Gandalf's Staff

[Folwren]

Hollo, all!

Haven't started very many threads, and none of them have been succesful, but I hope this topic (which has been burning in my mind for some time) gets some sort of comments from some people.

I couldn't decide very easily where to put this thread. It has attributes both concerning movie and book, but I think, over all, it'd best go here, where this is where the conversation may end up being.

To start off with,

In the books, when you read them, did you ever consider the significance of Gandalf's staff? (Or any of the wizards' staffs, for that matter.) What did it mean, and why was it necessary?

Consider Gandalf's fight with the Balrog. In the book, he strikes his staff against the bridge to break the stone, and in doing so, his staff shatters. He and the Balrog fall, and then they fight. They fight a long time, down under the earth, and then up above in the highest turret. In the end, Gandalf is victorious, and yet. . .he dies. He dies and is sent back. With what? More power. . .and a new staff is given him.
It think it is arguable that the wizards' staffs simbolize their power. When Gandalf breaks his staff on the stone, and later, after defeating the Balrog, dies, I believe that becuase he broke his staff, it was evident that he knew he was putting every ounce of his power and strength into defeating this Balrog, and after the job was done, he had nothing left. He had to die, so to speak.

To back this theory up, consider Saruman. When Gandalf came to him as the White, he took away his power. And what else? He broke his staff. Several lines, therefore, are drawn in the book between the wizard's power and the wizard's staff.

So saying, turn now your thoughts to the movie. If you think that my opinions above are correct, then you'll probably think now that they completely botched the meaning of Gandalf's and Saruman's staff in the movie.

Think about it. In the Fellowship when Gandalf goes to Saruman, they end up disagreeing and a 'staff fight' ensues. In the end, Saruman takes Gandalf's staff. A thing he shouldn't possibly be able to do unless he is greatly stronger than Gandalf. What does Gandalf do when he escapes? Gets a new one. Bah. In the book, it only states that

'They took me and they set me alone on the pinncale of Orthanc. . .'

No hint if a fight, and I should hope not.

Anyway, to get on. . .

When Gandalf fought the Balrog, his staff did not break upon contact with the bridge, a fact which rather bugs me, and it also helps the part where Saruman's staff is broken by Gandalf become less important and without meaning.

And the lastly, but certainly not least, and a thing that made me furious - when Gandalf met with the Nazgul in Gondor, what happened?? His staff is completely shattered!!! Broken to bits, ruined! His power is wrenched from him just like that. He's a wimp, he's an old man. . .It was infuriating, to say the least. May as well kept that part out of the movie than put it in even the EE. He get's a new white staff, too, I notice.

So, either the movie people didn't know what the staffs meant, or they chose to ignore it utterly, making the entire thing obsolete and unimportant.

Please state any thoughts on the matter. . . particularly agreements or disagreements with the very long post I have just made. Perhaps an excuse of why the movie makers did what they did in this matter. . .or maybe a confirmation of having observed what I just layed out.

-- Folwren

[Raynor]

Oh, one of my favorite subjects...

On this matter, I usually stand on the "staff with magical powers" part of the debate.

Even if Tolkien never states in the LotR if the staff has (or hasn't) magical powers, there are hints in other works:

Originally Posted by An unexpected party, Hobbit

Gandalf struck a blue light on the end of his magic staff, and in its firework glare the poor little hobbit could be seen kneeling on the hearth-rug, shaking like a jelly that was melting.

counterargument: magic is used rather lightly in the Hobbit

Originally Posted by The Istari, Unfinnished Tales

and so he was called among Men of the North Gandalf, "the Elf of the Wand"

a wand is pretty much different, phisically speaking, from a staff - yet it is similar, in characteristics, to a magic staff; the wand refference appears several times in the Hobbit and LotR;

Originally Posted by The Istari, Unfinnished Tales

It is an actual Norse name (found applied to a Dwarf in Völuspá) used by me since it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in "magic," and might be supposed to mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff." Gandalf was not an Elf, but would be by Men associated with them, since his alliance and friendship wit Elves was well-known

debateable refference, but fine by me.

Originally Posted by The mines of Moria, HoME VII

They followed in amazement, and as they stumbled behind he gasped out some information. 'I have lost my staff, part of my beard, and an inch of eyebrows,' he said. 'But I have blasted the door and felled the roof against it, and if the Chamber of Mazarbul is not a heap of ruins behind it, then I am no wizard. All the power of my staff was expended [?in a flash]: it was shattered to bits.

counterargument: this refference doesn't appear in future variants of the story, which would dimminish its validity - not to me

- another point: his stuff isn't affected by fire (when he lights the fire for the fellowship) - but the staff itself could be protected by Gandalf.

