Staffs. . .Symbols? Powerful relics? Which and why?

Greenwood · Aug 7, 2005

Thorondor said:
"Could be" is not much of an argument if we consider that Tolkien ruled out what he thought was mistaken about Gandalf's name (i.e. the elven origin) but left the refference to the magic staff intact. So, if he made a "clean up" and left the magic staff refference uncorrected, we must assume it is a correct refference.

Fine, if you object to my phrasing of "could be", I will change it to "is wrong". Tolkein is talking about how men might view the name Gandalf as meaning "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff". Men, however, are mistaken, as Inderjit has already pointed out. Gandalf is not an "elvish wight" and his staff is not "magic". You cannot insist on a literal interpretation of only half of the sentence.

Thorondor said:
I disagree; he was particulary talking about names "to me a name comes first and the story follows"

Read the entire passage, not just the parts you like. In context Tolkien is talking about his languages, not specifically names. You are engaging in selective quotation again.
(Added in edit: Besides the fact that you are claiming this quotation refers to character names, when the context shows it did not, there is the clear fact that Tolkien did not work this way at all when it came to character names. Even the most cursory look at the HoME series shows that Tolkien changed names all the time as he wrote. Otherwise, we would have Bingo the Ringbearer on the quest of Mount Doom!)

Thorondor said:
I can hardly see a shadow as being a human anymore.

Completely illogical. Were Bilbo, Frodo and Sam no longer hobbits when they wore the Ring and were shadows? Even outside Tolkien, was H. G. Wells' Invisible Man no longer human because he was invisible? Your argument is absurd.

Thorondor said:
I mean having an elf as an ancestor.

Are you therefore claiming Denethor, Boromir and Faramir had elf ancestry? Are they cousins of Aragorn? Which elf are they descended from and where in Tolkien do you find the evidence for this?

Thorondor said:
I disagree: "More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth". I don't see a refference to fear, but a refference to harm. How could a mere name be "deadly" to a nazgul, unless some magic is involved? But we know names, in and of themselves, have no magical power - only their wielder can have.

Can you tell us which Nazgul was "harmed" at Weathertop and what that harm was? Can you explain why, given your preference for insisting on literal meanings of selected Tolkien quotations you can now justify Aragorn's clear statement that it was "the name of Elbereth" that had an effect on the Nazgul?

Thorondor said:
However, that quote you invoke makes no refference to maiar/valar, only to a single istar, so it cannot be interpreted as limiting the cathegory of beings who have magic abilities.

I did not invoke a single quote. I pointed to an entire letter which I took the time and trouble to type out. Please read it in its entirety, not selectively. It does not refer to only a single istar. It refers to elves, Gandalf and the "Enemy". And we know the "Enemy" (in capitalization) refers to Sauron, a maia like Gandalf. And what to Gandalf, Sauron and elves all have in common, in contrast to humans? They are immortal beings while humans are mortal beings.

Thorondor said:
Since dwarves made magic objects (their gates) then they must have magic powers - since magic cannot be learnt.

The only dwarve-made magic objects you have been able to point to have been dwarf gates. How do you know they didn't have elven help in making gates that has these "magical" capabilities? Celebrimbor, probably the most gifted elf craftsman since Feanor certainly had involvement in the Moria Gate.

I see you skulking under that rock, AraCelebEarwen!

AraCelebEarwen · Aug 7, 2005

no you don't! I was never here! never said nothin'! can't see me... well... unless you have chocolate...

Thorondor_ · Aug 8, 2005

Men, however, are mistaken, as Inderjit has already pointed out.

As Tolkien pointed out himself in that paragraph.

Gandalf is not an "elvish wight" and his staff is not "magic".

While Tolkien took the time and effort to rule out the elvish part in that same paragraph, he doesn't do so with the magic staff, not there, not anywhere else. If there was a problem in the refference to staff, he would have stated it, after or before he reffered to the mistake of the humans regarding the elvish nature of Gandalf. But he didn't, so the refference to the staff is valid.

How do you know they didn't have elven help in making gates that has these "magical" capabilities? Celebrimbor, probably the most gifted elf craftsman since Feanor certainly had involvement in the Moria Gate

Celebrimbor himself wrote that Narvi the dwarf made the gates. Furthermore, Gandalf makes no refference to the elven help in the making of gates by the dwarves, in the quote I previously gave.

AraCelebEarwen said:
no you don't! I was never here! never said nothin'! can't see me... well... unless you have chocolate...

Here, help yourself ACE

AraCelebEarwen · Aug 8, 2005

woooooow!!! THANK YOU!!! Hannon le mellon nin!!! *evil grin* It'ssss mine precociousssssss... lol

Man! How far will this go!? I mean, this is interesting and all, but... well... maybe I should try to read all of it before I say anything else.

Inderjit S · Aug 8, 2005

While Tolkien took the time and effort to rule out the elvish part in that same paragraph, he doesn't do so with the magic staff, not there, not anywhere else. If there was a problem in the refference to staff, he would have stated it, after or before he reffered to the mistake of the humans regarding the elvish nature of Gandalf. But he didn't, so the refference to the staff is valid.

