Of the core subjects taught at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Transfiguration is perhaps the most complicated and least explored. While we know of terms like "Artificianimate Quasi-dominance" and "Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration", the intricate details of such things are never explored. Compared with Charms, where we know how to differentiate them from different kinds of spells and are presented with a suitable surface level understanding of how they work, the coverage of Transfiguration seems all together less comprehensive.
So what do we know?
We know that Transfiguration spells differ from Charms in at least one key way. A Charm adds or removes properties from an object, while a Transfiguration changes it totally. For example, the levitation charm adds the property of levitation to an object. That turning vinegar into wine is taught in Charms rather than Transfiguration is perhaps explained by this reasoning. In order to change vinegar into wine, you merely have to remove one of its properties - the acetic acid. From this we can extrapolate that what is being taught here is some kind of base or alkaline introducing Charm rather than a Transfiguration of the contents of the glass.
We also know that there are five "principle exceptions" to "Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration." Not only are there are contradicting accounts as to whether this is a law of legality or a law of nature, we also do not know what the actual law is, what four of the five exceptions to it are, or why being exempt from the law means that they can not be conjured.
We know that one of the five exceptions is food. This means that witches and wizards cannot conjure food from nowhere. However, they can transform, enlarge or multiply it. If one can purchase a cheap loaf of bread and then enlarge it to make it suitable enough to feed a large family for a long time and then simply keep enlarging or multiplying it, it begs the question what the point of such a law would be. It also does not prevent one from merely transfiguring a common item into food, nor does it prevent one from conjuring, for example, a fish and simply preparing it for consumption. Perhaps, then, this is a natural law relating to the complexity of a dish, and food in this sense relates to fully prepared meals rather than the ingredients therein. Or perhaps it is merely a vague excuse from J. K. Rowling as to why wizards don't just conjure a banquet whenever they feel like it or use their powers to solve world hunger.
Yet, we still find ourselves wondering... Just how was Molly Weasley able to produce sauce from her wand, and what are the other four exceptions to this law?
Some theorise that one of the exceptions is money or gold, as this would destabilise the wizarding economy (a vote in favour of Gamp's Law being a matter of legality rather than nature). Given that Leprechaun Gold is seen to vanish after some time, it would seem that this is a reasonable assumption (and an equal indicator that Gamp's Law may be a natural one). However much like Molly's magical sauces, this presents us with a contradiction. If Leprechaun Gold is indeed real gold, then it is being produced magically, even if only temporarily. Furthermore, one of the proposed distinctions between Charms and Transfigurations is that Charms are temporary while Transfigurations are not.
How do we reconcile this? Let's look at one of the few Conjuring spells we have reasonable details about: the bird conjuring spell. Supposedly, birds conjured by this spell - and likely anything conjured - will be more solid and life-like the more experienced the caster is at conjuring them. This tells us that they are not real birds. They only appear to be real. They will also fade with time, much like the effects of a Charm. To cap things off, the spell is known as the "Bird Conjuring Charm" despite being a conjuration, which we know to be a type of Transfiguration. However, we are told that Transfigurations do not behave this way. One might suppose, then, that this is a matter of semantics. I propose that conjurations fade, while transformations do not. If you transfigure a ferret into a feather duster, your ferret will forever be a feather duster until transfigured once again. If you conjure a ferret, that ferret will only exist for as long as the spell is at work. This way, we can say that the gold produced by Leprechauns is indeed conjured.
