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

[Thorondor_]

Note also, his hand is not consumed by this energy, though you seem to think that a wooden staff should be consumed.

False analogy; first and foremost, Gandalf the White doesn't have a "normal" body:
"Light as a swan's feather in my claw you are. The Sun shines through you. Indeed I do not think you need me any more: were I to let you fall you would float upon the wind"

Are you seriously contending that he would have been powerless against Grima without his staff?

I answered that question previously; what I merely want to point out in the meeting between Gandalf the Grey and Grima:
"Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff?"
is that Grima gives a lot of importance to the staff.

I still would like an answer to the question: If staffs are so uniquely powerful, with all sorts of power built into them, where did Gandalf get a new one after the fight on the Bridge of Khazad-dum?

You know my opinion on the matter:"perhaps the staff remains with its owner even when the owner doesn't have a physical body (like Gandalf's and Sauron's rings apparently do)"

And if Gandalf's staff is really so powerful a weapon in its own right, why did Saruman allow Gandalf to keep it when he imprisoned him up on the pinnacle of Orthanc?

(Where is it said that he was allowed to keep his staff?) Anyway, Gandalf acknowledges, at the Council of Elron, that his power was inferior to Saruman, so with or without his staff, he posed no threat to Saruman.
I would like an answer to my previous question:

I doubt that a mere wooden stick would have any value for Saruman. If the staffs are mere wooden sticks, then why does Gandalf request Saruman's staff as a pledge (guarantee)?

But you will first surrender to me the Key of Orthanc, and your staff. They shall be pledges of your conduct, to be returned later, if you merit them.'

Why should Saruman strive to merit his staff back?

 

[Inderjit S]

Another argument that the staffs are not mere wood is the fact that they don't catch fire

The ring too is, I guess, mere gold, but the more which it holds means it cannot be melted or destroyed like gold, same with the staff I guess. And I am pretty sure it is men who gave Gandalf the name 'Gandalf'-remember that Men often had a fallicious idea of what "magic" constituted, or they may have attached greater importance to the staff than was needed, not being fully aware of Gandalf's true nature, and so they may have attached his great power in part to his staff, though his great power may partly lie in his staff, I am not discounting that.

False analogy; first and foremost, Gandalf the White doesn't have a "normal" body:

Perhaps not, but remember when Thorondor tells him that he had just been sent back by Eru, so I guess he would have had some kind of ephermeal change to his body. But he still could be slain, he still got tired, hurt and I suppose hungry, though you are right in saying that his body wasn't exactly "normal", neither were the bodies of the Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits and some Men, though their bodies may have been more "normal" than Gandalf's.

(Where is it said that he was allowed to keep his staff?) Anyway, Gandalf acknowledges, at the Council of Elron, that his power was inferior to Saruman, so with or without his staff, he posed no threat to Saruman.

But surely it would be prudent for him to take away his staff nonetheless? And how do you propose Gandalf obtained the staff if Saruman took it?

Why should Saruman strive to merit his staff back?

Something symoblic, I guess, though it may have something to do with power, I don't think that if Frodo or Aragorn were to obtain the staff they would have the same amount of power or be able to use it in the same way the Istari did, I guess the Istari were able to utilise the staffs as a object which could channel their powers or perhaps improve them slightly, though the power rested in the Istari themselves, not the staff.

 

[Thorondor_]

["but remember when Thorondor tells him that he had just been sent back by Eru" it's Gwaihir]
"I don't think that if Frodo or Aragorn were to obtain the staff they would have the same amount of power or be able to use it in the same way the Istari did"
I agree; similarly, the efficiency of the ring's usage is dependent on the wielder's "level".
"Something symoblic, I guess, though it may have something to do with power"
I am not so sure that it is mere symbolism that makes it worth it for Saruman to strive for a mere replaceable wodden stick. He has a big ego, so a stick it's not that much of an incentive to change the conduct.
"And how do you propose Gandalf obtained the staff if Saruman took it?"
Hm, tricky... are there any examples of summoning? (Or did I read too much fantasy . Perhaps the staffs are an enigma similar to Tom.)