That is quite a big jump-Tolkien never said Gil-Galad never wore clothes but that doesn't "validate" a hypothesis claiming he was perpertually naked. Tolkien "refuted" the claim about Gandalf being an Elf because it was an obvious fallacy -you may have a point but that doesn't make your point "valid", perhaps Tolkien felt the "magic staff" part less salient because Gandalf was able to channel his magic through his staff, thus it was something of a misnomer or misunderstanding-but as I stated before one part of the name is an obvious fallacy, therefore that makes the other part suspect, and the fact that Tolkien didn't comment on the other part doesn't in any way validate your views, it just means he didn't comment on it, whether it was because he thought it was a valid name (if so, why not comment on it?) or if he thought it was a fallacious thought is by no means confirmed.

Celebrimbor himself wrote that Narvi the dwarf made the gates. Furthermore, Gandalf makes no refference to the elven help in the making of gates by the dwarves, in the quote I previously gave.

Gandalf, though a loremaster, did not have a pedantic account of the doings of Elves and Dwarves in the S.A

Greenwood · Aug 8, 2005

Thorondor said:
While Tolkien took the time and effort to rule out the elvish part in that same paragraph, he doesn't do so with the magic staff, not there, not anywhere else. If there was a problem in the refference to staff, he would have stated it, after or before he reffered to the mistake of the humans regarding the elvish nature of Gandalf. But he didn't, so the refference to the staff is valid.

Time and effort? How much time and effort was required to point out something that all his readers knew for themselves? Tolkien was merely making the point that while the name might be taken, by men, to mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff", which would appear to be true to men, they were in fact wrong. The fact that Tolkien does not specifically addreess the second part of the phrase does not automatically validate it. Your argument falls under the category of your old favorite phrase: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That Tolkien says nothing about the second part of the phrase could also mean that he saw no reason to point out its invalidity since he had already pointed out the invalidity of the first part.

The one part of the phrase that we know is correct is that Gandalf carries a staff. An argument could be made that the very reason Tolkien put "magic" in parenthesis is to show that it is incorrect.

Thorondor said:
Celebrimbor himself wrote that Narvi the dwarf made the gates.

Your old friend, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is again relevant. That Celebrimbor wrote Narvi made the gates does not rule out Celebrimbor assisting.

Thorondor said:
Furthermore, Gandalf makes no refference to the elven help in the making of gates by the dwarves, in the quote I previously gave.

Again, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Gandalf does not say the gates were made by dwarves alone. Besides, the Gates of Moria were built at least 2700 years before Gandalf arrived in Middle Earth, and perhaps even a thousand years before that. There is no reason that Gandalf would know all the details of their building.

You have a tendency to argue for literal interpretations of isolated quotations when they suit your view, and to ignore all other evidence. You gave a single quotation from the beginning of The Hobbit which refers to Gandalf's "magic staff" and claimed that is proof of your view. If we continue in The Hobbit the following passages appear: 1) In the chapter Over Hill and Under Hill, when Gandalf, Bilbo and company first enter the mountain cave where they are later captured by goblins we have:

He lit up his wand -- as he did that day in Bilbo's dining-room that seemed so long ago, if you remember ---, and by its light they explored the cave from end to end.

2) Later in the same chapter after Gandalf has rescued the company from the goblins we have:

Then Gandalf lit up his wand.

3) Later, in the chapter Out of the Frying-pan into the Fire, when they are trapped in the trees by wargs, we have:

Then Gandalf climbed to the top of his tree. The sudden splendour flashed from his wand like lightning, as he got ready to spring down from on high right among the spears of the goblins.

Three passages in which Gandalf's staff is called a "wand". Should we ignore all other descriptions of Gandalf as carrying a "staff" and reduce it to a "wand"?

Inderjit S · Aug 9, 2005

Also, on the names of the Valar-'Gandalf' was just a nickname used by Frodo and co.-his true name was Olorin.

Thorondor_ · Aug 9, 2005

Tolkien never said Gil-Galad never wore clothes

In the notes to Aldarion and Erendis, UT, there is a refference to Gil-Galad's "helm and mail"; anyway, just like decency is presumed in ME, so is magic.

the fact that Tolkien didn't comment on the other part doesn't in any way validate your views

"My" views? If you want to discredit his refferences to the magic staff, only a quote from the professor himself would do - not speculations.

Gandalf, though a loremaster, did not have a pedantic account of the doings of Elves and Dwarves in the S.A

But Gimli also agrees with Gandalf [and says that Narvi and his craft and all his kindred have vanished from the earth.] So that makes three declarations of the craft of the dwarves to make magic gates - and none that discredits this.

Tolkien was merely making the point that while the name might be taken, by men, to mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff"

The name Gandalf does mean that.

they were in fact wrong.

Tolkien reffers only to the fact that Gandalf is not an elf - your opinion about the magic staff not being magic is just that, an opinion, Tolkien never states such a thing.