[narfforc]

I have always felt that the Staff represented a link between the physical body/world and the spirit/power within. It is a tool to focus whatever that power is, and bring it forth in the form of energy, a conduit maybe. If Saruman the White was more powerful than Gandalf the Grey he may have had the will to break that contact to Gandalfs Staff. Therefore once Gandalf returned as The White Wizard, the breaking of Sarumans Staff maybe have been caused be either overloading that power, or the contest of the wills within the Staff itself.

[Essex]

as I've said on different threads - the staff was a SYMBOL of their power to me - no more, or no less.

notice in the book (and film methinks) - Gandalf breaks Saurman's staff WITH HIS VOICE - his own power within him. no mention of a staff.

he did use the staff to light up a fire back in the fellowship book wise - but I think that's about it.

To hold the Balrog from following them from the chamber in moria he used a Word of Command. Now here, to me, is his REAL power. And something I've always been interested in, but have not found much to read about. Exactly what were the words of Power? anyone know?

[Gothmog]

Interesting, indeed.

But I do not agree with Raynor. I have always viewed the staff(s) as both a token of a wizards rank and power (as a king's sceptre), and as a physical aid to focus one's magical powers. The staff itself have limited magical powers, but is filled with the magic of the wizard.

The new staff given to Gandalf upon his return to life is a sign of his rebirth as the leading wizard of Middle Earth and of his growing powers. It's no different from the change of clothes, from grey to white, that appear at the same time. This is also shown when Gandalf takes away Sarumans powers. "Your staff is broken" he says and it breaks apart. But that's not (according to me) what makes Saruman lose his powers. It's only a visible sign that his powers, like his staff, is broken. A symbolical gesture.

Often when Gandalf uses magic in the Hobbit, it originates in his staff. But my theory is that it's used to channel Gandalf's own powers, it can't create magic on it's own. Like a sword that doesn't kill if there's no-one to wield it. But it can't contain an infinite "mass" of power. If there's too strong magic channelled through it, it will splinter like it did in Raynor's quote from HoME VII, The mines of Moria, or at the bridge of Khazad Dum.

I'm not saying that the staff is some ordinary piece of wood, collected in the nearest forest. Just like a king's sceptre or a great warrior's sword it's a very special item, although it's not the staff that makes the magic. It's probably magic in itself, enhanced to make it withstand immense power, fire etc. and to help the wizard focus his powers. But once again: the magic a wizard creates is his own and is not absolutely dependent on his staff.

So I guess I both agrre and disagree with you, Folwren, and disagree with you, Raynor

(Cross-posting with Essex and narfforc)

[narfforc]

Gandalf broke The Bridge of Khazad-dum with his staff. The Staff was used to scare off the Nazgul and save Faramir. The reports of lightning on Weathertop and its burned appearence, all point to Gandalfs use of his Staff

[Raynor]

Well, since you stated:

"The staff itself have limited magical powers, but is filled with the magic of the wizard.

But my theory is that it's used to channel Gandalf's own powers, it can't create magic on it's own. Like a sword that doesn't kill if there's no-one to wield it. But it can't contain an infinite "mass" of power."

and esspecially

"I'm not saying that the staff is some ordinary piece of wood, collected in the nearest forest. Just like a king's sceptre or a great warrior's sword it's a very special item, although it's not the staff that makes the magic. It's probably magic in itself, enhanced to make it withstand immense power, fire etc. and to help the wizard focus his powers. But once again: the magic a wizard creates is his own and is not absolutely dependent on his staff."

then I see no disagreement between us - quite the contrary. As Tolkien states, "magic is an inherent power" in the wielder, but the staff isn't your everyday piece of wood.

EDIT: How could I forget?. Another even related to the staff's importance, even after Gandalf is the White, is the Theoden's hall incident:

- The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age, said Háma
...
He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf could be seen, standing white and tall before the blackened hearth. In the gloom they heard the hiss of Wormtongue's voice:
- Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff? That fool, Háma, has betrayed us!

Now, what makes that piece of ash-wood worth risking the entrance into the king's hall at such a critical moment? And why did Grim give it so much importance (and Hama too)? I would say, again, that the staff has certain magical capabilities of its own.

[Folwren]

Originally posted by Raynor:
I would say, again, that the staff has certain magical capabilities of its own.

No, no, no, no. That sounds too much like 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice'. See little Pippin decide to steal the staff while Gandalf's taking a nap (not likely) and turn the party tree into a giant torch. Of course, I know that's not what you meant - not anything near, but that's a rather humorous picture that came to mind.

