Elemental transfiguration, the class which Professor McGonagall teaches at Hogwarts, is the magical art of physically converting one thing into another. But as with all types of magic, there are limitations to what you can do with transfiguration, as we learn in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, when Hermione mentions the five Principal Exceptions to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration. But she only tells us one of them.
What are the five Principal Exceptions to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration?
This is the only exception of the five that is stated specifically in the books. In chapter 15 of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Hermione uses food as an example the first time she mentions the five exceptions:
“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.” “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 Transfigura –” “Oh, speak English, can’t you?” Ron said.
DH pg. 292/240
Later, in Chapter 29, Neville explains how they discovered the passage from the Room of Requirement to The Hogs Head, and Ron remembers the earlier scene:
“I went through it and met Aberforth. He’s been providing us with food, because for some reason, that’s the one thing the room doesn’t really do.” “Yeah, well, food’s one of the five exceptions to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration,” said Ron to general astonishment.
DH pg. 578/465
This may be the only exception of the five mentioned specifically in the books, but I think we know for sure about at least two others.
We see an example of not being able to create money out of thin air in Chapter 28 of Goblet of Fire:
“Count yer coins! An’ there’s no point in tryin’ to steal any, Goyle,” he added, his beetle-black eyes narrowed. “It’s leprechaun gold. Vanishes after a few hours.”
GoF pg. 544/472
Earlier in the book, Ron appeared to not have known that the Leprechaun gold wasn’t real:
“Excellent!” yelled Ron as the shamrock soared over them, and heavy coins rained from it, bouncing off their heads and seats.
GoF pg. 104/95
Ron thought he had paid Harry for the omnioculars at the World Quidditch Cup with the Leprechaun gold, and Harry had never mentioned to him that it had later vanished. This is not a contradiction, though. It makes sense that Ron didn’t realize that Leprechauns couldn’t conjure money from nothing, as we know he also never realized his Mum couldn’t conjure food out of thin air, either.
From what we’ve seen of Harry’s world, it is logical to assume there is a restriction that wizards cannot use transfiguration to make money. If you could, no Witch or Wizard would be poor like the Weasleys. Every Witch and Wizard would be rich like the Malfoys, with grand estates and servants.
It’s interesting to note here, however, that there is a small difference between the restrictions to elemental transfiguration of food and money. In Deathly Hallows, Hermione goes on to explain to Ron and Harry:
“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.
DH pg. 293/241
But, you obviously can’t increase your quantity of money if you’ve already got some, that would be no different that conjuring it from scratch to begin with. So, it would seem that each exception can have its own special circumstances.
Harry has been seriously injured several times throughout the books, and been magically healed each time, including having all the bones in his arm totally regrown from scratch. But in Deathly Hallows, after George is almost killed by Snape with the sectumsempra curse, we see there are restrictions to healing charms. When Harry asks if George will be OK, Lupin says:
“I think so, although there’s no chance of replacing his ear, not when it’s been cursed off–“
DH pg. 71/64
Later, Molly gives us even more info:
“I can’t make it grow back, not when it’s been removed by Dark Magic. But it could’ve been so much worse…He’s alive.”
DH pg. 73/66
There are other examples through the books of wizards with unhealed injuries. Dumbledore’s broken nose, Ludo Bagman’s squashed nose, all of Mad-eye Moody’s various injuries, and Bill’s face after being savaged by Fenrir Greyback.
It’s possible, in some of those cases, that the wizard did not want to seek treatment (Dumbledore’s nose, after being broken by his brother Aberforth) or could not seek treatment fast enough (Bagman, who Harry thought had been injured by a bludger, but who had more likely been injured as the result of a gambling debt gone bad). But that could not explain Moody. Who wouldn’t want to have their real eye? And of course, we know they tried but could not completely fix up Bill.
When describing George’s injury, Molly says it couldn’t be repaired because of “Dark Magic”. I think another way to say this is that you can’t transfigure something when it has already been transfigured, and the intent of the original transfiguration was that it not be able to be undone. Obviously, the intended effect of “Dark Magic” would be damage that couldn’t be undone.