Three passages in which Gandalf's staff is called a "wand". Should we ignore all other descriptions of Gandalf as carrying a "staff" and reduce it to a "wand"?

You do know that the word wand has more magic connotations than the word staff, don't you?

Also, on the names of the Valar-'Gandalf' was just a nickname used by Frodo and co.-his true name was Olorin.

The valar and istari have no "true" names, only nicknames; Gandalf says, in TTT:
"Gandalf,' the old man repeated, as if recalling from old memory a long disused word. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf." "Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkun to the Dwarves; Olorin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incanus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not" (as told by Faramir) - only nicknames.

Greenwood · Aug 9, 2005

Thorondor said:
"My" views? If you want to discredit his refferences to the magic staff, only a quote from the professor himself would do - not speculations.

Tolkien has discredited the statement by calling Gandalf an "elvish wight", which Gandalf is not.

Thorondor said:
But Gimli also agrees with Gandalf [and says that Narvi and his craft and all his kindred have vanished from the earth.] So that makes three declarations of the craft of the dwarves to make magic gates - and none that discredits this.

Nothing in Gimli's statement in any way rules out elvish assistance in making the doors of Moria. The doors were built thousands of years before Gandalf arrived in Middle Earth and Gimli is thousands of years younger than Gandalf's arrival. Gimli has never set foot in Moria before.

Thorondor said:
The name Gandalf does mean that.

Men might think Gandalf means "Elvish wight with (magic) staff", but they are mistaken; he is not.

Thorondor said:
Tolkien reffers only to the fact that Gandalf is not an elf - your opinion about the magic staff not being magic is just that, an opinion

Yes, it is my opinion. Your contention the staff is magic is your opinion. Two differing opinions. However, you claim your opinion is proven by Tolkien's comment in UT, but Tolkien's comment does not prove your opinion.

Thorondor said:
You do know that the word wand has more magic connotations than the word staff, don't you?

Of course. What of it? Are you claiming that Gandalf did not carry a staff in The Hobbit, but really a wand? I asked you that question before and you did not answer it. Are you going to answer it?

Inderjit S · Aug 10, 2005

In the notes to Aldarion and Erendis, UT, there is a refference to Gil-Galad's "helm and mail"; anyway, just like decency is presumed in ME, so is magic.

Gil-Galad didn't wear his battle armour around his palace did he? He only went to battle once, perhaps twice.

"My" views? If you want to discredit his refferences to the magic staff, only a quote from the professor himself would do - not speculations.

Yes, YOUR views, you got about thinking YOUR views are infallible because they are precisely that-YOUR views. YOU though Aragorn and Arwen would be wed even if he failed in his task even though Tolkien never supported your arguments, YOU thought Gandalf forced Bilbo to give up the ring even though Tolkien never supported your arguments, YOU thought that politics didn't have much to do with the fact that the descendants of Arvedui, or more specifically Aragorn didn't claim the ring even though Tolkien never supported your arguments, and yet again YOU made the conjecture that because Tolkien never discredited one half of Gandalf's name it must be true-"validate" was the word which YOU chose to use, not me, YOU, they are based on speculations just as are any other views on the ambiguous parts of Tolkien's works, YOU selectively quote Tolkien in order to support your arguments, and use arguments such as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is about as speculative as you can get.

Your "proofs" are again flawed-a passing reference to Gandalf's "magic" staff in the Hobbit-as I have said the role of the narrator is an important one, and Bilbo was not a very "good" when it came to esoteric matters "of the wise"-such as where Gandalf came from, ergo it was a misunderstanding (though an understandable one) on the part of Bilbo and the Men who called him 'Gandalf'-who held him to be a Elf, but one who walked with a staff (I don't think many Elves did so) and thus the "staff" was the source of his magic "powers", hence 'Elf with a magic staff'-they didn't know that he was in fact a Maia. (And given that he was able to channel his magic through his staff it was an easy mistake to make.)

[/QUOTE]"Gandalf,' the old man repeated, as if recalling from old memory a long disused word. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf." "Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkun to the Dwarves; Olorin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incanus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not" (as told by Faramir) - only nicknames.

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer-by "true" I mean his name in Valinor, even though it was Quenya. Quendi and Eldar makes it clear that all names for the Valar or Maia were either translations or titles given to them based on their characters. Gandalf was a nickname just as the others-it was just used more by the narrators because they knew it best.

Thorondor_ · Aug 10, 2005

Tolkien has discredited the statement by alling Gandalf an "elvish wight", which Gandalf is not.

Your statement is a "complex question" fallacy, as the nature of the staff is unrelated to the nature of Gandalf.

Nothing in Gimli's statement in any way rules out elvish assistance in making the doors of Moria. The doors were built thousands of years before Gandalf arrived in Middle Earth and Gimli is thousands of years younger than Gandalf's arrival. Gimli has never set foot in Moria before.

You should also consider the two refferences to dwarven magic in the hobbit:
Chapter 1:
"The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells"
"As they sang the hobbit felt the love of beautiful things made by hands and by cunning and by magic moving through him, a fierce and jealous love, the desire of the hearts of dwarves"
Chapter 2 (emphasis added):
"Then they I brought up their ponies, and carried away the pots of gold, and buried them very secretly not far from the track by the river, putting a great many spells over them, just in case they ever had the-chance to come back and recover them. When that was done, they all mounted once more, and jogged along again on the path towards the East."

