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

[HLGStrider]

Post edited. Evidence removed.

What are you talking about, GW?

 

[Thorondor_]

How do you define "best possible"?

If all that a staff could do is to focus magic energy, then the best possible staff would be one who does this with the greatest efficiency in various aplications of the use of such energy.

Can you provide some support from LOTR to support "should"?

I believe that Glamdring is magical, at least to a certain extent. Also, Tolkien says in Letter 156 that ", but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel'" so that could be an enough of a rationale to improve his staff, precisely for such ocasions.[font=&quot]
[/font]

Merry and Eowyn could not have stabbed the Witch King if he did not have a body in their world.

Well, even though this means taking the discussion a bit off-topic, Aragorn does say that no weapon can harm them, but how can that be, if they do have a body?

'Look!' he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak that had lain there hidden by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a slash. 'This was the stroke of Frodo's sword,' he said. 'The only hurt that it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth.'

Furthermore, from the battle at the fields (emphasis added):

Éowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! thÉowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground, torn and tumbled; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world.

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

I agree, but the fact that the valar/maiar can control objects without having a body is not at odds with anything in the Hobbit/Lotr. [About Gandallf in particular, from UT, the istari, we know that he can even influence persons while "disembodied": "though he loved the Elves, he walked among them unseen, or in form as one of them, and they did not know whence came the fair visions or the promptings of wisdom that he put into their hearts"]

 

[Greenwood]

If all that a staff could do is to focus magic energy, then the best possible staff would be one who does this with the greatest efficiency in various aplications of the use of such energy.

And how do you know that a plain wooden staff does not focus the magic energy "with the greatest efficiency in various aplications of the use of such energy'? You haven't provided any evidence that a wooden staff needs to be changed in any way by a wizard.

I believe that Glamdring is magical, at least to a certain extent.

I assume you mean because it glows when orcs are near? Sting does the same thing. It seems to be a property of certain elven blades. Both these blades were made before Gandalf or the other wizards came to Middle Earth. I don't see the relevance to wizard's staffs.

Also, Tolkien says in Letter 156 that ", but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel'" so that could be an enough of a rationale to improve his staff, precisely for such ocasions.

You have made a rather large leap there. You still haven't provided any evidence that Gandalf's staff needed "improvement". As I pointed out above, you haven't given any evidence that a wizard can't use a plain wooden staff with "greatest efficiency". Have a missed some lecture on "magic conductivity through wood" in LOTR.

Well, even though this means taking the discussion a bit off-topic, Aragorn does say that no weapon can harm them, but how can that be, if they do have a body?

Please read that passage again. Aragorn does not say that no weapon can harm the Nazgul. In pointing out the cut on the Witch King's dropped cloak, Aragorn says:

'This was the stroke of Frodo's sword,' he said. 'The only hurt that it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King.' [emphasis added]

What is unharmed is Frodo's sword. If the sword had actually "pierced" the Nazgul, the sword would have been destroyed. Additionally, if the Nazgul does not have some sort of physical body, even if it is invisble, what would there be to be "pierced"? Aragorn's statement is powerful evidence that the Nazgul's do have a physical substance; they are not wholly in the "other world".

Furthermore, from the battle at the fields

The mantle and hauberk are empty at that point, but this is after the Witch King has been destroyed by Eowyn's sword thrust. Back up a bit to earlier in the narrative of Eowyn's confrontation with the Witch King:

... He bent over her like a cloud, and his eyes glittered; he raised his mace to kill.

But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.

"Eowyn! Eowyn!" cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. .... [emphasis added]

And a couple of pages later when Merry looks for his sword:

... Then he looked for his sword that he had let fall; for even as he struck his blow his arm was numbed, and now he could only use his left hand. And behold! there lay his weapon, but the blade was smoking like a dry branch that has been thrust in a fire; and as he watched it, it writhed and withered and was consumed.

So we have Merry "piercing" the Witch King's leg behind the knee. Has to be some solidity there. And we have both Merry's and Eowyn's blades "perishing" just as Aragorn said any blade would that "pierced" the Witch King. Therefore both swords must have pierced the Nazgul!

