# How did Gandalf get his staff back from Saruman?



## JPMaximilian (Nov 28, 2004)

I have two enquiries. How did Gandalf get his staff back after being captured by Saruman? Saruman would have, no doubt, taken the staff when he captured him.

Was Gandalf defeated by the Witch-King and was Gandalf's staff broken? If not, does he take his staff with him to the undying lands? I recall reading that his staff was broken, but as I reread the Return of the King, I now don't think this is the case and I believe I was mistaken. I know that Gandalf breaks the staff of Saruman and casts him out of the order, it is possible that I mixed his fate with that of Gandalf.


----------



## Gildor (Nov 28, 2004)

Gandalf's staff was never broken, nor was it every expressly stated that it was taken or lost. In situations like his being captured by Saruman or his battle with the Balrog, we are left to our own guesses about whether Gandalf was able to hold on to his staff throughout the ordeal or if he merely made/aquired another afterwards.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 28, 2004)

I believe staffs have a more symbolical meaning, rather than holding the actual powers of their bearer. Gandalf does break the staff of Saruman through an incantation of sorts, though that seems to be more of an official and final statement from the Valar rather than an act of actually taking Saruman's powers away, for the loss of which he himself was responsible (having wasted them on domination over his minions and possibly attempts at forging his own ring).


----------



## Gothmog (Nov 28, 2004)

JPMaximilian said:


> I have two enquiries. How did Gandalf get his staff back after being captured by Saruman? Saruman would have, no doubt, taken the staff when he captured him.
> 
> Was Gandalf defeated by the Witch-King and was Gandalf's staff broken? If not, does he take his staff with him to the undying lands? I recall reading that his staff was broken, but as I reread the Return of the King, I now don't think this is the case and I believe I was mistaken. I know that Gandalf breaks the staff of Saruman and casts him out of the order, it is possible that I mixed his fate with that of Gandalf.


First off, there is no evidence that Saruman took Gandalf's staff from him when he captured Gandalf. In fact the only clue we have about this comes from a dream of Frodo's


> _From FotR: In the House of Tom Bombadil_
> In the dead night, Frodo lay in a dream without light. Then he saw the young moon rising; under its thin light there loomed before him a black wall of rock, pierced by a dark arch like a great gate. It seemed to Frodo that he was lifted up, and passing over he saw that the rock-wall was a circle of hills, and that within it was a plain, and in the midst of the plain stood a pinnacle of stone, like a vast tower but not made by hands. On its top stood the figure of a man. The moon as it rose seemed to hang for a moment above his head and glistened in his white hair as the wind stirred it. Up from the dark plain below came the crying of fell voices, and the howling of many wolves. Suddenly a shadow, like the shape of great wings, passed across the moon. The figure lifted his arms and a light flashed from the staff that he wielded. A mighty eagle swept down and bore him away. The voices wailed and the wolves yammered.


 This dream was confirmed by Gandalf later in the book.

As for the question of the Witch-king, Gandlaf was not defeated by the Nazgul-lord as they never fought. The confrontation between them was interupted by the sound of the horns of Rohan.


----------



## JPMaximilian (Nov 28, 2004)

Saruman did not take Gandalf's staff he did in fact have it whilst imprisoned. Why then, would Saruman not take it? It seems like Gandalf would have a lot of power with the staff, power enough to escape captivity.


----------



## Valandil (Nov 28, 2004)

I don't think Gandalf's staff had any inherent 'magical' properties in and of itself. I think that a staff he possessed... or perhaps I should say 'wielded' - became merely an extension of his own power. So it didn't matter if Saruman took one from him or if he lost one during or after his combat with the Balrog... all he had to do was take up another and it would become what he needed it to be - or rather, what he was able to make of it.


----------



## JPMaximilian (Nov 28, 2004)

I think it is apparent from the Two Towers that without a staff he was less powerful, or unable to exercise his power, because he took it with him into Theoden's hall and was loathe to part with it when asked to. I like how you stated that it is an extension of his power. Well put.

Why was it important that Gandalf break Saruman's staff? If Saruman could just pick up another, then why would it matter? The best reason I can conceive is that it was symbolic of Saruman's power being stripped from him.


