand + Lily’s Blood = Assured Survival” formula … the power of these
objects and past happenings lie in how they are understood, and how they are
used or enacted upon. Harry has a deeper and truer understanding of the
meaning of the objects and past events...9
Authority
This is a factor which is only hinted at, but there are some clues to suggest that it can play a
role.
In Prisoner of Azkaban, Snape attempts the following:
“Let me see, let me see…” he muttered, taking out his wand and smoothing the
map out on his desk. “Reveal your secret!” he said, touching the wand to the
parchment.
Nothing happened. Harry clenched his hands to stop them from shaking.
“Show yourself!” Snape said, tapping the map sharply.
It stayed blank. Harry was taking deep, calming breaths.
“Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you to yield the
information you conceal!” Snape said, hitting the map with his wand. (PoA
Chapter 14)
So Snape makes several attempts to uncover the secrets of the Marauder’s Map, his final
attempt invoking his position within the school. It appears that Snape believes that his
9
https://web.archive.org/web/20081231104945/http://www.jkrowling.com:80/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=122
authority as teacher will grant his spell a greater chance of success (at least while he is
within Hogwarts).
We see another hint in HBP:
As they flew over the dark, twisting lane down which they had walked earlier,
Harry heard, over the whistling of the night air in his ears, Dumbledore muttering
in some strange language again. He thought he understood why as he felt his
broom shudder for a moment when they flew over the boundary wall into the
grounds: Dumbledore was undoing the enchantments he himself had set
around the castle, so that they could enter at speed. (HBP Chapter 27)
Of course, Dumbledore’s ability to undo the anti-flying enchantments around Hogwarts may
simply be because he put them in place. However, the fact that he has authority as
Headmaster seems to also play a significant role in his ability to cast magic over Hogwarts:
“As you may know, it is usually impossible to Apparate or Disapparate within
Hogwarts. The Headmaster has lifted this enchantment, purely within the Great
Hall, for one hour, so as to enable you to practice. May I emphasise that you
will not be able to Apparate outside the walls of this Hall, and that you would be
unwise to try.” (HBP Chapter 18)
The Anti-Apparition enchantment, of course, far predates Dumbledore’s term as
Headmaster, so he did not place it over the school. Therefore it seems that it is his role as
Headmaster, rather than his status as the caster of the spell, which gives him the ability to
alter the enchantments.
Once we recognise that social authority can carry magical status, we can see that it may be
playing a role in other events. Another type of authority is governmental authority, and the
Ministry of Magic certainly seems to possess powers that individual wizards, or even groups
of wizards, do not. The Trace is one such ability, and another appears to be the Taboo.
While many people consider this to be a spell cast by Voldemort, it in fact appears to be
something which the Ministry does.
There are a few reasons to think this. The first is that Ron speaks about the Taboo like it’s a
piece of general wizarding knowledge, not something new:
"... and how did you find out about the Taboo?" he asked Harry after explaining
the many desperate attempts of Muggle-borns to evade the Ministry."
[...]
“...the name's been jinxed, Harry, that's how they track people! Using his name
breaks protective enchantments, it causes some kind of magical disturbance --
- it's how they found us in Tottenham Court Road!"
"Because we used his name?"
"Exactly! You've got to give them credit, it makes sense. It was only people who
were serious about standing up to him, like Dumbledore, who even dared use
it. Now they've put a Taboo on it, anyone who says it is trackable --- quick-and-
easy way to find Order members! They nearly got Kingsley ---" (DH Chapter 20)
Notice that Ron says “a Taboo” not “the Taboo”. It seems like Taboos are things that are
generally known about, and the only new thing is that Voldemort’s name has been added to
the list of Taboo words.
It is also notable that Voldemort did not Taboo his name until he took over the Ministry.
You’d think if he had been able to Taboo it earlier, he would have, for the same reason of
tracking down his enemies.
One further reason to think that the Taboo is a Ministry power is that standard practice is for
the Snatchers to take those who breach the Taboo to the Ministry:
Harry's heart was pounding against the ropes around his ribs; he would not
have been surprised to know that Greyback could see it. "If you're telling the
truth, ugly, you've got nothing to fear from a trip to the Ministry. I expect your
father'll reward us just for picking you up."
[...]
"To hell with the Ministry." growled Greyback. "They'll take the credit, and we
won't get a look in. I say we take him straight to You-Know-Who."
"Will you summon 'im? 'ere?" said Scabior, sounding awed, terrified.
"No," snarled Greyback, "I haven't got -- they say he's using the Malfoy's place
as a base. We'll take the boy there.” (DH Chapter 23)
From this quote it is clear that going to Malfoy Manor is not normal for people caught
breaking the Taboo. Rather, Taboo operations are normally run out of the Ministry.
If, as seems likely, the Taboo is indeed a Ministry power, then one good explanation for why
this power is exclusive to the Ministry is that the Ministry holds a position of authority within
magical Britain. This raises interesting questions about what constitutes authority, questions
which one imagines magical theory considers, but they go beyond the scope of this
document.
That completes our list of contributing factors to magical ability. We now face the challenge
of putting them together into some kind of system.
Forming a system
Before considering the nature of magical power itself, we will briefly discuss the relationships
between some of the contributing factors towards magical ability.
I have already grouped together the active factors, which are those actions (physical or
mental) which a wizard must perform at the time of casting magic.
However, the passive factors can also be subdivided further.
One obvious grouping is that of “contextual factors”. These are: wand, adulthood, events,
and authority. These are not elements of a wizard’s character, but rather facts of the
situation a wizard finds themselves in.
Another grouping, and one which is more fundamental, is that of knowledge, practice, and
intuition. In a way, these three factors are all aspects of a more basic characteristic, which
we might call understanding of and connection to magic. Knowledge of magic from books,
familiarity with magic from experience, and intuition about the nature of magic all relate to
how much a person understands magic, and how immersed their mind is in magic. We may
also fold natural predispositions into this category.
A further step may be taken, though it is a more speculative one. In reality, knowledge and
instinct/intuition will in fact be determined by a multitude of other, more basic factors.
Knowledge, for example, will be determined not just by having read something, but also by
having the intelligence to understand it. On top of that, different people understand things
differently, depending on their world view, the other knowledge they possess to provide
context, and their values. All those things will contribute to knowledge. Similarly, a person’s
intuitions are not a brute fact, but are often derived from their experiences as well as the vital
ingredient of how their mind works (i.e. their brain chemistry and biology). Again, these
factors will contribute to a person’s understanding of magic.
What I am getting towards here is the idea that the key factor in magical power is a person’s
connection to magic -- that is, how they view and understand magic -- which is in turn an
expression of so many disparate characteristics, both mental and biological, that the nature
of a person’s magic is an expression of that person’s entire character and experiences.
From the evidence presented in section on knowledge, I believe it is these understanding
characteristics which separate out the great wizards from the merely good. Because deep
understanding of magic is what marks out the Voldemorts and Dumbledores of the world, I
give these understanding factors by far the greatest weighing in the calculation of magical
power. While true understanding of magic is not necessary to use magic, it is necessary to
reach the heights of magical power, as well as to cast advanced spells.
Further, from the fact that the true prodigies like Dumbledore, Voldemort and Grindelwald all
were achieving significant magical insight from a young age, it seems likely that intuition is
the most important of the understanding factors. While intuition will not result in much without
further work and study to acquire knowledge, it is impossible to be a Dumbledore-level
wizard without it. Someone like Hermione, who is intelligent and hardworking, will never
achieve “Dumbledore status”, no matter how many years she works at it. Unfortunately for
Hermione, she just lacks that special spark of genius and insight that separates out the
magical heavyweights from the normal wizards. Wizards like Dumbledore are already
pushing the limits of known magic in their youth. To that extent and that extent only, we
might say that wizards like Dumbledore are born, not made.
We complete this section with a handy diagram to summarise the contributing factors to
magical ability:
The nature of power itself
The question arises: what is the nature of a wizard’s power? We know from the above
discussion which factors influence it, but what actually is it?
Many people answer this question by proposing that power is a property wizards possess in
addition to the factors I have discussed above. My fundamental thesis, however, is that this
idea contradicts all of the textual evidence I have already presented. Wizards discuss power,
and we see the effects of power, as being influenced by those factors. Power is therefore a
property which emerges out of the contributing factors, not something separate to them.
