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



## HLGStrider (Jul 23, 2005)

When Gandalf casts Saruman from the order, he makes a show first of controling him, ordering him to return, then splits Saruman's staff "asunder." When reading this I had always assumed, for some reason or other, that the splitting was mostly symbolic. It didn't occur to me to attribute any actual power to the staff. I thought at most they could be a way of concentrating the Wizard's own power (sort of a funnel or a megaphone, for lack of a better analogy). However, reading over it, it does seem that they are somehow important. 

After all, does not Hama desire to unstaff Gandalf before letting him enter? I always wondered what exactly the staff did for Gandalf that leaving it behind would have injured him so. Couldn't he have done what he did without it. He does 'raise his staff' and summon thunder, but why does this stick have so much power?

Were these sticks given to the wizards in Valinor? If so, what exactly were they? 

Could they be replaced in Middle Earth or did they need to come from over seas? 

Why do Wizards need staffs? Do they? Or are they simply scepters? Signs of office, if you will.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 23, 2005)

1) I would say so; I think that staffs primarily focus the Istari power. Perhaps the staff remains with its owner even when the owner doesn't have a physical body (like Gandalf's and Sauron's rings apparently do).

2) I think that what mostly matters in crafting a staff is not necessarily the raw materials but the knowledge and the power of its creator. A person who could surely create them, even in Middle-Earth, is Feanor (perhaps also Celebrimbor & co, but I am not as sure).

3) Gandalf was rather keen on keeping his staff when he met Theoden. I think the staff is more than symbolic.


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 23, 2005)

While I don't completely agree with any of your poll choices, I went with the second option. I think a wizard's staff is mostly symbolic, but it also serves to some extent to channel the wizard's power. I do not think that a wizard's staff has any inherent power in another person's hands, i.e. Merry or Pippin (or even Aragorn) could not use Gandalf's staff for anything other than hitting someone over the head with it. The power is in the wizard, not the staff. If Gandalf loses his staff, I believe he could just make another out of any convenient piece of wood. Yes, when Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff it is symbolic of Saruman being broken and cast out of the order of wizards, but as a consequence of that breaking and casting out; Saruman no longer has his wizardly powers and it wouldn't really matter if he had a staff or not. I think it is important to remember we are dealing with an imaginary world of magic here and things don't always have exact parallels to the real world.

As for Gandalf at Edoras, Gandalf could have handled Grima with or without his staff. The staff just made it easier.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 23, 2005)

["Wizards should give up the staffs and go with the power of Elgee's cats" If the cats are so surreptitious, how could a wizard use their power?]


> I believe he could just make another out of any convenient piece of wood


I think that, just like the ring, the staff holds a power that can be wielded by the savvy and powerful. For the rest, it is a mere stick. There has to be something special about the staff, otherwise, why didn't he use his belt/shoe/hat to channel his energy? Esspecially since having a staff is so ... un-stealthy/conspicuous.


> The staff just made it easier.


I agree; the question is _how much_ easier?


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Jul 23, 2005)

Come on people, you know it's the hight of fashion in the wizarding world! 

I can see it as a way to focus energy. If you don't know how to use it, well, it simply doesn't do any more good then a club!  *wack!*


----------



## Kristaline (Jul 23, 2005)

I think the staffs are powerful in themselves, but one as a wizard must study and learn to use it otherwise it is just a stick (but still good for skull bashing).

When it was found that Saruman was evil, then Gandalf became Gandalf the White and had the power to break Saruman's staff, therefore reducing his power. Saruman's staff may have been broken, but he was not powerless to create mischief in the Shire by using magic (in my humble opinion) and brute force , but not nearly as powerful as before.


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Jul 23, 2005)

Wasn't it something to do with his voice?  Saying that he had some power in him, but it had been 'broken' or reduced to almost nothing. Dose that say that the breaking of his staff greatly lessened his power? In a way, YES! So it is very likely that a staff was (as I have said) a way to focus and perhaps even strengthen the existing power of it's user. This seems the most probable explanation anyway.


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 23, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> There has to be something special about the staff, otherwise, why didn't he use his belt/shoe/hat to channel his energy? Esspecially since having a staff is so ... un-stealthy/conspicuous.



Staffs have been carried by wise men in stories and literature for perhaps thousands of years. Tolkien merely followed a long standing tradition familiar to his readers. He would have been laughed at if he had used Gandalf's "belt/shoe/hat"! 

Gandalf lost his staff in his confrontation with the balrog on the bridge, yet he has a staff when Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas meet him in Fangorn. Did the Valar Fed Ex him one from the Wizard's Staff Factory in the West? Did he order up a new one from Staffs R Us? Did Celeborn and Galadriel keep a supply of wizard's staffs in a storage shed in Lothlorien?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 23, 2005)

> He would have been laughed at if he had used Gandalf's "belt/shoe/hat"!


I am surprised you didn't view my statement about the "belt/shoe/hat" as a mere joke (as intended) but actually took it seriously.On a more serious note, staffs are hard to conceil, rather vulnerable and constitute a further hint that a person suspected of being a wizard _is_ actually a wizard. If Gandalf went through all the effort of carrying a staff, it must mean that the staff has something special - i.e. it's not a mere replaceable wooden stick.


> Did the Valar Fed Ex him one from the Wizard's Staff Factory in the West? Did he order up a new one from Staffs R Us? Did Celeborn and Galadriel keep a supply of wizard's staffs in a storage shed in Lothlorien?


I think you ignored my first post: "perhaps the staff remains with its owner even when the owner doesn't have a physical body (like Gandalf's and Sauron's rings apparently do)"


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 23, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> I am surprised you didn't view my statement about the "belt/shoe/hat" as a mere joke (as intended) but actually took it seriously.On a more serious note, staffs are hard to conceil, rather vulnerable and constitute a further hint that a person suspected of being a wizard _is_ actually a wizard. If Gandalf went through all the effort of carrying a staff, it must mean that the staff has something special - i.e. it's not a mere replaceable wooden stick.


Or that he wished to be identified as a wizard. Or that he merely found it convenient to lean on. I am unaware of any instance in LOTR where Gandalf attempted to hide his nature.



Thorondor said:


> I think you ignored my first post: "perhaps the staff remains with its owner even when the owner doesn't have a physical body (like Gandalf's and Sauron's rings apparently do)"


And you are ignoring the fact that Gandalf's staff was destroyed in his stand at the Bridge of Khazad-dum. Your suggestion is irrelevant. The staff no longer existed to "hypothetically" stay with Gandalf. As for Gandalf's ring there is no need to invoke the ring staying with him when he left his body. After Gandalf died in destroying the balrog he was "sent back". Even if one argues that he was not sent back to the same body (the same body is a possibility), he was sent back to the very spot where his old body had died. Gandalf had merely to pick up his ring (or remove it from his former body).


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Jul 23, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> Gandalf had merely to pick up his ring (or remove it from his former body).



 That would be a very weird experience!  I mean, walking up to your own body, thinking 'now where did I keep that?' going through your old things and walking off. But it could have been something like that... I guess...


