My headcanon is that Snape actually didn’t “invent” shit, just noted spells he heard / learned elsewhere into the only book he had on him at all times - the potions book, the little nerd.

 

Hmm... maybe Levicorpus on the self or a variation?

Snape's spells were meant for ease of use silently and possibly wandlessly.

 

Attributed to Snape are Langlock, Muffliato, Sectumsempra, Levicorpus, Liberacorpus, Toenail-growing hex, Vulnera Sanentur (though you can argue that the wiki isn't canon)

But I like the idea that Snape invents spells. Because you can be a genius and a horrible person stupid at relationships at he same time.

And also because I hate the "wizarding Britain is stagnant" trope. And given that Hogwarts is supposed to be the best school and finishing it he highest education you can get, it makes sense that students are able to make new discoveries. Snape inventing spells may not be something extraordinary, maybe several students do...

 

Also he explicitly claims them as his in HBP, something along the lines of "you dare to use my own spells against me Potter?"

 

What is your headcanon concerning Gringotts?

Gobelins = magical goldsmiths
It is considered that banking in England began with goldsmiths keeping gold in exchange for receipt promising a certain sum to be paid even to third parties. Given that Gobelins are known for working with metals (sword of Gryffindor) it makes sense for them to go from blacksmithing to banking.

Accidents in Gringotts
You have to ride a roller coaster every time you want to withdraw money. It's time-consuming, unfortable and maybe even dangerous: do we know of many accidents with Gringotts carts?

Keeping open tabs
So you don't want to go through the Gringotts roller coaster very often, but you also don't want to run around with lots of cash on you. I can imagine people running tabs in the shops they patronize often and only settling it once a month. If you're a Malfoy you don't need to give a guarantee. But maybe, if you're not so famously rich, you need a bank statement from Gringotts saying how much you have in your vault or a letter of your employer stating that you're working as [insert job position here] to open a tab. And if you're poor and jobless? You can only pay cash.

Savings accounts / does everybody have a vault?
While it makes sense to keep your million galleons and precious family artifacts in a Gringotts vault, if you live with little cash, because you're good at magic, are self-sufficient and/or trade for goods and you only win enough money to settle your debts each month and don't have much savings, do you truly need a vault? (if the Gobelins charge a vault fee that is higher that the interest you get, it's not worth it)

Business vaults / bank transfers
Do employers deposit salaries in each employee's Gringotts vault, or do they have to withdraw tons of money and pay their employees in cash? (who in turn have to go to the bank to re-deposit their salary) It seems like a real hassle. But if we imagine that a business owner can transfer money from one vault to the other, why not everybody? If vault transfers are a thing, then you could have the equivalent of a current account with debit card (or owl order transactions) and nobody would lug galleons around. So I imagine only the very big and prestigious employers can do that (the Ministry, Hogwarts). Which explains why the Weasleys have a vault even if it's always almost empty: it's a prestige thing.

Loans and investments
Given that the Bank of England was founded after the Statute of Secrecy (and that its banknotes weren't legal tender for more than a century after that), I really don't see Goblins investing in the Muggle world. It was separated too soon.
That being said, giving your money to somebody for safekeeping and getting a note promising you'll get your money back with some interest is a practice that existed already in Antiquity.
So it wouldn't be too unrealistic for the Goblins to give interest. Although I am undecided about what exactly they do with the gold. Do they only need it to make more galleons by loaning to others (like Ludo Bagman)? Or do they need the metals for their own super-secret-awesome goblin magic?

Beware of pickpockets / mokeskin pouches
Harry received a mokeskin pouch for his birthday and Hagrid said they were “rare”. How expensive are they? Do you think the Weasleys can afford one? Apparently Hagrid could afford to gift one, but maybe he traded it against some rare animal parts or something...
The only other person that I remember having that kind of bigger-outside-than-inside bag is Hermione (and I think she charmed it herself), being good at magic is VERY useful for such things.

 

Snape's way of teaching Harry Occlumency was actually the best way to learn, he was just a raging cunt about it which limited Harry's ability to pick it up.

Occlumency and Legilimency cannot be taught through books, only practice and experimentation, because everyone's mind is unique. There is no one way to clear your mind or enter someone else's.

There are also no Occlumency 'shields.' If someone wants to break into someone else's mind, they can. A wizard/witch's capabilities can merely influence what happens from there. Adepts can clear their minds in an instant so that the intruder doesn't learn anything. Experts can feed false information. Masters can trap unsuspecting Legilimens and turn the spell back on the caster.