To be clear, I am not saying that magical power does not exist. The thesis is not (as some
people argue) “there is no such thing as magical power, only magical skill”. Rather I am
saying that a person’s power is a complex, multi-polar property determined by a number of
factors, rather than a simple point on a linear scale which is fixed at birth.
We see the reality of magical power in numerous places:
“Avada Kedavra’s a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it - you
could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and
I doubt I’d get so much as a nosebleed. But that doesn’t matter. I’m not here to
teach you how to do it (GoF Chapter 14)
And:
There was no benign smile upon Dumbledore’s face, no twinkle in the eyes
behind the spectacles. There was cold fury in every line of the ancient face; a
sense of power radiated from Dumbledore as though he were giving off burning
heat. (GoF Chapter 35)
And:
“Listen to me, Cornelius,” said Dumbledore, taking a step toward Fudge, and
once again, he seemed to radiate that indefinable sense of power that Harry
had felt after Dumbledore had Stunned young Crouch.
[...]
“You are blinded,” said Dumbledore, his voice rising now, the aura of power
around him palpable, his eyes blazing once more, “by the love of the office you
hold, Cornelius.” (GoF Chapter 36)
And:
Dumbledore flicked his own wand: the force of the spell that emanated from it
was such that Harry, though shielded by his golden guard, felt his hair stand on
end as it passed and this time Voldemort was forced to conjure a shining silver
shield out of thin air to deflect it. (OotP Chapter 36)
There can be no doubt, I think, that magical power is a real magical property which has its
own presence. It is not just a shorthand way of referring to the complex mix of factors I
described above. However, the fact that power is real does not imply anything about what
determines that power. On that front, I hope I have demonstrated the many different factors
which contribute to power in canon.
It is important to note that a wizard’s power is not quantifiable. Magic is not a fuel which
wizards use up, but rather a property they possess. We know this from several sources.
The first is from JK Rowling herself, in her discussion on Squibs and the entry requirements
to Hogwarts:
Everyone who shows magical ability before their eleventh birthday will
automatically gain a place at Hogwarts; there is no question of not being
‘magical enough’; you are either magical or you are not. There is no obligation
to take up the place, however; a family might not want their child to attend
Hogwarts. (From JK Rowling’s old website10)
Emphasis mine.
… A Squib is almost the opposite of a Muggle-born wizard: he or she is a non-
magical person born to at least one magical parent.
… Sometimes they find a way to fit in; Filch has carved himself a niche at
Hogwarts and Arabella Figg operates as Dumbledore’s liaison between the
magical and Muggle worlds. Neither of these characters can perform magic
(Filch’s Kwikspell course never worked) (From JK Rowling’s old website11)
Again, emphasis mine.
So JK Rowling herself states that in magical power is not something that you can quantify,
you just have it or not. A Squib is not a very weak wizard; they have the same magic as a
Muggle: zero.
The second source is from HBP:
Dumbledore chuckled. “Voldemort will not have cared about the weight, but
about the amount of magical power that crossed his lake. I rather think an
enchantment will have been placed upon this boat so that only one wizard at a
time will be able to sail in it.” (HBP Chapter 26)
This quote shows that the way to “measure” amount magical power is simply to count the
number of wizards, meaning that each wizard’s power is binary - as JK Rowling said, you
either have it, or you don’t. (Note also the follow-up to this quote in the section “Adulthood”,
where only adult wizards are counted by the boat).
The third source is that, in more general terms, we never see wizards get tired out by using
magic in any of the books, contrary to what you’d expect if they were expending some kind
of quantifiable “magic fuel”. To this some people suggest that Harry’s Patronus lessons are
an example of becoming tired from magic use:
Harry’s anti-Dementor lessons were not going nearly as well as he had hoped.
Several sessions on, he was able to produce an indistinct, silvery shadow every
time the Boggart-Dementor approached him, but his Patronus was too feeble
to drive the Dementor away. All it did was hover, like a semitransparent cloud,
draining Harry of energy as he fought to keep it there. (PoA Chapter 12)
10
https://web.archive.org/web/20090125132453/http://www.jkrowling.com:80/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=9111
https://web.archive.org/web/20081216084322/http://www.jkrowling.com:80/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19
However, it is clear that the effects of the Dementor’s presence, not the Patronus itself,
causes this draining effect. See Lupin’s comment on the effects of Dementors:
“Yes,” he said, straightening up, “Black must have found a way to fight them. I
wouldn’t have believed it possible… Dementors are supposed to drain a wizard
of his powers if he is left with them too long…” (PoA Chapter 10)
We also see this when Lupin gives Harry chocolate to help him recover from the feeling, a
cure for the effects of Dementors:
There was a loud crack, and Harry’s cloudy Patronus vanished along with the
Dementor; he sank into a chair, feeling as exhausted as if he’d just run a mile,
and felt his legs shaking.
[...]
He [Lupin] handed Harry a large bar of Honeydukes’ best chocolate.
[...]
He [Harry] felt drained and strangely empty, even though he was so full of
chocolate. (PoA Chapter 12)
Another way we know that the draining feeling is from the effects of the Dementors is that
Harry does not feel drained after casting the Patronus (a corporeal one at that) against
Draco Malfoy et al. dressed up as Dementors:
Three Dementors, three tall, black, hooded Dementors, were looking up at him.
He didn’t stop to think. Plunging a hand down the neck of his robes, he whipped
out his wand and roared, “Expecto Patronum!”
Something silver-white, something enormous, erupted from the end of his
wand. He knew it had shot directly at the Dementors but didn’t pause to watch;
his mind still miraculously clear, he looked ahead — he was nearly there. He
stretched out the hand still grasping his wand and just managed to close his
fingers over the small, struggling Snitch.
[...]
Harry turned around to see Professor Lupin, who looked both shaken and
pleased.
“The Dementors didn’t affect me at all!” Harry said excitedly. “I didn’t feel a
thing!” (PoA 13)
From these three sources it should be clear that magical power is not quantifiable -- wizards
do not have different quantities of magic, nor does a wizard’s magic change in quantity over
time.
What then is the difference in power between wizards? The alternative explanation is that
the difference is one of quality, not quantity. As should be clear from the “Contributing
Factors” section, this difference in quality should perhaps be better described as differences
in qualities, plural. When one wizard’s power is being compared to another, they are
comparing the sum of their entire aptitude with magic, based on all those factors.
This is reinforced by the way wizards will frequently consider power and aptitude with magic
to be interchangeable:
“Imagining things, am I?” growled Moody. “Seeing things, eh? It was a skilled
witch or wizard who put the boy’s name in that goblet…”
“Ah, what evidence is zere of zat?” said Madame Maxime, throwing up her huge
hands.
“Because they hoodwinked a very powerful magical object!” said Moody. “It
would have needed an exceptionally strong Confundus Charm to bamboozle
that goblet into forgetting that only three schools compete in the tournament…
(GoF Chapter 17)
Another:
“Without his Horcruxes, Voldemort will be a mortal man with a maimed and
diminished soul. Never forget, though, that while his soul may be damaged
beyond repair, his brain and his magical powers remain intact. It will take
uncommon skill and power to kill a wizard like Voldemort even without his
Horcruxes.” (HBP Chapter 23)
And a third:
“... Your wand now contained the power of your enormous courage and of
Voldemort’s own deadly skill: What chance did that poor stick of Lucius Malfoy’s
stand?” (DH Chapter 35)
One last one:
Blank shock showed in Voldemort’s face for a moment, but then it was gone.
“But what does it matter?” he said softly. “Even if you are right, Potter, it makes
no difference to you and me. You no longer have the phoenix wand: We duel
on skill alone . . . and after I have killed you, I can attend to Draco Malfoy . . .”
(DH Chapter 36)
Witchcraft and wizardryNow that we have considered the nature of a wizard’s innate power, we will next consider
the nature of that power in use. Primarily this will constitute an examination of what spells
are and how they work. In doing so we will focus considerably (but not exclusively) upon the
Shield Charm. The reason for this is simply that the Shield Charm is one of the spells we see
the most of, and so it works as a useful case study.