 

[Greenwood]

False analogy; first and foremost, Gandalf the White doesn't have a "normal" body:
"Light as a swan's feather in my claw you are. The Sun shines through you. Indeed I do not think you need me any more: were I to let you fall you would float upon the wind"

You have left off Gandalf's response: " 'Do not let me fall!' I gasped, for I felt life in me again. " You are engaging in a tortured reading of Gwaihir's words to interpret them as meaning Gandalf no longer had a real body. Gandalf certainly didn't think he was "light as a swan's feather" and that he "would float upon the wind". A paragraph later, in describing his time in Lothlorien after Gwaihir took him there, Gandalf says: "Healing I found, and I was clothed in white." Why does he need "healing" if he no longer has a normal body.

I answered that question previously; what I merely want to point out in the meeting between Gandalf the Grey and Grima

In your zeal to defend your opinion, you seem to be forgetting the story line, or at least the sequence. Gandalf's encounter with Grima occurs after Moria, after he has been returned from death, after he has become Gandalf the White. I ask again, if Gandalf can take on five Nazgul, without the use of his staff, why could he possibly need it to best Grima? That Grima seems to regard the staff with importance is irrelevant.

You know my opinion on the matter:"perhaps the staff remains with its owner even when the owner doesn't have a physical body (like Gandalf's and Sauron's rings apparently do)"

I know what your opinion about items staying with bodyless owners is and as I have repeatedly pointed out, that opinion is irrelevant. Gandalf's staff was destroyed in the confrontation on the Bridge of Khazad-dum: "The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand." I ask again: If a wizard's staff is such a special object with special powers, where did Gandalf get a new one? Did he keep a spare in a closet at Rivendell that he sent Gwaihir to fetch? Did Galadriel and Celeborn have an extra wizard's staff lying around Lothlorien? I have also already pointed out that even if Gandalf was not sent back to the same body he was sent back to the place where his old body was. There is no need to invoke his ring going back and forth with his spirit.

(Where is it said that he was allowed to keep his staff?)

Quite simple. In the chapter "In the House of Tom Bombadil" in FOTR, Frodo sees Gandalf imprisoned atop Orthanc in his dream: "The figure lifted his arms and a light flashed from the staff that he wielded. A mighty eagle swooped down and bore him away." If you are going to argue that this was merely a dream and that Saruman had taken Gandalf's staff from him before putting him atop Orthanc, then you again have the problem of where did Gandalf get a new one after his escape? Gwaihir took Gandalf to Edoras. Did Gandalf purloin a wizard's staff from the Edoras armouries? Was this why Grima was so concerned when Gandalf turned up again the following year?

Why should Saruman strive to merit his staff back?

As a symbol that he is still a wizard. That he is still in the "Order". When Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff it is a symbol that he has been cast out from the order of wizards; that he has been broken.

 

[Inderjit S]

I agree; similarly, the efficiency of the ring's usage is dependent on the wielder's "level".

Maybe, but the staffs can only be competently used by people of a certain order i.e the Istari, hence the power came from them not the staff itself, which would be virtually useless in the hands of others.

I am not so sure that it is mere symbolism that makes it worth it for Saruman to strive for a mere replaceable wodden stick. He has a big ego, so a stick it's not that much of an incentive to change the conduct.

To add to Greenwood's argument, when Saruman is accusing Gandalf of usurping his power and the power of others he talks about other symbolic objects, such as crowns etc. hence reinforcing the "symoblic" nature of the staffs.

Hm, tricky... are there any examples of summoning? (Or did I read too much fantasy . Perhaps the staffs are an enigma similar to Tom.)

I don't think there are any references to "summoning", plus the reference to the staff in Frodo's "vision", and vision it was, it just came a little late.

 

[Greenwood]

Inderjit,

You make a good point about the mention of crowns by Saruman when he speaks of the wizards' staffs, reinforcing the symbolic nature of the staffs. Also, earlier in the conversation between Gandalf and Saruman, Gandalf tells Saurman: "But you will first surrender to me the Key of Orthanc, and your staff. They shall be pledges of your conduct, to be returned later, if you merit them." [emphasis added] Again, Saruman's staff is a symbol, it represents Saruman's pledge (oath) that he will behave himself and no longer side with the enemy. When Saruman refuses to give that assurance, Gandalf casts him out of the order of wizards and breaks his staff as symbolic of the fact that Saruman is no longer a wizard. If the staff itself is a weapon, why not take it from Saruman in working order? If Gandalf now has sufficient power over Saruman to make him come at his command (as he clearly does), surely he could command Saruman to drop the staff down to him.