 

[Thorondor_]

I presume that you agree that Gandalf could cary objects when he is dismebodied. And we never hear him (or anyone else, or even Tolkien for that matter) state that his staff is just a material object. So the magic staff could be something which primarily exists at the subtle level, which could "stick" with Gandalf.

You haven't provided any evidence that a wooden staff needs to be changed in any way by a wizard.

I agree; I am only reffering to: implications (direct or otherwise), and not to quotes; possibilities, and not necessities.

And how do you know that a plain wooden staff does not focus the magic energy "with the greatest efficiency in various aplications of the use of such energy'?

I think that this is rather improbable, esspecially considering the marring of Arda, which leads to decay of all things, even if they were, at a certain time, perfect.

Both these blades were made before Gandalf or the other wizards came to Middle Earth. I don't see the relevance to wizard's staffs.

Well, that object, used by Gandalf, is magical and it gives a comparative advantage; so would an enchanted staff.

 

[Greenwood]

I presume that you agree that Gandalf could cary objects when he is dismebodied.

No, I do not agree. Nor do I necessary disagree. I do not remember any occasion when the subject has come up or when such a capability was necessary. If we were going to go into this magical carrying matter in detail, I think it would be necessary to first establish some definitions of terms. This is, afterall, a world of magic. If Gandalf, standing in one spot uses magic to move an object that he never physically touches (by thinking at it, mumbling words of command, pointing at it with his hand or staff, etc.), does that constitute "carrying" the object?

And we never hear him (or anyone else, or even Tolkien for that matter) state that his staff is just a material object. So the magic staff could be something which primarily exists at the subtle level, which could "stick" with Gandalf.

This would be an appropriate point to remind you of your saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Specifically, the fact that no one says the staff is "just a material object," in no way provides evidence that it is not "just a material object. I point out the passage involving Hama and Gandalf at Edoras in which Tolkien states Gandalf's staff is made of ash [wood].

I am only reffering to: implications (direct or otherwise), and not to quotes; possibilities, and not necessities.

But you have provided no evidence for such implications. As for possibilities, in a world of magic anything might be possible. We have to look to the creator of that magical world (JRR Tolkien) to see what those possibilities might be.

I think that this is rather improbable, esspecially considering the marring of Arda, which leads to decay of all things, even if they were, at a certain time, perfect.

In this case, the improbability is purely a matter of opinion. You are entitled to your feelings and opinions. I don't share that opinion. No problem.

Well, that object, used by Gandalf, is magical and it gives a comparative advantage; so would an enchanted staff.

Save for its property of glowing in the vicinity of orcs (as Sting and evidently all elven blades of that particular make do), I do not remember Gandalf ever using Glamdring as anything other than a sword. An enchanted staff might well be a useful object. The problem with your argument is that there is no evidence in LOTR that there is such a thing as an enchanted staff. A 45 caliber pistol would also provide a comparative advantage in dealing with orcs.

 

[Thorondor_]

Ok, let's see the problem from a different angle: what instances are there in which magic is exerted through non-magical objects?
(The opposite being magic exerted through magical objects such as the palantir, the rings, etc.)

 

[Greenwood]

Ok, let's see the problem from a different angle: what instances are there in which magic is exerted through non-magical objects?
(The opposite being magic exerted through magical objects such as the palantir, the rings, etc.)

There is a problem with your question. What exactly do you mean by "exerted"? For instance, with a palantir who is "exerting" magic through the palantir? Saruman and Sauron have the capability of "exerting" magic, but Pippin, Denethor, Aragorn and the various rulers of Gondor and Arnor who used the palantirs do not. Are you suggesting that Feanor is "exerting" magic through the palantir? He is long since out of the picture. How about Sam and the elven rope. Are you suggesting Sam was "exerting" magic through the rope? The Phial of Galadriel is a magic object created by Galadriel, but it is used by Frodo and Sam. Are they "exerting" magic through the Phial? All these objects that have "magic" properties (magic being non-real world capabilities) have their magic properties whoever wields them. They are of no use in the discussion of wizard's staffs. So far there has been no instance found in LOTR of a wizard's staff doing anything magical when not in the hands of a wizard. And as far as I can remember the wizard (Gandalf, since I don't remember Sauron or Radagast using their staffs) has always spoken some incantation or word of command or whatever you want to call it when using his staff.