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 23, 2005)

["Gandalf had merely to pick up his ring (or remove it from his former body)" I think that, considering his new appearence, it is most likely that he had a new body; and considering his state of mind, I am not so sure he had the inspiration to search for the ring, if the ring could be found at all that is; however, Sauron's ring remained with his master when Sauron's body was destroyed.
"I am unaware of any instance in LOTR where Gandalf attempted to hide his nature."I agree but only to a certain extent - because he did try to conceal the true nature of his staff as a mere stick (thinking of his meeting with Theoden).]
I think that the most important question we should address is: _how much_ does the staff help the wizard? What do you think?
Imo, that the staff helps him significantly, because whoever created the staff transfered a good deal of power/knowledge into it (to me, the staff is a _sort_ of a power ring).


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 23, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> ["Gandalf had merely to pick up his ring (or remove it from his former body)" I think that, considering his new appearence, it is most likely that he had a new body; and considering his state of mind, I am not so sure he had the inspiration to search for the ring, if the ring could be found at all that is; however, Sauron's ring remained with his master when Sauron's body was destroyed.
> "I am unaware of any instance in LOTR where Gandalf attempted to hide his nature."I agree but only to a certain extent - because he did try to conceal the true nature of his staff as a mere stick (thinking of his meeting with Theoden).]
> I think that the most important question we should address is: _how much_ does the staff help the wizard? What do you think?
> Imo, that the staff helps him significantly, because whoever created the staff transfered a good deal of power/knowledge into it (to me, the staff is a _sort_ of a power ring).



Gandalf's new appearance could hardly have been that different from his old (except for the color of his robes) since everyone seems to have recognized him. 

That Gandalf argued to keep his staff proves nothing about the staff's powers. It could be that he used it for support as he told Hama as well as using it to focus his own power. Are you arguing that without his staff Gandalf would have lost his confrontation with Grima? BTW, you have no gone from Gandalf hiding the fact he was a wizard to hiding alleged powers of his staff.

As I have pointed out several times now, Gandalf's staff was destroyed in Moria. The one he carries afterward must be a new one. If he did not make it himself, where did it come from? You have absolutely no evidence for a transfer of "power/knowledge" into the staff other than your own opinion. Can you cite anything from Tolkien's writings that makes a wizard's staff akin to a Ring of Power in that regard? If Tolkien wanted wizards' staffs to be akin to Rings in that way, why didn't he include something about it? Gandalf needing a new staff after Moria is the perfect opportunity.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 24, 2005)

Why do you think that Gandalf was named Staff-man (Tharkun) by the dwarves? I think they had a pretty good reason to refer to his staff, I doubt that the only thing that they understood by Tharkun is a man with a stick. I believe that for them the staff itself has a special importance. (One of Aragorn's name also refers to an object, and that object sure does deserve attention).


> Are you arguing that without his staff Gandalf would have lost his confrontation with Grima?


Grima sure does think so; he doesn't say: "you shouldn't have let Gandalf inside:", he says "Gandalf shouldn't have been left inside with his staff".


> 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.
> 'Now Théoden son of Thengel, will you hearken to me?' said Gandalf. 'Do you ask for help?' He lifted his staff and pointed to a high window. There the darkness seemed to clear, and through the opening could be seen, high and far, a patch of shining sky.


 I doubt that a mere wooden stick would have any value for Saruman. If the staffs are mere wooden sticks, then why does Gandalf request Saruman's staff, promising that it will be returned if Sarumans behaves nicely?


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


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 24, 2005)

I assume the dwarves probably called him "staff man" because, with their height, dwarf heads were such convenient targets. Thunk! Thunk! Thunk!


----------



## Ingwë (Jul 25, 2005)

I don't think that the staffs are _not_ essential but the Istari use them to concentrate their power in one thing. I suppose Gandalf lost his staff in the Battle with the Balrog but he got new. The Power is in the Istari themselves, they use the staffs to increase the use of their power while they live in the Middle earth. Has anyone heard about staffs in Valinor  ?


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 25, 2005)

Assumably (Is that a word?), Wizards did not have staffs in Valinor, nor pointy hats for that matter, because the guise of old men was one attributed to them when they reached Middle Earth.

I also think they had restrictions that went along with the body, so that they may have somewhat needed the staffs. They had to eat and sleep. They possibly had some arthiritis. . .possibly?


----------



## Kristaline (Jul 25, 2005)

Ahhh, well, we (or I) send you to ME with minor modifications that you will have to live with...needing to eat, sleep and ward off the demons of old age. BUT in compensation, we give you this mighty fine staff (good for Dwarf whacking). It will make people respect you (because people don't respect old age anymore) and it really isn't physical as it will come back with you after your reincarnation. You can use it to direct your powers and they will be "enhanced", and be not deceived and let slimy worms remove it from your presence. Though they cannot use it, you will have to find a new way to direct your energies.

Hmm...doesn't really sound like Tolkien much, but I don't really have any better ideas.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 25, 2005)

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


> But though they had brought wood and kindlings by the advice of Boromir, it passed the skill of Elf or even Dwarf to strike a flame that would hold amid the swirling wind or catch in the wet fuel. At last reluctantly Gandalf himself took a hand. Picking up a faggot he held it aloft for a moment, and then with a word of command_, naur an edraith ammen!_ he thrust the end of his staff into the midst of it. At once a great spout of green and blue flame sprang out, and the wood flared and sputtered


[And there are many instances when light springs from the staff, and that is not just light, but a powerful energy - which I doubt that mere wood can sustain.]
More about Gandalf and the staff, from the Unfinished Tales:


> 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."


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 26, 2005)

From the Siege of Gondor in ROTK when Gandalf rides out to aid Faramir's retreat:


> But now the dark swooping shadows were aware of the newcomer. One wheeled towards him; but it seemed to Pippin that he raised his hand, and from it a shaft of white light stabbed upwards. The Nazgul gave a long wailing cry and swerved away; and with that the four others wavered, and then ising in swift spirals they passed away eastward vanishing into the lowering clouds above; and down on the Pelennor it seemed for a while less dark.


So when Gandalf rides out to confront five Nazgul he shoots some sort of powerful light/energy directly from his bare hand. He doesn't even seem to have his staff with him. Are you seriously contending that he would have been powerless against Grima without his staff? Note also, his hand is not consumed by this energy, though you seem to think that a wooden staff should be consumed. We are dealing here with a wizard who has great powers within himself. His staff is nothing more than a symbol that he sometimes uses as a focus for his powers.

When Gandalf is trying to open the doors into Moria he also taps them with his staff (on his first attempt) and holds his staff aloft when he finally realizes the correct opening word, but we know that the doors will open to anyone who speaks the correct word. The staff is unnecessary, though Gandalf is waving it around (as wizards are expected to do).

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?

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?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 26, 2005)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


> I doubt that a mere wooden stick would have any value for Saruman. If the staffs are mere wooden sticks, then why does Gandalf request Saruman's staff as a _pledge_ (guarantee)?
> 
> 
> > But you will first surrender to me the Key of Orthanc, and your staff. They shall be pledges of your conduct, to be returned later, if you merit them.'


Why should Saruman strive to merit his staff back?


----------



## Inderjit S (Jul 26, 2005)

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



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



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



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



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



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



> Why should Saruman strive to merit his staff back?



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


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 26, 2005)

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


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 26, 2005)

Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


> Why should Saruman strive to merit his staff back?


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


----------



## Inderjit S (Jul 27, 2005)

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



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



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



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



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



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


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 27, 2005)

Inderjit,

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


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 27, 2005)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 27, 2005)

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


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 27, 2005)

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


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 27, 2005)

Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


> There are many magical items in M-E (like swords); in Unfinished Tales, Tolkien does make a difference between (ordinary) staffs and magical staffs, when he reffers to Gandalf's name as having the root gandr:
> "It is an actual Norse name (found applied to a Dwarf in Völuspá) used by me since it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in "magic," and might be supposed to mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff.""