Finally, wizards who are considered Occlumens aren't blank masks. Becoming adept at Occlumency means one has a greater understanding of one's own mind; they're simply more self-aware.

 

This is an interesting point, personally I've always thought that you are unlikely to get interest from a Gringotts bank account, and charging a vault fee (perhaps based on the square footage) makes sense.

By depositing at Gringotts you are paying a fee in order to securely store your money. Even folk who rarely have much on hand probably keep a vault running for the small amount they have in case they randomly have a significant deposit to make from a windfall of some sort. Thievery is likely reasonably easy for a moderately skilled wizard, and if you find out that someone keeps their gold at home then it's a prime target.

As for why the Weasley's would have one, my guess would be that it's tied to your idea of running tabs in shops. Arthur has a secure and respectable job, even if it's not well paid. Between that and the knowledge that he has a vault at Gringotts he can probably carry his tab with just making minimum payments for a few months - for example over the summer when they have far greater expenses shops would likely let them build up a tab that they pay off over the cheaper months after the start of the school year.

 

One other thing I am not clear on: what exactly do the Gobelins have monopoly on?

They are the only one that make money which is legal tender (galleons, sickles, knut).
Do wizards use that internationally? Are Gobelins bankers everywhere on the planet or is it only in England? (I can't remember)
They are apparently the only ones that are able to provide a safe place (vaults) for people's possessions. Is it because they are the only ones ALLOWED to build such a complex as the Gringotts bank? Or because gobelin enchantments/protections are little known and so wizards have a hard time countering/breaking them? Or is it simply because they have the tactical advantage of a good location (underground maze occupied since centuries)?
They are loaning money. But are they the only ones that are allowed to loan money? Could the Malfoy family loan money to the Crabbes and the Goyles? Between being at the mercy of the Malfoy and at the mercy of the Gobelins, I'm not sure what is worse...

 

At least for the last one we know the asnwer is yes, one member of the Black Family received an Order of Merlin after giving the ministry a decent loan.

Otherwise I think it's more a matter of convenience. Goblins are good at keeping things safe, and while great wizards like Dumbledore can do that too, they'd rather do other things. So the regular wizards go to Goblins instead.

 

We don't really know anything about Gringott's situation in a constitutional or legislative context unfortunately, they may be the Mint of the wizarding world, and responsible for managing the economy. Personally I'd go with a much less formalised idea - they set up the bank and secured it with their best defences, so that people would pay the Goblins to keep their money safe. Much easier to may a small vault fee and know that its guarded by Goblin enchantments and dragons, than to try and protect it in your own home and maybe fail. Crowdsourcing the cost of high cost, expert defences effectively.

The quote is that he gave the Ministry a lot of gold, not a loan. I always viewed it as more likely to be the sort of bribe or "gift" that Malfoy gave in order to get off without charges after the first war - a donation to the Minister/Ministry in exchange for a socially significant reward like the Order of Merlin seems exactly like the sort of thing that would happen.

 

It was also mentioned in the Pottermore article about the Order of Merlin, where it's confirmed that it was a loan.

 

Huh...a rather bizarre creative decision by JK, that one.

 

I have quite a bit about the Aurors.

I always thought that the Aurors were a specialized group dealing specifically with dark magic, wizards, and creatures rather than just a generic "police officer" equivalent. They'd have a more generalized division of Enforcement officers in Magical Law Enforcement that handle the more mundane cases like "break-ins", crowd control etc. I also think they pre-date the ministry.

The next part is completely made up, but I liked to think that the Aurors were an independent order of wizards committed to fighting dark wizards/magic/etc. long before the ministry was established. When the ministry was created to handle the Statute, the Aurors were brought into the fold, to co-ordinate and ensure that the statute wasn't broken.

Regarding quantity, I don't think there are that many Aurors ever. Running at full strength, there are about 45 Aurors, divided into teams and led by a Senior Auror (not always the ranking Senior Auror). These team leaders report to a Head Auror and their deputy.

In terms of ability, I consider Aurors to be comparable to the inner circle. Those Death Eaters were the most talented and IIRC, there weren't actually that many "marked" Death Eaters (~20-30). I think an Auror apprehending a Death Eater from the inner circle is a fair fight and could go either way/overwhelmed if enough numbers on their side (Bellatrix & Co. vs the Longbottoms).

