The true Istari

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Eonwe, if the staffs were Valar-given and special because of that, then Gandalf must have been powerless from Elrond's council to the Bridge in Moria.

Wait, he did have his staff with him from Elrond's council to Moria - actually, these are the moments when we see him doing something with it like baking the wolves or lighting it in the tunnels (and if there are any doubts that it was still the same staff, certainly Saruman did not take his staff from him - we know he had it with him when he escaped with Gwaihir).

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Hmm. That's what happens when I post without consulting books.

Gandalf doesn't mention his staff during his description of Saruman's betrayal. But if the staffs were powerful, wouldn't it make sense for Saruman to have taken it from Gandalf? How do you know Gandalf had it when escaping?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Gandalf doesn't mention his staff during his description of Saruman's betrayal. But if the staffs were powerful, wouldn't it make sense for Saruman to have taken it from Gandalf? How do you know Gandalf had it when escaping?

Frodo's dream at Tom Bombadil's house:

Suddenly a shadow, like the shape of great wings, passed across the moon. The figure lifted his arms and a light flashed from the staff that he wielded. A mighty eagle swept down and bore him away.

And it's PJ's fault when he's influencing our subconscious with things which are but a lie.

[skip spence]

I don't know the exact significance of the wizard's staff (how could anyone?) but it's clear that it was an important tool of the trade and one no wizard would want to part with. Indeed they seem inseparable, a Istari and his staff. Without it, he is no longer Istari, as the breaking of Saruman's staff signifies.

The importance of the staff is also demonstrated when Gandalf and company went to Edoras to see Theoden. When the company must hand over their weapons at the gate Galdalf refuses, saying it's just a staff for an old man to lean on. Inside, he raises his staff, does some powerful magic trick, and Theoden is cured. If he could do this without his staff, chances are he would have left it at the door, like his friends did their weapons.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Good point, skip. It doesn't sway me quite yet, though (I am a stubborn fellow ).

What if Gandalf was refused permission. Say Hama actually did his job. Would Théoden have remained uncured?

[skip spence]

^As I said, I don't know exactly how much of the Istari's powers are dependant of the staff, as this isn't specified in the texts to my knowledge.

All I'm saying is that they do seem of utmost importance, probably with both a symbolic and a practical significance.

When Sauruman's staff is broken his powers seem vastly decreased as someone already mentioned. He's still a slick talker and well able to cause trouble on a small scale, but no longer a threat to Middle Earth.

And when Gandalf does his fire tricks, the staff is always involved, I believe.

Whether Gandalf could have cured Theoden without his magic tricks, only Eru knows (well perhaps Manwe as well )

[Boromir88]

skip spence, while you do bring up a good instance where Gandalf does use his staff to perform his tricks, I see it the same way as Eomer. Yes, Gandalf does use his staff, but there are several instances, where Gandalf performs magic without using his staff.

His staff breaks on the Bridge of Khazad-dum, and he still has an epic battle (that lasted for days) against Balrog, fought in the "deepest places" to the "highest peak." Also, in ROTK when Gandalf rides out to rescue the men retreating from the Rammas Echor, a white light shines out, not from Gandalf's staff, but from his hand.

So, the staff just seems to be an ordinary piece of wood (that can be replaced fairly easily), but could be used by those with "power" (such as Gandalf) as tools for their power. I find what Hama says with regards to Gandalf's staff very interesting:

'Foolishness!' said Gandalf. 'Prudence is one thing, but discourtesy is another. I am old. If I may not lean on my stick as I go, then I will sit out here, until it pleases Theoden to hobble out himself to speak with me.'
[...]
'The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age.' said Hama. He looked hard at the ash-staff on which Gandalf leaned. 'Yet in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom. I believe you are friends and folk worthy of honour, who have no evil purpose. You may go in.'~The King of the Golden Hall

First, Gandalf tries to play off his staff, as Eomer is arguing, it's a 'walking stick' for an old man. I see no reason to think Gandalf is lying to Hama here either, there are several instances where Gandalf uses his staff for support, but Hama is an astute one:

'The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age.'

Hama realizes the staff is an ordinary piece of wood. But this piece of wood could be used more than a prop for age, however only in the hand of a wizard. Hama makes the point, that the power lies within the wizard, and the wizard may be able to use a staff for more than just leaning on. Nevertheless, it's an ordinary piece of wood.

A piece of wood that could be used for support, a piece of wood that symbolizes the authority of the wizards*, and a piece of wood that could be used for magical power, but the last being only in the "hands of a wizard."

*I'll go back to the note of Saruman's "rods of the 5 wizards" and when it's put in context, you can see the meaning of why Saruman said it:

’Later! Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dûr itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards, and have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now.~The Voice of Saruman

Saruman was simply ranting about how Gandalf was growing power hungry. Saruman's last comment seems all to familiar with the "you have grown too big for your own boots." There's no special significance with the "5 rods" it's just a rant from Saruman saying Gandalf was power-hungry.

[skip spence]

Great that you brought up those quotes. I don't have the English originals with me, only translated versions.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

skip spence, while you do bring up a good instance where Gandalf does use his staff to perform his tricks, I see it the same way as Eomer. Yes, Gandalf does use his staff, but there are several instances, where Gandalf performs magic without using his staff.

His staff breaks on the Bridge of Khazad-dum, and he still has an epic battle (that lasted for days) against Balrog, fought in the "deepest places" to the "highest peak." Also, in ROTK when Gandalf rides out to rescue the men retreating from the Rammas Echor, a white light shines out, not from Gandalf's staff, but from his hand.

Just for the sake of the argument, as I remember it, he does use his staff to raise the bridge and that's when it breaks. Perhaps the power he channelled through it in desperation was too strong? When he fights the balrog he uses his sword.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

About Saruman's decrease in power, I think that had more to do with his military defeat and his enemies' seeing him for what he really was.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Hama realizes the staff is an ordinary piece of wood. But this piece of wood could be used more than a prop for age, however only in the hand of a wizard. Hama makes the point, that the power lies within the wizard, and the wizard may be able to use a staff for more than just leaning on. Nevertheless, it's an ordinary piece of wood.

A piece of wood that could be used for support, a piece of wood that symbolizes the authority of the wizards*, and a piece of would that could be used for magical power, but the last being only in the "hands of a wizard."

*I'll go back to the note of Saruman's "rods of the 5 wizards" and when it's put in context, you can see the meaning of why Saruman said it:

Saruman was simply ranting about how Gandalf was growing power hungry. Saruman's last comment seems all to familiar with the "you have grown too big for your own boots." There's no special significance with the "5 rods" it's just a rant from Saruman saying Gandalf was power-hungry.

To be fair, I don't think Hama knew very much about the staff of wizards. We as avid readers of Tolkien, probably know much more than this character about these matters.

As for Sauruman, his rant of Gandalf gathering the 5 rods of the wizards is indeed meant metaforically rather than literally. Still, the staff is apparently what a crown is to kings. Without it the Istari is bereft of his status and, in my opinion, also of much of his 'magical' powers. I don't think it's 'just' a piece of wood. Could Frodo and a few Hobbits defeat Sauruman had he still been at the peak of his powers, which were said to be compareable to that of Gandalf?