The true Istari
 

This is about the Common view of a Wizard (for example Harry Potter stuff) Vs. Tolkien's Istari. The main point I want to talk about is the Istari staff, since Tolkien really never wrote about the staffs. I think if you want to find out the true Istari, I believe we will have to put away our views of what we feel Wizards are (again Harry Potter).

About the Istari staff, to me, PJ made it seem like the Istari's power was in the staff, which I would have to disagree with. I've always thought the power was in the Istari, and he would need the staff to perform his "magic,"(as I argue on later, I might contradict this, and see really there is no power or point at all for an Istari to be carrying a staff). As we all know Saruman doesn't shoot flaming balls out of his staff (as we will see in ROTK EE, a part I might close my eyes on). But we see Gandalf use some sort of power a few times, he can summon dark clouds, he can cause thunder bolts, he can burst out white light to fend off the Nazgul, but is this really "a spell" or is this Gandalf's revealing "natural" power as an Istari? We never hear of any Istari using energy blasts to kill orcs or whatever. We can see Gandalf use his power but its often used as a scare tactic not to kill or destroy. Saruman's power is similar to that of Hitlers or Churchill, he's a good orater, and can persuade you and in a way put a "spell" on you, with his words. From what was written it seems like the Istari weren't on middle-earth to shoot flaming balls all over the place, they were more there to give council, guidance, wisdom..etc. And I think the reason they were referred to as "wizards" because thats how the ME people thought of them as, as "wizards" they had power that other, normal men, didn't have.

With the whole "staff," thing whether the Istari needed it or not. This is tough because we do see Gandalf use white lights and in Moria he even says he put a holding "spell" on the door.

I was thinking the "staff" was a tool they needed in Valinor as a Maia. They bought it to ME, because they grew attatched to it. Part of my job is to work at hockey games and I know players can be come attatched to their sticks, so attatched when the stick breaks they will pay 100's to get it refixed. So maybe the "staff" was important in Valinor and they just brought it with them because they were attatched to them. Who knows maybe there was an importance in the "staff" to me it just didn't seem much use in them.

Old men need staffs to lean on. Seriously. :)

yes, the Harry potter stuff is completely different.

The magic of the Istari reminds me of the Elven magic, and when the hobbits asked if those cloaks were magical. Even after the answer of the Elves, I think the hobbits kept on thinking they were magical, while for the elves they weren´t.

And you have to exclude PJ's foolishness in ROTK, with Gandalf assaulting Denethor.
In Letters:
"Why they [the istari] should take such a form is bound up with the 'mythology' of the 'angelic' Powers of the world of this fable. At this point in the fabulous history the purpose was precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of 'power' on the physical plane, and so that they should do what they were primarilt sent for: train, advise, instruct, arouse the hearts and minds of those threatened by Sauron to a resistance with their own strenghts; and not just to do the job for them."

(And I rather doubt Gandalf made dinner materialize at Rivendell :) ).

The staffs do seem to be a critical focusing element, as Gandalf was so keen to keep his at Edoras. Since he came back enhanced in power you must assume Gandalf the Grey was significantly limited, and presumably then lesser in power to the head of his order.

I agree it's a focus thing..Its like a storm lightning crashing every where...however Gandalf(and the other isatari) have a simliar thing their power is strong and like lightning their staff is like a lightning rod it send the magic where they want and also I blieve like the one ring they can put some of their power into the staff like in moria so he doesnt have to continuaslly conetrate on making like heputs the spell into the staff and voila light and he can concentrate n where he's going

The true power of Istari is in wisdom they have.Staff is only a tool wich represents their wisdom and channels their powers.It is not like Harry Potter where they can't cast spell without staff-for Istari magic is a part of their wisdom.

Yes I agree with Amrod ,the Istari are less sort of wizards and more learned men in LOTR. Their main strength is their wisdom and their foresight,they indeed have magic but they only use it as a medium to show their powers.

For example Saruman did not use his staff to persuade the Dunland men to join him ,he awoke their ancient hatred against the Rohirrim.

The meaning of all this is that the Istari unlike the wizards of Harry Potter did not need their staff ,it was only a way to channel their powers .

Good points Amrod and Rutslegolas. Also, the term "wizard" is more of a mortal name. The mortal races (mostly Men and Hobbits) see this man perform a power they don't have, it must be something "magical," so they call come up with the term "wizard."

Atleast in the Elves case, they don't call their powers "magic," they don't know the term. This shows me that they view their powers as more "natural," something that are in them. Mortal folk call their powers "magic," but the people who perform the magic, don't.