 

I have actually a similar Headcanon, though I would put the number of Aurors even lower at about a dozen, since it was mentioned that they're very picky and during the time of Order of the Phoenix they haven't hired anyone for years.

I would also put the average Auror even higher than most Death Eaters, except for the exceptinal ones like Snape or Bellatrix.

 

Tonks had only just finished her 3 years of training at that point.

Hiring 1 person every 3 or 4 years makes sense when people can live and work for decades longer than muggles can. Especially if you have a reasonably small team - given that the population of wizarding Britain is the size of a muggle town they don't need that many super specialised dark wizard catchers.

 

Oh, definetly but the way Mcgonagall mentioned it, it seemed to me that a big part of it is them being picky, which if they only need a small number at any given time they should be.

 

You know, if Tonks was the only one to "graduate", that means that she received private instruction. It's not even an excellent auror school, it's individual instruction (which is presumably even better). Aurors should be really the best.

 

-----

Because I have too much free time and I'm stuck at home... I am trying to wrap my head around transfiguration. Here are some ramblings...

The results of a transfiguration are always individualized (there are no “true form”)

I understand the “true form” of a circle (can imagine a perfect circle even if drawing one is impossible). But is only works for “basic” concepts. It doesn't work for more complex, culturally charged, ones.

What would be the true form (basic form) of a hat? Of a chair? They are simple objects which are understood differently in different cultures... and sometimes even differently by people speaking the same language and living not far away from each other. For me a “gilet” is waistcoat (like in a three piece suit) or a jacket without sleeves. But for my friends living in France barely 5 km away, a “gilet” is simply a sweater/cardigan.

So I really can't see everyone having the same “base form”, it would depend too much of your personal experience with what you're trying to transfigure. What is a transfigured dog going to look like? It would be different for everyone. And probably change throughout your life.

A British person may see a bulldog. For me, it would probably be a labrador because my uncle has one and because one of my friends has a guide-dog, which is a labrador. But at 10 years old, it would probably have been a red cocker spaniel, because of the comics Boule&Bill. And I see dogs as nice helpful pets, but somebody living in a rural area who is used to dogs as guard dogs who live outside and don't come inside the house? I'm sure that their “basic” dog is going to be much more tough and mean than mine.

Transfiguration theory
Concepts/ideas of the caster matter, not ”scientific” characteristics of the object

First class of transfiguration, students change a match into a needle : They both are of similar size and form. They both are useful but potentially dangerous (get burned or pricked). They both should provide confort (you make fire and clothes to be warm and comfortable). Metal is much more solid, heavy and dense than wood, but it doesn't matter. I am pretty sure that transfiguration theory doesn't cover molecular structure.

Dudley was easily transformed into a pig (or should have been for a fully trained wizard), not only because he looked fat, but because he behaved like one (gorging himself on food). And maybe because Hagrid is prejudiced and considers Muggles “dirty”.

Note that it depends of the perceptions of the caster: pigs are actually quite clean and clever animals, and some people have weight problems without eating too much. Hagrid only saw a fat boy covering behind a sofa. He couldn't know what were Dudley's eating habits or why he was chubby.

So if I transfigure a dog thinking “nice friend” “loyal companion”, I'll get a cute pet. But if I have the “strong” “clever” “helpful” “protective” elements in my mind (think police dog) I may get a german shepherd or a St Bernard. If I am afraid of dogs and think of “ferocity” and “danger”, I may get a rabid pittbull. With practice, by concentrating more on some characteristics than others, I'll be able to choose which dog I get.

It is not a question of Visualisation, but of Conceptualisation.

((I wonder if I could transfigure for my daughter a puppy who doesn't pee everywhere, doesn't chew shoes and won't ever be jealous of the baby? Could that work?))

Semantics / culture matter (long lost in translation)

That's something I didn't get for a long time, because as a child I read the books in French and “changer des scarabées en boutons” just doesn't sound the same than “beetle into buttons”. Back then, I just found the idea of sewing insects to your clothing pretty disgusting. Lost in translation!

Maybe I am not from the right time or from the right country but I didn't get why it should be bunnies to make slippers. (I just thought it was slippers made with rabbit fur, which admittedly would be nice and warm, but I imagined Malfoy would rather be making ermine-slippers or golden niffler-slippers). And also at that age I didn't know what a snuffbox was (only knew people smoking cigarettes and pipes). So I would have had trouble transfiguring one from a mouse.

