Gandalf's Staff

[Marroc Underhill]

If Gandalf had been able to crawl back upon the bridge, would he still have his Powers? Before he fell, his sword Glamdring and his Staff fell into the Chasm, what do you think would have happened if Gandalf had gotten onto the bridge and fled to "Safety" with the rest of the Fellowship, and the Balrog fell?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Did Gandalf use his Staff or Glamdring to defeat the Balrog?

[Earendilyon]

'What ifs' have no point in fiction, IMO, because the story is as it was written by the author.
Anyway: if Gandalf had gotten away, he would have prevented Boromir from attacking Frodo, who wouldn't have fled alone with Sam to Mordor. Merry and Pippin wouldn't have been captured, for Gandalf woul'd have prevented that also. The Ents wouldn't have been roused, so Saruman would've conquered Rohan, preventing them from aiding Gondor. Gondor would've been overcome by the power of the Witch King. They even would not have had the aid of the Undead, for Aragorn wouldn't have been there to take them with him to Pelargir. (As a side note: the Undead wouldn't have redeemed themselves.)
The Fellowship (except prob. for Boromir and Aragorn, who would've travelled to Minas Tirith) would go to Mordor. Since Sauron had not to spend all his efforts in attacking Gondor and keeping in check Saruman and making his Mordor armies ready for the war, he would have ample of time and energy to seek the One Ring. He would have been aided by the fact of Gandalf's presence, who he would feel when close by.
To come to the point of all this: the West would have been utterly lost and even we would now be living in dire circumstances (which we wouldn't mind, because we would not know any other reality).

Edit: I typed 'Boromir and Gandalf' instead of 'Boromir and Aragorn'. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[ October 11, 2003: Message edited by: Earendilyon ]

[Olorin_TLA]

Gandlaf still would have had his power...the power is in him, not the staff, regardless of whether or not you view staffs are "channeling devices" for power or as symbolic, or simply a staff.

[Finwe]

Gandalf's staff, I think, functioned as a channel for his powers, and it was a symbol of his power. The principle applied for the rest of the Istari. In The Two Towers, when Saruman was thrown down by Gandalf, his staff was broken, symbolizing the breaking of his power. Also, when Saruman is insulting Gandalf, he says:

Later! Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dur itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards....

That must have meant that the power of the Wizards was "vested" in their staffs, and the taking (or breaking) of their staffs would result in a loss of power, like what happened to Saruman.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

I doubt this to be the case, Finwe. The breaking of the staff was most likely the result of breaking of power, not the other way around.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Indeed, I believe the breaking of the staff was merely symbolic.

[Eldar14]

Maybe in many ways their staves are used in a similar way as Sauron's ring, just not to such an extreme. Maybe they vested some of their power in the staff when it was created, so that when they have it, their power is even greater than before, but they are weaker without it. If their staves had no power, then Gandalf would have not needed it in Two Towers to save the King of Rohan.

[Olorin_TLA]

He didn't need it. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] As far as I'm aware, he didn't use his staff at all, except to terrify Grima.

[Secret Fire]

I have always seen the staves as a status symbol/ symbol of thier power. Note that Gandalf broke his own staff on the bridge in Khazad Dum, not that it fell and he was still able to defeat the Balrog. Perhaps the staves are contingent upon the power of the wizard to remain unbroken (ie as long as the wizard haspower, he has a staff), but their power is not dependent upon the staff as we saw that Gandalf did not need one in his battle with the balrog. Therefore, Gandalf broke Sarumon's staff as a symbol that he had taken his place and stripped Sarumon of both power and authority for mento see. Also, perhaps it is a symbol for men to see that thye have power. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

[Lord of Angmar]

'What ifs' have no point in fiction, IMO, because the story is as it was written by the author.(Earendilyon)

I could not disagree more. Conjecture makes for interesting debate, particularly in regards to Professor Tolkien's world, where there is such depth that 'what ifs' can be discussed thoroughly and interestingly.