Case Study: The Shield Charm
We shall start off by noting that the Shield Charm varies considerably in power. When Harry
first learns it in GoF, his Shield Charm is extremely weak:
He was still having trouble with the Shield Charm, though. This was supposed
to cast a temporary, invisible wall around himself that deflected minor curses;
Hermione managed to shatter it with a well-placed Jelly-Legs Jinx, and Harry
wobbled around the room for ten minutes afterward before she had looked up
the counter-jinx. (GoF Chapter 31)
Contrast this with the situation at the end of OotP:
For a moment he thought he had dropped the prophecy, but then he saw
Moody’s magical eye spinning away across the floor.
Its owner was lying on his side, bleeding from the head, and his attacker was
now bearing down upon Harry and Neville: Dolohov, his long pale face twisted
with glee.
“Tarantallegra!” he shouted, his wand pointing at Neville, whose legs went
immediately into a kind of frenzied tap-dance, unbalancing him and causing him
to fall to the floor again. “Now, Potter -”
He made the same slashing movement with his wand that he had used on
Hermione just as Harry yelled, “Protego!”
Harry felt something streak across his face like a blunt knife; the force of it
knocked him sideways and he fell over Neville’s jerking legs, but the Shield
Charm had stopped the worst of the spell.(OotP Chapter 35)
And then in HBP:
“Pathetic, Weasley,” said Snape, after a while. “Here — let me show you —”
He turned his wand on Harry so fast that Harry reacted instinctively; all thought
of nonverbal spells forgotten, he yelled, “Protego!”
His Shield Charm was so strong Snape was knocked off-balance and hit a desk.
The whole class had looked around and now watched as Snape righted himself,
scowling. (HBP Chapter 9)
So Harry’s Shield Charm goes from barely being able to stop a minor jinx to being able to
block powerful spells from some of the most powerful wizards around. What does this tell
us? It tells us that the wizarding world does not have many different Shield Charms of
varying strength, but rather just the one Shield Charm that can be cast weakly or strongly,
depending on the abilities of the caster.
We will next note that the Shield Charm can vary considerably in effect. It blocks spells as
above, but we see its behaviour change in different situations. For example, it can also
reflect spells:
“Stupefy!” yelled Harry. He had edged right around to where the goblin stood
beaming up at the now headless wizard and taken aim at her back as she
peered around the fountain. She reacted so fast he barely had time to duck.
“Protego!”
The jet of red light, his own Stunning Spell, bounced back at him. Harry
scrambled back behind the fountain and one of the goblin’s ears went flying
across the room. (OotP Chapter 36)
Another change is that it can be used to block physical things:
"You -- crawl -- back -- here -- after -- weeks -- and -- weeks -- oh, where's my
wand?"
She looked as though ready to wrestle it out of Harry's hands and he reacted
instinctively.
"Protego!"
The invisible shield erupted between Ron and Hermione. The force of it
knocked her backward onto the floor. Spitting hair out of her mouth, she leapt
up again. (DH Chapter 19)
And:
“Harry, I think I can hear people coming!” said Hermione, and she pointed
Bellatrix’s wand at the waterfall and cried, “Protego!” They saw the Shield
Charm break the flow of enchanted water as it flew up the passageway. (DH
Chapter 26)
Further, the shape and size of the Shield Charm can change. We know from the GoF quote
above that its “normal” behaviour is to form an “invisible wall around” the caster. But it can
also be used as, for example, a wall:
Harry felt as though he turned into slow motion: he saw McGonagall, Kingsley
and Slughorn blasted backward, flailing and writhing through the air, as
Voldemort's fury at the fall of his last, best lieutenant exploded with the force of
a bomb. Voldemort raised his wand and directed it at Molly Weasley.
"Protego!" roared Harry, and the Shield Charm expanded in the middle of the
Hall, and Voldemort stared around for the source as Harry pulled off the
Invisibility Cloak at last. (DH Chapter 36).
Finally we will note that with changes to the incantation, the effect of the spell can be
changed more substantially. For example, its use as a long term, large scale protection:
“If we’re staying, we should put some protective enchantments around the
place,” she replied, and raising her wand, she began to walk in a wide circle
around Harry and Ron, murmuring incantations as she went. Harry saw little
disturbances in the surrounding air: It was as if Hermione had cast a heat haze
upon their clearing. “Salvio Hexia . . . Protego Totalum . . . Repello Muggletum
. . . Muffliato . . . You could get out the tent, Harry. . . .” (DH Chapter 14).
And:
“I can act from here,” said Flitwick, and although he could barely see out of it,
he pointed his wand through the smashed window and started muttering
incantations of great complexity. Harry heard a weird rushing noise, as though
Flitwick had unleashed the power of the wind into the grounds.
“Professor,” Harry said, approaching the little Charms master, “Professor, I’m
sorry to interrupt, but this is important. Have you got any idea where the diadem
of Ravenclaw is?”
“— Protego Horribilis — the diadem of Ravenclaw?” squeaked Flitwick. (DH
Chapter 30)
We don’t know what “Protego Horribilis” does, but the incantation (and its use in battle) may
suggest that it is a kind of “horrible protection” which harms those who attempt to breach it.
Alternatively it may be a variation which makes the shield stronger than normal against Dark
magic.
So we see that the Shield Charm varies considerably in behaviour. It is not the case that
there exist many different Shield Charms, each protecting you from a different class of
threats, or acting in different ways. Rather, there is just one Shield Charm, which is used to
protect against all potentially harmful things, and which can be adjusted to perform different
tasks depending on the ability and intention of the caster. We should also pay attention to
the fact that the more extreme changes require a change in the incantation.
Note that the Shield Charm’s ability to vary in effect does not mean it is always the most
appropriate protective spell. For example, to prevent a large number of objects from touching
you, the Impervius Charm is more appropriate:
With screams of pain Ron, Hermione, and the two goblins were knocked aside
into other objects, which also began to replicate. Half buried in a rising tide of
red-hot treasure, they struggled and yelled as Harry thrust the sword through
the handle of Hufflepuff’s cup, hooking it onto the blade.
“Impervius!” screeched Hermione in an attempt to protect herself, Ron, and the
goblins from the burning metal.
Then the worst scream yet made Harry look down: Ron and Hermione were
waist-deep in treasure, struggling to keep Bogrod from slipping beneath the
rising tide, but Griphook had sunk out of sight and nothing but the tips of a few
long fingers were left in view. (DH Chapter 26)
This Charm allowed Ron and Hermione to stand waist-deep in objects hot enough to burn a
hole in Ron’s shoe, though it didn’t prevent the Goblins from becoming submerged beneath
them. The Shield Charm might have been able to achieve the same, but in the confined
quarters of the vault, with the objects already pressing in on them, the Impervius Charm was
probably the correct decision.
Another example of the Shield Charm being inappropriate is if you believe someone is about
to kill you (i.e. use the Killing Curse). In that situation, you will want to conjure a physical
defence:
Dumbledore flicked his own wand: the force of the spell that emanated from it
was such that Harry, though shielded by his golden guard, felt his hair stand on
end as it passed and this time Voldemort was forced to conjure a shining silver
shield out of thin air to deflect it. The spell, whatever it was, caused no visible
damage to the shield, though a deep, gong-like note reverberated from it - an
oddly chilling sound.
“You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?” called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes
narrowed over the top of the shield. (OotP Chapter 36)
That completes our analysis of the Shield Charm. We can now draw some more general
conclusions from this case study.
Spells as ideas given magical reality
The first conclusion to be drawn is that, in general, redundant spells do not exist.
We can see this from the lack of numerous Shield Charms of different strengths and
characteristics. There’s just the one Shield Charm, which is flexible such that the caster can
have it do different things. This variation depends on both the caster’s intent but also on their
magical ability. Intending something is not enough -- you also have to be good enough at
magic to achieve your intent.
The lack of redundancy is backed up by the way wizards speak about spells. They talk about
the Shield Charm, the Summoning Charm, the Stunning Charm, and so on. They do this
because there aren’t lots of different Stunning Charms with tiny variations. Rather there is
one Stunning Charm that varies in strength and (presumably) effect depending on the
caster.