Men might think Gandalf means "Elvish wight with (magic) staff", but they are mistaken; he is not.

Etymologically, the name does mean that.

Are you claiming that Gandalf did not carry a staff in The Hobbit, but really a wand?

No; however, I have no problem with the word wand; it's just a slender staff (with even more magical connotations than the word staff itself).

Gil-Galad didn't wear his battle armour around his palace did he? He only went to battle once, perhaps twice.

You claimed that Tolkien never reffered to Gil-Galad as wearing clothes - and I provided an example, which is enough to contradict your claim. I won't address the other points of your second paragraph, as they are irrelevant to this topic and are just a "poisoning the well" fallacy.

as I have said the role of the narrator is an important one, and Bilbo was not a very "good" when it came to esoteric matters "of the wise"-such as where Gandalf came from, ergo it was a misunderstanding (though an understandable one) on the part of Bilbo

The narrator reffers to himself as human and often addresses the reader. Furthermore, the hobbit also knew from old tales about the existence of magic rings that make you invisible; and the fact that Bilbo doesn't know about where does Gandalf come from is irrelevant to the question of the magic staff.

Inderjit S · Aug 10, 2005

Etymologically, the name does mean that.

Etymological points are moot when they are fallacies-your point here adds nothing.

You should also consider the two refferences to dwarven magic in the hobbit

So? How does this validate your point on the argument against Celebrimbor or other Elves helping the Dwarves in the making of the gates?

No; however, I have no problem with the word wand; it's just a slender staff (with even more magical connotations than the word staff itself).

Staff; A stick or cane carried as an aid in walking or climbing.
A stout stick used as a weapon; a cudgel.
A pole on which a flag is displayed; a flagstaff.
A rod or baton carried as a symbol of authority.

Wand; A thin supple rod, twig, or stick.
A slender rod carried as a symbol of office. (The stewards had a "wand")
A stick or baton used by a conjurer, magician or diviner.

However-"for he was called in the North Gandalf-'the Elf of the wand'.

You claimed that Tolkien never reffered to Gil-Galad as wearing clothes - and I provided an example, which is enough to contradict your claim

I claimed? It was a joke.

I won't address the other points of your second paragraph, as they are irrelevant to this topic and are just a "poisoning the well" fallacy.

What on earth is a poisoning the well fallacy?

The narrator reffers to himself as human and often addresses the reader. Furthermore, the hobbit also knew from old tales about the existence of magic rings that make you invisible; and the fact that Bilbo doesn't know about where does Gandalf come from is irrelevant to the question of the magic staff.

Just like ti doesn't matter whether Men know where Gandalf comes from and yet they think he is a Elf? The Hobbit knew from old tales that some rings made you invisible? So? I never said Hobbits knew NOTHING of magic, just that they had a skewed perspective of what magic consisted of-as Galadriel points out. (As did Men.) Hobbits themselves were by and large ignorant, and even if they knew of the existence of magic rings, they would have viewed them as trinkets-nothing overly-serious. And it is not irrelevant to the questions of the magic staff because we are discussing whether the staff is magic or not, and you pointed out that The Hobbit contains a reference to a "magic staff"-but I pointed out that this was merely a misunderstanding on the narrators part as he wasn't aware of Gandalf's origins and thus would have wrongly attributed Gandalf's special powers to his staff, rather than to Gandalf himself, who was at times able to channel his power through his staff, rather than the staff itself being the source of some of his powers-as many Men who were ignorant of his true origin thought, and so they thought he was an Elf, but with a magic staff which set him apart from others-just as the Dwarves thought he was a man with a (perhaps special) staff (he was at least noted for walking with it.)

Greenwood · Aug 11, 2005

Thorondor_ said:
Your statement is a "complex question" fallacy, as the nature of the staff is unrelated to the nature of Gandalf.

Do you attempt to understand the meaning of these "fallacies" you cite before tossing them out? Or do you just find them on the web? I asked no complex question. There is also no improper use of the conjunction "and" in the original quote. The original quote that you keep citing is not analogous to a "complex question", because the two parts of it are not unrelated. In any event, the second part does not prove Gandalf's staff is magical.

[quite=Thorondor]You should also consider the two refferences to dwarven magic in the hobbit:[/quote]I have already pointed out to you that magic is handled differently in The Hobbit than in LOTR. I have also pointed out that not everything in The Hobbit is directly transferable to LOTR. Another example: in "The Last Stage", the last chapter of The Hobbit there is the following:

It was in this way that he learned where Gandalf had been to; for he overheard the words of the wizard to Elrond. It appeared that Gandalf had been to a great council of the white wizards, masters of lore and good magic and that they had at last drive the Necromancer from his dark hold in the south of Mirkwood.