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


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 28, 2005)

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


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 28, 2005)

Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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




Thorondor said:


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


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




Thorondor said:


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


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




Throrondor said:


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


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




Thorondor said:


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


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


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 28, 2005)

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



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

Why not Sauron? 

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


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 28, 2005)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Can you please rephrase that?


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


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


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


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


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 29, 2005)

Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


> Can you please rephrase that?


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



Thorondor said:


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


Would you care to provide some specifics from LOTR?



Thorondor said:


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


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


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


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


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


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 29, 2005)

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

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

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


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 29, 2005)

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


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


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


> Would you care to provide some specifics from LOTR?


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


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 30, 2005)

Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


It is nice to see we can agree on something.



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


> Gandalf can and should improve his staff.


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 30, 2005)

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


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 30, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


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


Elgee,

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


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 30, 2005)

Post edited. Evidence removed.

What are you talking about, GW?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 30, 2005)

> 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 (Jul 30, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> 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.



Thorondor said:


> 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.



Thorondor said:


> 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.



Thorondor said:


> 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".




Thorondor said:


> 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_ (Jul 31, 2005)

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 (Jul 31, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> 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?



Thorondor said:


> 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].



Thorondor said:


> 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.



Thorondor said:


> 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.



Thorondor said:


> 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_ (Aug 3, 2005)

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 (Aug 3, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> 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_ (Aug 4, 2005)

> 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 (Aug 4, 2005)

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_ (Aug 4, 2005)

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 (Aug 4, 2005)

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 (Aug 4, 2005)

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 (Aug 4, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> If this example was meant to be just a joke


Only partly.



Thorondor said:


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


No, he doesn't.



Thorondor said:


> 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_ (Aug 4, 2005)

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 (Aug 4, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> 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 (Aug 4, 2005)

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 (Aug 5, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> 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_ (Aug 5, 2005)

["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 (Aug 5, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


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


It is an opinion, as is yours.



Thorondor said:


> 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?



Thorondor said:


> 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.



Thorondor said:


> 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_ (Aug 5, 2005)

> 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)?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 5, 2005)

> What magicc does the Mouth of Sauron use?


"'I am the Mouth of Sauron.' ...and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron" Rotk, chapter 10


> The nine rings are the magic objects and the source of the magic


I think that the following quote from Silmarillion, of the rings of power and the third age, makes it pretty clear that the ring wraiths were sorcerers in and of themselves:". Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old."


> The barrow wight is certainly some sort of evil spirit, but what magic did it use?


From chapter 8, Fotr
"After a while the song [of the wight] became clearer, and with dread in his heart he perceived that it had changed into an incantation"
"A Barrow-wight had taken him, and he was probably already under the dreadful spells of the Barrow-wights about which whispered tales spoke"


> The two watchers at Cirith Ungol are stone statues and thus count as magic objects, presumably created by Sauron


I think that they count as beings:
They seemed to be carved out of huge blocks of stone, immovable, and yet they were aware: some dreadful spirit of evil vigilance abode in them. They knew an enemy. Visible or invisible none could pass unheeded. They would forbid his entry, or his escape. Rotk, chapter 1


> There is no evidence that Denethor can "read" minds


"He is not as other men of this time, Pippin, and whatever be his descent from father to son, by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son, Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir whom he loved best. He has long sight. He can perceive, if he bends his will thither, much of what is passing in the minds of men, even of those that dwell far off. It is difficult to deceive him, and dangerous to try." Rotk, chapter 1
Also, Faramir can do this too:
"There are locked doors and closed windows in your mind, and dark rooms behind them,' said Faramir. `But in this I judge that you speak the truth. " TTT, chapter 6


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


"Yes,' said Gandalf, 'these doors are probably governed by words. Some dwarf-gates will open only at special times, or for particular persons; and some have locks and keys that are still needed when all necessary times and words are known. These doors have no key. In the days of Durin they were not secret. They usually stood open and doorwards sat here. But if they were shut, anyone who knew the opening word could speak it and pass in. At least so it is recorded, is it not, Gimli? "

I am not sure if we should continue discussing about related aspects of magic in this thread though.. perhaps you can propose a better thread for this.


----------



## Inderjit S (Aug 5, 2005)

> 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."



I am sorry but your claim has no grounds-Gandalf is not a "Elvish wight", why would he "use that particular word" when it meant "Elvish wight" (with magic staff) when any such description was a mannish fallacy-you cannot merely reject one aspect of the etymology then suddenly claim the other one is valid because Tolkien used "that particular word" for a reason, ignoring the fact that the other half of the name is an obvious fallacy which Tolkien himself would not use to describe Gandalf, but Men (who gave him the name) would use, not knowing who or what Gandalf was, and thinking he was some kind of conjurer whose power lay in his staff. (Or that he was a powerful Elf.) 



> I think that the following quote from Silmarillion, of the rings of power and the third age, makes it pretty clear that the ring wraiths were sorcerers in and of themselves:". Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old."



Er..don't see how that supports your argument-the quote says "Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old", implying that they were able to become mighty kings etc. *after* they gained the rings. The rings of course were "shaped" to match the desires of each ringbearer-so some may have become great warriors with their ring and some great sorcerors with their ring-just as the Dwarvish rings brang about Dwarvish greed, the Mannish rings brang about Mannish greed. 



> They seemed to be carved out of huge blocks of stone, immovable, and yet they were aware: some dreadful spirit of evil vigilance abode in them. They knew an enemy. Visible or invisible none could pass unheeded. They would forbid his entry, or his escape. Rotk, chapter 1



Do you think they are similair to the statues of the Druedain?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 5, 2005)

> ignoring the fact that the other half of the name is an obvious fallacy which Tolkien himself would not use to describe Gandalf


I disagree; the following quote is from Letter 211:
"Manwe, husband of Varda; or in grey-elven Manwe and Elbereth. Since the Valar had no language of their own, not needing one, they had no 'true' names, only identities, and their names were conferred on them by the Elves, being in origin therefore all, as it were, 'nicknames', referring to some striking peculiarity, function, or deed. (The same is true of the 'Istari' or Wizards who were emissaries of the Valar, and of their kind.) "


> Er..don't see how that supports your argument


My (initial) point was that they too wielded magic, besides the elves and the wizards.


> Do you think they are similair to the statues of the Druedain?


Hm.. if I remember correctly, the Druedain are described as wild and wary as the beasts.. so I wouldn't make that comparison with them...


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 6, 2005)

About the "wight" part, its orgininal, archaic meaning is "living creature", coming from the german wicht; in scandinavian folklore, vetter reffers to elves.
There is an interesting passage in Humphrey Carpenter's biography:
"Before setting off on the return journey to England, Tolkien bought some picture postcards. Among them was a reproduction of a painting by a German artist, J. Madelener . It is called Der Berggeist, the mountain spirit, and it shows an old man sitting on a rock under a pine tree. He has a white beard and wears a wide-brimmed round hat and a long cloak. He is talking to a white fawn that is nuzzling his upturned hands, and he has a humorous but compassionate expression; there is a glimpse of rocky mountains in the distance. Tolkien preserved this postcard carefully, and long afterwards he wrote on the paper cover in which he kept it: 'Origin of Gandalf'."
http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/pix3/der_berggeist.jpg


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 6, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> 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
> ...