So, we know Food is one Exception for sure, and I think we can be pretty sure that Money and Curse Damage are two others. I think we can guess about one more.
We’ve been told over and over again in the Harry Potter books that dead is dead.
In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, in the Battle of the Ministry, after Sirius has fallen through the veil, Lupin tells Harry:
“There’s nothing you can do, Harry–” “Get him, save him, he’s only just gone through!” “It’s too late, Harry–” “We can still reach him–” Harry struggled hard and viciously, but Lupin would not let go… “There’s nothing you can do, Harry… Nothing… He’s gone.”
OotP pg. 806/711
If you could bring a human back from the dead, there wouldn’t be any need for infiri, which are animated bodies that are nonetheless still dead. Why not bring them all the way back? (Unless you wanted them to be extra scary.)
If you could transfigure a human being back from the dead, there’d be no need for the Philosopher’s Stone, and the Resurrection Stone wouldn’t have been one of the three Hallows. But most of all, if you could transfigure someone back from the dead, Voldemort wouldn’t have needed horcruxes to achieve immortality.
So, that’s four. But Hermione said there are five Principal Exceptions to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration.
What’s the fifth exception? I can’t find any more clues to this puzzle, but they must be there, because J.K. said there are five, and showed us examples of several.
What information in the Harry Potter books can you find which describes or suggests the fifth exception?
As we discuss this topic, I know the subject of Magic is vast, but if we can, please let’s try to stick to discussing information given to us in the Harry Potter books, or related to that info (for example, info about Nicholas Flamel). Also, remember we’re talking here about Transfiguration. Limitations to the abilities of Professor Trelawney, for example, wouldn’t apply to this question, since that’s Divination and not Transfiguration.
What do you think is the fifth exception?
Welcome to Beyond Hogwarts!
Beyond Hogwarts is a site primarily about the Wizarding World, including the Harry Potter franchise and Fantastic Beasts but also covers a wide variety of other series including The Lord of the Rings.
You can also find news, editorials, features, list, and reviews for other movies, TV shows, and books!
Our Communities
I think the fifth exemption is to produce new living beings. We can transfigure a living person but cannot produce a whole new living being. Or else the number of wizards would be much greater than the muggles.
i think the 5th one must be love..all through the books we hav discussed so much about love and in HBP we see that slughorn clearly states tht amortenia ( love potion) is something that cannot create love but only brings about a deep infactuation..and that love cannot be created..so i think it must be love
I was thinking about all things we really need to live: Food (exception), shelter (no exception), clothing (n.e), Health care (e.) and education. Well, at least we know it’s not knowledge/education. We know this can be changed, look at the Confundus Charm. I think we can rule out everything that we can touch. So, books (so Hermione), probably won’t be one of the exceptions.
Hold on! Stroke of inspiration! What about the weather? We know that, in the books, there’s a lot of rain, snow and storm. I guess wizards would do something about nasty weather, wouldn’t they? So, why doesn’t it happen? Gamps’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration!
Anvi: I think new living beings would fit under bringing someone back to life, same restriction.
Anju: Yes, you can’t really make someone love you, but that’s not a Trasnfiguration exception, it’s a POTIONS restriction.
I think MissMoonlight has something, there! Weather! Even Wizards can’t change the weather. Any more evidence from the books to support this theory?
I think a good possibility for a restriction is that you can’t completely transfigure yourself into another wizard. Harry couldn’t just utter a spell and become Dumbledore and be able to fight voldemort that way. Even if you use pollyjuice you are still the same wizard with the same abilities inside. You have to work at becoming a great wizard. Otherwise you could say a spell and be able to work all other spells at once and there would be no need for Hogwarts.