So who were these "white wizards"? In LOTR there is only one "white wizard" (and the meeting itself is called the White Council). Talk of "white wizards" fits the childish treatment of magic in The Hobbit, not the much more serious and limited nature of magic in LOTR as demonstrated in Tolkien's letter quoted earlier. BTW, in regard to the troll's gold that was buried with spells to hide and protect it. You seem to be forgetting that Gandalf was with them at that point on the journey, so it could well have been Gandalf who placed any spells on the buried gold. And it was Bilbo and Gandalf who recovered the gold on Bilbo's way back to the Shire.

Thorondor said:
No; however, I have no problem with the word wand; it's just a slender staff (with even more magical connotations than the word staff itself).

A wand is not the same as a staff. It is much smaller than a staff. A staff is generally as tall or taller as the person carrying it and is stout enough to support the person's weight when they lean on it. A wand is a short, slender stick. So you do not think we should not take the passages I cited as meaning Gandalf carried a wand, rather than a staff. So all of this using literal interpretations of passages is only for when it suits you. As for the magical connotations of wand: 1) its use in The Hobbit is further evidence of the childlike treatment of magic in The Hobbit compared to LOTR, since it is reducing Gandalf's staff to a magician's wand; and 2) Even with a magician's wand, it is the magician who is the source of the magic, not the wand. (Unless you are Mickey Mouse in Fantasia.)

Ingwë · Aug 11, 2005

Greenwood said:
Thorondor said:

You should also consider the two refferences to dwarven magic in the hobbit:

Click to expand...

I have already pointed out to you that magic is handled differently in The Hobbit than in LOTR. I have also pointed out that not everything in The Hobbit is directly transferable to LOTR.

Greenwood already posted in the thread "did Balin suspect...' in the 'Hobbit' forum. And he's right. Tolkien did't thought about a sequel of 'The Hobbit' before he had been asked by his publisher. he wanted to publish 'The Silmarilion' but they didn't want so he made "The Lord of the Rings'. And he wrote this book for a long time. It is normal that the magic in lotR and in The Hobbit are different.

Eledhwen · Aug 11, 2005

Ingwë said:
Tolkien didn't think about a sequel to 'The Hobbit' before he had been asked by his publisher. he wanted to publish 'The Silmarilion' but they didn't want so he made "The Lord of the Rings'. And he wrote this book for a long time. It is normal that the magic in lotR and in The Hobbit are different.

However, Tolkien did edit The Hobbit to make it a better prequel to LotR. We must take it, therefore, that he was reasonably happy with the depiction of Gandalf in The Hobbit, even in the light of the publication of The Lord of the Rings; otherwise he would have made more changes. The use of Gandalf's staff in The Hobbit is little different from its use in LotR, being mainly a conduit for the fiery magic that Gandalf seemed to posess. Note that when Gandalf lit a fire on Caradhras with his staff, he commented "If there are any to see, then I at least am revealed to them, I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin." If the power of fire came from the staff, and not from Gandalf, I doubt whether he would have said this.

Thorondor_ · Aug 11, 2005

Etymological points are moot when they are fallacies-your point here adds nothing.

I wasn't trying to do anything else than to correct Greenwood; he said that the Men thought that the name means elf with a wand; the name actually means that. You weren't paying attention to the context.

How does this validate your point on the argument against Celebrimbor or other Elves helping the Dwarves in the making of the gates?

The only help he admitted he did was writing the letters on the gate and attributes the making of the gates to the dwarf Narvi, the rest is your speculation. The magic of the gates is essential to them; how could a (proud) elf like Celebrimbor give them credit for something so essential? Anyway, what the quotes from the Hobbit show is that the dwarves have magic abilities.

Wand; A thin supple rod, twig, or stick.
A slender rod carried as a symbol of office. (The stewards had a "wand")
A stick or baton used by a conjurer, magician or diviner.

I have definitions of my own; the Oxfor dictionary (Oxford? ring a bell?), emphasis added:
a stick or rod thought to have magic properties, used in casting spells or performing tricks. 2 a slender staff or rod, especially one held as a symbol of office. 3 a hand-held electronic device passed over a bar code to read the encoded data.

What on earth is a poisoning the well fallacy?

It reffers to presenting adverse information about your interlocutor; an argument in a discussion should stand or fall on its own, regardless of who makes it.

I pointed out that this was merely a misunderstanding on the narrators part

The refference to the magic staff is made by the narrator, not by Bilbo.You seem to have disregarded my previous refference to the narrator reffering to himself as human, not as hobbit
"I suppose hobbits need some description nowadays, since they have become rare and shy of the Big People, as they call us. They are (or were) a little people, about half our height, and smaller than the bearded dwarves" - the narrator in the Hobbit is obviously a human narrator.

The original quote that you keep citing is not analogous to a "complex question", because the two parts of it are not unrelated.

You are misinterpreting my words, right after you quoted me; I said that your statement is fallacious, not Tolkien's. You need to provide some evidence for your argument that the nature of the staff is related to the nature of Gandalf, otherwise your claim that the falsity of one part implies the falsity of the other part has no value.

