Did the Necromancer practice necromancy?
 

When he dwelt in Dol Guldur, why was Sauron known as the Necromancer? According to the dictionary, a necromancer is one who calls up the spirits of the dead, especially with a view to predicting the future. Does anyone have any thoughts on what this has to do with Sauron?

I believe that HoMe X implies that Sauron may have contacted the lingering fear of dead Elves. I can't remember whether it mentions Sauron in particular, but I believe it says that this form of necromancy was practised by some humans. Considering his title ("The Necromancer"), I think Sauron probably practised this as well.

I don't think that necromancy necessarily involves the intent to predict the future. The OED simply says: "One who practises necromancy; one who claims to carry on communication with the dead; more generally, a wizard, magician, wonder-worker, conjurer."

Edit: I just checked "Necromancy" in the OED, where it does mention the foretelling of the future. Strange. I don't see any obvious reason for this connection to be made.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 11:48 AM February 05, 2004: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

Sauron has in a way long before been a Necromancer, since he had the Nazgul. Their dead, but aren't.

greetings,
lathspell

I did some research on this issue in connection with a thread on the uruk-hai where I went off on a rather silly conjecture. What I found is that there is very little in the Tolkien cannon that explains what was meant by calling Sauron "The Necromancer."

I suppose it would depend on how one would define necromancer. Webster's dictionary had a definition very similar to the ones above, divination by means of pretended communication with the dead. However, I do think “pretended” was a bit presumptuous of Webster’s. I know the modern role-playing community would more than likely see necromancy as more along the lines of animating the dead (which probably has some historical or mythical basis, though I’m too lazy to look it up). The problem is, no where do I find Tolkien defining what he thought necromancy was. I admit, I do not own the letters, so there might be something there.

Greetings lathspell,

* bows a greeting *

You make an excellent point when you refer to the ring wraiths.

Sauron has ever sought control over mortals with an "Eye" to destroying them through black arts with a view to death.

Long ago, few faithful remained, while many gave themselves over to the black sorcery of Sauron's temple to Melkor at Armenelos. Thus deceitful Annatar spread a morbid obsession with death throughout Numenor, making the noblest among the races of Men resentful of Iluvatar's gift such that the more they clung to life, the more life slipped away from them. Eventually, through efforts ever more frantic, unnatural, and illicit, they brought down upon themselves a very world-shattering doom, as the tales speak of in the Akallabeth.

Gandalf the Grey

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Gandalf_theGrey ]

I'm still curious about Sauron and necromancy. I posted an article on the "Silent Watchers" thread that had some bearing on it. It's even more appropriate to this topic, though, and I wanted to get more specific input.

Let me know what you think. I've never heard it explained this way before, but it makes a lot of sense.

I agree with lathspell about the Nazgul. They were definitley born of Necromancy.

In roleplaying, a Necromancer is someone who animates dead, and uses them to instill fear in enemies, and do their bidding. Something along those lines [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

"(which probably has some historical or mythical basis, though I’m too lazy to look it up)"

The most I've found about the history of necromancy is (somewhat ironically) in an online Catholic Encyclopedia. (here) It seems to define necromancy as communication with the spirits.

The are references to zombies (a person lacking free will, not neccessarily dead) in Hatian folklore supposidely created by a cocktail of local herbs and some sort of a ritual. I have yet to find folklore on a necromancer per say, since most of the links on Yahoo are game related. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[ April 13, 2003: Message edited by: Ransom ]

The Nazgul aren't dead.

Oh, but would you say they're alive?

Yeah, they're not dead or alive.

No, the Nazgul are definately not a British '80s pop band.

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Lol, Saucepan [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I always thought that a necromancer was sort of an evil wizard, but... Anyway, you people get back to your actually intelligent conversation while I leave and go to Middle Earth Mayhem! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I think Tolkien would have been fully aware of the meaning of the word he was using, so we have to assume he meant the Necromancer to have something to do with the dead. Does he name Sauron "Necromancer" in both The Hobbit and LotR? The White Council didn't know it was Sauron at the time, did they?

Somehow, I always got this necromancy confused with Angmar and the Witch-King. I had these pictures in my mind of undead armies attacking the northern kingdoms. Maybe it had something to do with a combination of the Nazgul's undead status and the Barrow-wights' connexion to that era...I still like the idea, though. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I think Sauron was only called the Necromancer during his time at Dol Guldur when his identity was uncertain.