The quote is about the name Gandalf. It is not about the nature of wizard's staffs, as I have pointed out every time you have brought it up. Please carefully read the first part of the quote. Tolkien says he chose the name Gandalf because "it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in "magic". The staff is *used* in magic; I believe we all agree wizards sometimes *use* their staffs when performing magic. It does not say that the staff itself is magical. Further, as Inderjit has already correctly pointed out, if the second part of your quote is taken literally, as you wish to interpret it, than Gandalf is an "elvish wight"; which he clearly is *not*. You cannot selectively choose which part of Tolkien's words you are going to interpret literally and which parts you are not. In any event, it is absurd when dealing with the meaning of names to argue that the meanings are to be taken in a literal way. In letter 211 Tolkien discusses the meaning of some elvish names. In relation to Elrond and Elros he says "rondo was a primitive elvish word for cavern". Your style of interpretation would force us to believe that Elrond and Elros were big caves, or somehow had big holes in them. In the same passage Tolkien says Elwing means "elf-foam". Under your literal style of interpretation are we to take this to mean that Tolkien meant this character was made of foam? Perhaps they were rabid and were foaming at the mouth? In the same letter Tolkein says: "Legolas means 'green-leaves' ". This does not mean that we are to picture Legolas as dressed in green leaves or carrying green leaves around with him.

So in answer to your final question, Gandalf's name is meant to allude to the fact that he is a wizard who carries a staff and that he uses that staff in the performance of his magic. It says nothing about the actual nature of the staff.


----------



## Eledhwen (Aug 6, 2005)

Wizards don't need cats because they haven't got broomsticks.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 6, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> "'I am the Mouth of Sauron.' ...and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron" Rotk, chapter 10


Whatever magic the Mouth of Sauron may be capable of performing (and we never see him perform any) is derived from his master Sauron, a Maia. He, a human, has no magic powers of his own.



Thorondor said:


> I think that the following quote from Silmarillion, of the rings of power and the third age, makes it pretty clear that the ring wraiths were sorcerers in and of themselves:". Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old."


Inderjit has already dealt with this. The "magic" powers wielded by the possessors of the rings are derived from the rings and the rings' powers are derived from Sauron and the elves.



Thorondor said:


> From chapter 8, Fotr
> "After a while the song [of the wight] became clearer, ......"
> "A Barrow-wight had taken him, and he was probably already under the dreadful spells of the Barrow-wights about which whispered tales spoke"
> .
> ...


I concede the point that barrow-wights probably could use magic, but they are not living creatures like men or dwarves. When you gave the archaic definition of wight you ignored another archaic definition: "a supernatural being, as a sprite" [from Randon House Webster's Dictionary]. So wights are supernatural beings.



Thorondor said:


> I think that they count as beings:


And how does an immovable block of stone count as a "being" rather than an object?



Thorondor said:


> "He is not as other men of this time, Pippin, ....... He has long sight. He can perceive, if he bends his will thither, much of what is passing in the minds of men, even of those that dwell far off. It is difficult to deceive him, and dangerous to try." Rotk, chapter 1
> Also, Faramir can do this too: "There are locked doors and closed windows in your mind, and dark rooms behind them,' said Faramir. `But in this I judge that you speak the truth. " TTT, chapter 6


Neither of these two passages can be taken to mean Denethor and Faramir had some magical ability to read minds, as opposed to a non-magical ability to assess people's characters and tell when someone is lying to them or hiding the truth. We learn later in LOTR what Denethor's "long sight" is based on; it is based on a palantir. In our every day lives when we use expressions such as "I know what you are thinking" or "I know what's on your mind" we do not mean we are employing some magical, telepathic ability. You are unjustifiably imposing a literal "mind-reading" ability interpretation on these passages.



Thorondor said:


> "Yes,' said Gandalf, 'these doors are probably governed by words. Some dwarf-gates will open only at special times, ...................


Dwarf-gates do indeed seem to involve some magical component, so you have a point here. But this "magic" again seems to be pretty confined and we do not know the source of it.



Thorondor said:


> I am not sure if we should continue discussing about related aspects of magic in this thread though.. perhaps you can propose a better thread for this.


Differences in magic, and other things, between The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion might indeed make for an interesting thread, but I see no reason why we cannot discuss magic here since it clearly is relevant to the question of the nature of wizards' staffs. However, this post is already quite long. My next post will continue to discuss magic in LOTR.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 6, 2005)

> When you gave the archaic definition of wight you ignored another archaic definition: "a supernatural being, as a sprite" [from Randon House Webster's Dictionary]. So wights are supernatural beings.


My last post concerned only Gandalf, not the barrow wights. I wanted to address Inderjit's statement that "Tolkien himself would not use to describe Gandalf".


> if the second part of your quote is taken literally, as you wish to interpret it, than Gandalf is an "elvish wight"; which he clearly is *not*.


You are ignoring the quote from 211, where it is stated clearly that the wizards have nicknames given to them. As the quote from UT about his name further goes :
"Gandalf was not an Elf, but would be by Men associated with them, since his alliance and friendship with Elves was well-known. Since the name is attributed to "the North" in general, Gandalf must be supposed to represent a Westron name but one made up of elements not derived from Elvish tongues"
And, anyway, there are much more resemblances between an istar and an elf than between an istar and any other incarnate creature.


> In relation to Elrond and Elros he says "rondo was a primitive elvish word for cavern". Your style of interpretation would force us to believe that Elrond and Elros were big caves, or somehow had big holes in them. In the same passage Tolkien says Elwing means "elf-foam". Under your literal style of interpretation are we to take this to mean that Tolkien meant this character was made of foam? Perhaps they were rabid and were foaming at the mouth? In the same letter Tolkein says: "Legolas means 'green-leaves' ". This does not mean that we are to picture Legolas as dressed in green leaves or carrying green leaves around with him.


False analogy; the quote I gave from letter 211 doesn't reffer to how the names are given to other beings, only to how the names are given to the valar and the istari.


> So in answer to your final question, Gandalf's name is meant to allude to the fact that he is a wizard who carries a staff and that he uses that staff in the performance of his magic. It says nothing about the actual nature of the staff.


I don't see how why we should ignore the magical adjective, even if it is in paranthesis - a magic staff (and not a mere wooden stick) would best fit a most magic being, in a magic world, fighting a foe which is most known for his magic power - either of his own, of his objects or of his servants.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 6, 2005)

In Tolkien's letters, number 155 deals with "magic" in LOTR. Not all of it is directly relevant to this discussion, but it is all of interest so I am going to quote it in its entirety:


> I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and others show by the criticism of the 'mortal' use of the word, that the thought about it is not altogether casual. But it is a v. large question, and difficult; and a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely abiut motives (choice, temptations etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world, could hardly be burdened with a pseudo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is a latent distinction between _magia_ and _goeteia_ [NOTE: _goeteia_ is derived from Greek. Goety is defined in the O.E.D. as 'witchcraft or magic performed by the invocation and employment of evil spirits; necromancy.'] Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy'. Well enough, but _magia_ could be, was, held good (per se), and _goeteia_ bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is especially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his _magia_ he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his _goeteia_ to terrify and subjugate. Their _magia_ the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a _magia_, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely _artistic_ and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life'.
> 
> Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' -- with destructive and evil effects -- because 'magicians', who have become chiefly concerned to use _magia_ for their own power, would do so (do do so). The basic motive for _magia_ -- quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work -- is immediacy: speed, eduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect. But the _magia_ may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological one; the tyrants lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills; but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them.
> 
> ...


