Gandalf - geat or a joke of a wizard?

[Galadriel]

Gandalf is a Maia (a demi god), and a servant of the Valar. His powers are much restricted in Middle-earth, though his real power seems to be in his organization, his wisdom and his courage. "Powerful wizard" has come to mean, with modern fantasy, someone who has magical powers and can shoot dragons and kill people with a snap of his fingers, yet we forget that true power lies in knowledge and kindness, and Gandalf possesses both.

[Aiwendil]

I don't see Gandalf's powers, even restricted as they were by his mandate, as all that weak. Shooting fire doesn't sound too shabby to me. He was greatly outnumbered by the wolves and goblins, and had 13 Dwarves and 1 Hobbit to protect besides himself.

But to answer the question as literally posed by the thread title - no, he was not a Geat, though I don't doubt he could have taken on Grendel just as well as Beowulf!

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

But to answer the question as literally posed by the thread title - no, he was not a Geat, though I don't doubt he could have taken on Grendel just as well as Beowulf!

That was a typo - apologies for that - I meant to write great


And thank you for your opinions!

[Aiwendil]

Just my little joke - no offense intended; typos happen to everyone.

[Inziladun]

It's not an idea that's occurred to me before, but I wonder if the power Gandalf was "allowed" to display to the other denizens of ME was not somewhat tied to the level of the threat.

In The Hobbit, Sauron had not arisen in his full might, so Gandalf was required to show even more discretion in the overt use of his power than later in LOTR, when things were quite clearly coming to a boil.

In addition, Gandalf had to have been aware the Eagles had habitations nearby, and was counting on them to show up to investigate the fires.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Gandalf's greater overt ability after his return from death was directly related to Eru changing the scope of his mission and his ability. I'm out of town again and don't have the Letters with me, but Tolkien said that Eru took his sacrifice as an opportunity to enlarge upon the Valar's original plans at the moment of their failure, and sent him back in an enhanced state to answer the greater challenges he would face. So in a way, his power had been increased because the situation had become more dire with the overall failure of Project Istari, but I don't know that one could say that Gandalf was allowed to use more or less power depending on the situation right from the beginning of his mission.

Whether or not he was a great "wizard" is not the same as being a powerful "magic user," in Tolkien's world. The term "wizard" is, in Middle-earth, an inadequate translation of "Istar," a term which actually refers to wisdom, not power (which, etymologically, is the actual root of wizard, "wise"). In that respect, I believe Gandalf acquitted himself quite well.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Whether or not he was a great "wizard" is not the same as being a powerful "magic user," in Tolkien's world. The term "wizard" is, in Middle-earth, an inadequate translation of "Istar," a term which actually refers to wisdom, not power (which, etymologically, is the actual root of wizard, "wise"). In that respect, I believe Gandalf acquitted himself quite well.

Well said, Ibrin

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

"Powerful wizard" has come to mean, with modern fantasy, someone who has magical powers and can shoot dragons and kill people with a snap of his fingers, yet we forget that true power lies in knowledge and kindness, and Gandalf possesses both.

Yea, that reminds me of a quote from Star Wars V:

• Luke: "I'm looking for a Great warrior."
• Yoda: "Wars not make one Great."

[Aiwendil]

As I said before, he showed his power to many men. Maybe not all of it, though. Someties he had to do it or fail his mission, that's true. But if it wasn't for Gwaihir, he'd fail the current mission that he had with the Dwarves. He was planning to jump off and basically commit suicide when the Eagles came (at least that's what my translation says. Maybe the original is different). In LOTR, in every battle there's something special said about Gandalf - shadows avoid him, or something like that. And it said that he was afraid! - again, maybe it was translator's fault. But AFRAID?!?! It is possible that he was afraid for the mission, but in my book, it was pretty clear that Gandalf was afraid for himself.

I think the translation is perfectly accurate. Why shouldn't Gandalf be afraid? Fear is not within the purview of the weak only. And what makes one courageous is not so much the absence of fear as the strength of will to overcome that fear. Gandalf was a powerful being, but he was not a Vala - and we know that even one of that great order (Melkor) was subject to fear. Moreover, Gandalf was incarnated in human (or at least "humane") form and was, I would say, subject to the weaknesses, both of mind and of body, that necessarily come therewith.

[Galadriel55]

Good points, all of you. Thanks for your opinions!
However, what I wanted to say in my last post is that Gandalf was afraid for himself, which is, I think, the only time in LOTR and TH when that happens. He can be afraid for others, for missions, for many different things, bu I've always imagined him to be this kind of person who doesn't feel fear for himself. And I don't mean stuff that involves the Ring, because Gandalf is afraid of how the Ring could make him evil, and what that would do to others.
Aiwendil has an interesting explanation for that - that accepting human form forces you to accept human weaknesses and limitations, if I understood it correctly. However, I think that the human form only affected the physical (more or less) part of him, and not the mental (or psycological). Taking a form is like putting on clothes for the ainur, and clothes don't usually affect the way you think and feel. Of course, this is up to speculation, and I guess it depends on your personal opinion.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Aiwendil has an interesting explanation for that - that accepting human form forces you to accept human weaknesses and limitations, if I understood it correctly. However, I think that the human form only affected the physical (more or less) part of him, and not the mental (or psychological). Taking a form is like putting on clothes for the Ainur, and clothes don't usually affect the way you think and feel. Of course, this is up to speculation, and I guess it depends on your personal opinion.

By coincidence, I was just reading a portion of Tolkien's Letters that addresses Gandalf and his humanity/lack of humanity. Since I know where to find it easily, let me quote:

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Letter 156, to Robert Murray SJ

But G[andalf] is not, of course, a human being (Man or Hobbit). There are naturally no precise modern terms to say what he was. I w[ould] venture to say that he was an incarnate 'angel'– strictly an ἄγγελος: that is, with the other Istari, wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon. By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.

--emphasis mine

...and, from the same letter, regarding Gandalf the White:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

Gandalf may be enhanced in power (that is, under the forms of this fable, in sanctity), but if still embodied he must still suffer care and anxiety, and the needs of flesh.

Actually, the letter is worth reading in its entirety, but that's a lot of copying... In any case, I think the point should be sufficiently clear that the incarnation of the Istari was not like putting on clothes--it was not merely assuming a form, or wearing it; rather, it was becoming it.

[Morthoron]

I don't believe Gandalf was a Geat. I am more inclined to think he was an Angle, concurring with Pope Gregory I and his comment that Angles were angels ("Non Angli, sed angeli"), particularly considering the Maiar were referred to as "angelic" beings. And therein is the joke as well.

[Sarumian]

I tend to agree with many things mentioned here, but think when Tolkien was writing The Hobbit he probably hadn't formed his idea of Gandalf-Olorin, or it could have been a bit different. We just need to compare Gandalf's encounter with wolfs in The Hobbit with the battle he gave them in LOTR near Garadhras (Journey In The Dark). The situations were quite alike, save for the fact that in LOTR Gandalf new for sure what the Ring was. But that must not have changed things much: if Gandalf had died in The Hobbit, he would also have failed fulfilling his quest.

I believe Tolkien allowed such difference not by mistake, but for a good reason. While the LOTR is "based" on the account of Frodo and other members of the Fellowship, the Hobbit is written "according to" Bilbo's notes. Gandalf could have told Bilbo that he had been afraid or the latter just assumed it as he'd been in panic himself. I would argue that Bilbo had had a limited knowledge of Gandalf's might till the time of the Council of Erlond, and he was also slightly ironic in regard of the Grey Wizard, playing a part of a well-intended hobbit. Would you agree?