So you do not think we should not take the passages I cited as meaning Gandalf carried a wand, rather than a staff. So all of this using literal interpretations of passages is only for when it suits you.

In a literary work, you can substitute, to a certain extent, a magic staff with a wand, because they have similar functions and shapes, and differ only in size; a wand is a metaphorical staff, with even more magic meanings. You can't substitute a magic staff with a non-magic staff, since this would breach the logical principle of "excluded middle": the staff is either magical, or it isn't.

it could well have been Gandalf who placed any spells on the buried gold

They put many spells, not he.

However, Tolkien did edit The Hobbit to make it a better prequel to LotR

I certainly do agree.

If the power of fire came from the staff, and not from Gandalf, I doubt whether he would have said this.

I don't think that anyone argued so far that Gandalf is incapable of producing magic by himself. I think that what identifies Gandalf in a secific manner to "watchers or unfriendly eyes" is his use of magic words and the particular color and intensity of the light he produced.

Greenwood · Aug 11, 2005

Eledhwen said:
However, Tolkien did edit The Hobbit to make it a better prequel to LotR. We must take it, therefore, that he was reasonably happy with the depiction of Gandalf in The Hobbit, even in the light of the publication of The Lord of the Rings; otherwise he would have made more changes.

Tolkien did make changes in The Hobbit in to make a better fit with LOTR, however, it is misleading to think of it as an "edit" of The Hobbit. The only changes in The Hobbit were in the chapter Riddles in the Dark (a comparison of the two versions can be found here). Christopher Tolkien gives a brief summary of what happened in the making of these changes in his Prologue in The Peoples of Middle Earth, HoME XII:

The curious story of how the rewritten narrative in the chapter Riddles in the Dark came to be published in the edition of 1951 is suffieciently indicated in Letters nos. 111, 128-9. In September 1947 my father sent to Sir Stanley Unwin what he called a 'specimen' of such a rewriting, not intending it for publication, but seeking only Sir Stanley's comments on the idea. Believing that it had been rejected, he was gretly shocked and surprised when nearly three years later, in July 1950, he received the proofs of a new edition with the rewriting incorporated. But he accepted the fait accompli.

So we see that Tolkien, in fact, did not do an "edit" of The Hobbit to bring it in line with LOTR and we cannot assume that he was happy about all things in it in relation to LOTR since he did not have an opportunity to make more changes.

Eledhwen said:
The use of Gandalf's staff in The Hobbit is little different from its use in LotR, being mainly a conduit for the fiery magic that Gandalf seemed to posess. Note that when Gandalf lit a fire on Caradhras with his staff, he commented "If there are any to see, then I at least am revealed to them, I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin." If the power of fire came from the staff, and not from Gandalf, I doubt whether he would have said this.

Excellent point!!

Greenwood · Aug 11, 2005

Thorondor said:
I wasn't trying to do anything else than to correct Greenwood; he said that the Men thought that the name means elf with a wand; the name actually means that. You weren't paying attention to the context.

You are the one not paying attention. In this case you are not paying attention to the very passage you have repeatedly quoted. What the passage in The Istari in Unfinished Tales says is:

It is an actual Norse name (found applied to a Dwarf in Voluspa) used by me 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'.

Try actually reading the passage instead of imposing your view on it. Gandalf was the name of a dwarf in the Norse saga Voluspa. Gandalf does not mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff"! The word "gandr" means staff! It does not mean "magic staff"! It means "staff", especially a staff used in magic. It does not mean a staff that is itself magical, just that it is used in performing magic.

Thorondor said:
The only help he admitted he did was writing the letters on the gate and attributes the making of the gates to the dwarf Narvi, the rest is your speculation.

My suggestion was clearly my speculation. I try to make it clear when I am speculating.

Thorondor said:
The magic of the gates is essential to them; how could a (proud) elf like Celebrimbor give them credit for something so essential?

Now you are the one speculating about what Celebrimbor might or might not say.

Thorondor said:
Anyway, what the quotes from the Hobbit show is that the dwarves have magic abilities.

What they show is that in The Hobbit a dwarf such as Thorin can direct his smoke rings around a room.

Thorondor said:
They put many spells, not he.

Once again please read the passages you quote. The passage in the chapter Roast Mutton in The Hobbit says:

Then they brought up their ponies, and carried away the pots of gold, and buried them very secretly not far from the track by the river, putting a great many spells over them, just in case they ever had the chance to come back and recover them.

"They" at this point in the adventure are Bilbo, Gandalf and 13 dwarfs. Nothing in the passage says that Bilbo and Gandalf were not part of "they". (In fact, it was Bilbo and Gandalf who later recovered the buried treasure.) Nothing in the passage says that it was the dwarves who "put the spells" on the buried treasure. It could well have been the dwarves and Bilbo who carried the gold over, dug the hole and buried it and Gandalf who "put the spells" on it. Gandalf, after all was a wizard, and presumably expert in such things.

