The Limitations of the Istari

[Nikkolas]

I have read the part of Unfinished Tales that concerns The Istari (at least the parts about the council that took place before they ventured to Middle-earth) and it covers how their "might" is hampered by the flesh they must wear while performing their Task.

However everyone I've seen online makes it out like these were self-imposed restrictions. For example, Gandalf simply chose not to show his true power save for when he had need of it ie. when he fought Durin's Bane, a fellow Maia.

Where this really concerns me is in the case of Saruman. Many people speculate whether or not he could command the One Ring. He'd need to have enough innate Maia power to combat most of Sauron's power in the ring after all. However if he was truly limited by simply being in his "human" form, he could never have achieved this anyway.

But if the limits were just guidelines that could be thrown off at will, then surely Saruman, having been corrupted long ago, would wield his full power without hesitation.

Are there any official quotes one way or the other on whether the true strength of the Istari is held in check only by their will? Thoughts and opinions are of course very much welcome too!

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Where this really concerns me is in the case of Saruman. Many people speculate whether or not he could command the One Ring. He'd need to have enough innate Maia power to combat most of Sauron's power in the ring after all. However if he was truly limited by simply being in his "human" form, he could never have achieved this anyway.

Gandalf appears to have had no doubt about Saruman's potential to use the One, or for that matter, his own. The question for all the "great" of Middle-earth (Gandalf, Elrond, etc.) was not whether they could make use of the Ring, but whether they were capable of resisting its corrupting influence to keep their more pure goals intact. The conclusion of all of them was that they could not.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

But if the limits were just guidelines that could be thrown off at will, then surely Saruman, having been corrupted long ago, would wield his full power without hesitation.

Are there any official quotes one way or the other on whether the true strength of the Istari is held in check only by their will? Thoughts and opinions are of course very much welcome too!

The limitations were in the form of "rules" formed by the Valar.

....[The Valar's] emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men or Elves by open display of power...

UT The Istari

It was afterwards said that [The Istari] came out of the Far West and were messengers sent to contest the power of Sauron....but they were forbidden to match his power with power, or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force or fear.

ROTK Appendix A

I lean toward the idea that the embodiment situation did have a direct effect on the innate "magical" abilities of the Istari as well (which to me explains Gandalf the White's greater power after the death of his physical body and return in a "counterfeit" form). The Valar seem to have had a code of conduct in place as well for them to follow, so a twofold restriction was there as a safeguard, it appears.

[Zigûr]

I get the impression that the Istari weren't able to "throw off" their incarnate guise as it were and return to their full, unchecked spiritual potency because of the nature of their embodiment and the rules of their mission rather than due to personal choice. We can imagine perhaps that if Saruman could have done this then maybe he would have done so. They couldn't abandon their physical bodies and if they were killed so their spirits left their bodies they seemingly didn't return to full power. Is it suggested somewhere (I can't quite recall if it is) that the Wizards didn't fully remember their prior lives in Aman? That might further explain a sense of limitation.

[Rhod the Red]

Yes, they had to 're-learn' much of they're knowledge.

Henceforth, apart from maybe the two Blue Wizards, the 3 main ones had to spend their early years meeting leaders and researching.

So Gandalf wandered in the North mostly and Saruman spent most of his time in MInas Tirith as his first abode examining Gondor's archives.

[Nikkolas]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Gandalf appears to have had no doubt about Saruman's potential to use the One, or for that matter, his own. The question for all the "great" of Middle-earth (Gandalf, Elrond, etc.) was not whether they could make use of the Ring, but whether they were capable of resisting its corrupting influence to keep their more pure goals intact. The conclusion of all of them was that they could not.



The limitations were in the form of "rules" formed by the Valar.

UT The Istari

ROTK Appendix A

I lean toward the idea that the embodiment situation did have a direct effect on the innate "magical" abilities of the Istari as well (which to me explains Gandalf the White's greater power after the death of his physical body and return in a "counterfeit" form). The Valar seem to have had a code of conduct in place as well for them to follow, so a twofold restriction was there as a safeguard, it appears.

Thank you for the quotes!