 

[Thorondor_]

You are engaging in a tortured reading of Gwaihir's words to interpret them as meaning Gandalf no longer had a real body.

You are putting words in my mouth; I said he doesn't have a "normal" body, not that he doesn't have a real body.

That Grima seems to regard the staff with importance is irrelevant.

Any reason to say that? To me, your statement sounds like genetic fallacy, esspecially since Grima had access to at least a part of the knowledge of Saruman.

I ask again, if Gandalf can take on five Nazgul, without the use of his staff, why could he possibly need it to best Grima?

Well, if you would have bothered to read my answer the first time, you would have seen that we agree on the subject of Gandalf not needing the staff to accomplish his task.

If a wizard's staff is such a special object with special powers, where did Gandalf get a new one?

One other possibility would be that a "normal" staff has been enchanted.

There is no need to invoke his ring going back and forth with his spirit.

But that doesn't exclude the possibility, since Sauron too had his ring with him while he had no body at all. [Or maybe this is one instance where he summoned his ring back to him.]

Maybe, but the staffs can only be competently used by people of a certain order i.e the Istari, hence the power came from them not the staff itself, which would be virtually useless in the hands of others.

I agree, but this doesn't preclude the theory that the staffs still have a certain power of their own, which could be best used by a wizzard.

You make a good point about the mention of crowns by Saruman when he speaks of the wizards' staffs, reinforcing the symbolic nature of the staffs.

I disagree if you are saying that staffs are mere replaceable wodden sticks. If you really want to invoke this passage, the actual quote is:
"Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dûr itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings. and the rods of the Five Wizards, and have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now"
I doubt that the keys of Barad-dur itself and the crowns of seven kings can be compared with a mere wodden stick, as you hold a magical staff to be. There are many magical items in M-E (like swords); in Unfinished Tales, Tolkien does make a difference between (ordinary) staffs and magical staffs, when he reffers to Gandalf's name as having the root gandr:
"It is an actual Norse name (found applied to a Dwarf in Völuspá) 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.""

 

[HLGStrider]

Maybe they don't compare to the crowns, but how do they compare to the oversized boots?

 

[Thorondor_]

Well, either the whole statement is mere sarcasm thrown at Gandalf (without a certain logic between the enumerations), either by bigger boots Saruman reffers Gandalf growing to a higher level.

 

[Greenwood]

Any reason to say that? To me, your statement sounds like genetic fallacy, esspecially since Grima had access to at least a part of the knowledge of Saruman.

You have been using Grima's concern over Gandalf's staff as proof that the staff was indeed a powerful weapon, but you also agree that Gandalf had no need of it to best Grima, therefore Gandalf talking Hama into letting him keep his staff cannot have been because he needed it. Therefore Grima's comments really tell us nothing about the power of the staff alone. I think we all agree that in the hands of a wizard a staff becomes more than a mere wooden stick. The question is whether the staff is just a stick in any one else's hands. I still see no evidence for making the staff anything more than a piece of wood that a wizard uses to focus his power.

One other possibility would be that a "normal" staff has been enchanted.

Can you provide anything from Tolkien to support this enchanting of staffs so that they are no longer mere staffs.

But that doesn't exclude the possibility, since Sauron too had his ring with him while he had no body at all. [Or maybe this is one instance where he summoned his ring back to him.]

But the One Ring and Sauron is clearly a special case in Middle Earth. Sauron forged the Ring and put much of his own power in it. It is in a way part of him. As for Gandalf and his ring you are violating Occam's Razor in that you are adding various unnecessary complications. The simplest explanation is that Gandalf was sent back to his old body. The next simplest is that he merely recovered his ring when he returned to where his old body was with the ring. There is no reason to invoke special powers.