No, say rather, without the wizard, the staff means nothing. But the wizard is rather handicapped without it. I don't know where exactly they intertwine, how much a wizard is dependent on his staff, or what he can do without it. I'm rather inclined to think that without the staff, a wizard can do no 'magic'.

But I'm not exactly sure. . .this is much speculation, and with how this thread and replies are going, I'm beginning to think it would do well in the Book section. . .

-- Folwren

[Raynor]

without the wizard, the staff means nothing.

I already agreed with that part.

I'm rather inclined to think that without the staff, a wizard can do no 'magic'.

Yet when saving Faramir, Gandalf doesn't have a staff, but drives the nazgul away with a "shaft of light"

[Folwren]

Won't argue with that one just now.

-- Folwren

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

Exactly what were the words of Power? anyone know?

We discussed something along these lines
here

As to the question of staffs having innate power, clearly there are many objects in Middle-earth which have innate power: Silmarils, Palantiri, swords, Galadriel's Mirror ('Do not touch the water!'). But they all also have a symbolic significance as well.

So it seems that certain objects are symbols, 'batteries' which can store & discharge power & conduits of the wielder's own power. Of course, others may take up the objects & make use of their power, so its clear that certain objects do store power & are powerful in their own right. Its also clear, though, that its not always possible for someone to pick up a magical object & just use it. Frodo is told by Galadriel he must train his will to be able to use the One.

As to the Wizard's staff. We know from the example of Sauron & the Ring that it is possible for an individual of sufficient ability to pour some of their power into a physical object. Is there a qualitative difference between the Wizard's staff & the One - or is the same technique behind the process? Does a magical object have to be imbued with power by its user/creator? Does Feanor pour some of his fiery spirit into the Silmarils as Sauron pours some of his into the Ring?

Certainly, if Saruman did pour some of his innate power (a great deal of it?) into his staff then Gandalf's breaking of it would be equivalent on a much lesser scale to the effect on Sauron of the destruction of of the One.

[Raynor]

Does Feanor pour some of his fiery spirit into the Silmarils as Sauron pours some of his into the Ring?

I think that the following passage from Of the flight of the noldor, Silmarillion is relevant:

Yavanna spoke before the Valar, saying:
- The Light of the Trees has passed away, and lives now only in the Silmarils of Feanor. Foresighted was he! Even for those who are mightiest under Iluvatar there is some work that they may accomplish once, and once only. The Light of the Trees I brought into being, and within Ea I can do so never again. Yet had I but a little of that light I could recall life to the Trees, ere their roots decay; and then our hurt should be healed, and the
malice of Melkor be confounded.'
...
Feanor spoke then, and cried bitterly:
- For the less even as for the greater there is some deed that he may accomplish but once only; and in that deed his heart shall rest. It may be that I can unlock my jewels, but never again shall I make their like

There is either a limit on the sub-creative power or a limit on creating unique objects: Yavanna can only make the Trees once, Feanor can make the silmarils once.

I don't thinkt that the wizards imbued their staffs with a tremendous amount of energy of their own, but it could be that at least for Saruman this is an irrepeatable act.

[Roa_Aoife]

Ah, yes, symbols. Like the Crucifix, a church, the Star of David, etc, etc, etc. Not to get too deep into theology, or off topic, but when we hear of exorcisms, miracles, and the like, it always involves a symbol. Catholics/ Orthodox Christians pray to paintings of saints, a statues of Mary. Do these objects hold any power? Well, that's a faith issue, but I would say no. They are symbols of the Greater Power.

I had a discussion once with friends about Vampires. (Bear with me, I have a point.) Purely theorizing and the like, we decided that a cross alone couldn't ward one off- it's just two intersecting lines. It has to be a Crucifix. Then we decided that with out faith behind the Crucifix, it can't do anything. So the faith is what really matters, but it needs a symbol to bring the meta-physical power into a physically oriented world. People are simply incapable of dealing with abstractions like magic. It can't just happen- something has to cause it, whether it is a word, a gesture, or a symbol.

The wizard's staff if like this. It can't just be a stick; that would be pointless. It has to be designated as the symbol. But even then it can't do anything without the wizard's power. So, the staff allows the meta-physical and the physical to connect, and the power comes straight from the wizard. It's like a point of contact, or an = in an equation.

[Essex]

understand all the points on the staff being a conduit of power possibly. But why do we have times when Gandalf does not use his staff? Ie on the fields of pellenor and (most importantly) in breaking Saruman's own staff.

so why the inconsistencies? ie sometimes he uses his staff, and others he doesn't? is this just a fault of tolkien? (shock, horror!)

[Folwren]

Does it say that he didn't use his staff while breaking Saruman's staff? Let me grab the book. . .

