I think it is likely that Gandalf gained his power over fire when he got Narya, the elven ring. Remember that it was called the Ring of Fire?
- I doubt it. Remember that the Istari were not to use their powers to dominate. Gandalf seemed to have no power over fire ("I cannot burn snow"), though he implemented it. I believe that the words of Círdan tell us the most:
- ". . . For this is the Ring of Fire, and with it you may rekindle hearts in a world that grows chill. . ."
- ― Appendix B
- Therefore I believe we can assume that the Ring was used to strengthen his purpose: to "kindle the hearts", even as he did to Théoden. There was an interesting thread in the Barrow-downs discussion forum about this very point, but I can't remember where it is. I'll post a link if I can. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:05, 15 December 2006 (EST)
But isn't said elsewhere that he could only show so much of his power to certain people? Which is why the hobbits of the Shire only knew Gandalf as a master of fireworks? --Quidon88 13:11, 15 December 2006 (EST)
- Fireworks are not neccessarily a result of "magical" power over fire. They knew Gandalf "only" as a wandering conjurer and master of fireworks. This is the least of his art. I can't find a quote as I don't have the Letters with me (at the library, alas), but it does say he could only show his full power in greatest need, and then only in defense (as he did with Durin's Bane and the Witch-king). The other elven rings were used to preserve and protect their realms; they had no offensive capabilities so far as we know. I see no reason to assume anything else that it was for except what Círdan said: to kindle people's hearts against Sauron, which was the mission of the Istari in the first place. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:24, 15 December 2006 (EST)
"only show his full power in greatest need". That was what I was getting at, I just couldn't get the thoughts to words, thanks.--Quidon88 13:42, 15 December 2006 (EST)
I've been working my way through this article trying to clean it up and make it more of an 'encyclopedic' entry. Please let me know if I slash too much.
Much of this article is very poorly written and the text continually diverges from the subject matter into minutiae and tangential issues.
Anyway... let me know if I'm making it better or worse.
Glorfindel Mk. II 16:53, 2 August 2007 (EDT)