However I'm reading The Treason of Isengard right now and I'm wondering why didn't he do anything during the Ents' attack? Even Gandalf the Grey could conjure fire as a minor feat of power that wasn't against the rules. I don't understand why Saruman didn't unleash his full Maia wrath upon them.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

However I'm reading The Treason of Isengard right now and I'm wondering why didn't he do anything during the Ents' attack? Even Gandalf the Grey could conjure fire as a minor feat of power that wasn't against the rules. I don't understand why Saruman didn't unleash his full Maia wrath upon them.

Merry, Pippin, and Aragorn discussed that subject in a roundabout way by the Gates of Isengard, with Merry saying:

'I don't know what Saruman thought was happening; but anyway he did not know how to deal with it. His wizardry may have been falling off lately, of course; but anyway I think he has not got much grit, not much plain courage alone in a tight place without a lot of slaves and machines and things, if you know what I mean. Very different from old Gandalf.'

TTT Flotsam and Jetsam

Aragorn responded by stating that Saruman had a "power of the minds of others. The wise he could persuade, and the smaller folk he could daunt".

Looking forward a bit, you see how Saruman's ability rises when he's confronted by Gandalf, a few of the Fellowship, and the Rohirrim. He was able to affect the hearts and minds of many of them. They were listening to him, which allowed him to work on them.

The Ents on the other hand, were not exactly in a listening mood when they arrived at Isengard. And at any rate, Saruman apparently didn't think of trying his voice on them. He had the fire from his forges and furnaces still stoked and ready, and he considered that an adequate defense.

Saruman's main power was obviously his voice, so he simply may not have been able to bring about the exact sort of show of which Gandalf was capable.

[Nikkolas]

So if Saruman had faced the Balrog of Moria he wouldn't have been able to defeat it like Gandalf did? Seems kinda odd since I always thought he was the strongest of the istari.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

So if Saruman had faced the Balrog of Moria he wouldn't have been able to defeat it like Gandalf did? Seems kinda odd since I always thought he was the strongest of the istari.

Saruman was said to be the "eldest", and the "head of the Order", but it is said in UT that Círdan surrendered Narya to Gandalf because he

....divined in him the greatest spirit and the wisest...

Saruman, as the head, had the most authority, derived from the Valar, and thus had power over the others, as long as he remained the White.

As for Saruman versus the Balrog, I can't say who the victor would have been for certain, but Saruman's line of attack would almost surely have been different than Gandalf's in that situation.

[radagastly]

Originally posted by Nikkolas:

So if Saruman had faced the Balrog of Moria he wouldn't have been able to defeat it like Gandalf did? Seems kinda odd since I always thought he was the strongest of the istari.

I suspect that if Saruman looked the Balrog in the face at the Bridge of Khazad-dum and said, with his voice, "You cannot pass!," the Balrog would have believed him and listened. He probably would have lost a hand-to-hand fight though.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It's entirely possible, indeed likely in the context of admittedly post-LR writings like Melkor/Morgoth, that as Saruman moved down the path of 'evil' (that is, selfish coercion), he expended his native power, so that as with Morgoth and Sauron much of his power had passed out of him into the apparatus of machines and Orcs that formed, in aggregate, his "power."

It might be argued that, as a corollary to the inability of Evil to create or make that which is new, it's also not possible for evil to augment its own power; all it can do is transmute it. So as Melkor of the beginning = Morgoth + the Melkor-element in all of Arda + his slaves and soldiers and creatures, and Sauron of the beginning = (later) Sauron + the Ring + his slaves, so Curunir who got off the boat = Saruman, in his own person, + his orcs and half-orcs and devices. The "Power of Saruman" is no greater than it ever was, and the inherent power in his humanoid frame is accordingly become far less, as the greater part of his aggregate power is now external to him.

Gandalf, by contrast, has never expended any of his native power to control or rule anybody; it could be said that his power actually "grew" in that he was able to persuade the Free Peoples to join their power to him, without spending himself in coercing them or asserting 'lordship.'

[radagastly]

Originally posted by William Cloud Hicklin:

Gandalf, by contrast, has never expended any of his native power to control or rule anybody; it could be said that his power actually "grew" in that he was able to persuade the Free Peoples to join their power to him, without spending himself in coercing them or asserting 'lordship.'

This implies an interesting contrast between Gandalf and Saruman. Saruman's power (in part, of course) lay in the power of his voice to persuade others to his will. So persuading people depleted Saruman, but the same act enhanced Gandalf. I'm wondering, what are the implications of this difference?