I agree, but this doesn't preclude the theory that the staffs still have a certain power of their own, which could be best used by a wizzard.

But there is no reason for such a theory. It is an unnecessary complication. Occam's Razor again.

I disagree if you are saying that staffs are mere replaceable wodden sticks.

But clearly they are replaceable: 1) Gandalf's staff was destroyed in Moria, 2) When next we meet Gandalf he has a staff again; ergo it was replaced. And we have no reason to think his staff was made out of anything but wood. If his staff has to be specially crafted at some wizard's staff factory back in Valinor, how did Gandalf get a new one? If Gandalf needs to somehow craft a new staff and invest it with powers, please give the passage from LOTR (or one of Tolkien's letters) that supports that view.

If you really want to invoke this passage, the actual quote is:
"Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dûr itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings. and the rods of the Five Wizards, and have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now"
I doubt that the keys of Barad-dur itself and the crowns of seven kings can be compared with a mere wodden stick, as you hold a magical staff to be.

Thanks for taking the trouble to type out the full quote. Do you have any other quotes to substaniate a claim that the keys of Barad-dur or the crowns of seven kings (and lets not forget the large boots as Ellgee mentions) have any special powers other than their symbolism?

There are many magical items in M-E (like swords); in Unfinished Tales, Tolkien does make a difference between (ordinary) staffs and magical staffs, when he reffers to Gandalf's name as having the root gandr:
"It is an actual Norse name (found applied to a Dwarf in Völuspá) 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.""

Yes, and Tolkien always is quite specific in spelling out the magic properties of these items (elven swords glow when around orcs) or he specifically calls them magic items (as in magic rings) and these items retain their magic powers no matter who possesses them. Tolkien does no such thing for wizard's staffs. As for the passage from UT, Tolkien was discussing his etymology for Gandalf's name, not the power of wizard's staffs. We all know wizards use their staffs in performing their magic. The question is whether the staff has any powers of its own was opposed to focusing the wizard's powers. (BTW, there is no underlining in Tolkien's passage in UT. When adding emphasis like that you should make it clear that it is your addition, not the original author's.)

 

[Thorondor_]

"The question is whether the staff has any powers of its own...
Therefore Grima's comments really tell us nothing about the power of the staff alone"
Hm, I agree; it could be that he only feared the catalyzing effect (per se) of the staff. But even if mere wooden sticks focus power (which I find rather improbable), we still see Gandalf using magic (I am thinking mainly of command words) in order to influence objects so that they better suit his purposes.
"The question is whether the staff is just a stick in any one else's hands"
I think that it is just a stick to non-wizzards.
"Can you provide anything from Tolkien to support this enchanting of staffs so that they are no longer mere staffs"
No. But I don't think this should be a problem; I presume Gandalf could work his magic with the staff by mere thought/will power; and, anyway, he is forbidden from the start to show his power unless necessary.
"But the One Ring and Sauron is clearly a special case in Middle Earth"
Still, we have an object which is handled by a disembodied spirit. How do you explain that?
"Do you have any other quotes to substaniate a claim that the keys of Barad-dur or the crowns of seven kings (and lets not forget the large boots as Ellgee mentions) have any special powers other than their symbolism?"
First of all, the whole sentence could be mere sarcasm (Saruman displays a lot of sarcasm in that dialogue), with no connections between the enumerations. However, should there be a connection, I believe it to be the fact that all those things (the key to Barad-dur especially) are hard to come by. [And it you think that the reference to the bigger boots has any meaning beyond sarcasm, I believe, as stated previously, that it refers to the fact that Saruman apparently expects Gandalf to prove that he grew to a higher level, before making demands to him.]

 

[Greenwood]

Hm, I agree; it could be that he only feared the catalyzing effect (per se) of the staff.

Therefore, Grima's wish to bar Gandalf's staff does not provide any evidence that the staff had any power of its own.

But even if mere wooden sticks focus power (which I find rather improbable), we still see Gandalf using magic (I am thinking mainly of command words) in order to influence objects so that they better suit his purposes.

That you find something improbable is a matter of your own opinion. That Gandalf uses magic is not at issue.

I think that it is just a stick to non-wizzards.