I'd guess he did practice a bit of Necromancy every now and then. The Nazgul have been mentioned, and remember that even the Witch King managed to recruit a bunch of Wights to infest the Barrow Downs. Exactly how is not made clear, houseless elvish fea, victims of Morgul blade stabbings, plain old-fashioned zombification, who knows? One thing to remember is that the books were supposed to have been written by the hobbits and even if the Wise knew how such things were done I think they would not have wanted to publicise the methods.

One passage from LoTR has also struck me in this respect. I can't remember offhand who says it, but it goes something like - 'Marvelous we deemed it that he defeated Sauron's forces with his own weapons'
This refers to Aragorn's use of The Dead to retake the Pelargir from the Corsairs. Therefore, some at least associated the undead, ghosts, whatever, with Sauron.

*Having made a rather weak pun on "Dead or Alive, Saucepan feels the need to atone by attempting to say something vaguely intelligent*

Quite right. He would no doubt have had regard to the derivation of the word: "necro" meaning death and "mancy" meaning divination. As has already been noted, the proper definition of the word is the use of communication with the dead to predict the future. It has since come to have mean simply sorcery connected with the raising of the dead. In fantasy RPGs and wargames, for example, a necromancer is a wizard who is able to raise the dead and command them so as to further his own ends.

It seems clear to me that JRRT's use of the term is intended to suggest that Sauron's magic was connected with death. Taking the word in its purist sense (which one would normally expect JRRT to do), it would suggest that Sauron was adept at communicating with the dead in order to divine the future. That, however, does not sit easy with me, since I see Sauron as having been more concerned about what was happening in the (ie his) present rather than the future. I think therefore that (surprisingly) JRRT was using the word in its looser sense, simply to convey that Sauron's powers were linked with death and the ability to command the spirits of the dead.

The Nazgul were certainly not living creatures. As Wraiths , one might regard them as dead, or perhaps more accurately undead creatures, ie creatures without life but animated by the dead spirits of the Men that they once were. Sauron was able to use the Nine Rings to bring them to this state and bind their dead (or undead) spirits to his will.

Another example is Sauron's association with Morgoth's Vampires. The Vampire Thuringwethil was the chief messenger between Morgoth in Angband and Sauron when he ruled over Tol-in-Gauroth, and Sauron himself took Vampire shape to flee when that stronghold fell. I may be wrong, but I don't think that it is ever explained exactly what the Vampires were. Possibly they were minor Maia, like the Balrogs. But they might also have been undead creatures in the classic Vampire sense - dead souls animated by Morgoth and bent to his will. And possibly also, Sauron learned this ability to work with the spirits of the dead, ie necromancy, from his Master, the original Dark Lord.

From the American Heritage Dictionary (Fourth Ed, www.dictionary,com), on the origin of the word necromancy.

[ April 16, 2003: Message edited by: Ransom ]

I've just had a rather nasty thought about 'The Necromancer'. As we know he was at Dol Guldur partly to search for the Ring. If he had the ability to somehow communicate with the dead maybe he started exhuming skeletons from the Gladden Fields and questioning them on the subject of Isildur and his jewelery. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

We can only hope that the bones of Isildur himself were scattered by the Anduin.

(btw., more puns please SaucepanMan! Though for now I'll leave you with this thought. If the Nazgul were indeed Dead, were they Grateful? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

I would think he would need to take the spirits first, since the corpses wouldn't necessarily have the spirits (or fea, depending) still in them. Just a thought.


(Nice pun.)

I think the Vampire connection is an intreguing one. I think that "the Necromancer" was the name given to the inhabitor of Dol Goldur driven out by the White Council in the Hobbit, later discovered to be Sauron. However, Sauron's earlier association with Vampires is interesting. There are quite a few things in ME that are taken for granted by the other and not explained very well, which is a bit atypical. Vampires seem to be one of them, as is this use of the term Necromancer without any support. But, since Tolkien obviously knew what it meant, interesting theories arise. Treating Vampires in the same manner, however, seems problematic. Vampire is not an English word--it has Slavic or even Hungarian origins, it seems, and did not appear in English until the 18th C (after a quick search). I'm not sure exactly what is involved in the definition of a Vampire, but clearly they are powerful and dangerous beings in ME. Just where they fit in, I don't know.

