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

[Inderjit S]

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.

Sorry for not backing up my definitions with a reference-they came from www.dictionary.com. How on earth does that add to your argument-Greenwood's point was that wands and staffs were "different" in size.

"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.

So what is your point here? Are you saying that Bilbo didn't in fact "write" the book? The quote you have provided is an "obvious" case of Tolkien "adding" his own views to the story-again I re-iterate is an obvious and somewhat isolated case of Tolkien getting 'involved' and introducing us to the hobbits via a human narrator. That doesn't mean that the reference to "magic staff" wasn't made by Bilbo, in fact I don't see how you can back up any such point of view by telling us that a human narrator "wrote" parts of the "introduction", which we already knew, but it doesn't mean he tampered with the other parts of the narrative.

And what is the point is using discarded plans to back up your ideas-you might as well bring up the fact that Saruman was once a disguised Balrog in an argument about Balrogs or Saruman because "one day Tolkien thought this, but he later rejected it."

I can add nothing to Greenwood's excellent points.

 

[Thorondor_]

Earlier in the essay Tolkien says that to the men of the North Gandalf menat "the Elf of the Wand" because they thought he was an elf and because he did many marvelous things

I am not sure about where we are in disagreement: isn't Gandalf a name that the men of the north gave to the grey pilgrim?

The passage in The Hobbit does not specify who among the "they" did which specific things

Nor does it rule out the dwarves; we shouldn't rule out the dwarves from the putting of the spells since there are previous refferences to their magic (I am not reffering to the smoke rings ). [One more such refference could be Elrond's, in chapter 3: "Moon-letters are rune-letters, but you cannot see them," said Elrond, "not when you look straight at them. They can only be seen when the moon shines behind them, and what is more, with the more cunning sort it must be a moon of the same shape and season as the day when they were written. The dwarves invented them and wrote them with silver pens, as your friends could tell you."]

Where is your evidence that he only wrote up his adventure "after repeated visits to the elves"?

Chapter 19

He took to writing poetry and visiting the elves; and though many shook their heads and touched their foreheads and said "Poor old Baggins!" and though few believed any of his tales, he remained very happy to the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long.
One autumn evening some years afterwards Bilbo was sitting in his study writing his memoirs – he thought of calling them "There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Holiday" – when there was a ring at the door.

If his staff could produce flame by its own inherent power

I never argued such a thing.

We clearly see from the evolution of this passage that Tolkien considered and rejected the staff being the source of any power

I disagree; what Tolkien didn't mention again in the other versions is the power of the staff being consumed (wholly or partially); he never stated that there is no power attached to the staff. [Btw, how many instances are there in which the power of the magic object can be consumed?]

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.

Since you didn't reply to this, should I presume that you reconsidered your position?

How on earth does that add to your argument

I find the Oxford deffinition refference "thought to have magic properties" pretty interesting; don't you?

you might as well bring up the fact that Saruman was once a disguised Balrog

This analogy is false, since there is no statement made by Tolkien that staffs aren't magical - while there are many other instances in which he says that Saruman isn't a balrog.

 

[Eledhwen]

I would just like to say that it's great to follow a good meaty discussion like this one. I am amazed at the stamina of the contestants, none of whom seem to be on rubber legs yet. It has evolved into what it is, but would have made a great formal debate.

 

[Greenwood]

I am not sure about where we are in disagreement: isn't Gandalf a name that the men of the north gave to the grey pilgrim?

You made the statement in Post #99 in this thread that in Unfinished Tales:

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,

I pointed out that it does not say that in Unfinished Tales. In UT, Tolkien says that based on Norse, the name Gandalf might mean that. This is external to the book. That is the point under discussion.

Nor does it rule out the dwarves; we shouldn't rule out the dwarves from the putting of the spells since there are previous refferences to their magic

You claimed the passage in The Hobbit concerning the troll's gold "proved" the spells were cast by the dwarves. I have shown it does not prove that since Gandalf was present and could have been the one to place the spells. You continue to argue the dwarves could have cast the spells themselves, but that is irrelevant. Could have is not the same as must have. Could have is not proof of anything. As Inderjit and I have pointed out, your arguments amount to an insistence that your interpretations are correct, when in fact your arguments are merely your opinions.

One more such refference could be Elrond's, in chapter 3: "Moon-letters are rune-letters, but you cannot see them," said Elrond, "not when you look straight at them. They can only be seen when the moon shines behind them, and what is more, with the more cunning sort it must be a moon of the same shape and season as the day when they were written. The dwarves invented them and wrote them with silver pens, as your friends could tell you."