So the transfiguration depends also from your personal understanding and life experience, and from your culture and primary language. Presumably in Beauxbatons they change parrots into curved rulers and mussels into baking tins.

You can't transfigure food (lie-to-children or “the Gamp conspiracy”?)
I know canon says that, but ... in my headcanon it isn't a hard rule.

If you can CREATE LIFE by permanently transfiguring a perfectly functional chicken (and Hogwarts students are already transfiguring animals in their third year), then WHY can't you transfigure a simple edible apple?! It really really doesn't make sense. I can't find a way for it to make sense for me. Doesn't compute.

However, I am perfectly willing to put restrictions on it so that wizards can't survive by eating only the products of transfiguration :

Maybe it's more difficult then it looks, or maybe it tastes horrible, or maybe it's like an apple produced by intensive farming and full of pesticides and fertilisers (almost no nutrition and really bad for your health long term).
Or maybe it's a cultural taboo for some reason (and only the dregs of society do it). Or maybe it makes you develop life-threatening allergies to magic and you'll have to live like a muggle afterwards. Or maybe it only gives you a half-life like drinking unicorn blood. Or whatever... [feel free to imagine consequences as horrible as you wish].

But in a pinch it should be possible to transfigure an apple and eat it, even if it isn't “healthy” and you pay the price for it afterwards. In my headcanon, the “you can't transfigure food” is more a warning than a rule.

((Crackpot theory: the long-term consequences for eating transfigured food are an urban legend started by the Gamp family (“eat transfigured food and your children are going to be squibs”!) It's a conspiracy! The Gamps were landowners and farmers and their tenants were gradually put out of business because more and more Hogwarts graduates were simply living of transfigurated food. Instead of adapting and breeding magical animals and plants they began spreading rumours and even published fake studies in Transfiguration Today.
And the Weasley cultivate their own vegetables simply because they find it tastes better (and the work keeps their rambunctious children busy).
Oh and the Gamps were rivals of the Longbottoms who had the monopoly on the most lucrative species of magical tobacco.))

You can't transfigure gold (because the universe has a “memory”)
Gold has been considered valuable by many civilisations throughout history. It's rare (but not the most rare), it's non corrosive and ductile (but there are other metal like that also). So why gold?

In my headcanon, I'm going with the idea that gold has also magical caracteristics, that you can't reproduce by transfiguration. These caracteristics are both natural (were there from the start) and magically induced/reinforced over time (since everybody gives it value, it becomes more valuable and therefore more magical.)

Because I like the idea that places/things have “memories” and that acts and events have magical consequences. Like the Normandy landing sites aren't magically the same before and after 1943. Or like the DADA position which got cursed because a very powerful and qualified wizard was rejected. It may be Tom cursing the position actively or it may be a naturally magically occurring curse. Or a mixture of the two (wouldn't it be a genius move of Tom to piggy-back that “event” to put his curse in place?)

Same idea for gobelin-wrought silver... and for gobelin-made coins (galleons, sickles and knuts). It is a mixture of the Gobelins working the metal with secret techniques and gobelin culture valuing silver so much for some reason, that gobelin-made silver objects become very special. Maybe Gobelins know how to speed up the naturally occurring acquisition of magical properties of precious metals.

 

Transfiguration

The way that transfiguration is taught is first like-to-like and later on like-to-unlike. A match and aneedlelook similar. A hedgehog has pins sticking out, a pin cushion has pins sticking in. And so on. The more skill you gain in Transfiguration, the greater the difference in form or function you can transfigure an object.

Transfigurations are not temporary transformations like DnD polymorphs, they are more akin to chemical changes--permanent unless reversed. A teacup transformed into a hedgehog will remain a hedgehog its entire "life."

Charmed Objects

Charms placed on objects are not packets of energy that slowly decay. Instead they are more akin to solid objects (though obviously not actually objects). As such, they are subject to wear and tear over time, gradually becoming less effective and acquiring quirks. Brooms are the most clear example of this, with older models leaning to the left or vibrating when you reach a high speed. Much like a path worn into a floor due to continual footsteps, regular use can leave marks on the objects.

Potions/Apparation

Both of these magical disciplines do not require a wand. You can apparate without having a wand on you, because its not a wand-spell.