Thorondor said:
The refference to the magic staff is made by the narrator, not by Bilbo.You seem to have disregarded my previous refference to the narrator reffering to himself as human, not as hobbit
"I suppose hobbits need some description nowadays, since they have become rare and shy of the Big People, as they call us. They are (or were) a little people, about half our height, and smaller than the bearded dwarves" - the narrator in the Hobbit is obviously a human narrator.

And you are ignoring the fact that the introductions of both The Hobbit and LOTR say that both books are taken from the Red Book of Westmarch and the writers of the Red Book are Bilbo, Frodo, Sam and their heirs. Everything in The Hobbit is ultimately from Bilbo!

Thorondor said:
You are misinterpreting my words, right after you quoted me; I said that your statement is fallacious, not Tolkien's. You need to provide some evidence for your argument that the nature of the staff is related to the nature of Gandalf, otherwise your claim that the falsity of one part implies the falsity of the other part has no value.

Your argument has been based since the beginning on a misreading of the passage from UT (see above). You have insisted on sticking to that misreading no matter how many people show, in different ways, that your reading is mistaken.

Thorondor said:
In a literary work, you can substitute, to a certain extent, a magic staff with a wand, because they have similar functions and shapes, and differ only in size; a wand is a metaphorical staff, with even more magic meanings. You can't substitute a magic staff with a non-magic staff, since this would breach the logical principle of "excluded middle": the staff is either magical, or it isn't.

You continue to be blind, evidently, to the idea that something can be used in the performance of magic by a magician (or in this case a wizard) without that object itself being magical; unless it can be shown that the object has maical properties independent of the magician/wizard. When a "magician" does "magic tricks" with a deck of cards, it is not because the cards are "magical", but because of the powers/craft of the magician. It can be the same with a wizard's staff. The fact that Gandalf uses his staff in the performance of his "magic", does not automatically make the staff "magical". The "magic" is Gandalf's, not the staff's.

Throrondor said:
I think that what identifies Gandalf in a secific manner to "watchers or unfriendly eyes" is his use of magic words and the particular color and intensity of the light he produced.

Once again, please read the actual passage in Tolkien's own words instead of inserting your own words and interpretations. The passage in "The Rings Goes South" in FOTR is:

"If there are any to see, then I at least am revealed to them," he said. "I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin."

Please explain how Gandalf's "magic words" could be "seen" by anyone, storm or no storm. Are you contending that anyone could use a "magic staff" to ignite the wood in the middle of the blizzard? Are you saying that only Gandalf using a "magic staff" would have produced those particular color flames? If so, where is your support in Tolkien's writing for such a contention?

Thorondor_ · Aug 12, 2005

Gandalf was the name of a dwarf in the Norse saga Voluspa. Gandalf does not mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff"

If my statement can be interpreted as reffering to real life etymology, it is my fault - I was reffering to Middle-Earth, where the grey pilgrim was given the name Gandalf by the men of the north; in their language, Gandalf means elvish wight with a (magic) staff, or, as it is noted elsewhere in The istari, UT, "the elf of the wand".

It could well have been the dwarves and Bilbo who carried the gold over, dug the hole and buried it and Gandalf who "put the spells" on it

However, we never see the subject changing from the first "they" to "he/Gandalf" and back to the second "they" - the subject of the phrase is constantly "they".

Everything in The Hobbit is ultimately from Bilbo

I won't speculate anymore on the role of the human narrator in the Hobbit, since I found no relevant quotes so far. However, it is worth noting that Bilbo thought about writing the red book after he finished his adventures, after he met Gandalf and after repeated visits to the elves. Therefore, starting from the very begining of writing the book, his knowledge about magic is not to be disregarded, since it comes from both his experience and his meetings with people who are using magic.

...the two parts of it are not unrelated...

Click to expand...

You need to provide some evidence for your argument that the nature of the staff is related to the nature of Gandalf, otherwise your claim that the falsity of one part implies the falsity of the other part has no value.

Click to expand...

Your argument has been based since the beginning on a misreading of the passage from UT (see above). You have insisted on sticking to that misreading no matter how many people show, in different ways, that your reading is mistaken.

I still hope that you will provide some proof to your claim that the nature of the staff is related to the nature of Gandalf.
"Please explain how Gandalf's "magic words" could be "seen" by anyone, storm or no storm"
It's speculation, I agree, perhaps a wild one, based on the fact that Gandalf too sensed the presence of the balgor's power.
"Are you saying that only Gandalf using a "magic staff" would have produced those particular color flames?"
Well, I don't see the point of arguing over this matter at all, since we all agree that Gandalf can produce magic independently of his staff.
[Not as an argument, but still worth noting: in Home 7, The Mines of Moria, there is one (discarded) scenario in which the chamber of Mazarbul is destroyed, along with Gandalf's staff. This scenario has several variants; in one of these, Tolkien wanted Gandalf to say that all the power of his staff was used up. However, there is no further refference in the other variants to the power of his staff being consumed (neither partially nor totally); in the Lotr version, the gate is destroyed, not the chamber, and Gandalf looses his staff later, over the bridge.]