This explains why wizards like Aurors still use the Stunning Charm in serious fights, even
though it can be learnt by a moderately talented Fourth Year like Harry: spells do not have a
set level of strength, but rather their power scales up with the caster. Learning a spell early
on in your education is no indication that it is weak, because as you become a better wizard,
so too will the spell become more powerful and versatile. This also accounts for why wizards
will generally refer to magic studied in later years as “advanced” rather than “powerful”. Any
magic can be powerful, in the hands of the right wizard. But not all magic is advanced (i.e.
complex).
The second conclusion is that spells exist on a continuum, not as discrete, unchanging
objects. If you want to change the effect of the Shield Charm in a small way -- for example,
by making it reflect spells rather than block them -- you can do this without having the alter
the spell much. The incantation remains “Protego”, it’s just the effect changes a bit. But if
you want to make a more extreme change -- for example, casting the spell as an enduring
protection over a large area -- then this means you have to change the incantation slightly
(by adding “Totalum”).
We see this with other spells as well. Consider the relationship between the Leg-Locker
Curse:
Little did Harry know that Ron and Hermione had been secretly practicing the
Leg-Locker Curse. They’d gotten the idea from Malfoy using it on Neville, and
were ready to use it on Snape if he showed any sign of wanting to hurt Harry.
“Now, don’t forget, it’s Locomotor Mortis,” Hermione muttered as Ron slipped
his wand up his sleeve. (PS Chapter 13)
And the Locomotion Charm:
Professor Flitwick went scurrying after them, his wand held out before him; he
squeaked “Locomotor trunks!” and Professor Trelawney’s luggage rose into the
air and proceeded up the staircase after her, Professor Flitwick bringing up the
rear. (OotP Chapter 26)
They have the same “root” for their incantation (“Locomotor”) and they both relate to
movement. One happens to stop movement (via the addition of “Mortis”) whereas the other
causes it.
The limit of what changes you can make without altering the incantation is likely flexible and
depends on the skill of the caster. For example, while casting the large Shield Charm over
the campsite required a change to the incantation, Harry’s wall-like Shield Charm before his
DH confrontation with Voldemort (which, given the size of the Great Hall, is likely on a similar
scale to the campsite Charm) did not. Had Harry become so proficient with the Shield Charm
by this point that he could perform the “Totalum” part non-verbally? It’s entirely possible,
especially as the Shield Charm is one of Harry’s strengths. It would not be the only example
of a part of an incantation becoming mental rather than enunciated: we see the Summoning
Charm cast both by naming the object you wish to summon, and with just the incantation
“Accio”:
He raised his wand once more. “Accio Dictionary!” The heavy book soared out
of Hermione’s hand, flew across the room, and Harry caught it. (GoF Chapter
20)
And:
Mrs. Weasley pointed her wand at George’s pocket and said, “Accio!”
Several small, brightly colored objects zoomed out of George’s pocket; he
made a grab for them but missed, and they sped right into Mrs. Weasley’s
outstretched hand. (GoF Chapter 6)
Regardless, it is clear that different variations of the same spell have relationships to each
other, such that a skilled caster can turn one variation of the spell into another variation, if
necessary by modifying the incantation.
Of course, there is a limit to how much you can change the spell. You cannot use a Shield
Charm to conjure a rabbit. However, on this topic we can once again we see a continuum
rather than a hard limit. If you push a spell to its limits, then push it even further, it simply
becomes a different but related spell. The fact that the Locomotion Charm and the Leg-
Locker Curse are referred to as such would indicate that the difference between them is
sufficient to justify their separate classification, but they are nonetheless clearly related.
So it’s not just variations of a single spell that have relationships with each other. Two
different spells can also be closely related. The picture we are building up here is of spells
not as discrete objects isolated from each other, but as points on a complex web. Those who
can “speak” magic fluently can navigate this web, pushing spells in different directions by
varying their effects to incorporate new elements. If you keep altering a spell, adding more
and more changes to its behaviour, then it becomes a different spell -- a new point on the
web.
The third conclusion we can draw arises naturally out of the first two, as well as our Shield
Charm case study. This is that spells are defined by what they do. Redundant spells do not
exist simply because, having the same effect, they would be the same spell.
A good example of “definition by result” is the Killing Curse, which simply makes things
dead. There is no cause of death, it simply kills things:
The police had never read an odder report. A team of doctors had examined
the bodies and had concluded that none of the Riddles had been poisoned,
stabbed, shot, strangled, suffocated, or (as far as they could tell) harmed at all.
In fact (the report continued, in a tone of unmistakable bewilderment), the
Riddles all appeared to be in perfect health — apart from the fact that they were
all dead. (GoF Chapter 1)
Another way of phrasing this, once you break it down, is to say that spells represent ideas
given magical reality. This is because “what a spell does” is essentially a description of an
effect, and a description is in turn a combination of concepts.
For example, the Shield Charm can be described as follows: it creates an omni-directional
effect around the person which nullifies things which would cause harm to the person. This
involves the following concepts: harm, modality, personhood, omni-directionality,
nullification.
This also gives substance to the “web” of relationships between spells. When you vary the
Shield Charm, what are you doing? Well, if you are making it a wall, then you are swapping
out the concept of omni-directionality for bi-directionality. If you are casting it on another
person rather than yourself, you are swapping out the idea of personhood for other-
personhood. If you want it to reflect rather than block, you’re swapping the idea of
nullification for reversal. You can even swap the concept of “harm” for “contact” to use it as a
simple wall, as in DH where Harry uses it to separate Ron and Hermione (and, on another
occasion, when Hermione uses it to separate Harry and Ron).
However, I am keen to combat the idea (which the above description unfortunately invites)
that magical theory represents analytic philosophy. This is a result of the high level of
abstraction we are operating at. What we are currently discussing is not really magical
theory as wizards would employ it. Rather we are discussing “meta-magic”, or what you
might call Philosophy of Magic.
I picture actual magical theory -- the stuff that is studied at Hogwarts, the stuff that helps
wizards actually use magic -- as substantially more mystical. The components of magical
theory would be symbols and images, mystical powers, Platonic Forms, the elements, and
so on. It would draw on ideas found in traditional folklore, the occult, ancient philosophy, and
medieval disciplines such as alchemy. Only at a deeper, more abstract level would these
theoretical ingredients map onto a conceptual web as described above.
For an illustrative example of this, please see the section “Content of Magical Theory” under
the heading “Speculation” below.
.
Magical Theory
In the section “Contributing Factors” above, we concluded that understanding magic was a
key element of becoming a powerful and capable wizard. A major component of this in turn
was knowledge of magic, which is known by wizards as “magical theory”. We will now
consider the structure of this magical theory.
We will first note that individual spells have a lot of spell-specific theory to them. For
example, Harry had a lot of reading to do on the Summoning Charm:
Professor Flitwick had asked them to read three extra books in preparation for
their lesson on Summoning Charms. (GoF Chapter 15)
They also write essays about aspects of individual spells:
“Before we start, I want your dementor essays,” said Snape, waving his wand
carelessly, so that twenty-five scrolls of parchment soared into the air and
landed in a neat pile on his desk. “And I hope for your sakes they are better
than the tripe I had to endure on resisting the Imperius Curse. (HBP Chapter
21)
And:
“You know, we probably should try and get more homework done during the
week,” Harry muttered to Ron, as they finally laid aside Professor McGonagall’s
long essay on the Inanimatus Conjurus Spell and turned miserably to Professor
Sinistra’s equally long and difficult essay about Jupiter’s many moons. (OotP
Chapter 14)
When so much can be written about single spells, it is easy to see how the Hogwarts’ library
is so large.
However, we also observed above that spells are related to each other. We see this too in
magical theory, where similar spells share magical theory in common. I refer to these as
“spell families”. This terminology is uncanonical but the phenomenon is not.
