How Powerful was Gandalf the Grey?

[R.R.J Tolkien]

When I think of Gandalf I think of both Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White. But really Gandalf the Grey died, and was given extra power and wisdom by Eru and remade into a new far more powerful Gandalf, Gandalf the White. So thinking of just Gandalf the Grey here [Manwe conspiracy theories aside] how powerful was he?

He was a maiar so of course powerful, but as an embodied physical being capable of pain, weariness, fear and death [letters 156] he was vulnerable to standard injury and death. Sarumon was killed by a knife, Gandalf injured in the battle of the 5 armies and killed by the balrog. In fact it seems he might have only beaten the balrog due to his ring Narya the ring of fire. When he faced the balrog in the long fight where both would die he said

"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.
—The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring,Book II, Chapter 5: "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm"

And yet even with the power of the ring, he was killed. Even Gandalf the white with added power and wisdom from Eru [God] was unsure of his ability vs the witch king while Glorfindel faced him. Gandalf the grey did not see Sauroman for who he had becomes, he failed 1v1 vs Sauroman. Gandalf debates with Aragorn on what path to take the fellowship and he gives way to Aragorn saying “if you bring a ranger with you, it is well to pay attention to him, especially if the ranger is Aragorn.” despite the fact we are told in the Valaquenta “Wisest of the maiar was Olorin.” In the hobbit the party went to Rivnedall and it was Elrond [not Gandalf] whos wisdom discerned the map, found new letters, and knew the history of the swords Glamdring and Orcrist carried by Gandalf. Neither and Gandalfs plans always correct. He advised them to take the elf road near mirkwood but it was now impassable.

“Even the good plans of the wise like Gandalfs and of good friends like Elrond go astray sometimes.”
-The Hobbit chapter 4

But most of all his mission to save the free peoples from the power of Sauron failed. The Istari and Gandalf failed. He was killed. .

The 'wizards', as such, had failed
-Letters 156

So Eru steeped in to save Middle earth through Gandalf the White

“So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater. When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Théoden, nor with Saruman.”
-Letters 156

[Galadriel55]

I don't think Gandalf was ever enhanced in the sense that his own power was changed. A person is a person, with the strength that is given him. To artificially add or take away a person's power like a baking ingredient is to change his essence. No, I cannot agree with that. What I see as the more likely cause of the change from Grey to White is that Gandalf was allowed to display more of his power and to display it more blatantly. The limitations were lifted slightly, the curtain half raised. But did we ever see Gandalf display the full might of his power? I believe he did, fighting the balrog, and he might have if he was forced into a head to head with the WK. But we don't actually see either of these scenarios, the latter never happening so neither Denethor nor we will ever know, and the former happening away from observers' eyes so we can only vaguely imagine the power explosion of that battle.

With regards to Gandalf's doubts and too much trust and yielding of leadership, I would caution against a Boromir-like interpretation of the lack of skill - power, wisdom, knowledge, etc - but to consider that these are actually manifestations of good attributes: humility, consideration of multiple possibilities and outcomes, respect for those who deserve it, faith in the free people. So I am not sure where you are getting at with all these examples. They don't seem to be reflective of Gandalf's power.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't think Gandalf was ever enhanced in the sense that his own power was changed. A person is a person, with the strength that is given him. To artificially add or take away a person's power like a baking ingredient is to change his essence. No, I cannot agree with that. What I see as the more likely cause of the change from Grey to White is that Gandalf was allowed to display more of his power and to display it more blatantly. The limitations were lifted slightly, the curtain half raised. But did we ever see Gandalf display the full might of his power? I believe he did, fighting the balrog, and he might have if he was forced into a head to head with the WK. But we don't actually see either of these scenarios, the latter never happening so neither Denethor nor we will ever know, and the former happening away from observers' eyes so we can only vaguely imagine the power explosion of that battle.

Thanks for the thoughts but I have to disagree. Gandalf the grey actually died [letters 156] he is no more.


Gandalf really 'died', and was changed: for that seems to me the only real cheating, to represent anything that can be called 'death' as making no difference.
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien 156: To Robert Murray, SJ (draft). November 1954

The ‘wizards’, as such, had failed; or if you like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.’ Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater.
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien 156: To Robert Murray, SJ (draft). November 1954

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

With regards to Gandalf's doubts and too much trust and yielding of leadership, I would caution against a Boromir-like interpretation of the lack of skill - power, wisdom, knowledge, etc - but to consider that these are actually manifestations of good attributes: humility, consideration of multiple possibilities and outcomes, respect for those who deserve it, faith in the free people. So I am not sure where you are getting at with all these examples. They don't seem to be reflective of Gandalf's power.