The breaking of the staff was most likely the result of breaking of power, not the other way around. (Gwaihir)

I agree with you and Eomer. Although I did not fully understand the initial question posed by the thread-starter, I believe that the power of the Istari was not derived from their staffs (although the staffs obviously had more use than merely as walking-sticks). Had Gandalf fled with the Fellowship without his staff and Glamdring, I do not think his power would have been dimmed much. After all, as far as we know, he left his imprisonment at Isengard without the staff he carried at the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring.

[Findegil]

If you read of Frodos dream in the house of Bombadil you will find that Gandalf had his staff still when he was imprisoned on the summit of Orthanc. So, I don't think he left it behind when he was carried away by Gwahir.

I have interpreted the braeking of Gandalf staff on the brige of Khazad-dûm as desperat act of Gandalf himself. He saw in the coming of the balrog and the already forseen result of the encounter with it (look at Aragorns words before they enter), the end of his quest come. He was defeated, and the breaking of the staff was symbol for that. But he did accept the rules set for the istari and laid the doom of the world in the hand of the fellowship and one ruler of all fate. Because of this humilation he did, he was in the result send back. Not to help Frodo in his quest, which he had brought on the way well enough to be successful. Gandalf was obviously sent back too save waht could be saved of the western culture.

Only a small aside: Did Glamdring fall from Gandalfs hand when he was draged into the chasam? I never get that impresion from the bock, especialy because he used it in the fight against the Balrog under the earth.


Respectfully
Findegil

[Olorin_TLA]

Lord of Angmar, thank you: fiction is after all a long "what if"; if there was no point, there'd be no fiction. Ever. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

As for symbollic desperation, Findegil, amybe, but don't forget that LotR ain't just symbolism, it's got cahracters who act like they would if real: breaking the staff may not have been symbollic, at least on Gandalf's part, but simply the only thing he could think of doing at the time.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Nah. Fiction isn't a long 'what if', as that is stupid. It is a long 'what is written'.

[Olorin_TLA]

No, because if it was a long "what is" you'd have NOTHING because nobody would ever have written anything for others to copy. The very essence of fiction is thinking imaginatively, which is a "what if".

[Earendilyon]

I don't see why a question like 'what if Gandalf not had fallen' be the essence of fiction. JRRT may have asked himself while writing 'what if x or y', but once he had written his story, it was a story, which couldn't be changed, not even by JRRT himself. The only thing he could do, was to make another version of it, but the original still would exist.
Why would we ask ourselves 'what if Gandald had fallen'? In the story as it is, he has. So, we can't change it. The only thinng we could ask ourselves, is: 'what would I have written, if I had written this story?'

[Olorin_TLA]

Not that specific quesiton; but to take that chapter, he must have thought "what's going to happen?" then "how will Gandalf die" and "who will he fight" and "what then?" You see?

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Well obviously for the author, he's the one that wrote it in the first place. But I'm not going to argue with you over whether fiction is 'what is' or 'what if', whatever that's supposed to mean anyway.

Imagination? I would personally rate this discussion as one of the least imaginative ones I have seen. There is much more you can do with 'conjecture' than this, although I haven't got a problem at all with anyone wondering whether or not the Ring would have been destroyed if Gandalf hadn't been killed. Your statement merely seems strange.

[Scott]

One point that I think might have been overlooked is the fact that while he is in the Shire, Saruman is left poweless. Now, would this be because it is the Shire? No, of course not. Would this be because Gandalf had put a curse on Saruman from using his powers? Again, no. He was left powerless because his staff was broken.

While Saruman was still in most every aspect still a Maia, because his staff was broken - his channel or "divining rod" if you will - he was left mojo inept.

As for whether conjecture on this is even relevant, all I have to say is that conjecture and imagination are the very stuff that good fiction are made of. Simple conjecture doesn't necessarily translate into sacriligious "fan-fictioning". It only means that the reader is consciously thinking about what they're reading. Isn't that what this forum was set up for?