There are a couple of important things to note in this letter relevant to our immedate discussion. First, the only kinds of people he has performing "magic" (either '_magia_' or '_goeteia_') is Sauron and Gandalf (both Maia) and elves. Importantly for our discussion, Tolkien says (last paragraph) that magic is an "inherent power" -- you cannot learn "magic". Thus, the Nazgul, who are men, do not have any "magic" of their own -- their powers must be derived from their rings and the rings' powers are derived from Sauron and the elves who made the rings. Thus, also the Mouth of Sauron cannot have any "magic" powers of his own -- any power he has must be derived from Sauron. We see, also in the last paragraph, that even the one "power" that Aragorn exhibits that could be termed "magical" is derived from his elve ancestry. I admit nothing in this letter directly addresses dwarves, but it does quite clearly discuss the limitations that Tolkien intended on magic *in LOTR*. I suggest that to extend magic powers to the dwarves, a "mortal" race like men and hobbits, would be to greatly distort Tolkien's intent.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 6, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> You are ignoring the quote from 211, where it is stated clearly that the wizards have nicknames given to them. As the quote from UT about his name further goes :


What you continue to ignore, and thereby are confusing the discussion, is that in the passsage you cite from Unfinished Tales Tolkien is speaking as the author describing why *HE* chose the name Gandalf which he found in old Norse writings. This is outside the world of LOTR. That wizards have nicknames given to them is a property internal to the world of LOTR. You cannot combine them. 



Thorondor said:


> False analogy; the quote I gave from letter 211 doesn't reffer to how the names are given to other beings, only to how the names are given to the valar and the istari.


My analogy is perfectly valid and had nothing to do with your quotation from letter 211. Additionally, the two passages quoted are unrelated except for the fact that they occur in the same letter. Letter 211 is a series of answers by Tolkien to a series of questions from one of his editors. The passage I quoted is from Tolkien's answer to question #4: Explain the meaning of El- in Elrond, Elladan, Elrohir; when does El- mean 'elf' and when 'star'? Explain the meaning of the name Legolas. The passage you quote is from Tolkien's answer to question #5: Who is the Elder King mentioned by Bilbo in his song of Earendil? Is he the One?



Thorondor said:


> - a magic staff (and not a mere wooden stick) would best fit a most magic being, in a magic world, fighting a foe which is most known for his magic power - either of his own, of his objects or of his servants.


The magic is derived from Gandalf, it doesn't matter that it is a "mere wooden stick". Your insistence on turning the staff into a "magic" objectg with powers of its own is purely your own personal preference. You have yet to provide any support from Tolkien for that preference. The closest you have been able to come is a single reference to Gandalf's "magic staff" in The Hobbit. However, your own quotes show that "magic" in The Hobbit is handled differently in The Hobbit than in LOTR. In The Hobbit the "magic" is much more childlike as befits the children's book it is.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 6, 2005)

> that in the passsage you cite from Unfinished Tales Tolkien is speaking as the author describing why HE chose the name Gandalf which he found in old Norse writings. This is outside the world of LOTR. That wizards have nicknames given to them is a property internal to the world of LOTR. You cannot combine them.


I don't see the problem; isn't the author who, directly or not, actually gives names to the characters?
I think we should give the names their proper importance "to me a name comes first and the story follows" (letter 165).


> My analogy is perfectly valid and had nothing to do with your quotation from letter 211


I disagree, since you invoke elvish names, which don't have to reffer to a "striking peculiarity, function, or deed", as the names of the valar and istari do.


> The closest you have been able to come is a single reference to Gandalf's "magic staff" in The Hobbit. However, your own quotes show that "magic" in The Hobbit is handled differently in The Hobbit than in LOTR. In The Hobbit the "magic" is much more childlike as befits the children's book it is.


In Tolkien's work and in our discussion there are two refferences to the magic of the staff and no refference at all to the fact that there are no magical staffs. I know of nothing in Tolkien's work which belittles the importance of magic in the Hobbit; Lotr is actually a sequel to he Hobbit, and Tolkien tried as much as he could to make it to naturally fit.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 6, 2005)

> Whatever magic the Mouth of Sauron may be capable of performing (and we never see him perform any) is derived from his master Sauron, a Maia. He, a human, has no magic powers of his own.


I don't think he is a "pure" human, considering his numenorean ascendence.


> And how does an immovable block of stone count as a "being" rather than an object?


How could a mere stone know an enemy? Or forbid his entry or escape? 


> You are unjustifiably imposing a literal "mind-reading" ability interpretation on these passages


It's not unjustifiable; the magic of the palantir can be used for thought communication.


> I suggest that to extend magic powers to the dwarves, a "mortal" race like men and hobbits, would be to greatly distort Tolkien's intent.


Well, the last part of the quote reffers strictly to Men. Hm, there isn't any instance that I can think of when ("pure") Men wield magic (either spells or magical objects); the steward who uses the palantir has numenorean ascendence and we don't know exactly what the hobbits are. To me, the dwarves are quite distinct from the Men also, considering their creation and their role in the final music, so I think that they are exempt from this quote too; they made the magic gates by themselves, and they could not "learn" magic, which means that they have "inner" magic.
This forum is indeed a great opportunity to better understand Tolkien's work.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 7, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> I don't see the problem; isn't the author who, directly or not, actually gives names to the characters?


The problem is the difference between the author, *as the author in the real world*, explaining why he chose a real world word from Norse, a real world language, as opposed to the author explaining the usages of his imaginary languages by his imaginary characters in his imaginary world. You are mixing the two together.



Thorondor said:


> I think we should give the names their proper importance "to me a name comes first and the story follows" (letter 165).


The original context of the passage you quote from letter 165 makes it clear that Tolkien was talking about the fact that he invented his languages first and then invented a mythological world for those languages, and the invention of those languages as they related to his professional life.:


> The authorities of the university might well consider it an aberration of an elderly professor of philology to write and publish fairy stories and romances, and call it a 'hobby', pardonable because it has been (surprisingly to me as much as to anyone) successful. But it is not a 'hobby', in the sense of something quite different from one's work, taken up as a relief-outlet. The invention of languages is the foundation. The 'stories' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. To me a name comes first and the story follows. I should have preferred to write in 'Elvish'. But, of course, such a work as The Lord of the Rings has been edited and only as much 'language' has been left in as I thought would be stomached by readers. (I now find that many would have liked more.) But there is a great deal of linguistic matter (other than actuallt 'elvish' names and words) included or mythologically expressed in the book. It is to me, anyway, largely an essay in 'linguistic aesthetic', as I sometimes say to people who ask me 'what is it all about?'


If you continue to take isolated passages out of context and give them meanings they did not have in the original I will consider it a waste of my time to discuss Tolkien with you. 



Thorondor said:


> I disagree, since you invoke elvish names, which don't have to reffer to a "striking peculiarity, function, or deed", as the names of the valar and istari do.


That they are elvish names is besides the point. Even under your interpretation your assertion is meaningless since Gandalf is not his true name.



