Gandalf's Staff

[davem]

There is, now I think about it, a very obvious Freudian interpretation of the breaking of Saruman's staff....

[alatar]

Sometimes, after a brief nod at work, I become more aware of where I am and demand, "the day...what day is it man!" Usually this gets my coworkers scurrying, like they don't have enough to be concerned about anyway. The point, though, is that sometimes I can't be sure if I'm in the past, the present or the future.

Reading this thread, I get the feeling that I've been here before. On the other hand, if you've already read what I've just written, sorry for the redundancy. Anyway...

Is Gandalf's staff wooden? As mentioned, he uses it to set other wood afire.

Though I might disagree with equating a cross/Crucifix with a wizard's staff, I like the analogy presented by Roa_Aoife. Think that this was done well in the movie "Salem's Lot," though I may be mistaken. The main vampire confronts a priest who is armed with a Crucifix, but easily overwhelms the holy man as the vampire knows that the priest has no faith in the artifact, therefore it has no power. The main characters fashion crosses out of tongue depressors, and these are much more effective against the blood-drinking undead. But in regards to the staves of the Istari, I don't think that it is their faith in the item that gives any benefit.

Regarding Saruman's staff: This token of office did not aid him when he addressed Theoden and Gandalf, and its breaking only showed the mastery of Gandalf and the feebleness of Saruman. Plus, as a symbol of Saruman's office, it was taken from him as he had gone over to the enemy. Saruman, like many others on that side (Melkor, Sauron) lose their innate power by dispersing it amongst others to control these others. Sauron had to give some of himself to create the Ring to control the other Rings, so much so that he would be destroyed when it was. Saruman, in order to control his orcs and hillmen and Wormtongue, gave away the power that one such as Gandalf retained. So my point here is that Saruman was no more or less powerful with his staff, and so it cannot be a great channeler (i.e. no multiplier effect). And I don't think that the staves have any power within themselves, or surely Sauron would have tried to take them. Gandalf may use the staff to effect something - start a fire with the end of it - but it's not the staff, but Gandalf. Can't see him shooting fire out of his fingers, or breaking the Bridge with his heel, and so he needs some tool.

Gandalf, like the other Istari, came to Middle Earth as an old man. These staff-men were forbidden to declare themselves, matching power with power with Sauron, and I would think that the purpose of the staves that these men carried was to remind them of that. A old man walking with a staff is not too unlikely, and so the symbol of their office was more ordinary than would be a rod or some flagrant banner. And not only were the Istari hobbled so that the Free Folk of ME would have to act to remove the scourge of Sauron (and not sit back and have the wizards do it for them), but also it afforded them a disguise that, for a while, may have hidden them from Sauron and also permitted them to interact with the peoples of ME who would be less intimidated by these old men who needed a 'third leg' for support. So the staff was a reminder of the Valar's decree and a camoflagued symbol of office.

A few posters have already noted that Gandalf's staff breaks on the Bridge. All seem to think that Gandalf breaks it, or at least shoots so much energy through it that it gets overloaded. But consider, when Gandalf first meets the Balrog, though at that time he does not know what it is, he tries to shut the Mazarbul chamber back door to slow the pursuit of the orcs and this other. The Balrog counters his spell, and so Gandalf whips out one of those Words of Command and shatters the door.

Note that the door breaks but Gandalf's staff is intact. Also, remember, Gandalf is aware somehow of this other, and knows that this other has 'preceived' him too. There's some mental stuff going on, obviously.

So consider: Just a little while later Gandalf decides to hold off the Balrog while the other eight escape. Winged or not, presumably if Gandalf breaks the Bridge, the Balrog is stuck as Gandalf has either cut off the pursuit (orcs AND Balrog) or at least slowed it somewhat until some other fortunate accident comes up ("Anyone see any Eagles?"). The Balrog, no dunce, knows that it would be better to continue the pursuit while Gandalf is still drained and that it might be better to take on the Nine Walkers inside of Moria than outside. It guesses what Gandalf is attempting after its sword is broken, and so it goes for the counterspell again. The strain on Gandalf's staff, which is being used to direct his spell to crack the bridge, is just too much. And so this is technically a power overload, it's not Gandalf's power alone but that of the Balrog's too.

So the Balrog is mostly responsible for breaking Gandalf's staff, as later Gandalf will be when Saruman's is broken.

And what does PJ add to this? Well, that's a really shallow puddle, to be sure.

**Special prediction - The Steelers will win the Super Bowl in 2006. Place your bets early .

[Gothmog]

So my point here is that Saruman was no more or less powerful with his staff, and so it cannot be a great channeler (i.e. no multiplier effect). And I don't think that the staves have any power within themselves, or surely Sauron would have tried to take them. Gandalf may use the staff to effect something - start a fire with the end of it - but it's not the staff, but Gandalf. Can't see him shooting fire out of his fingers, or breaking the Bridge with his heel, and so he needs some tool.

There's a slight contradiction in what you say. The staff cannot be a great channeler, but Gandalf needs some tool. I agree that it doesn't have any multiplier effect but it is used as a channeler when Gandalf shoots fire from it's end or breaks the bridge. I totally agree with you that the staff in itself doesn't contain the power to do this, but would an ordinary wooden branch be able to do this? It still is Gandalf that has the power and uses the magic though.

Is Gandalf's staff wooden? As mentioned, he uses it to set other wood afire.