For example, there is a common body of theory which underpins all “Cross-Species
Switches”:
It was the end of the lesson; they had finished their work; the guinea fowl they
had been changing into guinea pigs had been shut away in a large cage on
Professor McGonagall’s desk (Neville’s still had feathers); they had copied
down their homework from the blackboard (“Describe, with examples, the ways
in which Transforming Spells must be adapted when performing Cross-Species
Switches”). (GoF Chapter 22)
It is also something we see more generally in the way Transfiguration is taught. The
transformations which students practice in Transfiguration are always specific, such as a
matchstick into a needle (PS Chapter 8), a beetle into a button (CoS Chapter 6) and a teapot
into a tortoise (PoA Chapter 16). Nonetheless it is clear that the students are expected to be
able to perform other transformations of the same type to the one they are practising. For
example, when studying Vanishing, McGonagall makes it clear that being able to vanish one
invertebrate implies the ability to vanish others, but that vanishing vertebrates is a more
advanced skill:
“As I was saying: the Vanishing Spell becomes more difficult with the complexity
of the animal to be Vanished. The snail, as an invertebrate, does not present
much of a challenge; the mouse, as a mammal, offers a much greater one. This
is not, therefore, magic you can accomplish with your mind on your dinner. So
- you know the incantation, let me see what you can do…” (OotP Chapter 15)
So we have theory relating to specific spells, and theory relating to spell families. The next
level is that of an entire branch of magic, such as Charms or Transfiguration. It is clear that
each branch has its own discrete body of theory. The best example we have of this is
Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration (DH Chapter 29), a rule of magic which applies to
the entire branch of Transfiguration (but presumably not beyond that branch). In addition to
such rules, there are is also theory about how that body of magic works:
Hermione seemed to have no answer to this. She merely scowled and twitched
her essay on The Principles of Rematerialisation away from Ron, who was
trying to read it upside down. (HBP Chapter 10)
The next level is that of general magical theory. These are principles of magic which apply
across all branches. An example of such theory is the inability to return the dead to life:
“No spell can reawaken the dead,” said Dumbledore heavily. “All that would
have happened is a kind of reverse echo. A shadow of the living Cedric would
have emerged from the wand… am I correct, Harry?” (GoF Chapter 36)
We also have a glimpse of such theory in the book list for Harry’s first year:
The Standard Book of Spells (Grade 1) by Miranda Goshawk
A History of Magic by Bathilda Bagshot
Magical Theory by Adalbert Waffling
A Beginners’ Guide to Transfiguration by Emeric Switch
One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi by Phyllida Spore
Magical Drafts and Potions by Arsenius Jigger
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them by Newt Scamander
The Dark Forces: A Guide to Self-Protection by Quentin Trimble (PS Chapter
5)
This book does not correspond to any specific class; it appears to be a general reference
work which the other, more specific, classes can refer to.
We noted above that knowledge of magic is an important factor which underpins a person’s
spellcasting. On that front it is interesting to note that all the most powerful witches and
wizards are generalists. Dumbledore and Voldemort’s duel in OotP Chapter 36 shows that
they are both experts in Transfiguration and Charms, as well as having knowledge of the
Dark Arts and their defence. Snape’s duel with McGonagall demonstrates the same in DH
Chapter 30. The Marauders were talented in both Transfiguration and Charms, given their
achievements of both becoming Animagi and creating the Marauder’s Map.
Given everything we have discussed, this should be no surprise. If knowledge of how magic
works underpins practical ability with magic, and if the greatest wizards have the deepest
understanding of magic, then their understanding will encompass general magical theory
which underpins all the branches of magic. It therefore makes sense that they are all
generalists, because the same set of knowledge is the root of all forms of magic.
This leads us onto the issue of Harry’s Sectumsempra in HBP Chapter 24. Harry casts this
spell in his duel with Draco Malfoy without knowing anything about what it does. How, if we
say that understanding is required to cast powerful, advanced magic, is Harry able to cast a
spell in almost complete ignorance?
But Harry isn’t ignorant. He’s been at magic school for over five years by this point, and has
made a point of studying how to defend against the Dark Arts (which necessarily includes
studying the Dark Arts themselves; more on that below). He doesn’t forget everything he
knows about magic generally or the Dark Arts specifically just because he doesn’t know
what that specific spell does. His advanced knowledge of Dark magic will underpin his
casting of Sectumsempra. That is why he can successfully cast Sectumsempra in ignorance
of its effect as a sixth year, but attempting the same as a first year would not result in a
powerful curse.
Transfiguration
What Transfiguration can do
Transfiguration is the branch of magic concerned with altering a thing’s physical composition
and structure - what JK Rowling refers to as an object’s “fundamental nature”:
“Every now and then somebody asks me for the difference between a spell, a
charm and a hex. Within the Potter world, the boundaries are flexible, and I
imagine that wizards may have their own ideas. Hermione-ish, however, I've
always had a working theory:
Spell: The generic term for a piece of magic.
Charm: Does not fundamentally alter the properties of the subject of the spell,
but adds, or changes, properties. Turning a teacup into a rat would be a spell,
whereas making a teacup dance would be a charm. The grey area comes with
things like 'Stunning Spells', which on balance I think are Charms, but which I
call spells for alliterative effect.” (JK Rowling’s Old Website: Spell Definitions12)
Although JK Rowling phrases this as the difference between “Charms” and “Spells”, from the
example of “turning a teacup into a rat” she’s clearly talking about Transfiguration. A Charm,
unlike a Transfiguration, is stated to “not fundamentally alter the properties of the subject”,
which means that the reverse holds: Transfiguration does fundamentally alter the properties
of the subject.
JK Rowling has been consistent on this. As early as 1998 she stated:
“With a charm you add properties to something. With a transfiguration you
change its nature completely; the molecular structure alters.” (The Herald, 7
December 199813)
The change that Transfiguration makes is a permanent one. We know this from two sources.
The first is the pig’s tail that Hagrid gave Dudley, which did not go away on its own and had
to be surgically removed:
Dudley had emerged from his last encounter with a fully grown wizard with a
curly pig’s tail poking out of the seat of his trousers, and Aunt Petunia and Uncle
Vernon had had to pay for its removal at a private hospital in London. (GoF
Chapter 4)
The second is from the legend of Quintapeds in the companion book Fantastic Beasts and
Where to Find Them:
In retaliation, so the story has it, a gang of McCliverts surrounded the MacBoon
dwellings one night and Transfigured each and every MacBoon into a
monstrous five-legged creature. [...] The Quintapeds cannot talk and have
strenuously resisted every attempt by the Department for the Regulation and
Control of magical Creatures to capture a specimen and try to untransfigure it…
(Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them: Quintaped)
Now, no one knows if the legend of the Quintapeds’ origin is true or not. But the key part is
that wizards, including the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures,
consider the story credible enough that they have attempted Untransfiguration. That means
that the story -- including the permanence of the Transfiguration performed -- is within the
realm of Transfiguration possibility.
So Transfiguration is not some kind of tactile illusion. It is not that the original object lurks
“beneath” a layer of Transfiguration magic. Rather, the object is fundamentally, physically
changed into a different object.
12
https://web.archive.org/web/20081206021934/http://www.jkrowling.com:80/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=2413 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/1298-herald-simpson.html
The permanence of Transfiguration also makes sense. Since Transfiguration is a physical
change, there’s no reason for the object to revert to its previous state. Physical objects do
not spontaneously turn into other objects in the absence of magic. You would need some
new magical intervention to make a further change.
Transfiguration can be reversed with Untransfiguration:
“I would also advise Transfiguration, because Aurors frequently need to
Transfigure or Untransfigure in their work. And I ought to tell you now, Potter,
that I do not accept students into my NEWT classes unless they have achieved
‘Exceeds Expectations’ or higher at Ordinary Wizarding Level.” (OotP Chapter
29)
But the possibility of Untransfiguration does not mean that the original object is still there,
“underneath”. We know from Dumbledore that magic always leaves traces:
“How did you know that was there?” Harry asked in astonishment.
“Magic always leaves traces,” said Dumbledore, as the boat hit the bank with a
gentle bump, “sometimes very distinctive traces. I taught Tom Riddle. I know
his style.” (HBP Chapter 26)
So from what we know about the nature of Transfiguration as a fundamental change,
Untransfiguration would appear to be a reversal of that change, not a removal of it.
It is worth noting that Transfiguration magic is in general powerful:
“Your father, on the other hand, favored a mahogany wand. Eleven inches.