I think the las restriction is that you cannot “clone” yourself. As far as money, I think the serial # stamp circumvents it, magically. maybe the same way in that if I buy something with ten singles, all with the same serial no. no one will accept the other nine bills…
but how does snape fix malfoy’s wounds after harry uses sectumsempra on him in the half blood prince. it was snape who used sectumsepra accidently on george’s ear so why cant it be fixed or summoned, it must have got somewhere. accio george’s ear and then magic it back on. sectumsepra must be a really unreliable curse sometimes it can be healed sometimes not. in half blood prince snape tells malfoy that he may have a considerable amount of scarring so maybe.
about the whole weather thing, they can prevent weather from affecting them. in half blood prince dumbledore makes harrys clothes warm when they are by the cave so that he doesnt feel the cold. dementors make everything go cold so why can wizards? i think they cant do mass areas to go warm but they can in small areas?
Regarding Harry and Draco: Ah! I’m glad someone brought that up!
Remember, I said it’s all in the intention of the spell caster. When Harry cursed Draco with sectumsempra, he really didn’t mean to hurt him, Harry could never really mean to hurt anyone fatally (except maybe You-Know-Who). So, there was no intention on Harry’s part to inflict permanant damage. So, Snape could fix it.
HOWEVER, when Snape cursed George, he did it in the heat of battle, and he meant it. Dark intention, which cannot be undone. He had to mean it, not just look like he did, or else You-Know-Who would have found him out…
but Snape invented Sectumsempra, didn’t he? So he must have invented a way to heal Sectumsempra wounds too, but nobody else knows about it.
When I first read through the article I started to wonder if #5 would be conjuring up a person’s soul or spirit. Someone else said human life, and I guess this would be under the same umbrella as that. Otherwise Voldemort would have been able to conjur up a whole army of living, thinking human beings to fight for him.
I’m not sure that creating new living beings would be the same as bringing people back to life, but I guess I can see where you’re coming from.
As for love: I think this actually might be a possibility. Who says it necessarily has to be potions?
I don’t think weather could be one because if you’ll remember in the seventh book it was raining in the ministry of magic, and Ron was sent to stop it. So that shows that wizards CAN control the weather.
China: Isn’t that my #4 in the article?
Alex: Everytime we’ve seen a Wizard fooling around with Love, it was a potion. Gred and Forge had a love potion in their store. It was a potion in the chocolates that made Ron fall in love with Romila Vane. As for Merope and Tom Riddle Sr., Dumbledore himself says he believed it was a potion, although he concedes it could have been the imperious curse. Neither of those are transfiguration.
Also, at the ministry, that was indoors fake weather created by Wizards to begin with, it wasn’t real outside planet weather.
Yeah, but knowledge doesn’t have anything to do with transfiguration.
if you transfigurate your brains a little bigger it has:p
Bigger brain doesn’t make you cleverer, we don’t even use more than %90 of our brains anyway. There are easier ways to make you cleverer besides casting spells on your brain, even in the real world. There are a lot of brain exercises out there, like Rubik Cube (I am a solver by the way) or Sudoku.
yeah okay okay I was just trying to say it wouldn’t be impossible. I mean if you can make a potion for luck. I think intelligence shouldn’t be a problem. only messing with your mind is quite dangerous….even in harry potter-world. man I once tried a rubiks cube and got bored after 5 minutes:p cool you can solve these things
i think it is either age, or knowledge. i dont think you can magic yourself to know about something, and i dont think you can change your age. In my opinion, both of these make perfect sense.
The wand itself… You see olivander says that the wand choses the wizard… you can acctually make wands out of nothing at all…
As an exception to food/beverage “rule,” what about “Aguamenti”? Many times throughout the books, character spout water from their wands using this spell. Is it being “borrowed” from somewhere else?
Also, Dave, I’d like to mention to an earlier comment of yours that when Snape cast “Sectumsempra” on George, he wasn’t aiming for him — he was TRYING to get a Death Eater and make THAT look like an accident — which I think explains the total, and incurable, severity of the curse.
I think that…
the 5th is: Being able to Transfigure something with non-magical properties into something magical.
Otherwise you could make a sneakoscope out of a shoe, a wand out of a twig, a potion out of a jug of mead.
Also, I like to think that in order to transfigure something you need to know a little bit about what it will be turned into; this prevents old scrolls from being turned into Hogwarts, A History and stuff.
Aren’t portkeys non-magical objects that have been transfigured to have magical properties?