Tut, tut, these Hobbits are not what one would call "opportunists", are they? I would think that such works as "Reanimations from Deadish" would sell quite well to bored Hobbit-housewives.

Seriously though, I do agree that the Nazgûl and in turn, Wights, would fit the definition of Necromancy rather well. The theme of death also fits Sauron in that he used the fear of death and jealousy of immortality to turn the Numenoreans against the Valar. In short, "Serve me, live forever...(sort of)..."

Rumil posted:
"We can only hope that the bones of Isildur himself were scattered by the Anduin."


UT's chapter 'the Disaster of the Gladden Fields' actually tells us that Saruman found Isildur's remains and had burned them.

As for Sauron wanting to contact the dead spirits to mine them for info re: the ring and such, seems unlikely at least after so long a time.

Sauron and Morgoth do not seem to be able to control human fea/spirit's after their death unless they broke a vow or had actively joined the dark side or were captured by the rings or somesuch.

I do not think he could summon a 3,000 year old fea back to some bones he found.

The fea would long ago have passed directly into the providence of Eru.

As for Sauron practicing the divinatory
[-mancy] aspect of 'necromancy'. I do nit at all see it.

He used the word, I think [remember it is in the Hobbit only] in it's more generic 'wizardly' sense. I imagine he liked the sound of it, for his purposes.

Someone has already mentioned the dead who accompanied Aragorn from Erech and fought for him at Pelargir. I wonder what, if any, connection this has to the subject of necromancy.

Seeing as it (necromancy) is associated in ME with Sauron and generally used for evil purposes, I can hardly imagine that it is encouraged by the free people. Bearing this in mind, what kind of curse did Isildure set on the oath breakers? Where did he aquire the knowledge to set this kind of curse that gives his heirs powers to control the dead?

Just a further complication... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Sophia

[Edit: Typos will be the death of me!]

[ April 17, 2003: Message edited by: Sophia the Thunder Mistress ]

The Saucepan Man wrote:

lindil wrote:

Saucepan Man, I appreciate your reasoning. Continuing the argument: If he did want to convey the "looser" meaning of the word, is there any other word you can think of that would have worked? Would he still have been relying on its original connotations? And lindil, it sounds like you're both leaning toward the same hypothesis. But are you implying that Tolkien merely intended to convey the impression of some evil wizard sort of guy?

Furthermore, when first reading The Hobbit the title of the Necromancer did not imply (to me) the great evil that was Sauron. Instead, it seemed to underestimate him - to downplay his might. Yes, you would probably want to avoid Southern Mirkwood, but it sounded similar to giving the neighborhood witch's house a wide berth. (Assuming, of course, that the witch actually did have some kind of power, and not just merely the force of superstition, which I do not want to involve in this discussion.)

The Noble Lindil graces this thread, raising, as usual, some very good points.

I suppose I agree with you about the difficulty of questioning the spirits of the Dunedain after 3000 years, when they would certainly have received the 'gift of Illuvatur'. However, while I may be 'flogging a dead horse', is there a chance that Sauron was busily interrogating the spirits of the dead orcs from the battle of the Gladden Fields?

I forgot that bit in UT, rats! OK, perhaps Sauron tried his necromancy thing on the remains, was thwarted since the spirit of Isildur was unavailable for comment, then burned the bones in frustration.

The use of some physical remnants of the subject was inspired by traditions such as voodoo (and European 'magic') where a bodily part (usually hair) of the target is necessary for spell casting.

I agree on the divinatory aspect. I'd prefer to imagine that the 'spirits' only knew information that they'd gathered whilst alive, not being able to predict the future. (Otherwise the instruction 'watch out for the halflings trying to drop your ring into that big volcano' would surely have caused plot complications).

Surely "Necromancer" is a title given to Sauron by others, who were unaware of his true identity. In that case we can separate what Tolkien knew of the word's meaning from how it was understood by those who had applied it to the mysterious sorceror of Mirkwood. Also, since nobody really knew what was going on at Dol Guldur until Gandalf's daring infiltration, it makes perfect sense that wild rumours would have abounded about commune being held with the dead and other dark practices. I'm all for "The Necromancer" just being a title: Tolkien was usually very clever at using limited character knowledge to build credibility.

