In the thousands of years of Wizarding history, there had been very few systematic theories of magic.
Even after so many powerful and wise wizards had tried to organize the field, and after the reforms of the "Early Modern Magical System" and the "Modern Magical System," there were really only two subjects with anything substantial to show for themselves: Transfiguration and Potions.
These were also the two subjects with particularly cohesive curricula in the seventh year of modern magic schools.
The rest—Herbology in the field of Fantastic Plants, Care of Magical Creatures in the field of Fantastic Beasts, Defense Against the Dark Arts in the field of Dark Magic Creatures (specifically, the Dark Magic Creature Defense component), and Charms—were all more inclined toward the pursuit of broad knowledge.
As for subjects like Quidditch, Divination, Arithmancy, and Alchemy, they were almost entirely dependent on talent. If you had a knack for them, you could get started without much teaching; if you didn't, no amount of instruction would help.
The other scattered subjects were no better. "Muggle Studies" was practically nonsense, "Ancient Runes" was merely a language tool, used mainly to read ancient books, and "Astronomy" had made no meaningful advances in over a thousand years.
Some of this was due to the influence of Muggle society and culture.
At some point, people had started resisting magic used for killing and warfare, lumping all of it together under the heading of Dark Magic.
Of course, the Pure-blood families had quietly played a part in this, too. Durmstrang, which only admitted Pure-blood descendants, taught some of the subjects rejected by mainstream culture and legal restrictions.
And so a very interesting question arose.
Were top-tier wizards like Dumbledore and Nicolas Flamel truly so rare in wizarding history?
Of course not.
The founders of Hogwarts,