Thorondor said:


> In Tolkien's work and in our discussion there are two refferences to the magic of the staff and no refference at all to the fact that there are no magical staffs. I know of nothing in Tolkien's work which belittles the importance of magic in the Hobbit; Lotr is actually a sequel to he Hobbit, and Tolkien tried as much as he could to make it to naturally fit.


The only time Gandalf's staff is called a magic staff, so far found, is in The Hobbit. We are all aware that LOTR is a sequel to The Hobbit, and while Tolkien did his best to reconcile the two, the fit is far from perfect.



Thorondor said:


> I don't think he is a "pure" human, considering his numenorean ascendence.


What does that mean? The Numenoreans are humans! Only the descendents of Elros have an elvish strain in them.



Thorondor said:


> How could a mere stone know an enemy? Or forbid his entry or escape?


They are not "mere stones". They are magical objects, presumably created by Sauron to help guard his realm.



Thorondor said:


> It's not unjustifiable; the magic of the palantir can be used for thought communication.


But it is the 'magic' *of the palantir, not the user* and the palantiri are clearly elvish in origin, perhaps made by Feanor himself, the greatest of all elven craftsmen. It has nothing to do with any 'magic' powers of Denethor. Pippin also used a palantir amd he is not Numenorean and certainly Tolkien did not intend hobbits to have magical powers. You continue to distort Tolkien's work out of all recognition to suit your own interpretations. As for Faramir, he certainly wasn't using any palantir in his interogation of Gollum.



Thorondor said:


> Well, the last part of the quote reffers strictly to Men. Hm, there isn't any instance that I can think of when ("pure") Men wield magic (either spells or magical objects); the steward who uses the palantir has numenorean ascendence and we don't know exactly what the hobbits are.


There isn't any instance where men wield magic of their own period! Tolkien's letter 155 that I quote above makes it quite clear that was intentional on Tolkien's part. "Numenorean ascendence", whatever you mean by that is irrelevant. Numenoreans are men. The palantir is a magical object created by very powerful elves, not men, and it requires no inate magic of one's own to use it. 



Thorondor said:


> To me, the dwarves are quite distinct from the Men also, considering their creation and their role in the final music, so I think that they are exempt from this quote too; they made the magic gates by themselves, and they could not "learn" magic, which means that they have "inner" magic.


Yes, dwarves are quite distinct from men, but they are still mortals -- not maia or elves who as letter 155 makes clear are the ones in LOTR with inate magic powers.



Thorondor said:


> This forum is indeed a great opportunity to better understand Tolkien's work.


Only if one sticks with Tolkien and resists grafting one's personal interpretations on his work as if they were Tolkien's.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 7, 2005)

I decided I should keep my initial reaction of indignation to my own self and continue this discussion at the calmest possible level.
"Only if one sticks with Tolkien and resists grafting one's personal interpretations on his work as if they were Tolkien's.
You continue to distort Tolkien's work out of all recognition to suit your own interpretations"
May I point out that so far, you have only tried to discredit his refferences to the magic staff, even if he never ruled out the relevance of his refferences? You are playing down his own affirmations when he doesn't do so in any manner, anywhere.
"The problem is the difference between the author, *as the author in the real world*, explaining why he chose a real world word from Norse, a real world language, as opposed to the author explaining the usages of his imaginary languages by his imaginary characters in his imaginary world. You are mixing the two together."
Consider the following quote from letter 144:
"Languages, however, that were related to the Westron presented a special problem. I turned them into forms of speech related to English. Since the Rohirrim are represented as recent comers out of the North, and users of an archaic Mannish language relatively untouched by the influence of Eldarin, I have turned their names into forms like (but not identical with) Old English. The language of Dale and the Long Lake would, if it appeared, be represented as more or less Scandinavian in character; but it is only represented by a few names, especially those of the Dwarves that came from that region. These are all Old Norse Dwarf-names."
Gandalf's name is also scandinavian in origin. I believe that this quote makes a clear link to the real world names. Furthermore, in his foreword to Home 6:
"I don't much approve of The Hobbit myself, preferring my own mythology (which is just touched on) with its consistent nomenclature - Elrond, Gondolin, and Esgaroth have escaped out of it - and organized history, to this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Voluspa, newfangled hobbits and gollums (invented in an idle hour) and Anglo -Saxon runes"
"The original context of the passage you quote from letter 165 makes it clear that Tolkien was talking about the fact that he invented his languages first and then invented a mythological world for those languages, and the invention of those languages as they related to his professional life"
Am I correct in saying that you rule out the fact that personal names, which are also a part of his languages (and, as we see above, he incorporated scandinavian names into his world) can appear first into his mind, and afterwards a storry follows? If so, is this ruling out supported by anything Tolkien said?
"That they are elvish names is besides the point."
I disagree (emphasis added):since the Valar had no language of their own, not needing one, _they had no 'true' names_, only identities, and their names were conferred on them by the Elves, being in origin therefore all, as it were, '_nicknames_', referring to some striking peculiarity, function, or deed. _(The same is true of the 'Istari)_. Unlike the valar/istari, the elves have "true" names.
"Even under your interpretation your assertion is meaningless since Gandalf is not his true name."
If you mean that his "true" name is Olorin, then you are wrong, since a maia is not the same thing as an istar.
"The only time Gandalf's staff is called a magic staff, so far found, is in The Hobbit. We are all aware that LOTR is a sequel to The Hobbit, and while Tolkien did his best to make to reconcile the two, the fit is far from perfect"
An imperfection which is no ground to rule out the magic of the staff, unless Tolkien does so, but he doesn't.
"What does that mean? The Numenoreans are humans! Only the descendents of Elros have an elvish strain in them."
But if the Mouth of Sauron is a sorcerer (i.e. user of magic), then he is not a human, so either he has elven ascendence or, like the wringwraiths, his human condition is changed by Sauron.
"They are not "mere stones". They are magical objects, presumably created by Sauron to help guard his realm"
I think that "a dreadful spirit of evil vigilance abode in them" can be interpreted as them being creatures and not magical objects.
"Tolkien did not intend hobbits to have magical powers"
I disagree; Frodo uses Elbereth's name with good use, but that cannot come from the name itself.
"It has nothing to do with any 'magic' powers of Denethor...The palantir is a magical object created by very powerful elves, not men, and it requires no inate magic of one's own to use it"
Tolkien makes it pretty clear humans can't use magic at all. If Denethor can use magic, then he is not a human.
"Yes, dwarves are quite distinct from men, but they are still mortals -- not maia or elves who as letter 155 makes clear are the ones in LOTR with inate magic powers"
The letter excludes only humans (not mortals) from the use of magic.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 7, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> May I point out that so far, you have only tried to discredit his refferences to the magic staff, even if he never ruled out the relevance of his refferences? You are playing down his own affirmations when he doesn't do so in any manner, anywhere.


What I have been discrediting is your use of the quotes from Tolkien. Tolkien has not "affirmed" your interpretations. He is long gone and cannot be asked to "affirm" anyone's views. The best that can be done is to see whether there are any writings of Tolkien's that directly deal with the question. If there are not, then we are forced to look for indirect indications. When using such indirect, or circumstantial, evidence it is necessary to show that this is a valid/reasonable interpretation of what Tolkien wrote. In the case of your quote from UT, Inderjit has pointed out that you are selectively taking only a single part of the quote and giving that part a literal interpretation and ignoring the fact that the other part of the very same quote is not interpretable in a literal way. Given that a literal interpretation i impossible for the first part of the quote, a literal interpretation becomes impossible for the second part. I have pointed out that the context of the quote is of Tolkien, *the author*, explaining his choice of the name Gandalf. You have attempted to combine this type of discussion of Tolkien's, which is external to the books, with Tolkien comments that are meant to be internal to the books. This is invalid and a twisting of meanings. You continue to pursue the same kind of invalid and misleading argument by citing other writings of Tolkien's which once again mix the internal and the external workings of the author.