I think you are correct on this.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Gandalf really 'died', and was changed: for that seems to me the only real cheating, to represent anything that can be called 'death' as making no difference.
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien 156: To Robert Murray, SJ (draft). November 1954

The ‘wizards’, as such, had failed; or if you like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.’ Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater.
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien 156: To Robert Murray, SJ (draft). November 1954

I have not seen these quotes before, and I find them hard to reconcile with the rest of the philosophy of Middle-earth. I can understand Gandalf saying that Gandalf died, that Gandalf "was", implying that he is someone else - because he was indeed born anew, a reincarnation. But to imply that the fea was changed in the process - that I find hard to imagine. Things don't get re-created in Middle-earth because they failed to meet expectations or proved to be a disappointment, not in their essence. This idea goes against what feels right, Tolkien's own words or no. I just can't wrap my head around this. How do you picture this yourself? How do you reconcile this idea with everything else? I am willing to be persuaded but it needs persuasion.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I have not seen these quotes before, and I find them hard to reconcile with the rest of the philosophy of Middle-earth. I can understand Gandalf saying that Gandalf died, that Gandalf "was", implying that he is someone else - because he was indeed born anew, a reincarnation. But to imply that the fea was changed in the process - that I find hard to imagine. Things don't get re-created in Middle-earth because they failed to meet expectations or proved to be a disappointment, not in their essence. This idea goes against what feels right, Tolkien's own words or no. I just can't wrap my head around this. How do you picture this yourself? How do you reconcile this idea with everything else? I am willing to be persuaded but it needs persuasion.

I dont pretend to know all of Tolkien's thoughts and understandings, only what he has written. I would recommend reading his letters

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-J-R-R.../dp/0618056998


many of them are just the kind of answers you seek. People ask questions or point out supposed contradictions and he gives them the answer and understanding.


But i also i dont think Gandalf totally changed as in a new creation wholly. Tolkien said

"Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy"

He did not go into much more detail so it is guess work from here. Gandalf the grey truly died we know that, and Gandalf the white was an upgrade version perhaps would be best way of understanding it.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I dont pretend to know all of Tolkien's thoughts and understandings, only what he has written. I would recommend reading his letters

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-J-R-R.../dp/0618056998


many of them are just the kind of answers you seek. People ask questions or point out supposed contradictions and he gives them the answer and understanding.

But I'm not asking Tolkien, I'm asking what you think of it. I did not see a contradiction until you quoted the letters. How would you yourself describe the situation if you had to elaborate on it?

But i also i dont think Gandalf totally changed as in a new creation wholly. Tolkien said

"Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy"

Ah, and I guess there is where the great debate comes on. Is a person's being (soul, essence, mind, whatever) independent of external factors or behaviours, or is a person only what he does and how he acts? Is idiosyncrasy the most superficial or most deep layer of a person's being?

I have been approaching this question from the angle that one's being is a given constant: a sum of what one is, which may or may not be applied to the outside as personality and behaviour. As such, "enhancing" one's innate power is changing that sum. But if I begin on the opposite side, that you shape yourself and your essence is what you make of your life, then I can see some possibilities. Gandalf, Grey and White, had the same convictions and the same commitments, and as such would remain the same person even if something in his internal workings was altered to give more strength to these convictions and commitments. He'd be the same, but even more Gandalf than previously.

Alternatively, there is a possibility that can apply to either scenario: Gandalf was not altered internally, but rather was lent the power from the outside to carry out his task with a greater authority. Whether the power in question be Manwe or Eru, when needed Gandalf would speak with their voice and their authority, and as such would indeed be enhanced from an unsupported Gandalf. This can be related to The Voice of Saruman, where Gandalf has authority over one who was above his rank - in part because of Saruman's own fall, but perhaps in part because Gandalf carries with him a higher authority than either of them. Perhaps this is the main reason such an authority would be lent - to cast down the previous leader and give the new leader a leader's power - because such authority and confidence is not evident when Gandalf deals with the Nazgul and Sauron generally. I actually rather like this idea but unfortunately it seems a bit of a stretch on the quotes you provided.

He did not go into much more detail so it is guess work from here. Gandalf the grey truly died we know that, and Gandalf the white was an upgrade version perhaps would be best way of understanding it.

Except this is exactly what I have trouble accepting. You don't "upgrade" what is already made. That implies tinkering that which makes them them. It's an unmaking of what was to make something new.

I can't agree more that death can't not make a difference. But to me that difference is passive, a result of the process of death and rebirth. The quotes and your words both imply that the difference was caused not by the mere happening of death, but rather that Gandalf was actively "accepted" and "enhanced". This actually contradicts the first idea, as it implies the change was not due to death and rebirth but rather due to someone's meddling.