Hm. It says that he 'raised his hand' and nothing else. And yet. . .you'd think that with such a thing happening, Saruman's power being taken from him and then the staff being broken, that Tolkien wouldn't have made a mistake while concerning with Gandalf's staff.

I don't know.

-- Folwren

[Gothmog]

o why the inconsistencies? ie sometimes he uses his staff, and others he doesn't? is this just a fault of tolkien? (shock, horror!)

If we keep using Roa's Crucifixes and paintings of saint as an example it's easy to explain. A christian can direct his/her prayers directly to God, but can also use symbols. The human being can't always comprehend abstract things and uses real, physical items as help. A wizard's staff may be something that help the wizard to focus and makes it easier to perform magic, but they can manage without it.

Most of us seem to agree that the it's the wizard that holds the greatest power and the staff is there as an tool to increase the power or focus it. Then it's only natural that wizards can perform magic without it, even if it might be harder or not as efficient. A fault by Tolkien? The thought is horrifying!

[Essex]

LOL! yes, I agree! I was only joking!

fyi, here's where I can see the use of gandalf's staff in lotr (other than the breaking of the bridge which has been mentioned above)

On caradhras: "At last reluctantly Gandalf himself took a hand. Picking up a faggot he held it aloft for a moment, and then with a word of command_, naur an edraith ammen!_ he thrust the end of his staff into the midst of it. At once a great spout of green and blue flame sprang out, and the wood flared and sputtered."

Facing the wargs he held his staff up to ward off the wargs, but used a flaming branch and a spell to finish them off, not his staff

He tried to use his staff to open the doors of moria to no avail

He used it as a torch in moria and to flash a bolt of light to see what was about

He ‘lifted up his staff’ - possibly to ward off the blows of the 3 hunters when he met them in fangorn

He raised his staff in edoras making ‘a roll of thunder and to blot the sunlight out

But notice this: no mentioned of his staff against saruman – “He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.”

And notice saruman has a staff when the company overtakes him – but obviously no power to run ‘through’ it.

[JennyHallu]

Perhaps the staff, like the One Ring, is a repository for some of the power of the Istari, as well as a symbol of office. After all, both Sauron and the Istari were supposed to have been Maiar, and perhaps physical repositories for metaphysical power were not uncommon among those people.

The breaking of Gandalf's staff fighting the Balrog may have been a sign that he had had to use all of the power he had stored there (for easy retrieval, perhaps) was used in the conflict, and he had to fight with power from his own person. The replacement of his staff upon his return to Middle-Earth could have simply been intended as an outward symbol of his new status as the Head of the Order. Notice that where up to that point most of Gandalf's displays of power were done by use of the staff (the fire on Caradhras for example, and the light in Moria) he was much less dependent upon it after his fall and rededication, but he still used it occasionally, and not when he was fighting very sophisticated deviltry (i.e. In the hall of Theoden King, casting down Grima's mental, not magical, influence)

And after Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff, Saruman's power is not negated. Weakened, yes, which would follow being rather dependent on a staff that had had millenia to absorb power, but even without his staff he was still capable of wreaking terrible havoc in the Shire...

Just a thought...

[Roa_Aoife]

Jenny, have you ever read Talking to Dragons? The wizard staffs in that are exactly as you describe. (I love that series by the way. )

I'm glad my analogy could be helpful, so here's another. Think of a light bulb. Alone, in and of itself, it cannot create light. It requires electricity, Electricity, on the other hand, needs the light bulb to make it useable. However, when you suddenly throw 400 watts through a 60 watt bulb, it explodes. That's what I think happened to Gandalf's staff on the Bridge. The massive power surge Gandalf used on the bridge overwhelmed the conduit.

Saruman's staff exploding can be explained in the same way. Gandalf merely sent a massive power surge through the staff, causing it to break. He just sent the surge through a different conduit. Like lightening striking a different lightening rod.

EDIT:As for why Saruman was weakened and not powerless after this, he lacked the ability to focus his power into a useful force. Going back to the light energy analogy, it's the difference between flourescent light bulbs and a laser beam.

[JennyHallu]

Honestly, I have no clue if I've read that before. Years ago, I lost any chance of keeping up with my own reading habits. Is that the series by Patricia Wrede?


I simply thought that if the Istari are Maiar, then they don't need the staffs. But they undoubtedly mean something, and the Istari undoubtedly use them in some way, related to their power. As a channel, and maybe a capacitor (electrical thingamabob that stores power), that made sense to me.