With the Bird Conjuring Charm in mind, does gold still seem like a possible exception to Gamp's Law, and what does this have to do with Molly's sauce? The connection is made, I believe, when we consider that life may be a third exception to Gamp's Law. If we take that to be fact, then a pattern emerges. If we say that life cannot be conjured, we can look to the Bird Conjuring charm and see that the birds are facsimiles that fade with time. If we say that gold cannot be conjured, we can look to the Leprechauns and see that their gold is counterfeit that fades with time. If we look to Molly's sauce... Does it last? What Molly is seen to conjure is merely a sauce, something to add flavour to a dish. What I wish to propose here is that the sauce is not real. It is an illusion. You can enjoy the taste of the sauce but cannot subsist on it. The sauce will fade. The calories, the energy, the nutrients, all will disappear. You can conjure what resembles food, but you cannot live on it. With this in mind, Gamp's law seems to make slightly more sense in the wider world. You can, if you like, conjure a chicken. You can conjure some potatoes, and even fire a stream of nice hot gravy out of the tip of your wand. Garnish it all with some parsley you grew using the Orchideous Jinx. But it won't be real. It will merely be an illusion, and despite feeling as though you have enjoyed a delicious feast, you will go to bed hungry. The only part of your banquet that could possibly last would be the table and chairs produced by Inanimatus Conjurus, which with no reason to contradict Gamp's Law would last until intentionally vanished.
With Gamp's Law out of the way - at least until two more possible exceptions with noteworthy examples of how they cannot remain after being conjured appear - it seems natural to turn to the mystery of Artificianimate Quasi-dominance.
This long and intimidating phrase, when broken down, appears to refer to artificial yet animate conjurations (such as our birds from earlier) and the apparent dominance of what form such conjurations will take. Unfortunately, with only two animal conjuring spells having two different incantations, there is little else that can be deduced from this term. We know it relates to conjuration and explains the appearance of wild and potentially disgusting hybrids caused by a poorly cast conjuration spell, but the how and why is largely unexplored. One can only deduce that certain forms are "dominant" over others when it comes to conjuration. We do not know why, but I believe that this pertains to why birds and snakes are the easiest animals to conjure. Perhaps there is a symbolism involved that has been overlooked. For now, I have no theory on this matter.
Finally, I would like to look at transformation spells taught at Hogwarts. Why would we ever want to turn an owl into opera glasses, and when would you ever need to turn a book into a mouse? Why are these strangely specific spells taught at Hogwarts?
Perhaps they are not really so specific. We know it takes a lot of calculations and formulae to properly prepare for a transfiguration spell, as this is what Harry's first lesson in the subject consisted of before the practical attempt at transforming a matchstick into a needle. With all these complex calculations, why then do we ultimately say a magic word and wave our wands for the result? What is the connection? I propose that the calculations are to ensure a specific result, while the incantation and wand movement alone may produce a wide range of different results (probably dependant on that principle of artificianimate quasi-dominance). To give an example: I believe that the incantation "Strigiforma" is not specifically for turning an owl into opera glasses. I propose that "Strigiforma" is the spell used to transfigure an owl into anything. The incantation relates to the target or the result, not both. This would explain why Transfiguration classes consist of so many strange combinations such as "Cat to Tea cosy" or "Rabbit to Slippers" - these are to familiarise students with the technical process of calculating the results of the spell. This way, the incantation "Strigiforma" could, with the correct calculations, be used to turn an owl in a box, or a shoe, or anything you like. It may even be possible to use the incantation to turn something else into an owl.
Many assume that the use of "Felifors" in the Hogwarts Mystery game to turn a cat into a cauldron is a mistake, but maybe it is an example of the flexibility of the incantation. Perhaps "Felifors" can work in both directions - turn a cat into a cauldron, or turn a cauldron into a cat, or a cat into a tea cosy. To add another example from Hogwarts Mystery: the wand movement to cast Vera Verto (animal into water goblet) on a rat, and the wand movement to turn a mouse into a snuffbox are both the same, suggesting it may indeed be the same spell. The rodent in this case is the common element, so perhaps what matters is the calculation relating to the rodent and the desired object rather than the incantation used. Different spells, same incantation and wand movement.
I'm Leon Grimalkin, and these have been my theories of Transfiguration. They are based on available canon but are ultimately mere speculation. I hope you enjoyed reading them, and I would love it if this essay sparks some debate on the subject of Transfiguration. Feel free to refute my claims. I'll be very interested to see what you all think. I hope it wasn't too boring. If any fanfic writers like my theories feel free to use them to bolster the lore and magical theory in your fanfics. That'd be swell.
Thank you for reading.