Well, then I guess we have reached agreement that the power of a wizard's staff comes from the wizard. Or at least that there is no evidence in Tolkien that it comes from the staff.

No. But I don't think this should be a problem; I presume Gandalf could work his magic with the staff by mere thought/will power; and, anyway, he is forbidden from the start to show his power unless necessary.

If you can't show that some non-real world power/thing has some basis in Tolkien's writings, you have a very big problem. LOTR is Tolkien's creation. You cannot just graft your views and opinions onto it and claim that they are part of it.

Still, we have an object which is handled by a disembodied spirit. How do you explain that?

I don't know that we have an object handled by a disembodied spirit and I don't have to explain it even if I thought it. We are dealing with an imaginary world where magic rings exist and other forms of magic exist. The One Ring is a unique item in that world tied in some magical way to its creator in that world. Tolkien, the author of all this, says that Sauron brought his Ring back to Middle Earth from the ruin of Numenor. He has not given the specifics of how this was done any more than he has given the specifics of how Sauron himself returned from the destruction of Numenor. I can accept Tolkien's work on its own level or I can reject it. I can think up methods for how this was all accomplished, but unless I can ground my theories in Tolkien's own words either in the book or in some writing where he addresses this specific point, they are merely my personal speculations. They have nothing to do with LOTR.

First of all, the whole sentence could be mere sarcasm (Saruman displays a lot of sarcasm in that dialogue), with no connections between the enumerations.

Of course, Saurman is being sarcastic. That in no way provides a rationale for saying that the items listed do not have equivalence and one set of items, wizard's staffs, can be pulled out of the list and given special status.

 

[HLGStrider]

The One Ring is a unique item in that world tied in some magical way to its creator in that world. Tolkien, the author of all this, says that Sauron brought his Ring back to Middle Earth from the ruin of Numenor.

Couldn't it logically be in a way very similar to the Wraith's carrying physical objects? Sauron is not destroyed, merely disembodied. The Wraiths really don't have bodies in the way we understand them and yet they are still able to control horses, wear capes, and carry physical weapons.

Why not Sauron?

I know the wraiths are in many ways held together by Sauron, so they have that increased power, but Sauron is a potent enough spirit that even disembodied, he should be able to move an object that is bound to him so strongly.

 

[Thorondor_]

Tolkien always is quite specific in spelling out the magic properties of these items

He is never specific about what actually means a magic staff, though he does use this term.

If you can't show that some non-real world power/thing has some basis in Tolkien's writings, you have a very big problem. LOTR is Tolkien's creation. You cannot just graft your views and opinions onto it and claim that they are part of it.

That's a negative proof fallacy; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore, we do have evidence of objects in Middle Earth which are enchanted in order to better suit whatever purposes.

That you find something improbable is a matter of your own opinion.

Is it your theory that a mere wooden stick can channel a wizzard's energy? And what about Gandalf starting a fire with the help of the staff?

Well, then I guess we have reached agreement that the power of a wizard's staff comes from the wizard.

Perhaps my phrasing gave way for misinterpretation; my point was that non-wizzards can't use the staff as anything else than a stick, even if the staff does have magical powers.

Or at least that the is no evidence in Tolkien that it comes from the staff.

Can you please rephrase that?

Tolkien, the author of all this, says that Sauron brought his Ring back to Middle Earth from the ruin of Numenor...unless I can ground my theories in Tolkien's own words either in the book or in some writing where he addresses this specific point, they are merely my personal speculations.

Actually, this "speculation" is very grounded in Tolkien's work: the vala and maiar can influence/control (sometimes even create) things while having no body at all. Gandalf is, ultimately, a maia, therefore he could have access to this ability (i.e. control an object while he has no body).

That in no way provides a rationale for saying that the items listed do not have equivalence and one set of items, wizard's staffs, can be pulled out of the list and given special status.

So, in your opinion, are the Barad-dur keys, the seven crowns, the wizzard staffs and the big boots equivalent? And, if so, in what manner are they equivalent.

 

[Greenwood]

He is never specific about what actually means a magic staff, though he does use this term.

Would you please provide the exact quotes from LOTR where Tolkien uses the term "magic staff". If you have some from The Hobbit, they might also be of interest.