~Scott

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Wasn't Gandalf's staff-breaking act a physical manifestation of his power to break the bridge?

Yours, if you want to
->The True Son of Finrod, and of Amarië the Vanyar

I disagree with you Scott. When Saruman arrived in the Shire, he was without his wizardly powers because he had spent them all in his efforts against Rohan, which had failed. To me, Tolkien's concept of the Powers of Arda seems to be that the more they use their powers, the less their inherent strength becomes, especially if their effort ends up being wasted. I believe that Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff as a symbol of the fact that Saruman has squandered his power, and has only his voice left as a tool.

[Finwe]

Gandalf broke Saruman's staff because he had departed from the path of the Istari, and had thrown his lot with Sauron, the Enemy that they were supposed to be inspiring the rest of Middle-earth to fight against. He had failed in his duty as a Wizard, and thus, the "new" Gandalf, who was now the Head of the Order, expelled him from the Order.

[Firefoot]

Reading back over the section it says nothing about Gandalf dropping Glamdring, so he must still have it for battling the Balrog.

Anyhow, I would say that the breaking of a staff is a result of the "breaking of power", if you will, but the staff is not merely symbollic.

"The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age," said Hama.

Then again before King Theoden:

He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf coud be seen, standing white and tall before the blackened hearth.
In the gloom they heard the hiss of Wormtongue's voice: "Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff?..."

I think that these to quotes from TTT, Book 3, Chapter 6, would show that the staff is more than symbolic. I would say that it is like a channel for their power, and while they are not completely powerless without their staffs, it is certainly a part of their power.

[Gurthang]

Exactly, Firefoot. The Staff had no power within itself, and no one but a wizard could use the staff for anything but a walking stick(and maybe a quarterstaff).

The staff was merely a tool, and when placed in the hands of a skilled individual, it could be used very effectively. The wizard used the staff to concentrate his power and focus the energy. The staff is somewhat like a sword. It can be used effectively by someone with the strength to wield it. Without the sword, the person still has his own strength, only he can't use it as affectively. The concept is the same with a staff, the wizard still has his power, but cannot use it as effectively without a tool to work it with. Not an extremely sound analogy, but you see my point.

The breaking of a staff is not only symbolic, it would greatly help in defeating a wizard. But it does not cause complete power loss. Simply a loss of an effecive tool.

[Olorin]

Unless I'm mistaking, I believe that when Gandalf was battling the Nazgul at Pelennor, a beam of light came out of HIS HAND, not his staff. This illustrates that he didn't need his staff to use his power.

If I misread it, I apologize.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by Olorin

Unless I'm mistaking, I believe that when Gandalf was battling the Nazgul at Pelennor, a beam of light came out of HIS HAND, not his staff. This illustrates that he didn't need his staff to use his power.

If I misread it, I apologize.

Nope, your right. Which of course brings up again the topic of the ROTK movie (As I'm sure it's been discussed before) with the W-K braking Gandalf's staff.

[Essex]

I was going to raise a new Thread, but had a quick hunt and found a very interesting Thread which covers a lot of the points here.

I raise this Post because of the numerous arguments over Gandalf's staff breaking in the Movie.

Apologies to the Book loving brigade who don't want to mention the movies in this section.

I agree with some of the posts above that a Wizard’s staff is mainly Symbolic. When Gandalf breaks Saruman’s staff, it is to merely show to Saruman and the watching parties that Saruman’s reign is over. Saruman still had powers (in his voice for one) that did not need a staff.

If we look at various scenes where Gandalf shows his strength of Magic, it doesn't really show him using his staff does it?

1/ Gandalf forcing back the Nazgul on the Pellenor fields WITH HIS HAND.

2/ Gandalf before fighting the Balrog on the bridge, issues a Word of Command to hold the door.

I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength… I had to speak a word of Command.

No mention of using his staff.