As for magic being "exerted" through a non-magical object, once again how are you defining this situation? Obviously someone like Sam cannot "exert" magic through a non-magical object since he has no magic capabilities. So we have to have a person capable of using magic doing just that, using magic. Now if they are not present when the object is used, sucah as Galadriel and her Phial, then clearly the object was made magical when she made it. Wait! I know some situations where magic is "exerted" through a non-magical object! Everytime Gandalf uses his staff!

 

[Thorondor_]

What exactly do you mean by "exerted"?

Perhaps my choice of words was unfortunate; sorry for that; by exerting I understand to put to use or effect.

For instance, with a palantir who is "exerting" magic through the palantir?

In this case, anyone who uses the palantir makes use of the magic of it; the same with the rest of the magical objects.

I know some situations where magic is "exerted" through a non-magical object! Everytime Gandalf uses his staff!

If this example was meant to be just a joke, then I enjoyed it . Tolkien doesn't say anywhere whether staffs are magical or not. So, (disconsidering the staffs for the time being) do you agree that in all instances when magic is used through an object, that object is magical itself?

 

[HLGStrider]

Drawing back from the Hobbit, I would say, no, we can draw the exact opposite conclusion.

Unless pinecones and pipe are magical objects in Middle Earth. Gandalf definitely uses some magic in smoke during his pipe game with Thorin. I wouldn't assume he has a magic pipe. He also turns pine cones into hand grenades. These are obvioiusly not magical objects.

 

[Thorondor_]

I don't think that any of those cases qualify as examples of magic being created through the use of an object; it is rather that Gandalf creates the magic, which, afterwards, affects the objects. In the case of the staffs, the magic is, obviously (to me) produced through the staffs themselves, and only afterwards this magic affects the enviroment.
I don't think that Gandalf's pipe should be reffered to as a non-magical object, since its magical nature is nowhere negated (and, anyway, the smoke/air was coming out of Gandalf's mouth so we have a prior probable cause of magic; furthermore, in chapter one, we also have Thorin "ordering" his rings of smoke to go wherever he wishes:"He was blowing the most enormous smoke-rings, and wherever he told one to go, it went-up the chimney, or behind the clock on the man-telpiece, or under the table, or round and round the ceiling"; moreover, Gandalf's "inner" magic is more apparent when, in chapter 4, he turned the smoke of the pipes "into different colours and set dancing up by the roof to amuse them").
Hobbit, chapter 6 (emphasis added)

He gathered the huge pinecones from the branches of his tree. Then he set one alight with bright blue fire, and threw it whizzing down among the circle of the wolves.

I think that what this quote tells us is that it was Gandalf alone who created the magic which, in turn, set the cones on fire. It is not something magical that the cones can burn; the magic is within Gandalf that he can cause them to burn.
Anyway, in chapter one, we have this magnificent quote (emphasis added):

Gandalf struck a blue light on the end of his magic staff, and in its firework glare the poor little hobbit could be seen kneeling on the hearth-rug, shaking like a jelly that was melting

 

[Ingwë]

What about the Rings of Power? The smiths concentrated the power of the races in the Rings. Sauron concentrated his Power in the One Ring but he had it, the Ring didn't give power to Sauron. The Staffs help the Istari to concentrate their power. They need them.
I don't rhink that his staff in magic. Maybe after he had taken it it became magic.
But the smoke came from Gandalf's tobacco that was putted in his pipe. I don't think that the Pipe is magic. And what about the fireworks? Are they magic; are they created with the power of the staff?

 

[HLGStrider]

I really don't see the difference between funneling magic through a staff and funneling it through a pinecone. Most pinecones don't fizzle when you set them on fire though they do burn better, hotter, and longer than most things. Therefore, I would say Gandalf is inflicting unnatural burning upon natural pinecones.

 

[Greenwood]

If this example was meant to be just a joke

Only partly.

Tolkien doesn't say anywhere whether staffs are magical or not.

No, he doesn't.