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Dec 1, 2004)

JPMaximilian said:


> I think it is apparent from the Two Towers that without a staff he was less powerful, or unable to exercise his power, because he took it with him into Theoden's hall and was loathe to part with it when asked to. I like how you stated that it is an extension of his power. Well put.
> 
> Why was it important that Gandalf break Saruman's staff? If Saruman could just pick up another, then why would it matter? The best reason I can conceive is that it was symbolic of Saruman's power being stripped from him.


The staff was the symbol of the Wizard's authority. I seriously doubt Gandalf would have been diminished in any capacity had he surrendered his staff to Hama. After all, he had defeated the Balrog of Moria without his staff (which he broke when he destroyed the bridge over the chasm).

Gandalf may have wanted to bear his staff inside Theoden's hall for no more reason than that he wanted its physical support. But it may be he also required its presence to establish his authority.

Grima's comment about a staff in the hands of a wizard doesn't inform the reader about Gandalf's relationship with his staff; rather, it only provides the reader with information regarding Grima's perception of that relationship. Grima may or may not have known what he was talking about.

Gandalf certainly did not need the staff to call down lightning. He apparently used that power against the Balrog at the end of their duel.


----------



## Helcaraxë (Dec 2, 2004)

Gildor said:


> Gandalf's staff was never broken, nor was it every expressly stated that it was taken or lost. In situations like his being captured by Saruman or his battle with the Balrog, we are left to our own guesses about whether Gandalf was able to hold on to his staff throughout the ordeal or if he merely made/aquired another afterwards.



No, Gandalf's staff was broken at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum.



> The staff _broke asunder_ and fell from his hand.



He must have accquired or made another one after his battle at Zirak-Zigil.

As a Maia, Gandalf's power is not dependent on his staff. The Ainur apparently have natural abilities that are "magical." Some are related to language; see "The Ring Goes South." Others are seemingly caused by his natural abilities, presumably implemented through will, rather than word; see "The White Rider."


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 2, 2004)

I would agree that Gandalf' staff seems more like an extension of his power, of his will. I see the staff as being more a symbol of the wizard rather than integral to the wizard's ability to function.

The one problem identified, so far in this thread, that casts some doubt on this theory is the case of Theoden's hall. That Wormtongue is concerned about Gandalf's staff is reason to ponder whether the staff does have any power integral to it, or whether Gandalf needs his staff to work his magic. The fact that Gandalf is concerned to keep his staff lends credence to Wormtongue's concerns and supports questions as to the status of Gandalf's staff.

However, one must not look upon the staff in a microcosm, but rather look on it in the wider context. I just don't see enough evidence to support the idea of the wizard's staff being anything more than a 'badge of office'', a status symbol if you will.


----------



## Sammyboy (Dec 2, 2004)

Perhaps the staff could be compared to something like a gun or a Swiss army knife - in that in Gandalf's hands it is an extension of his power, he can do more with it, but is still powerful without it. It isn't an integral part of his power, but he is more powerful with it - he can do things like emit the 'force field' from it like when he stopped the Balrog crossing the bridge in the mines of Moria, and using it to light their way through the mines, for example.


----------



## Maeglin (Dec 2, 2004)

Big discussion about Gandalf's Staff , everything you might want to know about Gandalf and his staff, discussion took place on this forum almost exactly 2 years ago.


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 3, 2004)

Just to add a couple of more bits of confusion.


> from The Two Towers: The Voice of Saruman
> 'Reasons for leaving you can see from your windows.' answered Gandalf. 'Others will occur to your thought. Your servants are destroyed and scattered; your neighbours you have made your enemies; and you have cheated your new master. or tried to do so. When his eye turns hither, it will be the red eye of wrath. But when I say 'free', I mean 'free': free from bond, of chain or command: to go where you will, even, even to Mordor, Saruman, if you desire. *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.'*
> Saruman's face grew livid, twisted with rage, and a red light was kindled in his eyes. He laughed wildly. 'Later!' he cried, and his voice rose to a scream. 'Later! 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. A modest plan.


So if Gandalf is asking for Saruman to give his staff as a pledge of his conduct and Saruman is accusing Gandalf of wanting to have the "Rods" of the other wizards. Are these staffs only symbols? Or are the symbols in the story more important than we think?