The essence of transfiguration seems to relate to its non-permanency – as leprechaun money ‘reverts’ after a time – or, put another way, to its tendency to non-permanency, to reversion. Thus it would be dangerous to eat transfigured food, or food created from transfigured non-food objects. Surely therefore the type of limitation required for a law is to have force under circumstances where transfiguration would be harmful to human life? A sort of innate tendency, within magical systems, not to work under such conditions. Creating a larger quantity of food is not quite on the same level – that is a ‘projection’ of quantity, to use the alchemical term, of something basically wholseome to humans. However the powers of the Philosopher’s Stone seem to be somewhat of an exception to laws of transfiguration; by its ability to procure extra life and create gold or precious metal (which after all is little different from money), just as the operation of the Room of Requirement seems also to lie outside the normal run of the wizardly order of things. I imagine that it would be necessary to give transfigured flamingoes gingerly handling – could you tell when they would be likely to revert, or what stages they might by pure chance pass through in so doing? – let alone tempting fate by eating them! And of course dark magic operates to different rules: but not even that seems able to resurrect the dead. I think we should ask Hermione for the swot’s definitive answers to all these questions since she always has the answers – does no-one have a direct line to her?
What if JK, never meant for there to be a 5th. Like in some movies a character is about to say something that never gets said; I don’t believe the writer ever intended for there to be a ‘something’
I don’t think there are only these restrictions on transfigurations…it makes it kinda limited don’t you think? There will be sub-preventions, or restrictions which aren’t labeled [Gamp] but perhaps…the Redrick exeptions…
y’know, and there would be certain things that specify the exeptions, what differs Food from tool, beverage from bathingwater. Just my idea….
I think the answer is obvious:You can’t transfigure a muggle into a wizard. If you could, why would there be squibs?
Well, it shouldn’t be love. Magic and love is pure rubbish, it is even scientifically possible to make someone love an specific person by the proper hormones and stimuli.
Maybe transferring magic as Canada said…
I’m convinced that it’s neither love nor knowledge, because of the fact that these aren’t ‘things’.
What about this:
1) Food
2) Money, gold or any other metal (such as cauldrons)
3) Genes.
A few examples:
– Can’t change a magical person into a non-magical (and vice versa)
– Can’t change your age
– Near-sightedness (explains why Harry still needs glasses)
– When a rat is turned into a cup, the cup genetically stays a rat (only the appearence changes). So, when you transfigure the cup back into the rat, it’s the same rat as before (not a white one instead of the original grey one for example)
When Pettigrew transfigures himself into a rat, it’s only his appearance that changes. “The rat” keeps thinking like Pettigrew.
4) Wands
5) Patented things (such as schoolbooks for example. Or clothes…?)
Still there are a lot of things that can not be transformed by any wizard but only by very talented wizards. Maybe Arthur and Molly Weasly aren’t talented enough to transform their house into a bigger one…?
food is one exeption gamps law of elemental transfiguration. but in the goblet of fire in the first task Cedric diggory converts a stone into a dog. if that is possible, anyone can convert a stone into a chicken or maybe some other animal which can be cooked and eaten.
Because we know for sure that food is an exception, we have to assume that food you’d try to make from something you transfigured into an animal would simply not be good food, because it tasted bad or had no nutritional value, as if it had the food traits of the original thing, not what it was transfigured into.
i think that someone earlier may have mentioned this, based on George’s ear, but i’m guessing that one cannot change their body; Add or remove like liposuction etc. Otherwise, wouldn’t all witches and wizards be the “Perfect” body!
I would guess that five is magic itself.
You can’t give someone magic, remove magic, get better magic, or summon magic from noithing. And I’m talking about magic, not magical things: wands, tea-cup/rat morphs, or even potions. Potions are a invention by wizards, they are just a mirror of the witch or wizard who made them’s magic (I read something where J.K. said that). And itsn’t it J.K.s way to “say” something, have us think one thing and have it be totally different?