[Glirdan]

Hmmm, this is really reminding me of the last play that Shakespear ever wrote: The Tempest. Here's the general idea of what happened. The Duke of Milan was usurped by his evil twin and the King of Naples. He and his daughter were put aboard a rickety old ship and cast out to sea. However (this is the most important part), Gonazalo, the King's advisor, gave Prospero (the Duke) books and he had a staff. From the books, he learned magical abilities so to speak, which would represents his knowledge of the magic. The staff represented his way of controlling that magic. Sound kind of familiar?

I believe that the same thing applies with Gandalf and Saruman. The staff breaks, the magic is broken. Because Gandalf put so much power into breaking the bridge of Moria and the fact that the staff broke signifies (in my opinion) that he lost his magic. All his energy was spent on defeating the Balrog and because he didn't have his magic to aid him, he "died".

[Roa_Aoife]

I can see where you're coming from, Glirdan, but I think you have it a bit backwards. The staff's breaking doesn't make the power dissapate; it just becomes less accessable. Gandalf wasn't killed by the Balrog right away, either in the books or in the movies. Even after his staff was broken, he continued to put up a good fight, and he won before he died. I would say that the effort of focusing his magic with out his staff, especially after the massive surge that broke the bridge, took it's toll on his physical body.

Originally Posted by Glirdan

The staff represented his way of controlling that magic.

Exactly, it's the method of control, not the magic itself. The staff just makes it easier to direct the power into something viable. Staff is to power as OS is to Computer, so to speak.

[davem]

I suspect that a magical object like a staff is in some ways like the taking on of a physical form. None of the Maiar actually need to incarnate, but it enables them to function better in the physical universe.

The same seems to be true of Elves, but in the opposite way - their fea will eventually (in Middle-earth at least) burn away their hroa & they will exist as beings of spirit only. To what extent a wizard's staff can be seen as an 'extension' of his physical form is an interesting question. To lose a staff may be equivalent to losing a limb - it wouldn't finish you off, but it would severely disable you. It may be that Gandalf was powerfull enough without his staff to perform certain magical acts, but clearly it is useful in extreme circumstances. Or maybe its just easier to use a staff & means less energy is expended in the particular act. I'm not sure there's anything a wizard could do with a staff that he couldn't do without it, but at the same time one could ''charge' it with so much power, or become so dependent on doing magic with it, that without it one became virtually helpless.

It reminds me of Julian May's 'Saga of the Exiles', where the aliens have latent psychic abilities which they activate by using artifical devices (torcs). These necklaces give them great powers but in the end actually prevent them developing their abilities naturally. Anything they could do with the torcs they could have learned to do without them, but they chose the short cut of technology.

Perhaps this is another subtle condemnation of the Machine on Tolkien's part - as he stated magic is another manifestation of the Machine, not something qualitatively different.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by davem

It may be that Gandalf was powerfull enough without his staff to perform certain magical acts, but clearly it is useful in extreme circumstances. Or maybe its just easier to use a staff & means less energy is expended in the particular act. I'm not sure there's anything a wizard could do with a staff that he couldn't do without it, but at the same time one could ''charge' it with so much power, or become so dependent on doing magic with it, that without it one became virtually helpless.

(My emphasis)

Well, Davem's comment brought another case of an innanimate object being "charged" with energy to the point that the one who charged it becomes extremely dependent. Yes, the One Ring and Sauron.

Gandalf looses his staff but then recovers it when he comes back. Gandalf only increases his powers. On the other hand, Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff and Saruman looses most of his powers. Before I did not really see how Saruman could have lost his magic "all of a sudden" when his forces were destroyed by the Ents and the Rohorrim, yet if you think of the Staff as a "weaker" equivalent of The Ring, it'd be possible that by loosing his staff Saruman lost his magical "energy" or powers or what ever name you may give it... yet he had not compromised so much of his own being as to be destroyed with the destruction of the staff.

In that light, the creation of the One Ring could have very well been the science of magic staffs taken to the extreme. In a way, both things are very similar, inannimate objects that give their Ainur owners powers far greater than before.

[Lalwendë]

The Staff can represent a lot of things, including status, positions of office, leadership. What is it? It could be seen as a simple pointing device, as in the conductor's baton, or it can also be used as a weapon. The staff can also be used as a simple walking stick, as Gandalf himself cleverly claims it to be at Meduseld.

I think what Tolkien is playing with is that the Wizard's staff is both a form of wand and a symbol of his position. Of course, a staff is much more visually impressive than a wand. But it does seem to perform the same basic function as a wand, and that is to channel something. Wands could be seen to be an invention of modern Wiccans, but they exist in the tarot as one of the suits, and are sometimes also known as Staves, and are often also depicted in that way.

The staff of a wizard is clearly important in Middle-earth or else Gandalf would not have broken Saruman's. But I think it also serves an additional purpose to channeling 'magic', the staff is also a symbol of the Wizard's position. Gandalf is head of the order when he breaks Saruman's staff, so I think he was also performing the function of casting him out when he broke it.

