Is the staff of Gandalf magical or not?

[Raynor]

I am having this debate over another forum concerning the nature of Gandalf's staff.

Edited, as requested by Raynor

[Marky Lazer]

Personally, I believe that Gandalf's staff, as well as the staves of the other wizards, were basically a tool. In the hands of the right person, it can be deadly, but with no skill to use it, it is useless. A wizard without a staff is not necessarily less powerful, but it is more difficult to transfer his power to reality (which would be called 'magic').

[I, Brian]

Just to add, you may find this thread interesting:
http://www.chronicles-network.net/fo...ead.php?t=2444

[Teresa Edgerton]

The staff must have some function besides a prop for an old man, or it wouldn't have been significant when Gandalf broke Saruman's -- and Saruman wouldn't have made that unpleasant remark earlier about Gandalf and the staffs of the seven wizards.

Also note that the staffless Saruman, when met later on, seems much reduced.

[GOLLUM]

I always assumed it was a tool through which he was able to more effectively channel his powers and therefore the staff was powerful in the sense that it acted as a conduit and must not be any ordinary staff or walking stick in that context.

Presumably the staff in the hands of a mere mortal or soemone not trained in mage craft would be of limited use.

[Teir]

A tool - agreed, but it also seemed to have power as a symbol. As a wizard, one would assume a staff would not always be needed. After all it is the Wizard controling the staff, not the other way around is it not?. And yet Saruman seemed to become helpless without it. It is my thoery that the breaking of his staff was a symbol of his loss of power over the situatuion, rather then he had lost his power becuase the staff was broken. Tolkien uses the staffs and the colouring of the wizards (white/grey-whatever) to show their position in the story as much as a practical tool for their 'magic'.

[GOLLUM]

Good point Teir....

[Teresa Edgerton]

Whatever use Gandalf and Saruman have for their staffs, in Gandalf's case there is also the elven ring, which I believe is responsible for some of his more spectacular effects.

[Treikayan]

Originally Posted by Kelpie

Whatever use Gandalf and Saruman have for their staffs, in Gandalf's case there is also the elven ring, which I believe is responsible for some of his more spectacular effects.

Correct. And, it isn't until the departure of Middle-Earth to Valinor (Return of the King) that we finally see the "hidden" elven ring around Gandalf's finger. I always remember the clue Gandalf gave regarding the Ring of Narya. It was when he was fighting the Balrog. "I am a Servent of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor! The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn (hell)." The secret fire is the Ring of Narya.

[Teresa Edgerton]

It's also, I believe, one of the reasons he is able to cure Theoden, since the ring kindles hope as well as ordinary flame.

[Treikayan]

Very true, though I may've missed that in the reading of Two Towers.

So would it be fair to say that with the ring (Narya) and the staff, Gandalf it two times more powerful? Just a curious question to throw out there.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I started to write a long, complicated response to that question, but what it all came down to was that power in Tolkien's world is not that easy (or meant to be that easy) to quantify.

[Raynor]

So would it be fair to say that with the ring (Narya) and the staff, Gandalf it two times more powerful?

I wouldnt go as far as that; in The Istari, UT, the wizards are described as "mighty, peers of Sauron" and in Letter #155 it is said that "a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but is in an inherent power".