As for making something living, take Fudge’s Gerbil. He could have done one of several things. It seems he transfigured it, but I don’t think he could have remade a real life, I think he made it to replicate a life. Eat, breath, but I dought it can even have the not-very-complex Gerbil thoughts. i.e. it is not a fully formed life. Because, notice, he didn’t start its life. It was not blind and furless as newborn baby Gerbils are. So he either summoned it, summoned a life and made it grow are a amazing speed, or my thory of a incompleat life.
The same thing with the kittens in Trans. They were probably Trans. in the first place and are simply being returned to the same state. Where does it say that they are “real” in the first place?
i think the fifth exception is wands. you cannot convert any article into a wand otherwise people wouldnt buy wands.
further reference comes in CoS when ron breaks his wand.it is stated in PoA that ron buys a new wand.
in DH when lucius wand was taken by he who must not be named,he remaind wandless even though his wife ha a wand and could transfigure something into a wand for him if it was possible… the same goes for harry.
Dave, you said earlier on that you believe it possible to bring someone back to life with transfiguration – but why then was Dumbledore so desperate to use the Resurrection Stone to bring back Ariana from the Dead? Also you said that Fudge transfigured something inanimate into a living being – but the teacup was never alive, so it never died, it was an object and Fudge turned it into a living creature. I think we need to clarify first whether Transfiguration just refers to objects or non- living things such as money or food.. I think this is why you can’t produce food out of thin air, it has to be there first, because it is “alive” in some way, as it comes from a living source – either animals that supply meat or plants which supply different kinds of food, flour for example or vegetable extracts?
Sienna, I don’t think I said you could bring someone back to life with transfiguration. I said you could create a living thing, like a gerbil. Gerbils and people are a big difference!
That’s a REALLY GOOD reason why Dumbledore would need the stone to bring Ariana back. Because of Gamps’ laws, he couldn’t bring her back using transfiguration!
And, I think you got what I said about the Gerbil thing backwards. Yes, the thing was not alive before it was turned into a gerbil. But AFTER it was a gerbil, it is now alive. It’s former, original condition doesn’t matter, it’s alive now. Is it moral to kill it? (By transfiguring it back…)
Here are my guesses:
1)Food
2) Gold, metal, or other such items.
3) Charmed objects (i.e. horcruxes)
4) Clothes (?)
-Because if you could just transfigurate yor clothes then there wouldnt be such a fiasco with wizards trying to drees like muggles, they could just transfigurate their clothes.
5) Im still a little confused about the fith, it’s either:
-Genes
OR
-Life
Page 3: “I think that the 5th principal exception is time. A wizard cannot tamper with time (without a turner of course- all of which were destroyed) or else harry could put a stop to his parents death from the get go. He’d be able to warn Sirius with his 2 way mirror…..etc. etc.
Posted by Bryan from Sturbridge,MA on May 5, 2008 1:25 PM”
It is one of the more possible exceptions to the laws. Time is very complicated and philosophically speaking, you cannot change time or space. Time turners turn back time, but what if actually you are meant to have that time as is? Like when Harry and Hermione use the time turner to save Buckbeak, it’s a possiblility that that time they had was fated to happen (thus, Dumlbledore is psychic or knows better divination that Trelawney) and that is what a timeturner is created for. The time turner turns to a certain limit, no farther past or further futured. So meaning that a time turner only goes back in time to the time occurred already that you have gone into to the occurred time in which you have already been in and is in.
The law of time is that the time expansion cannot be changed or else all wizards would be changing every history. For example, the eras in which witch huntings/burnings were going on they cannot change, or else all us muggles still wouldn’t know (or distinguish between) of such things as ‘magic’ and ‘mysterious hallucinations’. Also, the time in which dark wizards like Voldy or Grindelwald are unchangeable, possibly because it cannot change. Wizards and/or magic cannot change the time that has past, they can only use magical objects to calculate the time they can go back in but not necessarily change it much. Obviously, the change they think they might be doing is not much really a change in time, because their time is spent in two spots (or more?) that what happens in that time is what is meant to occur and much of what they are doing is really not much change in time itself. For instance, when Harry thought he saw his Dad produce the patronus to ward off the hundreds of Dementors, it was actually him the whole time. He might not have known it, but the second time he went through it all, it had already occurred as is and that is why Dumbledore knew to let them use the time turner turning it three times to do what what was fated to happen. So time turners don’t necessarily turn back time so that you may correct it, rather turn back the time you may have limited to, to do exactly what that time is created for that has already happened.