[davem]

There is, now I think about it, a very obvious Freudian interpretation of the breaking of Saruman's staff....

[alatar]

Sometimes, after a brief nod at work, I become more aware of where I am and demand, "the day...what day is it man!" Usually this gets my coworkers scurrying, like they don't have enough to be concerned about anyway. The point, though, is that sometimes I can't be sure if I'm in the past, the present or the future.

Reading this thread, I get the feeling that I've been here before. On the other hand, if you've already read what I've just written, sorry for the redundancy. Anyway...

Is Gandalf's staff wooden? As mentioned, he uses it to set other wood afire.

Though I might disagree with equating a cross/Crucifix with a wizard's staff, I like the analogy presented by Roa_Aoife. Think that this was done well in the movie "Salem's Lot," though I may be mistaken. The main vampire confronts a priest who is armed with a Crucifix, but easily overwhelms the holy man as the vampire knows that the priest has no faith in the artifact, therefore it has no power. The main characters fashion crosses out of tongue depressors, and these are much more effective against the blood-drinking undead. But in regards to the staves of the Istari, I don't think that it is their faith in the item that gives any benefit.

Regarding Saruman's staff: This token of office did not aid him when he addressed Theoden and Gandalf, and its breaking only showed the mastery of Gandalf and the feebleness of Saruman. Plus, as a symbol of Saruman's office, it was taken from him as he had gone over to the enemy. Saruman, like many others on that side (Melkor, Sauron) lose their innate power by dispersing it amongst others to control these others. Sauron had to give some of himself to create the Ring to control the other Rings, so much so that he would be destroyed when it was. Saruman, in order to control his orcs and hillmen and Wormtongue, gave away the power that one such as Gandalf retained. So my point here is that Saruman was no more or less powerful with his staff, and so it cannot be a great channeler (i.e. no multiplier effect). And I don't think that the staves have any power within themselves, or surely Sauron would have tried to take them. Gandalf may use the staff to effect something - start a fire with the end of it - but it's not the staff, but Gandalf. Can't see him shooting fire out of his fingers, or breaking the Bridge with his heel, and so he needs some tool.

Gandalf, like the other Istari, came to Middle Earth as an old man. These staff-men were forbidden to declare themselves, matching power with power with Sauron, and I would think that the purpose of the staves that these men carried was to remind them of that. A old man walking with a staff is not too unlikely, and so the symbol of their office was more ordinary than would be a rod or some flagrant banner. And not only were the Istari hobbled so that the Free Folk of ME would have to act to remove the scourge of Sauron (and not sit back and have the wizards do it for them), but also it afforded them a disguise that, for a while, may have hidden them from Sauron and also permitted them to interact with the peoples of ME who would be less intimidated by these old men who needed a 'third leg' for support. So the staff was a reminder of the Valar's decree and a camoflagued symbol of office.

A few posters have already noted that Gandalf's staff breaks on the Bridge. All seem to think that Gandalf breaks it, or at least shoots so much energy through it that it gets overloaded. But consider, when Gandalf first meets the Balrog, though at that time he does not know what it is, he tries to shut the Mazarbul chamber back door to slow the pursuit of the orcs and this other. The Balrog counters his spell, and so Gandalf whips out one of those Words of Command and shatters the door.

Note that the door breaks but Gandalf's staff is intact. Also, remember, Gandalf is aware somehow of this other, and knows that this other has 'preceived' him too. There's some mental stuff going on, obviously.

So consider: Just a little while later Gandalf decides to hold off the Balrog while the other eight escape. Winged or not, presumably if Gandalf breaks the Bridge, the Balrog is stuck as Gandalf has either cut off the pursuit (orcs AND Balrog) or at least slowed it somewhat until some other fortunate accident comes up ("Anyone see any Eagles?"). The Balrog, no dunce, knows that it would be better to continue the pursuit while Gandalf is still drained and that it might be better to take on the Nine Walkers inside of Moria than outside. It guesses what Gandalf is attempting after its sword is broken, and so it goes for the counterspell again. The strain on Gandalf's staff, which is being used to direct his spell to crack the bridge, is just too much. And so this is technically a power overload, it's not Gandalf's power alone but that of the Balrog's too.

So the Balrog is mostly responsible for breaking Gandalf's staff, as later Gandalf will be when Saruman's is broken.

And what does PJ add to this? Well, that's a really shallow puddle, to be sure.