Thorondor said:


> Furthermore, in his foreword to Home 6:


A minor point, but it is indicative of your continued mixing and confusion of sources: Tolkien did not write the Foreward to HOME 6. His son Christopher did. The quote you give is indeed by Tolkien, but it is from a letter Cristopher is quoting. The letter does point out the fact that The Hobbit and the rest of the mythology are not wholly congruent in Tolkien's view; a point which you seem to wish to ignore.



Thorondor said:


> Am I correct in saying that you rule out the fact that personal names, which are also a part of his languages (and, as we see above, he incorporated scandinavian names into his world) can appear first into his mind, and afterwards a storry follows? If so, is this ruling out supported by anything Tolkien said?


I pointed out that the quotation you misused, did not mean in its original context, what you tried to make it mean. I am under no obligation to provide quotes from Tolkien to disprove things he never said.



Thorondor said:


> An imperfection which is no ground to rule out the magic of the staff, unless Tolkien does so, but he doesn't.


The imperfection of the fit between The Hobbit and LOTR does mean that things and ideas found in The Hobbit are not automatically transferrable to LOTR. This does not rule out transferring things and ideas from one to the other, but it means when there are evident differences between the treatment of things and ideas in the two books, these differences have to be respected. The use of magic in the two books is a case of one of these differences and probably would make an interesting thread in its own right.



Thorondor said:


> But if the Mouth of Sauron is a sorcerer (i.e. user of magic), then he is not a human, so either he has elven ascendence or, like the wringwraiths, his human condition is changed by Sauron.


You ignore the obvious alternative that any "magic" the Mouth of Sauron may use, *and we never see him use any*, is Sauron's "magic" -- it is not derived from the Mouth of Sauron. You are also, again, violating Tolkien's clear intentions by giving Sauron the ability to change the very nature of a rational, sentient being in Middle Earth. 



Thorondor said:


> I think that "a dreadful spirit of evil vigilance abode in them" can be interpreted as them being creatures and not magical objects.


You are again giving Sauron powers beyond his means. Once again, your interpretation violates Tolkien's view of his creation; considering the Watchers magical objects infused with magical abilities by Sauron does not.



Thorondor said:


> I disagree; Frodo uses Elbereth's name with good use, but that cannot come from the name itself.


Of course it comes from the name itself!!!! As Aragorn says in Flight to the Ford in FOTR: "More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."



Thorondor said:


> Tolkien makes it pretty clear humans can't use magic at all. If Denethor can use magic, then he is not a human.


Tolkien makes it clear humans have no innate magic of their own. This is a completely different thing than using a magic object that has magical abilities that were built into it by beings that do have innate magical abilities. Your statement about Denethor is illogical.



Thorondor said:


> The letter excludes only humans (not mortals) from the use of magic.


The letter is pretty clear as to who has innate "magic" abilities -- maia and elves -- and that humans do not; excluding all mortals is a reasonable inference.

BTW Tolkien states specifically in two different letters that hobbits are a "branch" of the human race: 1) In a footnote in Letter 131: "The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically _human_ race ... " 2) In letter 319 in explaining how hobbits were his own creation and not derived from similarly spelled words for "house sprites", Tolkien writes: "my 'hobbits' were in any case of wholly dissimilar sorrt, a diminutive branch of the human race." Thus, since humans are excluded from having any innate magical abilities, hobbits are likewise excluded from having innate magical abilities.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 7, 2005)

> You have attempted to combine this type of discussion of Tolkien's, which is external to the books, with Tolkien comments that are meant to be internal to the books.


I disagree;
- in that same paragraph he immediately makes refference to the the Men of ME, so this is not an "external" discussion (or, at least, there is no incongruence (in this case) between "external" and "internal" refferences); 
- what does he rule out in that same paragraph? only the fact that Gandalf is not actually an elf (even if an elf is the closest possible being to an istar); he _does not_ rule out the refference to the magic staff.


> I pointed out that the quotation you misused, did not mean in its original context, what you tried to make it mean.


Tolkien states that "to me a name comes first and the story follows"; how come my observation that we should give names their proper importance is at odds with Tolkien's statement?


> The use of magic in the two books is a case of one of these differences and probably would make an interesting thread in its own right.


Well, let's have it then Magic in Lotr and the Hobbit


> You ignore the obvious alternative that any "magic" the Mouth of Sauron may use, *and we never see him use any*, is Sauron's "magic" -- it is not derived from the Mouth of Sauron. You are also, again, violating Tolkien's clear intentions by giving Sauron the ability to change the very nature of a rational, sentient being in Middle Earth.


I don't see why you bolded that part of your sentence, Tolkien reffers clearly to his "great sorcery". Anyone who uses magic is not a human. If the Mouth of Sauron and the ringwraiths can use magic, it means that either they have elven ascendence (which is not true, at least for the wraiths) either their condition is changed by Sauron's power - otherwise, as simple humans, they can't use power. 


> Of course it comes from the name itself!!!! As Aragorn says in Flight to the Ford in FOTR: "More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."


But "lore" or spells can't be, of themselves, sources of magic power; the fact that Frodo hurted the nazgul through mere words means he has magical power.


> Tolkien makes it clear humans have no innate magic of their own. This is a completely different thing than using a magic object that has magical abilities that were built into it by beings that do have innate magical abilities.


I think we could continue discussing about this particular idea in Humans and the use of magical artefacts


> The letter is pretty clear as to who has innate "magic" abilities -- maia and elves -- and that humans do not; excluding all mortals is a reasonable inference.


First of all, the letter doesn't reffer to maia and elves, but to Gandalf and elves. You take that paragraph to mean that _only_ maia and elves have magic but you forget about the valar. Furthermore, of the mortal races, the dwarves have magic power.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 7, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> I disagree;
> - in that same paragraph he immediately makes refference to the the Men of ME, so this is not an "external" discussion (or, at least, there is no incongruence (in this case) between "external" and "internal" refferences);
> - what does he rule out in that same paragraph? only the fact that Gandalf is not actually an elf (even if an elf is the closest possible being to an istar); he _does not_ rule out the refference to the magic staff.


If we are going to take the passage "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff" as literal proof that Gandalf's staff is "magical" then we must take it as proof that Gandalf is an "elvish wight". However, we know that Gandalf is not an "elvish wight", therefore that proves we cannot take the passage as literal proof of anything. The fact that men mistakenly believe Gandalf to be elvish merely shows that a belief in his staff being "magic" could be equally mistaken.



Thorondor said:


> Tolkien states that "to me a name comes first and the story follows"; how come my observation that we should give names their proper importance is at odds with Tolkien's statement?


Because you have taken the passage out of context. In its correct context, it is clear that Tolkien was talking about languages, not specifically names, as you are trying to twist it to mean.