Galadriel makes a distinction between the term "magic," and her natural powers, she also makes a distinction between elven magic, and the deceits of the enemy. I view "wizard" as a more mortal term, sort of how Sam called the Elves' power "magic." Galadriel seems to refer to it as something completely different.

Maybe the wizards' staff was just an extension of themselves, a part of the 'shape' they assumed when they entered the world. I find it interesting that the staffs were not named...Tolkien gave everything a name! Perhaps they had no name because they were not really an entity in themselves, but a part of the wizard. :confused:

You might be on to something. There obviously is some importance in the staff's if Gandalf gets another one after losing his. Also, the breaking of Saruman staff, signifies him out of the order and out of the Council. Saruman loses a bunch of his potency after his staff is broken. So what, he convinced Treebeard, and then a few brigands to go do his dirty work.

I guess I always viewed the staffs of the wizards as more symbolic than anything, on a number of levels. They were clearly a badge of office of some kind, Like a sheriff's badge in an old western, or perhaps more like the winnow and crook carried by Egyptian Pharoahs. The winnow as a provider of grain, and the crook as carried by a shepherd, to guide and protect his flock. It was, in a way, a symbol of their office as Istari. In that capacity, I think it also served as a gentle reminder of their oath and duty in Middle Earth and of where they came from. They could not eat a meal, or smoke a pipe without finding a place to lay it aside safe (and not too far away!) Even in sleep, it would be nearby, the first thing you grab when you awaken. It came from Valinor yet anchored them to the land of Middle Earth and it was always with them.

It was also an outward symbol. Even when they first arrived in Middle Earth, the Istari appeared as old men, leaning on their staffs. This appearance was deliberatly designed to engender trust in them, in their wisdom and experience.

I don't believe the Wizards needed the staffs to perform magic. They were magic, in a very real sense. But without the staffs, they may have lost their way (or at least become lost more quickly) and they may have had more trouble gaining the trust and respect of the leaders of Middle Earth. "Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me. . ."

Saruman's outburst to Gandalf about "the staffs of the 5 wizards" indicates they all had staffs and used them for magical means. I do agree however that these were most likely focuses for their powers.

I agree with samwise7, which I think I explain on another thread... someplace.:(

With the staffs, PJ seems to have attached far more importance to them than did Tolkien. In the film Gandalf has his staff taken by Saruman who then used it against him. Then Gandalf had to get another staff from somewhere.

In the Book the only evidence of what happened to Gandalf's staff comes from Frodo's dream in the house of Bombadil.
Gandalf later seems to confirm that this dream was true.
The Council of Elrond
So, if Saruman left the staff with Gandalf, then either he could not take it, or he had no reason to take it. Which ever of these is true it shows that there is no particular 'Power' in the staff itself and that even as a means of channeling power it would not help Gandalf escape from Orthanc.

So my view is that the staff of an Istar is important but more as a symbol than anything else.

I don't think the remark about the staffs of the five wizards indicates that they were used for magic; it seemed rather to be about personal glory, and treating the staffs themselves as trophies.

I cannot think of examples of the staffs being used as instruments of magic.

It's possible that the staffs of the wizards became symbolic -- but then, other men had staffs, and Gandalf at least got a new staff quite easily. They are for leaning on. The Istari need them because they have the bodies of old men.

The staff is fo channeling the power inside the Istari. While clothed in the bodis of men they could could not use their full Maia powers. I think that they were only allowed to use a certain namount of their magic when they left Valinor, and also that Saruman got the most power, then Gandalf, then Radagast, then Alatar and Pallando, because the Valar allowed the leader to use more power.That is why, when Gandalf gets a new staff, his powers increase, because it allows him to reach more of his real power. So when he is reborn, he takes Saruman's place, and gets more power (though nothing near his full potential).

By the way, Gandalf did kill quite a few things with fire (Actually, mostly Wolves) in LOTR and The Hobbit.

Just a little correction here - Alatar would be probably the second in rank after Saruman (leaving Gandalf now, because it's hard to place him anywhere, maybe by right he could be placed even before Saruman, but we know how this goes), because he and Saruman were the ones first chosen by Valar, and they took Radagast and Pallando as "sidekicks".