That's a negative proof fallacy; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore, we do have evidence of objects in Middle Earth which are enchanted in order to better suit whatever purposes.

Cute saying, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I assume you like it since you have used it before. It is a pity it has absolutely no relevance to the topic to which you have applied it. I repeat: LOTR is Tolkien's creation. You cannot just graft your views and opinions onto it and claim that they are part of it. If you are going to suggest some non-real world thing/function that is no where specifically stated by Tolkien in LOTR (or The Hobbit), then you must provide some evidence to support your contention. Saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is meaningless. Absence of evidence may indeed not be evidence of absence, but by no stetch of the imagination does it provide evidence for the presence of something. You are contending that wizard's staffs in Middle Earth have powers of their own independent of the wizard. I am unaware of any place where Tolkien says this and so far you have not provided any evidence to back up your contention.

Is it your theory that a mere wooden stick can channel a wizzard's energy? And what about Gandalf starting a fire with the help of the staff?

Yes, I think a wizard can channel his energy through a mere wooden stick. That is exactly what a staff is -- a big wooden stick. What about Gandalf starting the fire? He didn't just stick the end of the staff in the wooden bundle and flip a switch on the staff. He spoke a command to invoke the fire. The staff was just a focus for his spoken command. I already pointed out his tapping the doors of Moria with his staff while commanding them to open (to no avail until the correct password was used). We know from Gimli's description of the functioning of dwarf doors that the only necessary thing was the password. The staff was irrelevant. This could be taken as evidence that wizard's routinely use their staffs to focus their efforts.

Perhaps my phrasing gave way for misinterpretation; my point was that non-wizzards can't use the staff as anything else than a stick, even if the staff does have magical powers.

Than what evidence can you provide that a wizard's staff has any powers independent of the wizard's power? If it is a stick in anyone else's hands, then it seems to me, it is a stick.

Can you please rephrase that?

My apologies for the typo. It should have read: Or at least that there is no evidence in Tolkien that it comes from the staff. I have edited and corrected the earlier post.

Actually, this "speculation" is very grounded in Tolkien's work: the vala and maiar can influence/control (sometimes even create) things while having no body at all. Gandalf is, ultimately, a maia, therefore he could have access to this ability (i.e. control an object while he has no body).

Would you care to provide some specifics from LOTR?

So, in your opinion, are the Barad-dur keys, the seven crowns, the wizzard staffs and the big boots equivalent? And, if so, in what manner are they equivalent.

Yes, they are equivalent in all being symbolic items in the context of Saruman's statement.


Now, lets add something new to the discussion. You have several times referred to the incident of Gandalf's staff at Edoras. You agreed above that Grima's comments, in themselves provide no evidence for Gandalf's staff having any powers of its own. Let us go back a little to when Hama is trying to get Gandalf to leave his staff at the door and Gandalf declines. The end of the exchange is:

"The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age," said Hama. He looked hard at the ash-staff on which Gandalf leaned. "Yet in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom. I believe you are friends and folk worthy of honor, who have no evil purpose. You may go in."

Now, this passage is interesting for a couple of reasons. One interesting thing, though not relevant to this particular discussion is that we learn the kind of wood the staff is made of. The important thing here, however, is that Tolkien has Hama referring to the staff simply as a staff. The staff is not called a "wizard's staff" or a "magic staff". It is simply a staff; specifically a staff made of ash wood. It is also clear that it is the wizard that makes a staff "more than a prop for age."

 

[HLGStrider]

I think the "keys of Barad-dur" bit is definitely symbolic and a bit sarcastic. I doubt the fortress actually has "keys" let alone that these keys grant any magical power.

I think each item is purely symbolic:
Seven Crowns: Control of men.
Five Staffs: Control of Wizards.
Keys: Setting himself up as Sauron, in domination.

None of the things would grant these powers by themselves. If Gandalf gets the seven crowns, he is by no means a king. If he has the keys he is by no means Sauron's equivelent. They are all symbols of the power Sarumen assumes Gandalf desires.