And as I have pointed out before, things from The Hobbit are not all directly applicable to LOTR, especially magic capabilities. The Hobbit is a children's book; LOTR is not and the subject of magic is treated differently and much more seriously in LOTR.

Chapter 19

Congratulations! You have found an unambiguous quote to support one of your statements. Bilbo did write his memoirs after further trips. It does not prove that he gained a great knowledge of magic in the meantime and it does not change the differing natures of The Hobbit and LOTR compared to each other.

I never argued such a thing.

Of course, you have! Your whole argument from the beginning is that Gandalf's staff possesses power of its own, independent of Gandalf.

I disagree; what Tolkien didn't mention again in the other versions is the power of the staff being consumed (wholly or partially); he never stated that there is no power attached to the staff.

The only place you have been able to show where Tolkien placed any of Gandalf's power in his staff is in a rejected early manuscript version. All later versions, most importantly the final version, clearly show the power to be Gandalf's. Yet you ridiculously argue that Tolkien never said "there is no power attached to the staff"! Tolkien never said hobbits had wings and could fly either. What Tolkien never said is irrelevant. You claim the staff had its own power. It is up to you to show where Tolkien made that point (and this whole thread is about LOTR so the you have to show the relevancy to LOTR). It is not up to anyone else to show that Tolkien said the staff did not have its own power.

Since you didn't reply to this, should I presume that you reconsidered your position?

I didn't respond because it is an irrelevancy. The entire point of this discussion concerns the nature of Gandalf's staff in relation to Gandalf. A number of us have expressed the view that the a wizard's staff is nothing more than a wooden staff the wizard use's to channel his energy (and uses as a symbol). You contend the staff has power of its own, independent of the wizard. We have different opinions.

If we are going to talk about not responding, I can point out that you have never explained how Gandalf acquires another "magic" staff after his is destroyed on the Bridge of Khazad-dum. You have never explained how anyone could "see" Gandalf's spoken words in the Pass of Caradhras. You have never explained what balrogs had to do with the scene in the pass.

I find the Oxford deffinition refference "thought to have magic properties" pretty interesting; don't you?

Another irrelevancy. "Thought to have" is not the same as actually having. For a long time many people "thought" the world was flat; it wasn't.

This analogy is false, since there is no statement made by Tolkien that staffs aren't magical - while there are many other instances in which he says that Saruman isn't a balrog.

Inderjit's analogy is perfectly valid since its point is that you can't use ideas that Tolkien considered but never used as proof that those ideas are in the final version.

 

[Inderjit S]

find the Oxford deffinition refference "thought to have magic properties" pretty interesting; don't you?

I wasn't arguing against a definiton of a wand being magical-just that wands and staffs differed in size-Gandalf leaned on his staff to walk, and it certainly wasn't a "slender staff"!

This analogy is false, since there is no statement made by Tolkien that staffs aren't magical - while there are many other instances in which he says that Saruman isn't a balrog.

You are missing my point-that it is futile to bring up ideas which Tolkien rejected to back up your own views-I was bringing up the case of Saruman to drive home this message.

 

[Starbrow]

I'd like to throw in another point to discuss if I may.

In the chapter, "Many Partings" in ROTK, Gandalf says of Saruman, "...this snake had still one tooth left, I think. He had the poison of his voice, and I guess that he persuaded you, even you Treebeard, knowing the soft spot in your heart." I take this to mean that while Saruman had lost his magical powers, he still had a very persuasive voice.

And in "The Scouring of the Shire", Frodo says, "Do not believe him! He has lost all power, save his voice that can still daunt you and decieve you, if you let it."

The question then is, How did Saruman lose his magical powers?

IMO it happened when Gandalf broke his staff in "The Voice of Saruman" in TTT. Here's the passage I'm referring to.
"Come back,Saruman!" said Gandalf in a commanding voice. To the amazement of the others, Saruman turned again, and as if dragged against his will, he came slowly back to the iron rail, learning on it, breathing hard. His face was lined and shrunken. His hand clutched his heavy black staff like a claw.
"I did not give you leave to go," said Gandalf sternly. "I have not finished. You have become a fool, Saruman, and yet pitiable. You might still have turned away from folly and evil, and have been of service. But you choose to stay and gnaw the ends of your old plots. Stay then! But I warn you, you will not easily come out again. Not unless the dark hands of the East stretch out to take you. Saruman!" he cried, and his voice grew in power and authority. "Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death. You have no colour now, and I cast you from the order and from the Council."
He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. "Saruman, your staff is broken." There was a crack, and the staff split asunder in Saruman's hand, and the head of it fell down at Gandalf's feet. "Go!" said Gandalf. With a cry Saruman fell back and crawled away.