**Special prediction - The Steelers will win the Super Bowl in 2006. Place your bets early .

[Gothmog]

So my point here is that Saruman was no more or less powerful with his staff, and so it cannot be a great channeler (i.e. no multiplier effect). And I don't think that the staves have any power within themselves, or surely Sauron would have tried to take them. Gandalf may use the staff to effect something - start a fire with the end of it - but it's not the staff, but Gandalf. Can't see him shooting fire out of his fingers, or breaking the Bridge with his heel, and so he needs some tool.

There's a slight contradiction in what you say. The staff cannot be a great channeler, but Gandalf needs some tool. I agree that it doesn't have any multiplier effect but it is used as a channeler when Gandalf shoots fire from it's end or breaks the bridge. I totally agree with you that the staff in itself doesn't contain the power to do this, but would an ordinary wooden branch be able to do this? It still is Gandalf that has the power and uses the magic though.

Is Gandalf's staff wooden? As mentioned, he uses it to set other wood afire.

Wooden, but enhanced with magic so that it both is fire-resistant (probably tougher in many ways) and has the capacity to channel powerful spells without being destroyed in the process. Unless the power is to great for it or it meets some sort of resistance like the Balrog in alatar's theory.

What would Sauron use such a staff for? I'm sure that Gandalf or Saruman could have managed without one and maybe made a new one. Sauron doesn't have the need of a "focusing tool", and if he needed one he could probably design something himself. Or maybe he already have the two blue wizard's staffs? But if he was in a position where he could take Gandalf's staff, then surely he would be able to kill him just as easily. Obviously, this haven't happened so it's we don't know if he desires the staffs or not. But I'd think that he would be happier if he could get rid of the wizards themselves.

As many others have been pointing out, the staff as a token of a wizards office is important. When Saruman speaks to Gandalf outside Orthanc, he says that Gandalf won't settle before he has the keys to Barad-dûr, seven king's crowns and five wizard's staffs (and a pair of new boots ). Also, Gandalf demands Sarumans staff together with the keys of Orthanc.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

There's a slight contradiction in what you say.

I must not be trying hard enough then if I've only contradicted myself slightly....

The staff cannot be a great channeler, but Gandalf needssome tool.

Agreed. As noted, when Gandalf faces wolves and Wargs, he uses pine cones or branches, whatever seems handle. Again my point is that the staff isn't really that special, nor is Gandalf helpless without it, but like he said on Caradhras, he can't burn snow and so needs something.

What would Sauron use such a staff for?

The only useful thing would be as a spike upon which to place a wizard's head. My point is that if the staffs had any innate power, then Sauron may have attempted to acquire one or more. Sauron had a palantir, stole black horses and also had his minions gather up any mithril that they stumbled upon, and so sought out that which could be used or turned to some evil purpose. Melkor took the Silmarils, not so much as they were useful to him (well, not directly, but his acquisition of the Jewels surely caused a fuss) but for bragging rights ("Hey Fëanor, how do you like my new crown? Naanaanaa!").

[Gothmog]

Again my point is that the staff isn't really that special, nor is Gandalf helpless without it, but like he said on Caradhras, he can't burn snow and so needs something.

You and I are on the same wavelength concerning this. I've never said that Gandalf is helpless without his staff, on the contrary I've always said that the power originates in Gandalf and that he can cast spells without it (as we see him do at some occasions). But I still think that the staff is making it easier.

About the staff not being special, didn't you yourself wonder about the fire resistance of the staff? How can we explain this without a protecting power of some kind? A staff made of stone? Besides, I doubt that a piece of wood can be used as a magic channeler or resist the strains this must bring.

My point is that if the staffs had any innate power, then Sauron may have attempted to acquire one or more. Sauron had a palantir, stole black horses and also had his minions gather up any mithril that they stumbled upon, and so sought out that which could be used or turned to some evil purpose.

Again: maybe Sauron wanted the staffs. But to acquire one he had to kill (or at least seriously hurt) Gandalf, Saruman or Radagast. He needed Saruman for other purposes and I don't think he wanted to upset his ally yet. And for Gandalf he would need a very powerful servant which could destroy him. And why risk someone like the witchking to gather a staff which might help him a little bit (or give him an excuse for an irritating HAAAHAAA and some fingerpointing in the direction of the Istari). Then there's Radagast. We don't know much about his whereabouts and doings but I think we can regard him as a wizard of lesser power than Gandalf or Saruman. We don't even know if he have a staff as far as I know, except for the mention of "five wizard's staffs" by Saruman.

My point his, I don't think that they contained enough power to interest the Dark Lord or make him risk one of his most powerful minions, but they contained some power.

[Essex]

You and I are on the same wavelength concerning this. I've never said that Gandalf is helpless without his staff, on the contrary I've always said that the power originates in Gandalf and that he can cast spells without it (as we see him do at some occasions). But I still think that the staff is making it easier.