Pliable. A little more power and excellent for transfiguration.” (PS Chapter 5)
In addition to transforming objects, Transfiguration can also be used to make objects
disappear (Vanishment or Vanishing) and appear (Conjuration).
Vanishing can be partial or complete:
They looked round at Harry as he browsed the shelves for the book he needed
on Partial Vanishment (OotP Chapter 26)
Vanishing works by sending the object into “non-being”:
“Where do Vanished objects go?”
“Into non-being, which is to say, everything,” replied Professor McGonagall.
(DH Chapter 30)
It may briefly be worth observing, in an attempt to make sense of this, that an object which
does not exist (i.e. one in “non-being”) cannot have a location. Only things that exist have a
location. So, having no location, non-existent things could be said to be everywhere and
everything, at the same time as being nothing.
McGonagall contrasts Vanishing with Conjuration, implying that they are opposites:
“Yes, you too, Longbottom,” said Professor McGonagall. “There’s nothing
wrong with your work except lack of confidence. So… today we are starting
Vanishing Spells. These are easier than Conjuring Spells, which you would not
usually attempt until NEWT level, but they are still among the most difficult
magic you will be tested on in your OWL.” (OotP Chapter 13)
If Conjuration is the opposite process to Vanishing, then it is the process of taking objects
out of non-being into being. The fact that Conjuration is the reverse of Vanishing is
supported by the fact that you can retrieve objects that have been Vanished back out of non-
being:
A third twitch of the wand, and a dusty bottle and five glasses appeared in
midair. The bottle tipped and poured a generous measure of honey-colored
liquid into each of the glasses, which then floated to each person in the room.
“Madam Rosmerta’s finest oak-matured mead,” said Dumbledore, raising his
glass to Harry, who caught hold of his own and sipped. (HBP Chapter 3)
This is branded mead, meaning that it is not Dumbledore’s creation. Rather he must have
Vanished it earlier and is now re-conjuring it in a different location (which fits nicely with
Vanished objects being “everything”). The only alternative is that Dumbledore is so skilled
with the Summoning Charm that he can summon objects via Apparition. While not
impossible, that would go against all other uses of the Summoning Charm which we have
seen, and would further raise all sorts of questions about the ease of magical theft.
However, we know that Conjuration is generally used to create new objects, not just retrieve
previously Vanished objects. However, objects conjured in this way will fade:
“Something that you conjure out of thin air will not last.” (South West News
Service, 8 July 200014)
This is further evidence that Conjuration takes objects out of “non-being” -- if the object’s
fundamental nature is that of non-being, then it makes sense that its existence does not last.
A further capability of Transfiguration is animation, that is, bringing objects to life. Examples
include McGonagall’s chess set in PS Chapter 16, Dumbledore’s animation of the statues in
the Ministry of Magic in OotP Chapter 36, and Voldemort’s creation of an animated silver
hand in GoF Chapter 33.
Note that objects which are animated by Transfiguration do not require the directions of the
caster, but rather have life of their own. The chess set did not need McGonagall’s constant
14 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-swns-alfie.htm
supervision or attention. She created it, but the objects remained alive. Similarly,
Dumbledore did not have to direct the animated statues around. Rather they acted
independently to protect him and Harry. As we will see below, this is in direct contrast to
animation in Charms.
A rarely seen Transfiguration ability is the ability to enchant an area so that objects which
enter that area, and which meet certain criteria, are Transfigured in a predetermined way:
For a split second Harry thought it had worked - George certainly thought so,
for he let out a yell of triumph and leapt after Fred - but next moment, there was
a loud sizzling sound, and both twins were hurled out of the golden circle as
though they had been thrown by an invisible shot putter. They landed painfully,
ten feet away on the cold stone floor, and to add insult to injury, there was a
loud popping noise, and both of them sprouted identical long white beards.
(GoF Chapter 16)
We might call this effect a “Transfiguration field” or a “triggered Transfiguration”. Fred and
George’s fake wands would be another example of a triggered Transfiguration.
One final Transfiguration ability is Transfiguring yourself to have additional powers:
I’d say Transfigure it, but something that big, you really haven’t got a hope, I
doubt even Professor McGonagall… unless you’re supposed to put the spell on
yourself? Maybe to give yourself extra powers? But they’re not simple spells, I
mean, we haven’t done any of those in class, I only know about them because
I’ve been doing O.W.L. practice papers… (GoF Chapter 20)
The nature of these “extra powers” is unclear. Given what we know about Transfiguration,
however, we might speculate that it is a reference to the kind of transformation which the
legend says Quintapeds underwent: a transformation which gives you new physical features
which come with magical capabilities, like a kind of Transfiguration-based magical
crossbreeding.
A further piece of magic which involves Transfiguration, but also incorporates other areas of
magic, is the Animagus transformation. This will be discussed in further detail below (in the
Potions section) but for now let us simply note that the difference between the Animagus
transformation and a regular human-to-animal Transfiguration is that the Animagus is able to
retain their human mind:
This might be poetic licence, but I think it more likely that Beedle had only heard
about Animagi, and never met one, for this is the only liberty that he takes with
magical laws in the story. Animagi do not retain the power of human speech
while in their animal form, although they keep all their human thinking and
reasoning powers. This, as every schoolchild knows, is the fundamental
difference between being an Animagus, and Transfiguring oneself into an
animal. In the case of the latter, one would become the animal entirely, with the
consequence that one would know no magic, be unaware that one had ever
been a wizard, and would need somebody else to Transfigure one back to one’s
original form. (Tales of Beedle the Bard: Professor Dumbledore’s Notes on
Babbitty Rabbitty and her Cackling Stump)
This raises interesting questions about Victor Krum’s partial transformation into a shark in
GoF Chapter 26). Was he perhaps a failed animagus? Or is he using some other magic to
retain his human mind (perhaps Occlumency?). We cannot say for sure.
There is one final thing to note about the nature of Transfiguration. People have often
wondered whether Transfiguration is a collection of discrete spells, one for every possible
Transfiguration, or whether it is a technique. The answer to this, given the discussion above
on the nature of spells, is “both”. Transfiguration is a field of magic made up of different
spells (e.g. the inanimate conjuration spell), which are nonetheless related by similar theory
and technique.
How Transfiguration Works: Relevant Factors
We can actually work out a lot about how Transfiguration works from the Hogwarts
curriculum. All this requires is a single assumption: that McGonagall’s teaching method is to
introduce students to a topic by having them perform easy transformations before moving on
to more complex ones.
This pedagogy is explicitly recognised with respect to Vanishing, where McGonagall has
them start in invertebrates at the start of fifth year:
“Yes, you too, Longbottom,” said Professor McGonagall. “There’s nothing
wrong with your work except lack of confidence. So… today we are starting
Vanishing Spells. These are easier than Conjuring Spells, which you would not
usually attempt until NEWT level, but they are still among the most difficult
magic you will be tested on in your OWL.”
She was quite right; Harry found the Vanishing Spells horribly difficult. By the
end of a double period neither he nor Ron had managed to vanish the snails on
which they were practicing (OotP Chapter 13)
They then advance to vertebrates later in the year:
“As I was saying: the Vanishing Spell becomes more difficult with the complexity
of the animal to be Vanished. The snail, as an invertebrate, does not present
much of a challenge; the mouse, as a mammal, offers a much greater one”
(OotP Chapter 15)
So the assumption is not so great a leap, I think. All it requires is that we take McGonagall’s
approach with Vanishing and assume it is also her approach in other areas.
With this assumption in hand, we can identify which factors do and do not contribute to the
difficulty of Transfiguration. As explicitly indicated in the above quotes, complexity of the
subject is a major factor in the difficulty of a Transfiguration. We also see this more generally
in how students progress year to year. The curriculum is as follows:
● Turning inanimate objects into other inanimate objects in first year (match into needle
in PS Chapter 8),
● Turning animals into objects from the end of first year (mouse into a snuff box in PS
Chapter 16), continuing in second year (beetle into button in CoS Chapter 6);
● Turning objects into animals in third year (teapot into a tortoise in PoA Chapter 16);
● Turning animals into other animals in fourth year (guinea fowl into guinea pigs in GoF
Chapter 22), as well as switching spells (GoF Chapter 20);
● Learning Vanishing in fifth year, as above;
● Learning Human Transfiguration in sixth year (HBP Chapter 15);
● Learning Conjuration in seventh year (from the fact that McGonagall refers to
Conjuration as N.E.W.T. level in OotP Chapter 13, combined with the fact that we
know it is not in sixth year).