The staff seems to be more than a symbol of power, otherwise why would Gandalf need to break it. If it was just an ordinary stick of wood, Saruman could easily replace it.

 

[Inderjit S]

If that was true then would Gandalf have risked breaking his staff on the Moria bridge if he would be bereft of his powers? And why could he use his powers independently from the staff? I don't think it was just an "ordinary piece of wood" i.e a normal branch of a tree, just cut off-I think it was somewhat "special" in that it could channel the powers of the wizards-but if Gandalf could "take away" Saruman's powers by "break his staff" why couldn't he "take away" his powers anyway, thus rendering the breaking of his staff somewhat symbolic i.e he was "cast from the order"-but I do not still think Saruman was totally powerless since we do not really know which powers he "had"-Gandalf seemed to have a special affinity with fire, Saruman's "special affinity" may have been in lore and his voice, though he may have had other "supernatural powers"-though they may have been invoked in spells etc. which certainly wouldn't have wholly rested in the power of his staff!

 

[Inderjit S]

Also-Gandalf was able to fight the Balrog, using some degree of "magic", after his staff was broken. He certainly wasn't rendered powerless!

 

[Greenwood]

The staff seems to be more than a symbol of power, otherwise why would Gandalf need to break it. If it was just an ordinary stick of wood, Saruman could easily replace it.

I believe Gandalf breaking Saruman's staff was purely symbolic. Think of it as akin to breaking an officer's sword after the officer is discharged from the army in dishonor. Saruman lost his power when Gandalf cast him out of the order of wizards. As you pointed out Gandalf says: "You have no colour now, and I cast you from the order and from the Council." It is only after Gandalf has cast Saruman out as a wizard, broken him from the ranks of wizards one could say, that Gandalf then breaks Saruman's staff as the final symbolic sign that Saruman has had his powers stripped from him and is no longer a wizard.

I don't think it was just an "ordinary piece of wood" i.e a normal branch of a tree, just cut off-I think it was somewhat "special" in that it could channel the powers of the wizards

I think we mostly agree on this thread, but I would ask the same question that I have asked Thorondor and that he has for the most part ignored. Even though Gandalf's staff is destroyed on the Bridge at Khazad-dum, he again has a staff when he meets up with Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. If the staff is some sort of special item, where did Gandalf get a new one? If he has spares sitting in a closet somewhere, wouldn't Saruman also have such spares? Isn't it simpler to assume that a wizard can make his own staff from any appropriately shaped and sized piece of wood? As you say, Gandalf clearly does not need the staff to use his powers.

 

[Daranavo]

If we go to an original aspect of a Wizard's staff, you could conclude that their staffs added to their abilities. Perhaps allowing them more magical power to either wield magic to greater effect, or to be able to wield more magic by channeling it through the staff. I do not think by Gandalf breaking Saruman's staff and casting him out of the order that he took ALL of Saruman's power away doing so. Only the power that he gained by the staff and by being a member of the order. If you broke a soldiers sword and removed his armor, he is still a man with ability. You have just effectively given him shorter teeth in which to do less harm with.

 

[Varokhâr]

I also think they are the "funnels" whereby Istari channel their magical power, similar to how staves are also employed in other tales where wizards figure in (the Aes Sedai of "The Wheel of Time", for example). Mainly, I am inclined to think it is only an object, one of ceremonial nature but only an object nonetheless, one that allows the wizard to focus and direct magical energies.

Gandalf broke Saruman's staff, but this did not, of course, rob Saruman of his power - it just took away his ability to focus it into the natural world, through the natural device of the staff. Saruman could well have procured another staff, or made one, despite the effort it would likely have cost him.

 

[Greenwood]

If Saruman retain's his power what did Gandalf accomplish by casting Saruman from the order and telling him he had no color now? Gandalf clearly has no need of his staff to use his powers, though he at times appears to channel those powers through his staff. Why didn't Saruman merely make another staff if this is all he needed to use his powers again? A disgraced and broken officer can buy a new sword, but it doesn't make him an officer again. The only power Saruman appears to have after Gandalf casts him from the order appears to be the power of his voice and this is not necessarily "magical". There are many people who can be quite persuasive and charming, but that does not mean they have supernatural powers.

 

[Varokhâr]

Indeed - the staff of a wizard isn't the only manner in which a wizard may focus magical power. But it does help considerably, else it would not be used to begin with.

Making another staff most likely involved much more than finding a good stick, and it could've even been beyond Saruman's abilities at that point. It probably would require much time, some sort of ritual, and perhaps Saruman was divested of whatever he needed when he fled Orthanc. His powers of speech are more than mere skill with words, as can be clearly seen in the exchange Gandalf has with Saruman after the latter's imprisonment following the breaking of Isengard. Gandalf was also greater in power than Saruman at the time of Saruman's expulsion from the Order, so it was a small exercise of his newfound power to break Saruman's staff, and thus confound his ablity to wield his powers.
Though, in Saruman's case, that was the act that robbed him of most of his powers, not the breaking of his staff but when Gandalf threw him down, the breaking of his staff being only part of that overall act.

 

[Inderjit S]

Even though Gandalf's staff is destroyed on the Bridge at Khazad-dum, he again has a staff when he meets up with Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. If the staff is some sort of special item, where did Gandalf get a new one? If he has spares sitting in a closet somewhere, wouldn't Saruman also have such spares? Isn't it simpler to assume that a wizard can make his own staff from any appropriately shaped and sized piece of wood? As you say, Gandalf clearly does not need the staff to use his powers.

I wonder. When Frodo "sees" Gandalf via the Mirror of Galadriel, he sees him with a "white staff"-I wonder where and how he got the wood? Though what you say is logical, I am still not convinced it was merely a "ordinary" piece of wood-well it may well have been in it's origins, just a piece of wood and not much else, but one which had a special "spell" put on it so it could channel powers-as another poster pointed out. When did this vision of Frodo's take place? (Or when is it that he sees Gandalf in his vision.) Gandalf returned to life the day Frodo looked in the mirror-though it could also see into the future. But all the above fails, as Gandalf lay on the Silvertine and was latter rescued by Gwaihir who took him to Lorien where he was cloaked in white-and I presume given a new staff. (Since there is no reference to a staff after he is brought back alive.) I guess this in part supports your argument, but then again it still allows the possibility of the staff being "blessed" so to speak, with spells so it would become "more than a piece of wood" (though it was a piece of wood) and something which could be used to channel Gandalf's power. None of this is, of course, certain.

On Saruman's voice-I wonder. Feanor, Celegorm and Curufin and others were able to persuade people to enter a certain venture via the powers of their voices, yet Saruman's seems different-almost magical so to speak-he was able to persuade the Witch-King that he didn't know where the Shire was even though he was suspected to be a traitor and even claimed that if he had the chance he would sieze the ring himself-he even "persuades" the Men of Rohan that he seeks peace even though he just tried to kill them all! Indeed, Aragorn claims that only the wisest would be immune from Saruman's voice. And also consider Radagast's powers, or the ones which Gandalf credits him with-he is a "master of shapes and changes of hue"-I doubt these powers lay in his staff!

 

[Greenwood]

Indeed - the staff of a wizard isn't the only manner in which a wizard may focus magical power. But it does help considerably, else it would not be used to begin with.

But it is not always used. When Gandalf rides out onto the Pelennor Fields to cover Faramir's retreat he does not use his staff in driving off five winged Nazgul. If the staff were so useful in focusing Gandalf's powers, surely this would be a time to use it.

Making another staff most likely involved much more than finding a good stick, and it could've even been beyond Saruman's abilities at that point. It probably would require much time, some sort of ritual, and perhaps Saruman was divested of whatever he needed when he fled Orthanc.

Gandalf certainly didn't have much time for making new staffs and rituals between being rescued from the peak of Zirakzigil by Gwaihir and meeting up with Aragorn and company on the edges of Fangorn. It was two weeks exactly and that includes recovery time in Lothlorien and then time for Gandalf to get to Fangorn. I know that time is different in Lothlorien than in the outside world, but when the rest of the Fellowship was there, nearly a month passed in the outside world while it was only a few days to the Fellowship in Lothlorien. This gives Gandalf even less time to go through a lengthy process of making a new staff and somehow making it magical through rituals

I wonder. When Frodo "sees" Gandalf via the Mirror of Galadriel, he sees him with a "white staff"-I wonder where and how he got the wood? Though what you say is logical, I am still not convinced it was merely a "ordinary" piece of wood-well it may well have been in it's origins, just a piece of wood and not much else, but one which had a special "spell" put on it so it could channel powers-as another poster pointed out. When did this vision of Frodo's take place? (Or when is it that he sees Gandalf in his vision.) Gandalf returned to life the day Frodo looked in the mirror-though it could also see into the future. But all the above fails, as Gandalf lay on the Silvertine and was latter rescued by Gwaihir who took him to Lorien where he was cloaked in white-and I presume given a new staff. (Since there is no reference to a staff after he is brought back alive.) I guess this in part supports your argument, but then again it still allows the possibility of the staff being "blessed" so to speak, with spells so it would become "more than a piece of wood" (though it was a piece of wood) and something which could be used to channel Gandalf's power. None of this is, of course, certain.

Concerning her Mirror, Galadriel tells Sam: "For it shows things that were, and things that are, and things that yet may be." Therefore, we cannot know when, or even if, an event seen in it took place. Since Frodo evidently sees Gandalf the White, it must be a future event since Gandalf returns from death on the mountaintop the same day Frodo sees him in the Mirror. I agree that we have very little to go on concerning the nature of wizard's staffs. Therefore, we are left with only our opinions. My personal viw is that the staff was just a staff. For the reason's I have given already I don't see how it could be a powerful relict in its own right. Could the making of a wizard's staff require some sort of spell by the wizard placed on a regular wooden staff to turn it into a wizard's staff? It is possible, but I see nothing written by Tolkien in LOTR to justify invoking such a ritual. So we are left with our personal opinions.

On Saruman's voice-I wonder. Feanor, Celegorm and Curufin and others were able to persuade people to enter a certain venture via the powers of their voices, yet Saruman's seems different-almost magical so to speak-he was able to persuade the Witch-King that he didn't know where the Shire was even though he was suspected to be a traitor and even claimed that if he had the chance he would sieze the ring himself-he even "persuades" the Men of Rohan that he seeks peace even though he just tried to kill them all! Indeed, Aragorn claims that only the wisest would be immune from Saruman's voice. And also consider Radagast's powers, or the ones which Gandalf credits him with-he is a "master of shapes and changes of hue"-I doubt these powers lay in his staff!

I agree that part of Saruman's powers were his voice, but the examples you give are all from before Gandalf stripped him of his power and cast him from the order of wizards. Also, after the exchange with Saruman, Merry asks Gandalf about his attempt to persuade Saruman to join them. Gandalf replies:

"... But I had reasons for trying; some merciful and some less so. First Saruman was shown that the power of his voice was waning. He cannot be both tyrant and counsellor. ....."

So, even before Gandalf cast Saruman from the order, the power of his voice was diminishing. My guess would be because he had "left the path of wisdom" and had declared himself Saruman of Many Colors and thrown his lot in with Sauron. After Gandalf stripped Saruman of his powers, I would think it is not unreasonable that having used his voice to control others for thousands of years, Saruman would still have some talent at persuasion, even if it was no longer supported by supernatural powers

 

[Thorondor_]

In UT, Tolkien says that based on Norse, the name Gandalf might
mean that.

Are you actually implying that the name of the dwarf from Voluspa means
elven wight..? The only refference he makes to the old nore etymology
reffers to gandr; the meaning of the name he gives reffers to the ME
etymology.

I pointed out that it does not say that in Unfinished Tales.

Yes it does (emphasis added):
Merry he could be, and kindly to the young and simple, and yet quick at
times to sharp speech and the rebuking of folly; but he was not proud,
and sought neither power not praise, and thus far and wide he was
beloved among all those that were not themselves proud. Mostly he journeyed unwearingly on foot, leaning on a staff; and so he was called among Men of the North Gandalf, "the Elf of the Wand". For they deemed him (though in error, as has been said) to be of Elven-kind, since he would at times works wonders among them, loving especially the beauty of fire; and yet such marvels he wrought mostly for mirth and delight, and desired
not that any should hold him in awe or take his counsels out of fear."

Gandalf was present and could have been the one to place the
spells

Does Tolkien say anywhere that it was only Gandalf who put the spells?
Or does he say anywhere that the dwarves don't have magical abilities?
The context clearly indicates that all the phases of burrying the gold
were a group action. There is no clue to your interpretation that the
putting of the spells constitutes an exception, i.e. it was an action
done by one individual. Therefore, your interpretation is a "destroying
the exception" fallacy.
Also, at the gates of Moria, Gandalf says: "I shall not have to call
on Gimli for words of the secret dwarf-tongue that they teach to none".

And as I have pointed out before, things from The Hobbit are not
all directly applicable to LOTR, especially magic capabilities

You keep invoking this. Where is it stated that he wrongfully labeled
some objects from Hobbit as being magical?

It does not prove that he gained a great knowledge of magic in
the meantime

I agree, there is no such direct refference. Inderjit's initial
statement was that Bilbo was not very good when it came to the matters of the wise; my counterarguments are: the hobbit folklore does reffer to magic things which are indeed magic; by the time he writes the book he
becomes a good friend of Gandalf and of the elves; he participates in a story where magic is exerted to some quite good extents; he is called by
Gildor to be a "good master" of the Ancient Language; no "reviewer" from
Lotr (or for that matter, not even Tolkien) says that Bilbo's statements
from the red book are incorrect.

If his staff could produce flame by its own inherent power

I never argued such a thing.

Of course, you have!

Can you point exactly where I said that the staff can produce flame by
its own power?

Since you didn't reply to this, should I presume that you
reconsidered your position?

I didn't bother to respond because it is another one of your irrelevancies.[/QUOTE]
So you make a statement, you refuse to either back it up or to retract
it and then you call the initial point irrelevant.
"Tolkien never said hobbits had wings and could fly either"
A false analogy; he did say they are humans and he described them, so
you could never infer such a thing.
"you have never explained how Gandalf acquires another "magic" staff
after his is destroyed on the Bridge of Khazad-dum"
You are wrong; I did try to answer that (and if I remember correctly,
you forget for the second time that I try to address this issue). In
my opinion, the problem you raise is a wild goose chase; as Tolkien
states in "On fairy stories", magic needn't be explained.
"You have never explained how anyone could "see" Gandalf's spoken words
in the Pass of Caradhras. You have never explained what balrogs had to
do with the scene in the pass."
In the case of the Moria, Gandalf was able to perceive someone else
simply because the balrog used spells.
["Thought to have" is not the same as actually having." For a long time
many people "thought" the world was flat; it wasn't." As a minor
observation, the earth in Ea was actually flat once. And it is in magic
stories (Hobbit being one of them) where magical things, which are mere
beliefs in real life, actually exist as such.]
"Inderjit's analogy is perfectly valid"
There are more possible explanations than just the fact that the staff
isn't magical:
- merely the fact that he doesn't makes that refference again doesn't
automatically invalidate it, it is fallacious to infer such a thing; he
also wrote: "It will take me years to recover my strength
and wizardry"; does the fact that he doesn't say this again mean that
he doesn't have wizardry?
- there is no occurrence (that I know of) when the magic of an object
is consumed by mere use; the water of Galadriel doesnt become less
magical just because more people look into it; the same with the palantiri,
the rings or the talking swords; so another explanation (the best one, I think) for the fact that Tolkien doesnt use that statement again might be that he simply realised that magical objects in his universe don't loose their magic just through use.
- another speculation could be that the refference to the power
of the staff was made in a dialogue, not
as a statement of the narrator; Gandalf doesn't talk a lot about his
magic; so another explanation for not using that refference again could
be that Tolkien didn't want Gandalf to talk about this particular aspect
of his magic (considering that he also made refference to the magic of
the staff in the hobbit, so he might have considered that enough of an
refference).
"Gandalf leaned on his staff to walk, and it certainly wasn't a
"slender staff""
So the fact that he wasnt reffering to the phisical aspect of the wand
implies he reffered to something else: either the wand is a symbol of
status - which goes against the idea that the istari shouldn't act in a
manner which atracts attention or which is imposing in any way; or
that the wand is a refference to the magical aspect of his staff.
"I was bringing up the case of Saruman to drive home this message"
Saruman being a balrog is clearly dismissed in later works, a thing
which doesn't happen with the refference to the magic staff, plus the
other possible explanations given above.
"This gives Gandalf even less time to go through a lengthy process of
making a new staff and somehow making it magical through rituals"
And how would you know it's a lengthy process?

 

[Inderjit S]

Hm...Throndor has the word 'fallacy' become a suffix for you when you rebutt other peoples arguments, stating a phrase and then eloquently adding the word 'fallacy' to drive him the point?

Mostly he journeyed unwearingly on foot, leaning on a staff; and so he was called among Men of the North Gandalf, "the Elf of the Wand". For they deemed him (though in error, as has been said) to be of Elven-kind, since he would at times works wonders among them, loving especially the beauty of fire

Again I can rebutt this quote using the quote itself-they called him the "Elf of the wand" because they thought he was an Elf but a 'special' one because of his staff (which was where his power was supposed to have 'come' from) but he wasn't a Elf and so the entire etymological meaning of the name is thrown into doubt because it was based on a fallacy (that Gandalf was an Elf who had a magic wand, ergo he was able to use his magic wand to bring about 'magic') and so you cannot quote this as proof as it doesn't really stand-the fact that Tolkien doesn't write about how the staff itself isn't magic proves nothing since the name falls on the account that Men thought Gandalf was an Elf with a magic wand when he wasn't.)

I agree, there is no such direct refference. Inderjit's initial
statement was that Bilbo was not very good when it came to the matters of the wise; my counterarguments are: the hobbit folklore does reffer to magic things which are indeed magic; by the time he writes the book he
becomes a good friend of Gandalf and of the elves; he participates in a story where magic is exerted to some quite good extents; he is called by
Gildor to be a "good master" of the Ancient Language; no "reviewer" from
Lotr (or for that matter, not even Tolkien) says that Bilbo's statements
from the red book are incorrect.

Yet again you are pursuing a haphazard course or argument, you are using seperate and unrelated parts of the books and piecing them together to support your argument-if Hobbits knew something about magic then good for them, though they plainly didn't know a lot, if Bilbo can speak Quenya then good for him, I'll be damned if I know how this supports your argument, if Bilbo had contact with some Elves then good for him, if he knew something about magic then good for him, but that doesn't mean your interpretation of a isolated passage in The Hobbit stands up, it just means you can offer glib conjectures on the passage. Good for you.

Also-why does Gandalf call the staff a 'pledge' of his conduct? Pledges usually refer to somebody doing good works to 're-earn' his place in a group (or order.) Why does Saruman call the staff a 'rod'? Rod isn't magical! Why is Saruman's staff called a 'rod' in several occasions in the narrative? In Tolkien's 'alternative' account in the Introduction to the Second Edition why does he talk about Saruman finding the missing link the his ring lore and making a powerful ring of his own-he would be powerful enough with his staff, just as Gandalf fought the Balrog without his staff for several days!

Can you point exactly where I said that the staff can produce flame by its own power?

You are arguing for the staff having powers of its own....what would these 'powers' be exactly?

[/QUOTE]You are wrong; I did try to answer that (and if I remember correctly,
you forget for the second time that I try to address this issue). In
my opinion, the problem you raise is a wild goose chase; as Tolkien
states in "On fairy stories", magic needn't be explained

Wow, you are again using a isolated passage from a essay of Tolkien's to support your argument, that magic doesn't need to be explained, therefore you are right and Greenwood is clearly sidestepping the argument. Perhaps I am using a ironic rebuttal fallacy hmmmm?

merely the fact that he doesn't makes that refference again doesn't
automatically invalidate it, it is fallacious to infer such a thing; he
also wrote

What? It is fallacious to think that because Tolkien doesn't refer to a certain thing again in his discarded drafts that the thing no longer exists? O.k.....

So the fact that he wasnt reffering to the phisical aspect of the wand
implies he reffered to something else: either the wand is a symbol of
status - which goes against the idea that the istari shouldn't act in a
manner which atracts attention or which is imposing in any way; or
that the wand is a refference to the magical aspect of his staff.

The Stewards had a wand to y'know. Turgon had a staff. Perhaps (using your logic) this proves something! YAY! On then again, perhaps not. Hm..yes the Istari shouldn't act in a way which attracts attention, which is why Gandalf himself was able to grab the attention of Men by performing magic tricks, whic led Men to believe that he was an Elf with a magic staff, heck if he didn't want any attention why not just stay at Rivendell for a few thousand years? Remember he was very famous, even Thorin talks about Gandalf's 'fame' and reputation.

Men may have equated wand with staff because they thought his staff was like a 'wand' in that it was able to produce magic, but that doesn't add to your argument since Men plainly didn't know who or what Gandalf was-or where his power came from, as I have pointed out.

 

[Grond]

...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?

Galadriel had one drop shipped from StaffsRUs in Valinor.

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?

Greenwood, is there an assumption here? I can't find where the text states whether Gandalf was allowed to keep his staff while inmprisoned in Orthanc. I can as easily assume it was removed as you can assume it was allowed. Please explain.

Cheers,

grond

 

[Thorondor_]

Yet again you are pursuing a haphazard course or argument, you are using seperate and unrelated parts of the books and piecing them together to support your argument

You said that Bilbo was not a very "good" when it came to esoteric matters "of the wise"; that could be true for the Bilbo at the begining, not for the Bilbo who started writing the story (which he see him do it even in Fotr, even at Rivendell).

the fact that Tolkien doesn't write about how the staff itself isn't magic proves nothing since the name falls on the account that Men thought Gandalf was an Elf with a magic wand when he wasn't.)

Twice in UT Tolkien reffers to the Men believing that Gandalf was an elf with a wand (or magic staff); each time he only dismisses the fact that he is an elf - not the fact that his staff is magical. I don't think this should be overlooked.

Also-why does Gandalf call the staff a 'pledge' of his conduct?

Imo, because that staff itself (not any staff) had some special importance to Saruman.

Why is Saruman's staff called a 'rod' in several occasions in the narrative?

One of the definitions of rod is "a scepter, staff, or wand symbolizing power or authority"; Tolkien could have used this as a substitute for wand.

You are arguing for the staff having powers of its own....what would these 'powers' be exactly?