So, (disconsidering the staffs for the time being) do you agree that in all instances when magic is used through an object, that object is magical itself?

No. And Elgee has already explained why. When a person with magic powers uses his magic power through an object, what you are seeing is that person's powers. The object remains what it was. With the obvious exceptions of someone making a clearly magical object with magical properties that others can use.

In the case of Thorin commanding his smoke rings around, what you have is an example of the problems you run into when trying to reconcile details between different books of Tolkien's. The Hobbit was a children's story and someone sitting around commanding his smoke rings to go where he tells them is a charming little scene and in a children's story why couldn't dwarves (mythical creatures) have some minor magical capability such as command of smoke rings. However, Lord of the Rings is not a children's story and dwarves have no special powers. It is an inconsequential conflict between the two books and shows why you cannot use something from one to contradict saomething in the other. Otherwise we have to grant dwarves magic powers in Middle Earth, something for which there is clearly no rationale in LOTR (or The Silmarillion for that matter).

 

[Thorondor_]

Let me get this straight, does everyone so far ignore the quote from chapter 1 of the Hobbit concerning the "magic staff"?

However, Lord of the Rings is not a children's story and dwarves have no special powers.

Is this quote about dwarven magic, from the Hobbit, chapter 1, also downplayable as "children story":

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells

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.

And Elgee has already explained why

So, when those examples apparently are in favor of your position, the Hobbit is relevant to the question of magic? You contradict yourself.

 

[Greenwood]

So, when those examples apparently are in favor of your position, the Hobbit is relevant to the question of magic? You contradict yourself.

No, I am not contradicting myself. My reference to Elgee was to give her credit for her point. I made clear what I meant with my following sentences: When a person with magic powers uses his magic power through an object, what you are seeing is that person's powers. The object remains what it was. It is a general observation. That Elgee's examples came from The Hobbit is irrelevant.

Are you saying that The Hobbit is not a children's story?

Are you saying the dwarves in LOTR have magic powers? If yes, are you basing this on anything other than the quotes you have given from The Hobbit? If so, what?

Earlier in this thread I asked if you had any instances in LOTR of Tolkien referring to "magic staffs". I said at the time that any from The Hobbit might be of interest. At the time you were unable to produce any quotes from either LOTR or The Hobbit. You have now found one from The Hobbit in which Tolkien uses the term "magic staff". As I said earlier, it is interesting. It is the first bit of evidence from Tolkien to support your case. However, you have also made it quite clear from other passages in The Hobbit that Tolkien treats the subject of magic differently in The Hobbit than in LOTR. In The Hobbit we have dwarves using magic spells and commanding smoke rings; magic abilities that there is no evidence for in LOTR. As I said, this illustrates the difficulties in reconciling everything between The Hobbit and LOTR.

 

[Inderjit S]

Thorondor with regards to your quote-the role of the narrarator is an important part of LoTR and the Hobbit, the early chapters of the book weres "written" by the hobbits (in this case Bilbo) who would have confused the meaning of magic and attributed "magic" to something which wasn't magical because they were by and large ignorant of such matters.

Greenwood-I see no reason as to why Dwarves shouldn't be able to cast spells-they had a reputation for curses, so why not spells? Special words were needed to open the gates of Moria, the entrance into Erebor may have been considered "magical", Galadriel's mirror may have been considered "magical"-Middle-Earth was packed full of such things.

 

[Greenwood]

Greenwood-I see no reason as to why Dwarves shouldn't be able to cast spells-they had a reputation for curses, so why not spells? Special words were needed to open the gates of Moria, the entrance into Erebor may have been considered "magical", Galadriel's mirror may have been considered "magical"-Middle-Earth was packed full of such things.