Though my admonition of the text was mostly in jest at the start of this thread, reading these posts, unfortunately, I'm begining to see a flaw in the use of Staffs in LOTR. Sorry Professor.....

If the stafff makes it EASIER to cast spells, why does he not use his staff on the two of the most important confrontations - 1/ on the door to the chamber he had to say a Word of Command - which spent him of most of his power and 2/ breaking Saruman's staff - neither of these occasions did he use his staff, but in the case of number 1 - Ten minutes later he DOES use his staff to break the Bridge. Very confusing I have to admit....... a mistake by the Author??????

[Gothmog]

If the stafff makes it EASIER to cast spells, why does he not use his staff on the two of the most important confrontations - 1/ on the door to the chamber he had to say a Word of Command - which spent him of most of his power and 2/ breaking Saruman's staff - neither of these occasions did he use his staff, but in the case of number 1 - Ten minutes later he DOES use his staff to break the Bridge. Very confusing I have to admit....... a mistake by the Author??????

I don't have any good answers to your question, but I can see one explanation for case 2 if we look at this action as the official end of Saruman's power more than an actual breaking of it. It might be that Saruman, by his disobedience towards Valar, has lost his power and Gandalf only performs the last, official act in removing the power. He takes away Saruman's token of office and power: his staff. If that's the case, Gandalf wouldn't need any great power to break it. One can also suspect the interference of Valar, that Gandalf has their support in this action and only works as a tool for the execution of their will. That would perhaps give him the power of Valar for this task and the use of a staff would be unnecessary.

In the first case, we don't even know what this Word of Command really is, so how can we discuss the necessity of a staff for this? This Word of Command is a word and maybe it's used orally, without any special focusing of it's power? I don't know...

[davem]

We also have Denethor breaking his staff of office as he stands on his pyre. This seems to be a symbolic setting aside of authority, or rank/position. Denethor rejects the position of Steward, Saruman has his position as head of the Order taken from him by Gandalf.

[alatar]

And I would note that unless it states otherwise, Gandalf always has his hand on his staff, so even when it doesn't come into play (or to the forefront of the text), it's still there. Rarely does he set it down or aside.

[Gothmog]

Yes, I forgot that... Does it say that he didn't use his staff when he used the Word of Command?

[Morsul the Dark]

Gandalf died after killing the balrog because he broke his staff but more because without it he collapsed from exhaustion.

no actually the staff although imbued with power is more likely a lightning rod of sorts Gandalf has the power within himself but its unfocused like electricity or radio waves going every which way but the staff like an attenna or a wire controls where the magic goes gandalf when he came back had more power yes and received a staff that could handle the power on the bridge he sent so much power through the staff it shattered like a fuse after a powersurge

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Gandalf died after killing the balrog because he broke his staff but more because without it he collapsed from exhaustion.

I disagree. Although no one knows what happens to Gandalf's staff from the time he is jailed on Orthanc to the time he shows up at Rivendell, I would assume that for some time at least he was bereft of his staff, yet suffered no ill effects (except from being humiliated by Saruman ).

no actually the staff although imbued with power is more likely a lightning rod of sorts Gandalf has the power within himself but its unfocused like electricity or radio waves going every which way but the staff like an attenna or a wire controls where the magic goes gandalf when he came back had more power yes and received a staff that could handle the power on the bridge he sent so much power through the staff it shattered like a fuse after a powersurge

Or is the staff a way of obfuscating his power? Remember when Bilbo disappears using the Ring at his birthday party? Gandalf adds a bit of smoke so that Bilbo just doesn't vanish, and this permits alternate explanations for his disappearance ("It was a trick of that magician Gandalf," etc). So, in the same way, does Gandalf use his staff so that he doesn't have to shoot power/fire/etc from his hand, but can (when he so chooses) make the magic appear from his staff? As an example I would point to the light that he produces in Moria. If this glow would have emanated from his hands or head, I think that there would have been more notice to the magic than by simply having the tip of his staff produce a faint glow.

It's an understated way of working.

[Morsul the Dark]

first off the exhaustion thing was joke...


secondly what i mean is lets go with your light example if gandalf didnt have his staff and went to use light magic or what not it go everywhere probably giving away their postion much quicker and also lets say gandalf was like hey i want to kill that orc with fire say without his staff hed shoot fire every which way burning a bunch of stuff including his friends...or former friends anyway

the staff is almost like an aiming device

oh and with bilbo one can assume being the pyrotechnition he is gandalf had in his possesion what you could consider a smoke grenade.(he did have prior knowledge o Bilbos plan remember"so you mean the go on with your plan then?")