[Formendacil]

In addition to being a prop form a wizard's age, it occurs to me that a staff in the hands of a wizard might also be a prop in a more dramatic sense--that is, it's part of the visual equipment dealt the Istari for their role in Middle-earth as wizards.

The idea being, that, because the Istari are Maia in their nature, their power will certainly come from their own being, rather than from some stick they carry--but perhaps they carry the stick as a prop--the people of Middle-earth wouldn't know the difference, and it might make the power appear less inherent in the wizard.

On the other hand, however, it's clear that some sort of power must reside in the staff, since when Gandalf the White breaks Saruman's staff, this is not merely a ceremonial act--it actually deprives Saruman of some/most of his power (it is said that his voice is pretty much all that is left thereafter).

So...

Gandalf fights the Balrog without his staff, with no apparent problems.

Saruman has his staff broken and loses his power.

How to reconcile these points?

Perhaps it is not that the staff, itself, has any power, but rather that it houses a wizard's authority. The distinction between the two is subtle, but I think there is one. A staff broken for a wizard will not cripple his power, because his power does not reside there. However, a staff broken by a higher authority (as the returning Gandalf is to Saruman--whether in his own right or on behalf of Manwë--or Eru--is another matter), robs a wizard of his ability (or authority) to exercise his power.

Does that make sense?

Until and unless broken by a competent authority, a wizard's staff could be any old stick--but he would typically have to have one as the badge of his office. If broken by a competent authority, however, no matter that it was just some old stick, his ability to exercise his power was gone.

Which leads to an interesting question... was Saruman a competent authority to break Gandalf's staff--thereby rendering his power inert? One assumes not, since he did not do any such thing when he had Gandalf prisoner in Isengard... but it's hardly conclusive. Was it because he didn't see the need? Because such an action would have involved the Valar?

Or I am overcomplicating it, and it was merely that Saruman, though head of the order, did not have that authority? In which case, Gandalf returning as the White would be a separate matter from Gandalf returning empowered to divest Saruman of his authority.

EDIT: Crossposted with Ibrîn, who seems to be taking a similar line.