3/ In Frodo’s dream at Tom’s house, we see Gandalf lighting the sky with his staff on top of Orthanc. Now if a staff is meant to be THAT potent, why not use it somehow to get down from the tower (other than to send out an SOS….)

4/ When fighting the Wargs, he uses it only as a deterrent to the Wargs.

Gandalf stood up and strode forward, holding his staff aloft. 'Listen, Hound of Sauron! ' he cried. `Gandalf is here. Fly, if you value your foul skin! I will shrivel you from tail to snout, if you come within this ring.'

Notice he again uses a spell and a piece of burning wood to defeat them.

In the wavering firelight Gandalf seemed suddenly to grow: he rose up, a great menacing shape like the monument of some ancient king of stone set upon a hill. Stooping like a cloud, he lifted a burning branch and strode to meet the wolves. They gave back before him. High in the air he tossed the blazing brand. It flared with a sudden white radiance like lightning; and his voice rolled like thunder……Naur an edraith ammen! Naur dan i ngaurhoth!

5/ A KEY point. Gandalf breaks Saruman’s staff WITH HIS HAND, not his own staff. He also called back Saruman before this. The power of Gandalf is in his own hands and words, not his Staff.

'Come back, Saruman!' said Gandalf in a commanding voice. To the amazement of the others, Saruman turned again. and as if dragged against his will, he came slowly back to the iron rail, leaning on it, breathing hard……He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.'

Now, points where I see Gandalf actually using his staff

1/ Gandalf mentions a Word of Command to light a faggot on Caradhras. I admit here he uses his staff, but to me this is merely a conduit of his power, which was in his ‘Word’

Picking up a faggot he held it aloft for a moment, and then with a word of command_, naur an edraith ammen!_ he thrust the end of his staff into the midst of it. At once a great spout of green and blue flame sprang out, and the wood flared and sputtered.

2/ At the gates of Moria, he tries to open the door using his staff and a spell, to no avail.

e stepped up to the rock again, and lightly touched with his staff the silver star in the middle beneath the sign of the anvil. Annon edhellen, edro hi ammen! Fennas nogothrim, lasto beth lammen! he said in a commanding voice. The silver lines faded, but the blank grey stone did not stir.

Notice how Gandalf throws his staff on the ground when he realizes how it cannot help him.

Then he threw his staff on the ground, and sat down in silence.

In the end it is the power of a single word that opens the door. Also, he tries to re open the broken doors with his staff when they are inside, but to no avail.

3/ He DOES use his staff to light the way in Moria though….

4/ The MAIN use of his staff in the books is here

At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he smote the bridge before him. The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand.

So he could break the bridge using his staff, but it was destroyed in the process…..

5/ He seems to use the Staff to rid the 3 hunters of their weapons, I admit. But again, is the staff just used as a conduit of his power. Was it actually needed?

His white garments shone. He lifted up his staff, and Gimli's axe leaped from his grasp and fell ringing on the ground. The sword of Aragorn, stiff in his motionless hand, blazed with a sudden fire. Legolas gave a great shout and shot an arrow high into the air: it vanished in a flash of flame.

6/ Against Grima.

He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded to sullen embers

But he did not use his staff to ‘heal’ Theoden.

In conclusion, Gandalf’s staff, although useful, is not all empowering. HE can function well without a staff. Therefore, (and sorry to end this on a movie note), if the Witch King could destroy Gandalf’s staff does not mean he can destroy Gandalf as well.

[ohtatyaro]

Great post, Essex

To have a summary to it: (and I always felt that must be the thing) - staff iz wizard's conductor. I mean, the power is in wizard, and staff helps him conduct it, let it out

[alatar]

Great post Essex.

I would have to say though that in Tolkien's world that the Staffs are integral somehow with Wizards - i.e. a sorceror may use magic etc, but a wizard always carries a staff. And I think that we are all talking about the Five.