We see in this the trend towards increasing complexity, from inanimate objects to animals to
humans. Also note that an increase in complexity (object to animal) is more difficult than a
decrease in complexity (animal to object, which is introduced earlier). But hardest of all is
turning one complex thing into a different complex thing (animal to animal; human to
human).
Note that the curriculum outlined above shows when new subjects are introduced, not the
exclusive year of their practice. For example students are still practicing animal to object
transformations in fourth year, when they practice turning a hedgehog into a pincushion
(GoF Chapter 15). This makes sense. It is common in teaching to reinforce and expand
previously studied material as students’ knowledge grows.
(It is unclear when you study animation and Untransfiguration. They may be included within
the 7 years and not mentioned, or they may not be taught as standard at Hogwarts.)
Another factor in Transfiguration difficulty is size (i.e. volume). This is explicitly mentioned in
GoF:
“The trouble is, like that book said, not much is going to get through a dragon’s
hide… I’d say Transfigure it, but something that big, you really haven’t got a
hope, I doubt even Professor McGonagall…” (GoF Chapter 20)
In this quote, Hermione makes it clear that something being big makes it more difficult to
Transfigure, with something dragon-sized being on the edge of possibility for even a master
of the art - Hermione is not sure if McGonagall would be able to manage it or not.
(It’s also interesting to note that it is size, not the fact that the subject is a dragon, which
makes Hermione doubt McGonagall’s ability to succeed. This really hammers home the
above point that Transfiguration is powerful magic).
A similar factor to size is number. We know that it is possible to transfigure multiple objects
simultaneously: Dumbledore’s animation of the statutes in OotP Chapter 36, or his
conjuration of hundreds of sleeping bags in PoA Chapter 9. But the students always practice
transforming just one thing. This indicates that performing a Transfiguration on multiple
things at once is difficult.
These three factors -- complexity, size, and number -- are all absolute factors when it comes
to difficulty. But there is also a relative factor: the similarity of the original object to the
resulting object.
We see the importance of similarity in numerous transformations. Size and shape appear to
be important relative factors: almost all of the “beginner” Transfigurations which McGonagall
assigns to her students are of objects which are a similar size and shape. Textural similarity
also seems to be relevant: a teapot made of porcelain has certain textural similarities to a
tortoise shell.
Even more interestingly, the names of the objects can apparently contribute towards
similarity, with “beetle” and “button” being similar, as well as “guinea fowl” and “guinea pig”.
Another example of an abstract relative factor which contributes to Transfiguration difficulty
is that of social association: the transformation of rabbits into slippers is a play on the
famous (at least in the UK) trend in the 90s of fluffy slippers which resembled rabbits.
We can also deduce certain factors which do not affect the difficulty of Transfiguration.
One of the most important is mass. Turning a matchstick into a needle is the very first
Transfiguration the students are introduced to, from which we can deduce that it is extremely
simple as Transfiguration goes. Now, matches are typically made of a softwood such as
pine, which has a density of around 350 and 550 kg/m3. Meanwhile, a needle is generally
made of steel, which has a density of around 7,750 and 8,050 kg/m3. So by turning a match
into a needle, students are massively increasing the mass of the object - by a factor of 10 or
even 20. Apparently this is something easily done, and so we can deduce that mass is not a
factor which the rules of Transfiguration give weight (pun intended).
Another factor which we can deduce Transfiguration treats with contempt is that of chemical
composition. This is somewhat implicit in the entire definition of the subject, but we also see
it in the transformation of a teapot into a tortoise. The textural similarity of the objects
appears to be sufficient to render that transformation suitable as appropriate practice for
students, even though porcelain and a tortoise’s shell are made of completely different
materials (earthenware vs bone).
However, from the fact that you need a Philosopher’s Stone to make gold with magic,
substance does not appear to be completely ignored by Transfiguration. But perhaps the
magical theory of substance is not the same thing as the chemical understanding of the
elements.
A third and final factor which we can discount as important to Transfiguration is knowledge of
chemistry and biology. There is no evidence that either is taught at Hogwarts, and even if
they were, it would be impossible for students to have a complete understanding of the
biology of rabbits, turtles, and so on. Not even the most educated Muggle scientists
completely understand the biology of these animals. Nonetheless, the students are perfectly
capable of Transfiguring animals. This shows that you don’t need to have detailed
knowledge of the object of your Transfiguration. All you need to understand is how the
Transfiguration itself works:
“He’s lost his mind,” said Ron in an almost awed voice.
“Yes,” said Hermione irritably, turning a page of Intermediate Transfiguration
and glaring at a series of diagrams showing an owl turning into a pair of opera
glasses. “Yes, I’m starting to think he has. But, unfortunately, he made Harry
and me promise.” (OotP Chapter 31).
How Transfiguration Works: Limits
Now that we have considered the factors which do and do not contribute towards difficulty of
a Transfiguration, let us move on to considering the hard limits of Transfiguration. These
limits come in two forms: firstly, things which Transfiguration cannot do because they are
outside its scope; and secondly, things which are within the scope of Transfiguration but
which are nonetheless unachievable.
The former category simply derives from the definition of Transfiguration as the magic of
changing the fundamental physical nature of objects. There are of course many things
outside of that definition. For example, from the fact that you apparently cannot use
Transfiguration to create new human people, we can see that Transfiguration is not capable
of creating souls, even though it can create animal life. This makes sense: the soul is a non-
physical thing (more on souls later). Similarly, we have never seen an example of someone
using Transfiguration to create an object which is enchanted. This too makes sense:
enchantments are not physical things, and if you could conjure enchanted objects then no
one would need to learn Charms.
The second category is more complex. The most substantial information we have on this is
from Hermione in DH:
The fact that Hermione was getting better at identifying edible fungi could not
altogether compensate for their continuing isolation, the lack of other people’s
company, or their total ignorance of what was going on in the war against
Voldemort.
“My mother,” said Ron one night, as they sat in the tent on a riverbank in Wales,
“can make good food appear out of thin air.”
He prodded moodily at the lumps of charred gray fish on his plate. Harry
glanced automatically at Ron’s neck and saw, as he had expected, the golden
chain of the Horcrux glinting there. He managed to fight down the impulse to
swear at Ron, whose attitude would, he knew, improve slightly when the time
came to take off the locket.
“Your mother can’t produce food out of thin air,” said Hermione. “No one can.
Food is the first of the five Principal Exceptions to Gamp’s Law of Elemental
Transfigur —”
“Oh, speak English, can’t you?” Ron said, prising a fish bone out from between
his teeth.
“It’s impossible to make good food out of nothing! You can Summon it if you
know where it is, you can transform it, you can increase the quantity if you’ve
already got some —”
“Well, don’t bother increasing this, it’s disgusting,” said Ron.
“Harry caught the fish and I did my best with it! I notice I’m always the one who
ends up sorting out the food, because I’m a girl, I suppose!”
“No, it’s because you’re supposed to be the best at magic!” shot back Ron.
Hermione jumped up and bits of roast pike slid off her tin plate onto the floor.
“You can do the cooking tomorrow, Ron, you can find the ingredients and try
and charm them into something worth eating, and I’ll sit here and pull faces and
moan and you can see how you —” (DH Chapter 15)
It’s worth quoting this in full because there is a lot to unpack within the often-ignored context.
Let us start with the basics: the impossibility of creating “good food” with Transfiguration is
an exception to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration. This implies that Gamp’s Law
itself states something like “Transfiguration can make anything into anything else”, to which
food is an exception.
There are three other items of canon that this quote must be reconciled with. That process
will lead us to a deeper understanding of this rule.
The first is Mrs Weasley’s cooking ability. Note that she used magic to produce a sauce in
GoF Chapter 5:
Mrs. Weasley slammed a large copper saucepan down on the kitchen table and
began to wave her wand around inside it. A creamy sauce poured from the
wand tip as she stirred.