What we see of Saruman's power at work seems to indicate that his powers of persuasion genuinely affect the hearts and minds of those under it's spell. It does not simply bend their actions to his will regardless of their own will or desire. It makes people want to believe him. That does not seem fundamentally different than Gandalf's ability to "spin" circumstances to persuade people. So what is the difference between the two? Motive? The plans of Eru?

Just some thoughts to ponder . . .

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I wouldn't put it that way. Saruman's Voice seems, after all, to be the one aspect of his abilities he retained, even after his capacity to do "wizardry" was taken from him. Arguably it was already all he had left by the time Gandalf, Theoden & Co confronted him, as Merry observed. I don't think that persuasion, even skillful persuasion, constitutes an exercise of "power" in the same sense, or expended or diminished his power.

But mastery of Orcs requires more than mere persuasion.....

[Nikkolas]

Maybe the answer lay more in the last part of the quote Inziladun posted:
"but anyway I think [Saruman] has not got much grit, not much plain courage alone in a tight place without a lot of slaves and machines and things, if you know what I mean. Very different from old Gandalf."

Saruman might have powers similar to Gandalf but he doesn't have the nerve for it. When faced with the Ents or even the hypothetical Balrog, he'd much rather hide up safe somewhere and deploy his weapons and minions instead.

I mean, look at Morgoth. Diminished as he was, his fight with Fingolfin shows he still possessed amazing power by the reckoning of lesser beings. He could have easily faced down and defeated almost any opponent. However he preferred to stay deep in Angband where no foe could get to him.

Tolkien seem to like to portray the "Power Hungry" villains as ultimately being cowards. Actually, not sure if Sauron was one.

[Warm]

Saruman was making rings of his own. Of course I do not know what goes into making a ring (one day....) but I know that Sauron imbued his ring with a greater part of his own power. Before I would say that Saruman lost his power to his ring, I would think that the original ring makers wouldn't sacrifice their own power for a ring for someone else, would they? So, on one hand a ring requires power and on the other, no? Of course, this may have little to do with Saruman being able to defend himself, besides, he was still wearing the ring.

Clearly each wizard had different powers, as all Maia do. It had a lot to do with their teachers probably. Saruman was a student of Aule, just as Sauron. Gandalf was a student of Nienna and Manwe and Varda. I'm not quite sure where Gandalf learned fire, but lightning would come from Manwe I think.

What is clear is that Saruman could trap powers just as Gandalf suggested he might try with the nazgul, as he did with Gandalf himself, but as far as brute power, being a pupil of a craftsman, he probably didn't have much in any form. (Don't forget Sauron also had Melkor as a teacher)
Sorry for typos, still trying to get used to this nexus 7

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Warm

Saruman was making rings of his own. Of course I do not know what goes into making a ring (one day....) but I know that Sauron imbued his ring with a greater part of his own power. Before I would say that Saruman lost his power to his ring, I would think that the original ring makers wouldn't sacrifice their own power for a ring for someone else, would they? So, on one hand a ring requires power and on the other, no? Of course, this may have little to do with Saruman being able to defend himself, besides, he was still wearing the ring.

I don't really think the ring worn by Saruman as described by Gandalf to the Council of Elrond was of any note. At best, it may have been one of the "lesser" works of the Mirdain of Eregion which Saruman had come by. At any rate the Council apparently didn't think much of it. It received no further mention. And if it was significant, one would think that either Gandalf would have paid it more attention, or Saruman would have been seen wearing it again after Gandalf's escape from Orthanc.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

At best, it may have been one of the "lesser" works of the Mirdain of Eregion which Saruman had come by.

Well, in that same encounter Saruman names himself "Saruman Ring-maker," which implies I think that the ring was one of his own creation, the fruit of his investigations into the Mirdain's craft. Nonetheless, I doubt it was a ring of much power or significance, except as an expression of Saruman's hubris.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Well, in that same encounter Saruman names himself "Saruman Ring-maker," which implies I think that the ring was one of his own creation, the fruit of his investigations into the Mirdain's craft.

True that, and you're probably right. Then again, Saruman also called himself Saruman the Wise, and that was a bit of an exaggeration at that point in his history.

It still seems clear that whatever the origin of that ring, it wasn't of much account. Maybe Saruman's failure to craft a Ring of Power of his own led to an easier submission to Sauron.