Wooden, but enhanced with magic so that it both is fire-resistant (probably tougher in many ways) and has the capacity to channel powerful spells without being destroyed in the process. Unless the power is to great for it or it meets some sort of resistance like the Balrog in alatar's theory.

What would Sauron use such a staff for? I'm sure that Gandalf or Saruman could have managed without one and maybe made a new one. Sauron doesn't have the need of a "focusing tool", and if he needed one he could probably design something himself. Or maybe he already have the two blue wizard's staffs? But if he was in a position where he could take Gandalf's staff, then surely he would be able to kill him just as easily. Obviously, this haven't happened so it's we don't know if he desires the staffs or not. But I'd think that he would be happier if he could get rid of the wizards themselves.

As many others have been pointing out, the staff as a token of a wizards office is important. When Saruman speaks to Gandalf outside Orthanc, he says that Gandalf won't settle before he has the keys to Barad-dûr, seven king's crowns and five wizard's staffs (and a pair of new boots ). Also, Gandalf demands Sarumans staff together with the keys of Orthanc.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

There's a slight contradiction in what you say.

I must not be trying hard enough then if I've only contradicted myself slightly....

The staff cannot be a great channeler, but Gandalf needssome tool.

Agreed. As noted, when Gandalf faces wolves and Wargs, he uses pine cones or branches, whatever seems handle. Again my point is that the staff isn't really that special, nor is Gandalf helpless without it, but like he said on Caradhras, he can't burn snow and so needs something.

What would Sauron use such a staff for?

The only useful thing would be as a spike upon which to place a wizard's head. My point is that if the staffs had any innate power, then Sauron may have attempted to acquire one or more. Sauron had a palantir, stole black horses and also had his minions gather up any mithril that they stumbled upon, and so sought out that which could be used or turned to some evil purpose. Melkor took the Silmarils, not so much as they were useful to him (well, not directly, but his acquisition of the Jewels surely caused a fuss) but for bragging rights ("Hey Fëanor, how do you like my new crown? Naanaanaa!").

[Gothmog]

Again my point is that the staff isn't really that special, nor is Gandalf helpless without it, but like he said on Caradhras, he can't burn snow and so needs something.

You and I are on the same wavelength concerning this. I've never said that Gandalf is helpless without his staff, on the contrary I've always said that the power originates in Gandalf and that he can cast spells without it (as we see him do at some occasions). But I still think that the staff is making it easier.

About the staff not being special, didn't you yourself wonder about the fire resistance of the staff? How can we explain this without a protecting power of some kind? A staff made of stone? Besides, I doubt that a piece of wood can be used as a magic channeler or resist the strains this must bring.

My point is that if the staffs had any innate power, then Sauron may have attempted to acquire one or more. Sauron had a palantir, stole black horses and also had his minions gather up any mithril that they stumbled upon, and so sought out that which could be used or turned to some evil purpose.

Again: maybe Sauron wanted the staffs. But to acquire one he had to kill (or at least seriously hurt) Gandalf, Saruman or Radagast. He needed Saruman for other purposes and I don't think he wanted to upset his ally yet. And for Gandalf he would need a very powerful servant which could destroy him. And why risk someone like the witchking to gather a staff which might help him a little bit (or give him an excuse for an irritating HAAAHAAA and some fingerpointing in the direction of the Istari). Then there's Radagast. We don't know much about his whereabouts and doings but I think we can regard him as a wizard of lesser power than Gandalf or Saruman. We don't even know if he have a staff as far as I know, except for the mention of "five wizard's staffs" by Saruman.

My point his, I don't think that they contained enough power to interest the Dark Lord or make him risk one of his most powerful minions, but they contained some power.

[Essex]

You and I are on the same wavelength concerning this. I've never said that Gandalf is helpless without his staff, on the contrary I've always said that the power originates in Gandalf and that he can cast spells without it (as we see him do at some occasions). But I still think that the staff is making it easier.

Though my admonition of the text was mostly in jest at the start of this thread, reading these posts, unfortunately, I'm begining to see a flaw in the use of Staffs in LOTR. Sorry Professor.....

If the stafff makes it EASIER to cast spells, why does he not use his staff on the two of the most important confrontations - 1/ on the door to the chamber he had to say a Word of Command - which spent him of most of his power and 2/ breaking Saruman's staff - neither of these occasions did he use his staff, but in the case of number 1 - Ten minutes later he DOES use his staff to break the Bridge. Very confusing I have to admit....... a mistake by the Author??????

[Gothmog]

If the stafff makes it EASIER to cast spells, why does he not use his staff on the two of the most important confrontations - 1/ on the door to the chamber he had to say a Word of Command - which spent him of most of his power and 2/ breaking Saruman's staff - neither of these occasions did he use his staff, but in the case of number 1 - Ten minutes later he DOES use his staff to break the Bridge. Very confusing I have to admit....... a mistake by the Author??????

I don't have any good answers to your question, but I can see one explanation for case 2 if we look at this action as the official end of Saruman's power more than an actual breaking of it. It might be that Saruman, by his disobedience towards Valar, has lost his power and Gandalf only performs the last, official act in removing the power. He takes away Saruman's token of office and power: his staff. If that's the case, Gandalf wouldn't need any great power to break it. One can also suspect the interference of Valar, that Gandalf has their support in this action and only works as a tool for the execution of their will. That would perhaps give him the power of Valar for this task and the use of a staff would be unnecessary.

In the first case, we don't even know what this Word of Command really is, so how can we discuss the necessity of a staff for this? This Word of Command is a word and maybe it's used orally, without any special focusing of it's power? I don't know...