Also note her magical cooking books:
Books were stacked three deep on the mantelpiece, books with titles like Charm
Your Own Cheese, Enchantment in Baking, and One Minute Feasts — It’s
Magic! (CoS Chapter 3)
These quotes, together with Hermione telling Ron to “find the ingredients and try and charm
them into something worth eating” tell us that Gamp’s Law is Transfiguration-specific.
Charms can be used to make food taste better, such as the creation of sauces.
However, this is tempered by Hermione’s statement that “Your mother can’t produce food
out of thin air. No one can.” This statement is expressed very generally, and only later does
Hermione clarify the point about Transfiguration. I think we can therefore conclude from the
general statement that Charms will have a similar rule against the creation of “good food”
(or, more likely, it is simply outside the scope of Charms, considering the above definition of
Transfiguration relative to Charms).
The second item is Harry’s use of the Aguamenti Charm in HBP to create potable water:
“Water,” croaked Dumbledore.
“Water,” panted Harry. “Yes —”
He leapt to his feet and seized the goblet he had dropped in the basin; he barely
registered the golden locket lying curled beneath it.
“Aguamenti!” he shouted, jabbing the goblet with his wand.
The goblet filled with clear water; Harry dropped to his knees beside
Dumbledore, raised his head, and brought the glass to his lips — but it was
empty. Dumbledore groaned and began to pant.
“But I had some — wait — Aguamenti!” said Harry again, pointing his wand at
the goblet. Once more, for a second, clear water gleamed within it, but as he
approached Dumbledore’s mouth, the water vanished again.
“Sir, I’m trying, I’m trying!” said Harry desperately, but he did not think that
Dumbledore could hear him; he had rolled onto his side and was drawing great,
rattling breaths that sounded agonizing. “Aguamenti — Aguamenti —
AGUAMENTI!”
The goblet filled and emptied once more. And now Dumbledore’s breathing was
fading. His brain whirling in panic, Harry knew, instinctively, the only way left to
get water, because Voldemort had planned it so… (HBP Chapter 26)
Now, Harry has by this point been learning the Aguamenti Charm all year - he first started
learning it HBP Chapter 11, mere weeks after the school year began. If the water conjured
by the Charm was not suitable for use as drinking water, Harry should know after a year of
studying it. We can therefore conclude fairly safely that the Aguamenti Charm does produce
water which can be used to quench your thirst (notwithstanding that in this instance,
Voldemort had put enchantments in place to prevent it).
What this tells us is that “water” is outside the definition of food, at least as far as Charms
are concerned.
The third item to consider, and one which will result in a definition of “good food”, is that we
have seen Transfiguration be used to create animals (for example, McGonagall’s turning a
desk into a pig in PS Chapter 8, or the report we hear that Cedric transformed a stone into a
dog in the First Task). Here’s the problem: if Transfiguration can create animals which are a)
permanent and b) physically identical to natural animals, then it should be possible for
people to kill those animals and eat them, thereby using Transfiguration to create food.
One possible answer to this is that the definition of “food” is very narrow, and means
prepared food. In this scenario, Hermione’s problem is not actually that she can’t create food
(she can definitely create animals) but rather that she doesn’t know how to butcher animals.
However, I think that the context of the DH quote leads to a different conclusion. Notice that
once you have something which is food, you can use magic to increase the quantity. So it’s
not that Transfiguration is incapable of creating nutritional value, it’s simply unable to create
it from a starting point of zero. Notice also Hermione’s emphasis on the inability to create
“good food”. This implies that Transfiguration can create bad food.
What is “bad food”? I suggest that animals made via Transfiguration are an example of this
“bad food”. It is food which has the same physical properties as food, but will not have
nutritional value. This is reinforced by the fact that Hermione is so keen to find “edible
mushrooms”. Once she has something which is innately edible, she can transform it into
something better (at least in theory, but unfortunately Hermione lacks Mrs Weasley’s
knowledge of cooking magic) or bigger.
Of course, what this implies is that there is more to edibility than a thing’s physical
properties, contrary to Muggle understanding of nutrition. Rather, everything in the universe
will have a magical “tag” associated with it, indicating whether it is edible or not. The things
which have the “edible” tag can be transformed into better food, and can even be increased
in quantity. But the items which lack the “edible” tag cannot be made edible by any magic,
even though they can be made physically identical to edible food.
The true exception to Gamp’s Law, then, is not “food” but rather “edibility”.
That is the first exception to Gamp’s Law, and the only one explicitly recognised in canon. To
this we can add one more with a fairly high level of certainty: gold. The existence of the
Philosopher’s Stone was a major plot point in PS, and its ability to make gold is considered
exceptional. We can therefore safely assume that regular Transfiguration cannot be used to
make gold. That provides us with the second Principal Exception to Gamp’s Law. Further
evidence of this is Leprechaun Gold, which we know disappears from GoF Chapter 28.
A third exception can be speculated on with a moderate degree of certainty. This is that
Transfiguration cannot be used to create records of knowledge. This can be deduced from
three things:
1. The fact that it was not possible to conjure a sheet of paper containing a list of
Voldemort’s horcruxes.
2. The fact that people must purchase books, meaning that you cannot use
Transfiguration to create books (or else doing so is very difficult); and
3. The fact that people must write things down, both in terms of notes but also in terms
of authors who intend to write a new work. It is not possible to simply conjure up the
book you would have written, if you had put the time into it. You have to do it the hard
way.
The remaining two exceptions are a complete mystery, however.
Charms
Dark Arts and Duels
Potions
Wizarding Physiology
The Fundamental Nature of Magic
Odds and Ends
Common misconceptions
The Trace
The Fidelius
Sacrificial magic
Occlumency
Veela
Voldemort’s appearance
Horcruxes and Souls
Squibs and Muggles
Speculation
Arithmancy, Spell Creation and Spells in Other Languages
Average wizarding competence
Magic and electricity
Water blocks apparition
Magical language learning
Content of magical theory
I provide here an illustrative example of what actual magical theory could look like. This
example is for demonstration only: it is purely speculative and has no canon support. To
provide context, the source of this example is an “Alternative Universe” fanfiction where
Harry was born a girl (called Victoria) and is considerably more interested in magic.
“Go on,” Flitwick said, nodding along, “what would you need to add, to turn the
Charm from levitation into flight?”
“Well, a sense of direction for sure,” Victoria replied, “one of the four winds?”
Flitwick smiled. “Well done! Now, you don’t want to upset the rest of the spell
too much. Can you remember which of the winds is the friendliest?”
“The west wind,” Victoria said with confidence, before continuing her train of
thought. “But it needs more than just direction, doesn’t it? It needs to want to
move… some kind of will.”
“Goodness me,” Flitwick said, his bushy eyebrows raised, “you have your
mother’s instinct for Charms. The concept you’re looking for is ‘impulse’, my
dear, but I’m not surprised you haven’t heard of it. We don’t introduce it until
next year. Put simply, the Charm must invoke an animalistic will to give it
impulse, in this case an avian Form.”
Victoria was stumped. “I have no idea how to do that.”
“Thank god,” Susan interrupted, taking a break from her levitation attempts,
“how do you know all this stuff?”
Victoria stuck her tongue out in response. “I read.”
Flitwick sighed. “If only you’d been in Ravenclaw… but no matter. Come to me
after class and I’ll give you some extra reading on the topic. In the meantime,
let’s see if we can figure out the final component of the Locomotion Charm.
Here’s a hint: it’s not required for flight itself, but serves another purpose.”
Victoria was forced to think hard on that one, the moment stretching out as she
looked around the room for inspiration. Why would the Locomotion Charm have
anything in it that wasn’t a component of flight? Her eyes landed on Millicent,
who was swearing at her feather in an attempt to get it to move.
“Obedience,” she said, the answer coming to her in a flash, “there’s no point
giving an object flight if it doesn’t go where you tell it.” Flitwick nodded slowly,
clearly expecting her to elaborate further. “So.. the shackles? No, that would go
against the whole idea of flight… the whip, then.”
“Marvelous! Simply marvelous!” Flitwick exclaimed. “Ten points to Slytherin for
outstanding magical deduction! Now, let me find that book...”
Society
Wizarding economy
International wizarding politics
Wizards vs. Muggles