----------



## Ithrynluin (Dec 3, 2004)

Regarding Saruman's reference to the rods of the Five Wizards, I believe he means that possession of all five rods would mean that all the wizards submitted to this person's overlordship, since a wizard would not just give away his staff lightly.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 3, 2004)

@Ithrynluin

That would seem to be the most plausible explantion, like a knight giving up his sword to a victorious enemy. The knight doesn't stop being a knight, but he does surrender a symbol of his status and power to another; without his sword he is not going to be regarded as 'complete knight' if you will.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Dec 3, 2004)

scotsboyuk said:


> @Ithrynluin
> 
> That would seem to be the most plausible explantion, like a knight giving up his sword to a victorious enemy. The knight doesn't stop being a knight, but he does surrender a symbol of his status and power to another; without his sword he is not going to be regarded as 'complete knight' if you will.



Exactly.

Also, the lack of a sword does not leave the knight completely powerless, he can just pick up another, and it is his inherent powers and acquired skills that are his greatest assets.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 3, 2004)

@Ithrynluin

To continue with that analogy, the knight, depsite being able to use another sword, would still have the shame and disgrace of having had his sword taken from him. Saruman, in having had his staff taken by Gandalf, would have been humiliated. Part of his power rested on the respect people showed him, with that gone he lost something of that power, only by having his staff returned to him by the one who took it away i.e. Gandalf, could Saruman regain his former status.


----------



## Urambo Tauro (Dec 3, 2004)

Ithrynluin said:


> Regarding Saruman's reference to the rods of the Five Wizards, I believe he means that possession of all five rods would mean that all the wizards submitted to this person's overlordship, since a wizard would not just give away his staff lightly.





scotsboyuk said:


> That would seem to be the most plausible explantion, like a knight giving up his sword to a victorious enemy. The knight doesn't stop being a knight, but he does surrender a symbol of his status and power to another; without his sword he is not going to be regarded as 'complete knight' if you will...
> To continue with that analogy, the knight, depsite being able to use another sword, would still have the shame and disgrace of having had his sword taken from him. Saruman, in having had his staff taken by Gandalf, would have been humiliated. Part of his power rested on the respect people showed him, with that gone he lost something of that power, only by having his staff returned to him by the one who took it away i.e. Gandalf, could Saruman regain his former status.


Remember Aragorn's reluctance to set aside Andúril at Edoras..?


----------



## Gildor (Dec 4, 2004)

Helcaraxë said:


> No, Gandalf's staff was broken at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My mistake. That's the problem with trying to keep the books and movies separate...things get lost in the shuffle.

I agree that his staff was probably more symbolic than functional, but Gandalf does seem to use it as a tool to channel or focus his power on more than one occasion, so using it would appear to have _some_ benefit.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 4, 2004)

@Gildor

I would garee with that point, the staff obviously has some practical use as well as the symbolic use that we have been discussing. I don't think that there is a particular staff, which is important though, if Gandalf can work his magic without one, then it would seem logical to assume that any piece of wood can be used as a staff. Perhaps there is some form of 'consecration' ritual, which is used to turn an ordinary piece of wood into a staff of the Istari.

It may also be that the staff acts as a 'focus' for the magic Gandalf wields. For instance, when in Moria he uses the staff as a source of light, if he did not use the staff where else would the light physicaly come from? Magic may be defined as using forces outside the 'normal realm', but they still have to have some form of physical manifestation. Presumably if not using his staff as the light source, Gandalf might have had to use his hand, in which case he might not have wanted to keep it raised as a light source for hours on end.


----------



## The Old Eregionan (Feb 18, 2017)

The staff of Gandalf was broken in battle with evil Balrog and Gandalf the Grey was transformed into Gandalf the White. Where he got another is lost along many other things in the ancient lore of Middle Earth and perhaps at the time only Elrond could guess or Radagast the Brown know. But probably it was oaken for the great oaks are linked to the Righteous and there is even now, a noble family of trees, commonly known as White Oak.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 6, 2021)

Now _that's_ an old thread (with a link to an even older one! 😁).

My take on one point: "normal" Istari couldn't take another's staff by force, which is why Gandalf retained his while imprisoned on Orthanc.

Gandalf _The White _could break Saruman's, because he was "Gandalf Returned" -- Gandalf "resurrected" -- with greatly enhanced power and authority (this was brought up in the linked thread, BTW).

And oh, yes: I see people were getting the book and movies mixed up, even back then. 😀


----------



## Elthir (Aug 6, 2021)

How? He threatened him with a dagger dagorath.

Elthir
*Banned again . . . but worth it!*


----------

