Istari and their staves

[Boromir88]

I agree with Form's post, when Gandalf tells Denethor he's "a steward" as well, it's more Tolkien making a commentary on the difference between Denethor's Stewardship and Gandalf's. There are different meanings to the word and Tolkien is contrasting the two meanings by using Gandalf and Denethor.

(all quotes from Minas Tirith)

"Yet the Lord of Gondor is not to be made the tool of other men's purposes, however worthy. And to him there is no purpose higher in the world as it now stands than the good of Gondor; and the rule of Gondor, my lord, is mind and no other man's, unless the king should come again."

This part is interesting because Denethor is flat out saying he rules Gondor, he is the "Lord," and thus the good of Gondor is his only purpose. Originally the house of Stewards, in Gondor, was designed to rule the realm when the King was gone.

When Earnur chases off after the Witch-King after being insulted, the Steward, Mardil stays and rules Gondor until Earnur is able to return. Although, in this case, Earnur doesn't return as he is killed, ending Anarion's line and Mardil becomes what would be the 1st "Ruling Steward." The Ruling Stewards all took oaths to hold the throne and sceptre until a king returns. Overtime the Stewards took these oaths out of tradition, and even though legally they could never claim the title of king (as it was decided only the line of Anarion could rule Gondor and the House of Stewards were not from Anarion's line), they essentially ruled as kings and weren't interested in giving up their power. As is evidenced when Denethor said Aragorn's house was "long bereft of Lordship," and his "unless the king should come again" comment is far from convincing. Something that Gandalf notices.

"Unless the king should come again?" said Gandalf. "Well, my lord Steward, it is your task to keep some kingdom still against that event, which few now look to see. In that task you shall have all the aid that you are pleased to ask for. But I will say this: the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair and bear fruit and flower again in the days to come. For I also am a steward. Did you not know?"

There's a lot of things going on here, but look at the capitilization when Gandalf addresses Denethor as "lord Steward" and then when Gandalf says he's a "steward." The former he associates with a position of rule. Denethor says Gondor is his rule. The latter "steward" Gandalf associates with care. All things are Gandalf's care, in fact he rules nothing.

Gandalf is pointing to the humbler origins of stewardship, as opposed to Denethor's idea of Stewardship. The humbler origins have a religious context of stewards being like shephards to their flock. Denethor's idea of Stewardship is asserting his authority in Gondor.

If I've read Form's post correctly, I guess I'm saying Gandalf is actually doing the exact opposite. He is using the humble origins of what it is to be a "steward" to actually say he's in no legal, or authoritative position. He rules nothing, but cares for all. And goes to contrast Denethor's legal position of Gondor, as a "Steward."

[Galadriel55]

I didn't mean to say that Gandalf is such a stewart as Denethor. But as you said, his job is to care for all of ME, or as much as he can. No matter how you interpret his stewartship, though, you can say that he's responsible for the fate of ME. The job of a ruler, any ruler, is to govern only his country, and that is basically all he's responsible for. Gandalf's responsibility is by far greater and more important. Thus, it should also give him more leagal authority. He does indeed care for ME and doesn't rule it. However, in order to be able to care for it, he requires some power/authority over others. He doesn't abuse it, like Saruman did, and avoids using and displaying it, like Denethor, but he still posesses it.

[Alcuin]

We might be thinking about Gandalf’s broken staff in the wrong way.

Gandalf had been using the staff as a focus, or at least as an extension of himself: lighting the fire on Caradhras, for instance. That doesn’t mean it’s “magic”. To the person who understands it, it’s just a tool. A shepherd’s crook may seem “magic” to the sheep rescued from a ledge, for instance, but to the shepherd, it’s just a useful tool.

If Gandalf on Durin’s Bridge is already tired and wants to keep his distance between himself and his opponent, he might use the staff as means to do that, channeling whatever he’s doing to break the bridge through the staff. Think of the expression, “I wouldn’t touch that Balrog with a ten-foot pole!” Gandalf could have been as surprised as the rest of the onlookers that the staff burst. For that matter, he was pretty smart: he might have done it for effect, to surprise the Balrog; and the Balrog does seem to have been surprised.

Maybe the staff burst the same way the door to the Chamber of Mazarbul burst: we know, or think we know, that Gandalf intended to break the bridge. Perhaps the Balrog tried to stop him. If Gandalf was using the staff as a tool, then just like the door on which each of them had his hand, it could have broken under the strain between them when the bridge broke.

-|-

Another idea presents itself as well. If the staff has symbolic meaning – Gandalf, you are to unite Men and Elves in opposition to Sauron – breaking the staff might be interpreted as, Gandalf, you’re done with the first assignment. Don’t leave without killing the Balrog.

If Gandalf had escaped and the Balrog survived, the Umaia might well have helped Sauron in his three assaults upon Lórien. Celeborn seemed uncertain that the little kingdom would have survived, and probably for good reason! It would not mean that Gandalf had either exceeded his authority or abandoned his charge: he was confronted with something unforeseen. It doesn’t appear that Eönwë took a head-count of Morgoth’s balrogs at the end of the War of Wrath, the Balrog was a problem that had to be dealt with, and Gandalf was the only one in the Fellowship capable of dealing with it. (Glorfindel had already successfully dealt with balrogs, but he stayed behind in Rivendell when Merry and Pippin filled up Elrond’s count.)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by doug*platypus

Referring back to the original post, I would cast my vote for #3, that the staffs were both conduits and symbols. However, I would say that they were more a symbol of their office rather than their power. The main passage I am thinking of is the very powerful moment when Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff and expels him from the order. Saruman is no longer one of them. It is more of a ceremonial move imho, although it may well have also served to limit Saruman's power in some way.

I had another (late) thought on the breaking of Saruman's staff, that I found rather neat.

At Orthanc, Gandalf tells Saruman he has no colour anymore, and is 'cast from the Order and from the Council'. Then Gandalf says:

'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.

The Voice of Sarumen, TTT (emphasis mine)

I just think it's no coincidence that the head of the staff just happened to fall right at Gandalf's feet. Saruman was the "head" of the Order, and I see that as an affirmation of the "staves as authority symbols" view. As Gandalf was given the authority to cast out Saruman, he was at the same time given a sign from his superiors that he was from that point the "head", not only of the Istari, who were pretty much defunct as a body, but also the leader in the war against Sauron.
That seems to me to be another clear sign that Gandalf's actions were necessary not from a standpoint of stripping Saruman of all his power, but of his authority as a representative of the Valar.