Greenwood · Aug 13, 2005

Thorondor said:
If my statement can be interpreted as reffering to real life etymology, it is my fault - I was reffering to Middle-Earth, where the grey pilgrim was given the name Gandalf by the men of the north; in their language, Gandalf means elvish wight with a (magic) staff, or, as it is noted elsewhere in The istari, UT, "the elf of the wand".

You continue to misread and/or misunderstand the passage in Unfinished Tales. No where in "The Istari" in UT does it say that to the men of the North in Middle Earth Gandalf means "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff"! That definition is given near the end of the essay when Tolkien discusses where (and why) he came up with the name Gandalf -- he took it from a Norse saga and he liked the fact that it was similar to a Norse word gandr as has been pointed out repeatedly now (with the actual quote given many times by now). Earlier in the essay Tolkien says that to the men of the North Gandalf meant "the Elf of the Wand" because they thought he was an elf and because he did many marvelous things. As has been pointed out many times now, just because Gandalf used his staff ("wand") in the performance of his "magic" does not proof the staff itself was magical. Gandalf could just have been channeling his power through his staff.

Thorondor said:
However, we never see the subject changing from the first "they" to "he/Gandalf" and back to the second "they" - the subject of the phrase is constantly "they".

What possible significance does this have? Gandalf is one of the individuals in "they". The passage in The Hobbit does not specify who among the "they" did which specific things. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that Gandalf, as the one wizard present, would be the one to cast the necessary spells. The "they" in the passage does not mean that everyone of them did everything mentioned in the passage. Such an interpretation would be absurd! Besides the unlikelihood of the great Thorin Oakenshield actually digging the hole when there are twelve lesser dwarves to do the work, there is the obvious fact that Bilbo could not possibly be involved in casting any spells. "They" cannot possibly be all inclusive for everyone doing everything mentioned in the passage.

Thorondor said:
I won't speculate anymore on the role of the human narrator in the Hobbit, since I found no relevant quotes so far. However, it is worth noting that Bilbo thought about writing the red book after he finished his adventures, after he met Gandalf and after repeated visits to the elves. Therefore, starting from the very begining of writing the book, his knowledge about magic is not to be disregarded, since it comes from both his experience and his meetings with people who are using magic.

Well, Bilbo could hardly have thought about writing the Red Book of Westmarch before his adventure or before he met Gandalf! Where is your evidence that he only wrote up his adventure "after repeated visits to the elves"?

Thorondor said:
Well, I don't see the point of arguing over this matter at all, since we all agree that Gandalf can produce magic independently of his staff.

I can certainly see why you don't want to discuss the matter further since the scene in the snow argues against your interpretation! If his staff could produce flame by its own inherent power, then how does the flame tell watchers that Gandalf is there. It has to be that the production of the flame is Gandalf's doing, not the staff.

Thorondor said:
It's speculation, I agree, perhaps a wild one, based on the fact that Gandalf too sensed the presence of the balgor's power.

You consider the suggestion that someone could "see" Gandalf's words to be merely (wild) speculation? I call "seeing" spoken words absurd. And what does the scene in the snow in the pass have to do with the balrog?

Thorondor said:
Not as an argument, but still worth noting: in Home 7, The Mines of Moria, there is one (discarded) scenario in which the chamber of Mazarbul is destroyed, along with Gandalf's staff. This scenario has several variants; in one of these, Tolkien wanted Gandalf to say that all the power of his staff was used up. However, there is no further refference in the other variants to the power of his staff being consumed (neither partially nor totally); in the Lotr version, the gate is destroyed, not the chamber, and Gandalf looses his staff later, over the bridge.]

The version in HoME 7 you mention is indeed worth noting. I note, also that you do not say the version you cite that discusses the staff was apparently the earliest version. You also do not mention that Christopher Tolkien points out his father very quickly rewrote that first version. In the new version there is absolutely no mention of "the power" of Gandalf's staff. In the new version, Gandalf says: "It was all I could do. I nearly killed myself." Tolkien immediately replaced that with another version: "It will take me years to recover my strength and wizardry." Tolkien follows that with Gandalf saying: "But I have expended all my strength for the moment. I can give you no more light." The final version that appeared in FOTR is: "I have done all that I could. But I have met my match, and have nearly been destroyed. But don't stand here! Go on! You will have to do without light for a while: I am rather shaken." We clearly see from the evolution of this passage that Tolkien considered and rejected the staff being the source of any power. After the first version, the "power" is all in Gandalf, not the staff, and that is what the final version is in the published LOTR!

Staffs. . .Symbols? Powerful relics? Which and why?

What exactly were the staffs for?

Completely symbolic, like the pointy hats.

Mostly symbolic, but they concentrate the POWER!

They are mildly powerful relics. Not essential but good to have.

They are very powerful relics, but not essential.

They are essential. A wizard without his staff is. . .well. ..staffless?

Wizards should give up the staffs and go with the power of Elgee's cats.

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Part of the Shadows

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Part of the Shadows

Bootylicious

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Bootylicious

Well-Known Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Bootylicious

Well-Known Member

Bootylicious

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Creeping Death

Cumbrian

Well-Known Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Well-Known Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Share this page

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency