# Question About Saruman and his Power (?)



## Calimehtar (Nov 26, 2002)

After Gandalf the Grey became Gandalf the White, did Saruman lose his magical power?
And if he did still have that power, was Gandalf then stronger than him?


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 26, 2002)

Gandalf becomes mightier than Saruman after his "resurrection". As the new head of the Istari(wizards),Gandalf the White casts Saruman out of their order and breaks his staff. Therefore you could say that Saruman really does lose his "magical" powers. The only (potent) weapon that he is left with is his powerful voice.


----------



## Celebthôl (Nov 26, 2002)

the Valar took his power away from him, and i believe he was stronger than Saruman ever was

Thôl


----------



## aragil (Nov 26, 2002)

Strictly speaking I don't think anyone (short of Eru) could take power away from a Maia- otherwise the Sauron 'problem' would have been simple to resolve.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 26, 2002)

Though that is correct to some extent aragil,we should keep in mind that the Istari were clothed in flesh and restricted by it and subject to weariness and hunger...Gandalf was enhanced (either by the Valar or Eru himself,and great authority was given to him. That's why I do believe that Gandalf took most of Saruman's powers away. Just look at poor Sharkey in the Shire being commanded to leave by some little critters!


----------



## pohuist (Nov 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *Strictly speaking I don't think anyone (short of Eru) could take power away from a Maia- otherwise the Sauron 'problem' would have been simple to resolve. *



Not necessarily. Valar specifically did not want to resolve Sauron problem, that's why the Istari had severe limitations in their power when first sent. Gangalf was allowed to reveal his power and in Arda he became much stronger than Saruman, allowing him to expel the latter from the order.


----------



## gate7ole (Nov 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> *That's why I do believe that Gandalf took most of Saruman's powers away. Just look at poor Sharkey in the Shire being commanded to leave by some little critters!  *


I don't think that Gandalf took any power from Saruman. Their power is not passable from one Ainu to another. Saruman's "tranformation" into Sharkley has nothing to do with Gandalf. It is the result of Saruman's rebel, his malice and the spending of his powers to subdue other people and breed his foul creatures. The loss of his powers came, thus, internally and not externally.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by gate7ole _
> *I don't think that Gandalf took any power from Saruman. Their power is not passable from one Ainu to another. Saruman's "tranformation" into Sharkley has nothing to do with Gandalf. It is the result of Saruman's rebel, his malice and the spending of his powers to subdue other people and breed his foul creatures. The loss of his powers came, thus, internally and not externally. *



This just doesn't sound right to me. Morgoth and Sauron spent THEIR powers over LONG periods of time.Saruman was "evil" for a very short period of time (compared to those two) and not that much "spending" could have occured.If Saruman's power was indeed gone because of his rebellion (like you say),then Sauron should have been left powerless a long long time ago.

When Gandalf parleys with Saruman in TTT he asks him to turn aside from the path of evil - he is mighty and could do much much good still, Saruman's POWERS could have been used but he rejected the offer... So Gandalf, who was probably instructed by Eru what to do in that case thought: "Well then Saruman - if you're not gonna do good then you won't be doing evil neither!"


----------



## Calimehtar (Nov 26, 2002)

> Saruman's "tranformation" into Sharkley



What do you mean by that? I thought Sharkey was just what the invaders of the Shire called him... just like the folk of Bree called Aragorn 'Strider'. Was 'Sharkey' more than just a nick-name? Did he like... change entirely, though I don't know what would change in him... EXPLAIN please. haha I am but a mere hobbit-child with no sense.


----------



## Celebthôl (Nov 27, 2002)

that is all it means, he was transformed into a weak version of his former self, and he was called sharky by the hobbits


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 27, 2002)

I guess this was already said, but I think that Saruman lost his actual physical powers (ie. being able to do actual acts of 'magic') when Gandalf cracked his staff. After that he could not perform magic, but the power of his voice could not be taken away. And I also disagree about the Valar having anything to do with Saruman's loss of magical power; all they did was deny his re-entry into Aman, and send him into the Void (presumably). 
And Thôl, I understand your theory about Saurman's Sharkey-transformation, but when exactly do you suggest this happened? What you're talking about is Saruman but in a less potent form; well, in that case Saruman became 'Sharkey' when Gandalf broke his staff. 
I think that Saruman 'became' Sharkey when he began to control others with the mere power of his voice, without threat of death as I'm sure he controlled his subjects before his powers were terminated.


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Nov 27, 2002)

Was Saruman really sent into the void? My guess would be that he was brought into the ring of doom and then judged to first a time of imprisonment and then to show his goodwill, a little like Melkor did. Olorín was chosen by Manwë for his wisdom and pity with all living which he had learned from Nienna. I believe that the Valar trusted most in him to fulfill his tasks and hold true to goodness. For in what was Saruman's evil? It was said and miserable and I still think that he believed himself to be changing only methods but not the objectives.

Elen

P.S: What a party there would've been in the void, Morgoth Sauron and Saruman gnawing the ropes of old intrigues.


----------



## gate7ole (Nov 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> This just doesn't sound right to me. Morgoth and Sauron spent THEIR powers over LONG periods of time.Saruman was "evil" for a very short period of time (compared to those two) and not that much "spending" could have occured.If Saruman's power was indeed gone because of his rebellion (like you say),then Sauron should have been left powerless a long long time ago.


We shouldn’t compare Sauron or Morgoth with Saruman. The former are immensely more powerful and their spirits were not easily wasted. Saruman on the other hand, had in a very compressed time to breed a new race, subdue the Dundendings and fortify Orthanc. The last months of the 3rd Age, after Gandalf’s emprisonment, Saruman’s powers were in full action and therefore wasted. His army was augmenting, but his spirit was diminshing. It is the usual “give and take” that even Morgoth coudln’t avoid in the end. That’s my explanation of the matter.


> When Gandalf parleys with Saruman in TTT he asks him to turn aside from the path of evil - he is mighty and could do much much good still, Saruman's POWERS could have been used but he rejected the offer... So Gandalf, who was probably instructed by Eru what to do in that case thought: "Well then Saruman - if you're not gonna do good then you won't be doing evil neither!"



Do you suggest that Eru himself intervented and took away Saruman’s powers? Impossible, since Eru never acted in such ways. Or do you suggest that Gandalf was given the permission to do this? Also impossible, since even the Valar didn’t have such abilities and I don’t think that Eru would give such a power to a Maia.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 27, 2002)

We hear about Saruman's greatness and importance throughout the books. He is also the chief of the Istari - the greatest of the order...and that doesn't put him that far behind Sauron IMHO.

Gandalf definitely came back with enormous authority - I don't understand how you see Gandalf breaking Saruman's staff, but I see that as the loss of power (the staff represents power). Do you think that the staff is just a toy? 

I believe that Saruman's powers weren't wasted but taken away because he refused to take the path of goodness; therefore we'll have to leave it at "we agree to disagree."


----------



## aragil (Dec 1, 2002)

Hmm- I'm liking this thread more and more. In general I agree with gate7ole, but ithrynluin has a good point about the staff. The question is this: did the Istari choose their (weakened) forms and choose to obey the ban against domination, or were they given weakened forms and so forced to have weaker powers. If the second, then perhaps they needed their staves in order to use their true powers, and without them they were old men. This would explain much of the Gandalf-Hama-Wormtongue exchange at Edoras, but I wouldn't expect Wormtongue to have too much knowledge about the true nature of the Istari (unless maybe he was eavesdropping on some Saruman-Sauron Palantiric conversations ...). In any case, if the Istari needed their Staves because their 'forms' were inherently weaker then they should have been as Maia, then GtW taking the head off of Saruman's staff was more than symbolic. However, this would disturb a lot of my understanding of the Ainur, who were able to choose their forms and exhibit their full power, provided they hadn't wasted power in the domination of others as had Sauron and Morgoth. 
It appears to me that g7o at least has read the relevant sections of Morgoth's Ring which are useful for this debate. I myself am waiting for an e-copy of the book which should allow me to post these sections- we'll see when it gets here.


----------



## gate7ole (Dec 2, 2002)

About the meaning and importance of the staff, there is no reference in any book of Tolkien that I know of (except Lotr of course). The only use of the staff is at the description of Gandalf’s arrival:


> and the last came one who seemed the least, less tall than the others, and in looks more aged, grey-haired and grey-clad, and leaning on a staff.


Does this mean anything more than it signifies the “old” look of Gandalf? I don’t think so, since there is no reference of any other staff brought by the other Istari.
My own (and possibly erroneous) interpretation of the staff is an object that gathers power and strikes. But does not contain any energy at all, it is rather a tool. Then why use a staff, instead of using nothing? About this I can only say that maybe the concentration of the power needs an object of such shape. So, I believe that the staff is nothing more than a stick. The breaking of Saruman’s staff is only symbolic and by no means does it imply that by this action Saruman is deprived of his powers. Besides this is consistent with the fact that they are Maiar and although they have been embodied, they are not so attached to materials that they lose their powers when they lose a certain object. Finally I remember that Gandalf’s staff was taken by Saruman after his imprisonment. Did he get another staff? If they are unique objects, had he brought more than one from Valinor? I doubt it.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by gate7ole _
> *The breaking of Saruman’s staff is only symbolic and by no means does it imply that by this action Saruman is deprived of his powers. *



We shall argue about this till the day we die dear gate7ole! 

It cannot be merely symbolic, Saruman would have used his powers (if he had retained them,which he hadn't)somehow to shift the situation in the Shire to his own benefit. Even if all the hobbits of the Shire poured down on him, what could they have attained against many ruffians under the leadership of a mighty Maia like Saruman? He would have made use of his "magical" powers and not simply walk away and be slain like a lowly mortal.


----------



## gate7ole (Dec 3, 2002)

Ithrynluin, I completely agree that Saruman lost his powers (judging by the events at Shire). What I cannot accept is that this happened merely by the cracking of his staff, which is fundamentally different from the abilities of the Maiar. I will try to explain, again, my point of view.
Between 10 July (Gandalf’s imprisonment) and 5 March (Saruman’s defeat), Saruman fell. It was not a sudden fall but a continuous one. I have already stated the reasons. The parley at Orthanc and the breaking of the staff was but the final step towards his ultimate diminishing and served a symbolic ending. One could argue that Saruman was still powerful during this period and couldn’t have lost all his powers in a few days. Is that so? How was Saruman powerful? I think because of his army. The first months he spread his power to subdue his servants (and consult the palantir). Afterwards, he needed only be a good general and win the battle with the Rohirrim. And I’m pretty sure that he couldn’t be able to face Gandalf long before his defeat. He had diminished, but this was not obvious because of his army that protected him (and stayed loyal to him because of the powers he had spent for this exact purpose).
Isn’t this account more possible than just the cracking of the staff? Do you still believe that a Maia can be deprived of his powers because of losing an object?

Compare this to the Chaining of Morgoth (Morgoth’s Ring)


> Melkor had already progressed some way towards becoming 'the Morgoth, a tyrant (or central tyranny and will), + his agents'. Only the total contained the old power of the complete Melkor; so that if 'the Morgoth' could be reached or temporarily separated from his agents he was much more nearly controllable and on a power-level with the Valar. The Valar find that they can deal with his agents (sc. armies, Balrogs, etc.) piecemeal. So that they come at last to Utumno itself and find that 'the Morgoth' has no longer for the moment sufficient 'force' (in any sense) to shield himself from direct personal contact. Manwe at last faces Melkor again, as he has not done since he entered Arda. Both are amazed: Manwe to perceive the decrease in Melkor as a person; Melkor to perceive this also from his own point of view: he has now less personal force than Manwe, and can no longer daunt him with his gaze.


Isn’t it almost identical? The dispersion of Morgoth’s powers, his diminishing in relation with Manwe, his no longer effective gaze.



> We shall argue about this till the day we die dear gate7ole!


True! And during the process, we will understand better the professor.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Dec 3, 2002)

I think aragil brings up a crucial point to this debate:


> The question is this: did the Istari choose their (weakened) forms and choose to obey the ban against domination, or were they given weakened forms and so forced to have weaker powers.



In UT, it is said that Manwë *commanded* Olórin to come to Middle Earth. That is why I believe they were forced to have weak powers and their powers were bound to their phsyical form - their body. All the "normal" rules that otherwise apply to Maiar are not fully applicable to the Istari IMHO. Their full power as Maiar is somehow dependant on and controllable through, their bodily forms. That is why I think that Gandalf, coming back with the authority of Eru or of Manwë (seemingly), was able to take the majority of Saruman's powers away...
The case about Morgoth that you cite does indeed make sense, but I do feel these two cases are somehow different. Unfortunately I cannot "put my finger" on this difference.


----------



## Rúmil (Dec 3, 2002)

If I may intrude into this debate  , I would like to bring unto your attention this quotation:


> 'No,' said Aragorn. 'Once he was as great as his fame made him. His knowledge was deep, his thought was subtle, and his hands marvellously skilled; and he had a power over the minds of others. The wise he could persuade, and the smaller folk he could daunt. That power he certainly still keeps. There are not many in Middle-earth that I should say were safe, if they were left alone to talk with him, even now when he has suffered a defeat. Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel, perhaps, now that his wickedness has been laid bare, but very few others.'


(Book III chap 9)

So I tend to agree with gate7ole: Saruman squandered his strength just as Morgoth did. Agreed, as Curunír in Aman he may have been about as powerful as Sauron originally was, but being clad in flesh his effective, squanderable power was much, much lesser, which explains that he fell to naught in so short a time. 

I think The Command laid on the Istari was , as the West-Summohns upon the Elves, imperative but not made under constraint: Olórin could have refused to become Gandalf. Of their free will, they accepted to fight Sauron in disguise, by moving others to act rather than by displayin power themselves; the lessening of their power was to incite them to act thus and prevent them from plotting to become Powers temselves, and to make them closer to the Children.



> 'Well, that is done,' said Gandalf. 'Now I must find Treebeard and tell him how things have gone.'
> 'He will have guessed, surely?' said Merry. 'Were they likely to end any other way?'
> 'Not likely,' answered Gandalf, 'though they came to the balance of a hair. 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 the power of Saruman was already near to zero when his staff was broken. In the Shire, it was not aided any more by the splendour of his wtower, beautiful robes, and by the hope he still sustained of saving himself by seducing Gandalf and Theoden. In the Shire, he still was able to make the hobbits quail and dare not to strike him, and his power was only less because he laked the psychological advantages he had in Isengard.

So I think the staff was a mere symbol (after all it's neater to have a great staff to wave about when you're performing your magic, not to mention the sceptre-like quality of it). Wormtongue, being foolish, thought the staff made Gandalf powerful, whereas it really is the other way around. So after Saruman nicked his in Orthanc, he just carved another out of a piece of dead wood. The breaking of the staff just showed how much more powerful Gandalf was become compared to Saruman, since Saruman coul not make a counter-staff-breaking-spell powerful engough to resist Gandalf's staff-breaking-spell. A way of both showing to Saruman his own weakness and telling the Rohirrim and the Fellowship members, through a clear symbol, that Saruman's power was ended, and that he was cast from the Council.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Dec 3, 2002)

Very well,I guess I stand corrected then (though I am not entirely persuaded by your arguements).

Just one thing though: Gandalf's reluctance to let go of his staff at Edoras must have been something more than just a desire for him to "look cool" waving it around in front of Wormtongue and Theoden whilst performing his "magic" tricks.


----------



## aragil (Dec 4, 2002)

Well it's not very fun if nobody is going to debate. I'm glad to see gate7ole got the Morgoth's Ring quote out before me- I think that passage is great. Just to throw out more quotes, here's some other stuff:


> _from UT, the Istari_
> For with the consent of Eru they (the Valar) sent members of their own high order, but clad in the bodies as of men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; ... Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and wearinesses coming from the flesh.





> _Letter 156 To Robert Murray, SJ._
> There are naturally no precise modern terms to say what he was. I wd. venture to say that he was an incarnate 'angel'– strictly an ???e???:2 that is, with the other Istari, wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon. By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.
> Why they should take such a form is bound up with the 'mythology' of the 'angelic' Powers of the world of this fable. At this point in the fabulous history the purpose was precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of 'power' on the physical plane, and so that they should do what they were primarily sent for: train, advise, instruct, arouse the hearts and minds of those threatened by Sauron to a resistance with their own strengths; and not just to do the job for them. They thus appeared as 'old' sage figures. But in this 'mythology' all the 'angelic' powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers or 'gods'. The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err.





> _Letter 181 To Michael Straight_
> His function as a 'wizard' is an angelos or messenger from the Valar or Rulers: to assist the rational creatures of Middle-earth to resist Sauron, a power too great for them unaided. But since in the view of this tale & mythology Power – when it dominates or seeks to dominate other wills and minds (except by the assent of their reason) – is evil, these 'wizards' were incarnated in the life-forms of Middle-earth, and so suffered the pains both of mind and body. They were also, for the same reason, thus involved in the peril of the incarnate: the possibility of 'fall', of sin, if you will. The chief form this would take with them would be impatience, leading to the desire to force others to their own good ends, and so inevitably at last to mere desire to make their own wills effective by any means. To this evil Saruman succumbed. Gandalf did not. But the situation became so much the worse by the fall of Saruman, that the 'good' were obliged to greater effort and sacrifice. Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power.



(Anc if you're out there I hope you see what you've unleashed on this forum)

ps- Glad to see THE Loremaster back. Hope you'll be sticking around a bit more this time, Rúmil.


----------



## gate7ole (Dec 4, 2002)

> ps- Glad to see THE Loremaster back. Hope you'll be sticking around a bit more this time, Rϊmil.


I have heard rumours about Rümil. Being relatively new at the guild, I didn’t have the chance to see him/her in action. Is he/she that good?


----------



## Walter (Dec 4, 2002)

*Sorry for being a little off topic, but...*

...I too have been puzzled about the purpose of the staff ever since I read LotR for the first time. There's this scene in "The King of the Golden Hall" where Gandalf at first refuses to leave it at the threshold:



> The guard still hesitated. 'Your staff,' he said to Gandalf. 'Forgive me, but that too must be left at the doors.'
> 'Foolishness!' said Gandalf. 'Prudence is one thing, but discourtesy is another. I am old. If I may not lean on my stick as I go, then I will sit out here, until it pleases Théoden to hobble out himself to speak with me.'
> Aragorn laughed. 'Every man has something too dear to trust to another. But would you part an old man from his support? Come, will you not let us enter?'
> 'The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age' said Háma. 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 honour, who have no evil purpose. You may go in.'


and a little later - rather impressively - makes use of it:


> Thus Gandalf softly sang, and then suddenly he changed. Casting his tattered cloak aside, he stood up and leaned no longer on his staff; and he spoke in a clear cold voice. 'The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of Gálmód. A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man till the lightning falls.' He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf could be seen, standing white and tall before the blackened hearth.
> In the gloom they heard the hiss of Wormtongue's voice: 'Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff? That fool, Háma, has betrayed us!' There was a flash as if lightning had cloven the roof. Then all was silent. Wormtongue sprawled on his face.


At some other point Tolkien declares Gandalf's name to be _Gandalf, “the Elf of the Wand”..._ because _... they deemed him (though in error, as has been said) to be of Elven-kind, since he would at times works wonders among them..._

And indeed Tolkien had found the name in the _Dvergatal_, part of the _Edda_ (together with most other names for the Dwarves in _The Hobbit_, btw.) and the meaning of _*gandr_ is indeed a "object used by sorcerers" and _*gandalfr_ could be a "wizard" or "bewitched demon" (though the _alfr_ usually rather meant "Elf", which throws up a few more, different questions)

I wonder how dependent the Istari were of their staffs and how little or much of their power was left without it. Whether it was just a token mainly for imaginative or symbolic reasons - just a matter of design or fashion for a wizard  - or more. And if a staff was broken whether it was - easily - replaceable or not (at least Gandalf is said to have brought his staff when he arrived in ME for the first time)

----
Oh and WB Rûmil  _: 'Your pardon, sir! I marked you not, for I
was listening to the birds. Indeed sir you find me in a sour
temper; for lo! here I have a black-winged rogue fat with
impudence who singeth songs before unknown to me, and in
a tongue that is strange! It irks me sir, it irks me..._


----------



## Rúmil (Dec 4, 2002)

The staff was mostly symbolic in my opinion. Gandalf's reluctance to leave it behind at Meduseld was, as he says himself, in part a normal reaction to the discourtesy of Theoden (guided by Gríma). Obviously, he also had a mind to use it for performing 'magic', but I do not think it was vital.
Gandalf was not reduced to impotence by the loss of his staff, as his escape from Orthanc and most of all his fight against the Balrog tend to prove.

So in my mind, the staff was:
a/ an important magical instrument, but dispensable
b/ a symbol of power and authority.

It was, perhaps, important for the psychological impression he wanted to make on Theoden: he looked more dignified with the staff in his hand, more like a lord with his sceptre. 

Anyway, we know it was not any sort of special artefact, since he replaced it twice in LOTR. (after Orthanc, and after Zirak-zigil)


-----

Thanks for the welcome back, everyone. I'm afraid I can't stick around much, for the moment I'm on a break from work but such good things never last long.


ps, I'm flattered about the rumours of the rumours about me.


----------