 

[Thorondor_]

I provided the quote reffering to "magical staffs", twice so far; it comes from the istari chapter of the UT.
I agree that Tolkien only says that staffs are used in magic and he doesn't say that they are anything more than mere sticks. The fact that Gandalf's staff didn't caught fire while the wizzard started one could be caused by Gandalf's protection (sort of speaking).

Yes, I think a wizard can channel his energy through a mere wooden stick.

I think that your guess is as good as mine; we don't know how magic works in Ea. Even if your statement is true I still think that: a mere wooden stick isn't the best possible staff that there can be; Gandalf can and should improve his staff.

Would you care to provide some specifics from LOTR?

Well, I think Elgee made a good point about the wraiths.Btw, is it your opinion that we should completely disregard Silmarillion when discussing Tolkien's universe?

 

[Greenwood]

I provided the quote reffering to "magical staffs", twice so far; it comes from the istari chapter of the UT.

I take it then that you can provide no examples from LOTR (or The Hobbit) in which Tolkien uses the expression "magic staff" or "magical staff"? The only instance you can provide is from a draft essay posthumously published by Tolkien's son and even in that instance Tolkien is not talking about the power of staffs, but is discussing the etymology of the name Gandalf? Even in that instance it is not actually written as "magic staff" but "(magic) staff"; that is with "magic" in parentheses! Excuse me if I consider this "evidence" far from compelling.

I agree that Tolkien only says that staffs are used in magic and he doesn't say that they are anything more than mere sticks.

It is nice to see we can agree on something.

The fact that Gandalf's staff didn't caught fire while the wizzard started one could be caused by Gandalf's protection (sort of speaking).

Or it could be that the staff wasn't in the fire long enough to catch fire itself. This is true even in the real world. Have you ever tried to set a smooth piece of relatively thick and solid wood on fire? I can tell you from considerable personal experience in starting cooking fires, that it is not easy. A second or so in a roaring campfire wouldn't even singe the end of a staff. Gandalf didn't even hold the end of his staff in the fire.

I think that your guess is as good as mine; we don't know how magic works in Ea.

No, we don't have any specifics about how magic works in Middle Earth, but we do have a number of specific instances of Gandalf exercising considerable power without using his staff. We also have instances of Gandalf waving his staff around when it clearly served no purpose at all, such as at the doors of Moria. On the other hand, we have absolutely no firm evidence of Gandalf's staff possessing any powers independent of him.

Even if your statement is true I still think that: a mere wooden stick isn't the best possible staff that there can be;

You are entitled to your opinion, but can you provide any evidence from LOTR (or The Hobbit) to support your view? How do you define "best possible"? A titanium pole might also make a better staff.

Gandalf can and should improve his staff.

Perhaps Gandalf can improve his staff; he certainly has considerable powers. But should? Can you provide some support from LOTR to support "should"?

Well, I think Elgee made a good point about the wraiths.

Elgee and I have discussed the wraiths on another thread. We are not in total agreement. The wraiths are invisible, but they are men and they have bodies. They could not wear their cloaks or hold weapons if they did not exist as physical entities. Merry and Eowyn could not have stabbed the Witch King if he did not have a body in their world.

Btw, is it your opinion that we should completely disregard Silmarillion when discussing Tolkien's universe?

No, but it must be recognized that there is a fundamental difference between The Hobbit and LOTR which were seen through to publication by JRRT himself and all of the posthumously published material. They are of great interest, particularly from a literary viewpoint, but they are all either Christopher Tolkien's version of his father's work or they are drafts by JRRT that he never had the opportunity to completely reconcile with the material he published while alive. As such, they cannot be used to contradict material in the published LOTR or The Hobbit. What Christopher Tolkien wrote in his Foreward to The Silmarillion should not be forgotten or ignored:

"A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost."

Thus, LOTR and The Hobbit always trump anything in The Silmarillion if there is disagreement or ambiguity between them.

 

[HLGStrider]

I think GW and I had to agree to disagree on the wraith bits. We weren't getting anywhere with it, anyway.

 

[Greenwood]

I think GW and I had to agree to disagree on the staff bits. We weren't getting anywhere with it, anyway.

Elgee,

I think you mean the physical/non-physical nature of the Wraiths, not the staffs.