Somewhere in the Books, Appendices (?) there is a quote regarding wizards and a word meaning "staff-man/men." Also, is it Saruman that taunts Gandalf about getting the Keys to Orthanc and Barad-dur and the Staffs of the Five Wizards? Pretty important, those staffs seems to be.

Weren't the staffs part of the Istari's disguises? Their staffs were to help these old men appear less intimdating, as it gave them something on which to lean.

Gandalf without a staff may still be formidible, but I couldn't see him without it - it's his trademark tool, like Aragorn's sword, Legolas's bow and Gimli's axe. I would also conclude that there's something connection between the wizard, his staff and his abilities.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Somewhere in the Books, Appendices (?) there is a quote regarding wizards and a word meaning "staff-man/men." (alatar)

Perhaps you mean Gandalf:

Gandalf . . . is an actual Norse name . . . used by me [J.R.R Tolkien] since it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in "magic," and might be supposed to mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff."

UT IV 2

[HerenIstarion]

But I can not stand a temptation

The discussion reminds me of Terry Pratchett and the song Nanny Ogg was fond of singing:

The Wizards Staff Has A Knob On Its End...

Work the rest up for yourselves

But lest the post be deleted, let us have a quick go at it from Tolkien angle as well

My belief is, that, in the first place, the staff is there at all:

A) For such is a tradition (in Western Mythology, that is) Wizard should have a staff, a cloak, hood/hat
B) For the name Gandalf was chosen, and Gandalf = Wandelf

Rest, I'll just repeat what was said - there is no need (or obligation) for the wizard to employ his power via staff (I delibirately refrain from using word 'magic' here, reasons given in numerous posts around).

To give you an analogy - the pen enhences my writing skill, but be there a pen or not, I know how to write, and I probably would find a way of writing in case of need (just it would be less refined, or more clumsy, without a pen)

Not backed up theory of mine is, however, the following:

Maiar needed staffs in case they were 'true' incarnates. Matter as an obstacle, overcome by other (and special) 'channeling' matter.

Or another analogy - as a spell (or rather a 'song' with Tolkien (or even a word, sometimes the same thing)) gives a thought a form and power to change, so the staff channels the 'sheer' power.

No time to elaborate on this, unfortunately. Maybe later

cheers

[Kuruharan]

Maiar needed staffs in case they were 'true' incarnates. Matter as an obstacle, overcome by other (and special) 'channeling' matter.

Or another analogy - as a spell (or rather a 'song' with Tolkien (or even a word, sometimes the same thing)) gives a thought a form and power to change, so the staff channels the 'sheer' power.

Who or what does your theory propose the staff channels? The Valar or the Istari's native power...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

Perhaps you mean Gandalf:

Gandalf . . . is an actual Norse name . . . used by me [J.R.R Tolkien] since it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in "magic," and might be supposed to mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff."

UT IV 2

Exactly! Thanks. I knew that I read something like that somewhere.

That's what I get for trying to do this without my book in front of me...

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

That's what I get for trying to do this without my book in front of me...

Don't worry, alatar. Some of us do it all the time.

Anywhen, H-I's channelling theory looks good. For their spirit to interact with the stuff of Arda, they need bodies. For their potency to do the same, they would need a medium (cf. One Ring).

[Essex]

For their potency to do the same, they would need a medium

but not neccesarily as my posts above prove. for example, Gandalf broke Saruman's staff by raising his hand and using his voice.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

but not neccesarily as my posts above prove. for example, Gandalf broke Saruman's staff by raising his hand and using his voice.

Not sure. Again I wish that I had the books in front of me, but my paperbacks have been packed away somewhere by the wife and I loaned my hard cover to my brother who has taken 3+ years to arrive at Bree.

Is there a place on-line in which the text is available?

Anyway, at the time of the Saruman staff breaking, does Gandalf have his hand on his staff? I wonder if this is the case in many of the events noted by Essex.

[Essex]

alatar,

look at post #27 above which shows the text. Here is an expanded version. Trust me, it's from the book.