Thorondor said:


> I don't see why you bolded that part of your sentence, Tolkien reffers clearly to his "great sorcery". Anyone who uses magic is not a human. If the Mouth of Sauron and the ringwraiths can use magic, it means that either they have elven ascendence (which is not true, at least for the wraiths) either their condition is changed by Sauron's power - otherwise, as simple humans, they can't use power.


Any magic used by either the Ringwraiths or the Mouth of Sauron is clearly derived from Sauron, it is not theirs. It does not come from any power of their own. Please provide proof from Tolkien that Sauron has the power to change any living being in Middle Earth into another kind of being. In letter 153 where Tolkien agrees with a letter writer that evil is not capable of creation, Tolkien quotes Frodo speaking to Sam: "The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to the Orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them." Tolkien is here specifically talking of the origin of orcs, but if Melkor did not have the ability to create new living things, then certainly Sauron, who was merely a servant of Melkor does not have that kind of power. Thus the Watchers cannot be beings, as opposed to magic objects infused with Sauron's magic, and the Ringwraiths and the Mouth of Sauron cannot have been changed from being humans. (I still have no idea what you mean by "elven ascendence".) 



Thorondor said:


> But "lore" or spells can't be, of themselves, sources of magic power; the fact that Frodo hurted the nazgul through mere words means he has magical power.


Frodo has no "magical power"! Frodo did not "hurt" the Nazgul in any way! The Nazgul feared the very name of Elbereth.



Thorondor said:


> First of all, the letter doesn't reffer to maia and elves, but to Gandalf and elves. You take that paragraph to mean that _only_ maia and elves have magic but you forget about the valar.


What is your point? The maiar were merely lesser valar, but were the same kinds of beings. From The Silmarillion, in chapter 1, in the section "Of the Maiar":


> With the Valar came other spirits whose being also began before the World, of the same order as the Valar but of less degree. These are the Maiar, the people of the Valar, and their servants and helpers.





Thorondor said:


> Furthermore, of the mortal races, the dwarves have magic power.


According to you. Saying it does not make it so.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 7, 2005)

> The fact that men mistakenly believe Gandalf to be elvish merely shows that a belief in his staff being "magic" could be equally mistaken.


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


> In its correct context, it is clear that Tolkien was talking about languages, not specifically names, as you are trying to twist it to mean


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


> Please provide proof from Tolkien that Sauron has the power to change any living being in Middle Earth into another kind of being.


"Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so ensnared them. Long ago they fell under the dominion of the One, and they became Ringwraiths, shadows under his great Shadow, his most terrible servants."
I can hardly see a shadow as being a human anymore.


> I still have no idea what you mean by "elven ascendence"


I mean having an elf as an ancestor.


> Frodo did not "hurt" the Nazgul in any way!


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


> What is your point? The maiar were merely lesser valar, but were the same kinds of beings.


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


> According to you. Saying it does not make it so.


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


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 7, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> Wizards don't need cats because they haven't got broomsticks.


EVERYONE needs cats. ..

Ah, dang, my chocolate's gone.
This thread I created is a monster, isn't it?


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Aug 7, 2005)

*the small, squeaky voice came from under a near by rock* "Just perhaps. I don't like to get into debates that much... perhaps they forgot I was ever here... did you say chocolate? If you get more, can I have some? It would be really good about now."


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 7, 2005)

Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


> I can hardly see a shadow as being a human anymore.


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



Thorondor said:


> I mean having an elf as an ancestor.


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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


I see you skulking under that rock, AraCelebEarwen!


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Aug 7, 2005)

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


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 8, 2005)

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


As _Tolkien_ pointed out himself in that paragraph.


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


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


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


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


AraCelebEarwen said:


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


Here, help yourself ACE


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Aug 8, 2005)

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

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


----------



## Inderjit S (Aug 8, 2005)

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



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



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



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


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 8, 2005)

Thorondor said:


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


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

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



Thorondor said:


> Celebrimbor himself wrote that Narvi the dwarf made the gates.


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



Thorondor said:


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


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


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


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


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


> Then Gandalf lit up his wand.


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


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


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


----------



## Inderjit S (Aug 9, 2005)

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


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 9, 2005)

> Tolkien never said Gil-Galad never wore clothes


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


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


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


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


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


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


The name Gandalf _does _mean that.


> they were in fact wrong.


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


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


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


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


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


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 9, 2005)

Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


> The name Gandalf _does _mean that.


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



Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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


----------



## Inderjit S (Aug 10, 2005)

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



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



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



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

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

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


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


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 10, 2005)

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


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


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


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


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


Etymologically, the name _does_ mean that.


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


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


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


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


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


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


----------



## Inderjit S (Aug 10, 2005)

> Etymologically, the name does mean that.



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



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



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



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



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

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

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



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



I claimed? It was a joke. 



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



What on earth is a poisoning the well fallacy?



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



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


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 11, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


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


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

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


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 11, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> Thorondor said:
> 
> 
> > You should also consider the two refferences to dwarven magic in the hobbit:
> ...


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


----------



## Eledhwen (Aug 11, 2005)

Ingwë said:


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


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


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 11, 2005)

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


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


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


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


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


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


> What on earth is a poisoning the well fallacy?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


_They _put many spells, not he. 


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


I certainly do agree.


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


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


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 11, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


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


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


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


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



Eledhwen said:


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


Excellent point!!


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 11, 2005)

Thorondor said:


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


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


> It is an actual Norse name (found applied to a Dwarf in _Voluspa_) used by me since it appears to contain _gandr_, a staff, especially one used in 'magic', and might be supposed to mean 'Elvish wight with a (magic) staff'.


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




Thorondor said:


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


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




Thorondor said:


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


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




Thorondor said:


> Anyway, what the quotes from the Hobbit show is that the dwarves have magic abilities.


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




Thorondor said:


> _They _put many spells, not he.


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


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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




Thorondor said:


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


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



Thorondor said:


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


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




Throrondor said:


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


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


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


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


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 12, 2005)

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


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


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


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


> Everything in The Hobbit is ultimately from Bilbo


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


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


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


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 13, 2005)

Thorondor said:


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


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




Thorondor said:


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


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




Thorondor said:


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


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




Thorondor said:


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


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




Thorondor said:


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


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




Thorondor said:


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


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


----------



## Inderjit S (Aug 13, 2005)

> 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_ (Aug 13, 2005)

> 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 (Aug 14, 2005)

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 (Aug 14, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> 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:


Thorondor said:


> 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.




Thorondor said:


> 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.




Thorondor said:


> 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.




Thorondor said:


> 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.




Thorondor said:


> 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.




Thorondor said:


> 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.




Thorondor said:


> 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.




Thorondor said:


> 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. 




Thorondor said:


> 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 (Aug 14, 2005)

> 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 (Aug 15, 2005)

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 (Aug 16, 2005)

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 (Aug 16, 2005)

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 (Aug 16, 2005)

Starbrow said:


> 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.




Inderjit said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2005)

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 (Aug 16, 2005)

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 (Aug 16, 2005)

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 (Aug 16, 2005)

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 (Aug 16, 2005)

> 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 (Aug 16, 2005)

Varokhâr said:


> 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.



Varokhâr said:


> 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




Inderjit S said:


> 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.




Inderjit said:


> 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_ (Sep 4, 2005)

> 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.
> ...


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 (Sep 5, 2005)

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
> ...



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 (Sep 5, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> ...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. 


Greenwood said:


> 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_ (Sep 5, 2005)

> 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 (Sep 5, 2005)

> 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.


----------