I know that is comlicated explainations, but time is complicated.
1) bringing objects such as food, money, clothes and other material objects of necessity from thin air
2) resurrecting a soul from the dead
3) healing wounds from a curse or unhealable magical misshap from a limited amount of time
4) changing genetics of humans/creatures to a certain degree (Ex: Tonks has ability to metamorph herself so she has that genetically inside her magical powers)
5) going back in time and changing it and/or limited time (/space)
alot of your guys’s answers or predictions are based off simple things that i have stuck into the number one spot… material objects and such that are basically in one category that you can expand on…
thinking broader to a humans extent, more worldly wide occurances could be bounced off these laws and more exceptions could be added on… it’s like the many theories and laws to gravity, motion, etc…
All very well stated, a wizard probably can’t change time, BUT! Would time changing time fall under the art of transfiguration? I think not.
Since we’re not discussing the five exceptions of magic, it’s the five exception of transfiguration, I don’t think changing time qualifies.
I’ve always thought it was love but flipping through the comments…well my theory:
SLughorn mentions in the 6th book that it is impossible to create or imitate love and that you can only create a powerful obsession…
but that its a potion isn’t it? not a transfiguration spell so my new theory:
Ms Rowling made it up as 5 because it sounded catchy.
The five exceptions are simply: food, love, life, money, and information.
Sorry, but once again we’re talking about the five exceptions to the laws of elemental transfiguration. Love, life and information are not elements (physical things).
i think its love. slughorn said it. love cannot be created. when talking about amortentia.
That’s not an element.
well off course there could be creatures or objects that are are immune for transfiguration that we never heard from.
Well… it’s your turn to guess, Carni, as the books don’t say.
How about Politicians? Perhaps you can’t transfigure a politician since they keep changing themselves so much…
That would explain why they couldn’t do anything about Fudge…
of course love is an element! The definition of an element is not limited to physical things. An element can encompass anything abstract or not.
You cannot say an element is purely physical. Even a simple definition of the word could refer to the elementary elements of Earth, Fire, Water, and AIR. Obviously, not all relating to purely physical, tangible substance.
Love is without a doubt one of the elements, which is clearly stressed upon in the sixth book.
Nope, sorry. By definitition, an element is physical, not abstract. Love is a force, it is not an element.
Even if you go by the medieval definition (earth, water, air, and fire) those are all tangeable. Air has physical properties, so does fire. But love has no physical properties, you can only see it by its affect.
Important? Yes. Element? No.
I do agree with you saying that the last one cannot be love. As Dave Haber says, we are talking about the five exceptions to the laws of “elemental transfiguration”. Elements are based on elementary particles (atoms etc.), thus they are physical. Love is no physical substance, it is an abstract phenomenon.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned earlier, but what about wands being the last exception? I can’t help myself thinking that if anyone could make themselves a wand from anything, that could possibly cause a lot of trouble and make the society pretty chaotic…
I think you can’t transfigure anything bigger then the wizard himself. seems like a fair rule to me
Hm. Interesting idea. Can anyone think of an example in the books when a wizard transfigured something really big?
People keeps mentioning impossible things, let’s review:
1) Love: Not possible, it’s not a physical object, and as such, you can’t point a wand to it, therefore, you can’t transfigure it.
2) Time: Same as before.
3) Weather: Weather is actually an abstract human concept that is used for reference on several unrelated pehnomena, it’s not a “thing” per s�, so I dont’ think so. (Just because some mutant does it in a comic book doesn’t mean it applies to HP’s universe).
And just because they don’t do it in the books doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Perhaps, as someone mentioned before, it’s easier for someone with lesser skills to just buy something instead of transfiguring it if it’s too difficult to do it.
I don’t have a idea of what else could be, I’d have to read the books again… Maybe it’s horcruxes, after all, you HAVE to destroy them…