'Come back, Saruman!' said Gandalf in a commanding voice. To the amazement of the others, Saruman turned again. and as if dragged against his will, he came slowly back to the iron rail, leaning on it, breathing hard. His face was lined and shrunken. His hand clutched his heavy black staff like a claw.
'I did not give you leave to go,' said Gandalf sternly. 'I have not finished. You have become a fool, Saruman, and yet pitiable. You might still have turned away from folly and evil, and have been of service. But you choose to stay and gnaw the ends of your old plots. Stay then! But I warn you. you will not easily come out again. Not unless the dark hands of the East stretch out to take you. Saruman!' he cried, and his voice grew in power and authority. 'Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death. You have no colour now, and I cast you from the order and from the Council.'
He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.' There was a crack, and the staff split asunder in Saruman's hand, and the head of it fell down at Gandalf's feet. 'Go!' said Gandalf. With a cry Saruman fell back and crawled away

This shows that it was the power of his voice (and hand if you must) that broke his sword.

IMO, what one needs to do when analysing a scene, is to think WHY Tolkien wrote it this way. What, IMO, he is doing here by writing that Gandalf raised his hand and used his voice is EXPLICITLY showing that Gandalf DOES NOT NEED TO USE HIS STAFF to cast Saruman from the Order. (If he wanted to show Gandalf was chanelling power or gaining power from his staff he would have written "raised his staff' instead of 'raised his hand') Indeed, at the start of the passage, all Gandalf needed to haul Saruman back was the power of his Voice. Tolkien is showing in this scene that Gandalf can break Saruman's staff and cast him from the Order with his own power, simple and direct, and not chanelling through any object.

PS Gandalf's staff is mentioned ONCE by Tolkien in the whole of the Voice of Saruman Chapter, and just as a door knocker!

Gandalf stood before the door of Orthanc and beat on it with his staff. It rang with a hollow sound. 'Saruman, Saruman!' he cried in a loud commanding voice. 'Saruman come forth!'

[Formendacil]

In this thread, which was on magic in general, I made this post concerning my thoughts on the staffs:

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Here's a thought I had concerning the staffs of Gandalf and Saruman (and the other wizards).

Personally, I don't think that staffs were necessary to the working of Gandalf's (or any wizard's) magic. To me, this is proven by Gandalf's action against the Balrog, after the staff was broken. The staff might have been a useful tool to help disguise the user's power from ordinary men, and maybe it actually was some help in focussing the power. Who knows?

My idea is that the main purpose for the staff was as a symbol of each's wizard's commission as one of the Istari. Something like a rod of office (such as the stewards carried). The rod doesn't contain the steward's authority, it merely acts as a symbol of it. Thus, if a wizard loses his staff (or breaks it, whatever), it is sufficient to simply acquire a new one.

However, it is a very different case when Gandalf divests Saruman of his staff, and breaks it. Gandalf has been sent back as the new leader of the Istari. He is now Saruman's superior. Just as ceremonially taking back of the rod from Faramir divested him of his power as steward, so too did Gandalf's taking of Saruman's staff rob him of his power as one of the Istari.

Anyways, that's the thought I had. Take it or leave it as you see fit.

[alatar]

Thanks Essex for providing the text, and I DO trust that it is the verbatim, as anything less would be blasphemy.

Again, not to nitpick (but that's how this will appear ), but the text says nothing in regards to whether Gandalf's hand is on his staff or not. Presumably, if he were not mounted, he would have his staff in hand.

Surely you will give me something else to consider after reading the above, but in anticipation, as an example of 'item not mentioned explicitly, therefore...' I would point out that the Three Elvish rings were all in use, yet I can't remember any references such as "Elrond used his ring to" etc.

I really need to get those books out as (1) I hate trying to make a point based on memory and (2) this forum is making me want to dive in, yet again.

I like Formendacil's comments regarding the staff being a symbol of office.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

They are still physical channels of spiritual potency. I said "a medium": A staff is one of them, perhaps. But there are others, as you have proven.