On the general, being a repository of power which can be weilded by the wizard (my further speculation is that this power cannot be consumed by mere use, as we see with most (all?) magical objects).

It is fallacious to think that because Tolkien doesn't refer to a certain thing again in his discarded drafts that the thing no longer exists?

There are several refferences to the magic of the staff and none to the fact that it is not magical. So my answer to your (rethorical?) question is yes.

The Stewards had a wand to y'know. Turgon had a staff.

Though there is absolutely no refference to those objects being magical, so this analogy is false.

the Istari shouldn't act in a way which attracts attention, which is why Gandalf himself was able to grab the attention of Men by performing magic tricks, whic led Men to believe that he was an Elf with a magic staff, heck if he didn't want any attention why not just stay at Rivendell for a few thousand years?

He only amused them and never "desired that any should hold him in awe or take his counsels out of fear". There is a difference between amusement and displaying of power in order to impose.

 

[Inderjit S]

You said that Bilbo was not a very "good" when it came to esoteric matters "of the wise"; that could be true for the Bilbo at the begining, not for the Bilbo who started writing the story (which he see him do it even in Fotr, even at Rivendell).

Bilbo wrote most of his book when he wasn't at Rivendell-he certainly wouldn't have re-edited it to refer to Gandalf's 'magic staff', of course Bilbo may well have been learned in his own way, but to call him one of the "wise" like Elrond, Galadriel, Círdan or Celeborn (or Gandalf) is stretching it, and to talk about how knowing who and what Gandalf was and about the intricate nature of magic (I don't think he was overly-interested in such things, at least they would have played second fiddle to his desire for lore) is again stretching it, and making a isolated quote into something bigger than it actually is.

Twice in UT Tolkien reffers to the Men believing that Gandalf was an elf with a wand (or magic staff); each time he only dismisses the fact that he is an elf - not the fact that his staff is magical. I don't think this should be overlooked.

Again, read the passage-Tolkien dismisses the name itself, Gandalf, "Elf with staff (magical)" as it was based on a fallacy-that Gandalf was an Elf with a magic staff, ergo his magic powers, but Gandalf was not a Elf and the other part of the etymology-that his staff was magic doesn't really need to be dismissed by Tolkien since the entire concept of Gandalf being an Elf with a magic staff is dismissed.

Imo, because that staff itself (not any staff) had some special importance to Saruman.

If the staff itself was so imporant then how and why could a new one be remade? If Gandalf was able to exert great, superhuman power without his staff then surely Saruman could too? But remember, he had been cast from the Istari, dismissed and shamed, and so Gandalf in giving him his staff back would have brought him back into the order rather than deprived him of great power.

One of the definitions of rod is "a scepter, staff, or wand symbolizing power or authority"; Tolkien could have used this as a substitute for wand.

I think that quotation supports my argument since it states "symbolozing power of authority-the fact that the noun has different meanings doesn't change the meaning of the word-which in this case is a "scepter, staff, or wand symbolizing power or authority"-in this case the noun at hand is 'staff'.

On the general, being a repository of power which can be weilded by the wizard (my further speculation is that this power cannot be consumed by mere use, as we see with most (all?) magical objects).

I'm confused-it they are indeed a 'repository of power which can be wielded by the wizard', then you state "Can you point exactly where I said that the staff can produce flame by its own power?" you contradict yourself, as fire was one of Gandalf's chief 'powers' and if this was reflected in the staff (as you say) then surely it could produce fire of it's own accord?

There are several refferences to the magic of the staff and none to the fact that it is not magical. So my answer to your (rethorical?) question is yes.

Interesting. So just because Tolkien doesn't say that the staff was non-magical, it makes it magical? (Oh, lest I forget Tolkien also states that some Men wrongly referred to it, as well as a isolated reference in The Hobbit, which is a dubious back up anyway.)

Though there is absolutely no refference to those objects being magical, so this analogy is false.

But there is no reference to them being non-magical either. Heheh....I really don't think you understand the point of mocking analogies since you seem to want to take your time to rebutt such erudite points as the fact that Gil-Galad may have had an aversion to clothes.

He only amused them and never "desired that any should hold him in awe or take his counsels out of fear". There is a difference between amusement and displaying of power in order to impose.

As far as I know displaying of power doesn't always equal to displaying power in order to impose, sometimes it just means he displayed his power because he needed to.

Greenwood, is there an assumption here? I can't find where the text states whether Gandalf was allowed to keep his staff while inmprisoned in Orthanc. I can as easily assume it was removed as you can assume it was allowed. Please explain.

When Frodo saw him in the vision he had a staff.