Concerning the whole topic, from what was said here I would be the closest to radagastly's opinion. The staffs had seemingly mainly the function of an object showing the power of the person, even in some Earth's cultures a staff was a symbol of power. Most importantly, they were signs of these people belonging to the order of Istari (now there's time for that famous quote about staffs of the Five Wizards and the episode when Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff). What I 100% disagree with is that the staffs will be something that belonged to the Istari when they were still in Valinor and they grew so attached to it that they took it with them - that's plain nonsense; first, I believe the Maiar in Valinor looked totally different from how we know them from M-E (and there are quotes to it in the Istari essay and even elsewhere, "they took the shapes of old men"), second, it will be quite interesting that Valar picked for the mission five Maiar who all have staffs (since surely not every Maia has a staff).

As for whether the staffs had any power of their own, I highly doubt it. I would say they could have some sort of Ring-like power in the meaning that if one had them, his power increased somewhat. If you pardon me using a RPGing metaphore, since it seems the easiest way for me now to express this, let's say a Staff held by a Wizard increased his effective spell level, increased the difficulty for the saving throws against his spells and increased his Charisma by +4. Plainly and simply, there was no ability to cast fireballs inside it, but rather it empowered the Wizard somewhat (if only by giving him a "cooler" look in the eyes of the others, cf. the Charisma +4 thing).

Perhaps these Staffs were magical/holy items given to the 5 Istari in Valinor by the Valar to aid them in their task and to focus their energies.

Since they all had them, it makes sense. I would say they could still cast spells without them, but they would be less powerful without them.

Eönwë, I disagree that Gandalf's powers increased because he acquired a new staff. The restrictions set upon him came from across the Sea, not from the type of stick he held in his hand. Saruman became more powerful than Gandalf (in his dealings on Middle-earth) because he ignored the instructions given to him - not because his staff was flashier. Likewise, Gandalf became more powerful after the rules of the game changed, and he was permitted to demonstrate more power.

I'm just not sure there is any compelling evidence to say that the staffs of the Istari were a means of 'channeling' power.

Interesting, very interesting....

I think that part of the question is really the issue of what "magic" is in Tolkien's world. I should go rooting around to find the exact quotes, but since the room with all my books is a shambles, I'll have to wing it by memory. :rolleyes:

Tolkien has said that in his invented world, the "magic" of Elves, wizards, etc. is a product of their inborn nature, not a power outside themselves which they learned to manipulate. If the staffs of the wizards have any actual power, it is because the wizards, being Maiar by nature, have natural power which they either invest in their staffs as Sauron and Celebrimbor invested power in the Rings. Doing this is always a danger to the maker, because the destruction of the item results in a loss of strength to the one who put that power in it.

We really don't know where the wizards' staffs came from. Did they make them themselves, did they get them from the Valar who made them...? The breaking of Saruman's staff seems to have resulted in a loss of power to him, so perhaps he made it himself (or was directed by the Valar to do so) for some purpose in his task as one of the Istari in Middle-earth. That all of the wizards had them would appear to indicate that they were a symbol or tool of their office.

After considering this issue for a long time (years, actually), I tend to view them as first an emblem of office (like the Steward's Rod in Gondor), and something in which a part of each wizard's own natural power as a Maia was placed in trust to their office as stewards of Middle-earth. Deliberately limited in strength by their diminished life in real flesh, the staffs may have allowed them, in times of great need, to use a greater portion of their natural but reduced abilities, their "magic."

Just my two cents, of course.

My theory was that when inside their human bodies the Istari could
not use their power, but the Valar gave them staves (I think thats the right word) to allow them to release their power from inside their body. Maybe the staves were a means of controlling how much power each Istar was given? SO the leader would get the most power, for example. I'm not saying its about how the staff looked, but abot what it could do. I think when Gandalf returned he was granted a new staff which allowd him to use more power so that he could win the war. Saruman used his powers too much, and started using more than his prescribed amount, so he was baihed. Gandalf stayed within the limits, it was just that when he got the new staff, the linits increased so that he wold have a chance against the enemy/ies. Well, thats just what I think anyway.

I've seen it mentioned that, because Gandalf had to get a new staff after Saruman took his, it shows that the ownership of a staff was powerful. I think the opposite: because Gandalf simply got another staff, it suggests that the original staff was not special or imbued with Valar-given powers. And, of course, that he needed to get another staff to walk easier with. ;)

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.

Edit to add: unless the Valar gave him a few staffs, and he stashed the spares in Rivendell, but I doubt this.

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).

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

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

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.

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?

^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 ;))

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:
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:
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:
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.

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

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.

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.

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?

That's a fair enough comment. We have never read anything about Sauruman actually performing any powerful magic tricks. Gandalf often did, but then he also possessed the ring of fire, a very powerful artefact.