I agree; Middle Earth was packed full of magic and magical things. I often think fans rob LOTR of much of its magic by over analyzing specifics. The Hobbit has even more magic than LOTR (as befits a children's fantasy book), such as talking purses in troll's pockets, and talking spiders, and men who change into bears, etc. In LOTR, however, the magic, and who is capable of it, is more circumscribed, seemingly the province of wizards and elfs. I also do not see curses as necessarily "magical". Curses occur in many forms of literature that do not involve magic. They also often involve the breaking of an oath; in other words the subject of the curse brings the curse upon themselves by breaking an oath. In LOTR a prime example are the oathbreakers who are cursed to never rest until they fight for Islidur's heir. In Middle Earth mortals such as Isildur do not have the power to keep the dead confined to Middle Earth. It is not any power of Isildur that allows his curse to keep the dead from departing. It is their broken oath. Oaths have great power in nearly all literature and particularly in Middle Earth, but I am not sure they qualify as magic.

 

[Thorondor_]

["The object remains what it was. " Not necessarily my opinion; can you provide some quote for this statement?]

In The Hobbit we have dwarves using magic spells and commanding smoke rings; magic abilities that there is no evidence for in LOTR

Nor does Lotr deny the existence of such abilities. We also have the enchanted gates of Moria which are made by the dwarf Narvi [Furthermore, if dwarves are the "children" of Aule, I doubt he left them with no affinity for craft magic.]

It is the first bit of evidence from Tolkien to support your case.

Wrong; you are disregarding the quote from UT regarding the magic staff, in relation to Gandalf's name, a quote to which I reffered several times in this thread.

In LOTR, however, the magic, and who is capable of it, is more circumscribed, seemingly the province of wizards and elfs

Not only, we also have others who use magic: the balrog, the mouth of Sauron, those who use the nine rings, the barrow wights, possibly the two watchers of Cirith Ungol; the dwarf Narvi; the stewards apparently can read minds; (Gandalf uses spells in the languages of Men and Orcs); the walls of Orthanc, built by the numenoreans are also said to be magical.

 

[Greenwood]

I don't agree; can you provide some quote for this statement?

It is an opinion, as is yours.

Furthermore, if dwarves are the "children" of Aule, I doubt he left them with no affinity for craft magic.

Once again, that is merely your opinion. What exactly is craft magic? How is it distinguished from knowledge of your craft?

Wrong; you are ignoring the quote from UT regarding the magic staff, in relation to Gandalf's name, a quote to which I reffered several times in this thread.

And as I pointed out then, the quote is not about Gandalf's staff, but the etymology of the name Gandalf. Even then the word magic is placed in parantheses. And finally, we discussed the limitations of using posthumously published material.

Not only, we also have others who use magic: the balrog, the mouth of Sauron, those who use the nine rings, the barrow wights, possibly the two watchers of Cirith Ungol; the stewards apparently can read minds; (Gandalf uses spells in the languages of Men and Orcs); the walls of Orthanc, built by the numenoreans are also said to be magical.

The balrog is a maia, like Sauron and the wizards and is thus equivalent to a wizard; he is a supernatural being. What magicc does the Mouth of Sauron use? The nine rings are the magic objects and the source of the magic. The barrow wight is certainly some sort of evil spirit, but what magic did it use? The two watchers at Cirith Ungol are stone statues and thus count as magic objects, presumably created by Sauron. There is no evidence that Denethor can "read" minds; he is clearly highly intelligent and perceptive and he has a palantir -- a magic object that allows him to see many things that would otherwise be hidden from him. Gandalf is a wizard; the magic comes from him -- not the language in which he speaks his spells. As for Orthanc, Pippin says: "It is very smooth and hard. Some wizardryis in it, perhaps older and stronger than Saruman's." [emphasis added] Thus, it is not definitively magical, it could just be extremely well made. Magic is widespread in LOTR, but it is circumscribed.

 

[Thorondor_]

And as I pointed out then, the quote is not about Gandalf's staff, but the etymology of the name Gandalf. Even then the word magic is placed in parantheses. And finally, we discussed the limitations of using posthumously published material.

Here is the quote:
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."
Several observations:
- Tolkien associates twice the words magic and staff in that quote
- he chose this particular name for the wizard exactly because it makes refference to the magic staff
- what's more important than the date of the publishing of this quote is when it was created by Tolkien (well, in his mind at least) - that is, at the time he thought about the name of Gandalf, which is prior to the writing of Hobbit and Lotr.
So, in your opinion, does Gandalf's name make a refference to something that actually doesn't exist in the world he creates (i.e. magic staff)?