Well said, Squatter, I see your point about the name possibly coming from wild rumours. Thing I just thought of: how did Gandalf not realize it was Sauron, even though he'd been into the dungeons of Dol Goldur (where he got the key from Thrain)? It always seemed like Gandalf's use of the name leant it a bit more credibility, but then Tolkien was probably just using it as a scary name for a children's book.

Doesn't necro mean black? I think it simply means "black magician", and that even though he probably did practice necromancy, the name wasn't given to him because of it. He was simply a black magician, I think.

Two definitions of the word "necromancy" have been given above, along with the meanings of nekros and niger. Here is a repetition of the etymology, from my 1951 Concise Oxford (I have expanded most of the abbreviations): [Old French nygromancie, from medieval Latin nigromantia changed by association with Latin niger black from Latin from Greek nekromanteia (prec., -MANCY)]. The prefix necro-, as mentioned above, is a modification of the Greek word nekros ("corpse", "dead body").

But he did realise:
Entry for the year 2850 of the Third Age in the Tale of Years. Gandalf at the Council of Elrond

My interpretation of this is that when Gandalf uses the term "Necromancer" he does so in order more readily to identify a known personage to others. He is himself fully aware of Sauron's real identity, but he uses the title for the benefit of those to whom "The Necromancer" might be a more familiar name. In the example above his motive is different: he uses the title so that he may then give it to Sauron, since there are those present at the Council who may be unaware that they are one and the same. To my mind there is no indication in his words that he genuinely believes Sauron to be a practitioner of necromancy, so yes: Tolkien probably did use it simply because it sounds scary.

[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

Ah, silly me, that makes perfect sense! Cheers, Squatter!

Forgive me, but did any of the Nazgul ever really die (in the normal sense of the word) before the War of the Ring? Didn't they rather lose the "Gift of Men" and just waste away into living a wraithdom. I realize it's a bit off topic, but just looking for a consensus since it has been brought up here.

[ April 26, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]

Perhaps this sheds some light on why the power in Dol Guldur is called the Necromancer. One can surely see why the locals would feel that sort of stuff might be happening. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]

No. It seems to me that the use of the word "Necromancer" was deliberate (albeit in a "looser" sense than the strict meaning of the word) in that, while the connection with divination was not intended, the connection with death was. It suggests a far more malevolent force than simply an evil wizard, although (as you say, Nuranar) it doesn't go so far as to suggest that the bearer of the title was in fact the baddest of the bad guys.

True. But I nevertheless believe that JRRT's use of the term was deliberate. Those who applied the title to Sauron (being unaware of his true identity) presumably did so precisely because the powers of this mysterious sorceror were associated with death. Quite possibly, Sauron was making use of the spirits of the dead in some way at that time, havening learned the art of doing so from his former Master. Even if not, the fell creatures that would have acompanied his return to Dol Guldur may well have been seen as spirits of the dead by superstitious locals. Moreover, as Hilde points, the belief that a Nazgul (an undead former sorceror) was in residence is likely to have served to strengthen this association with death.

Indeed. And it also alerts the reader to the fact that the Necromancer of the Hobbit is none other than the Dark Lord himself. Presumably, JRRT himself did not know that the Necromancer would turn out to be Sauron at the time he wrote the Hobbit, since the plot of LotR was not (as I undestand it) at that time conceived. But it works well nevertheless. When reading the Hobbit, the "business" that Gandalf had to attend to in Southern Mirkwood does not seem nearly as daunting as the Dragon waiting for Bilbo and co at the end of the journey. And rightly so since Smaug is central focus of that story. But when I first read LotR, I enjoyed all of the connections with the events and characters from the Hobbit (such as Gimli and Sting), and learning that the Necromancer of the Hobbit was infact the villain of the piece in LotR was one of those moments of enjoyment.

Just a note to add. A Nazgul was thought to be in Dol Guldur in 1100 and it was 2060 before the power in Dol Guldur grows and is thought to be Sauron taking shape again.
Perhaps the Nazgul were trying to contact their master or find a body for him. Or perhaps they were gaining some sort of intelligence though this contact? I know that "the Necromancer" turns out to be Sauron but could it be a title that Sauron assumes when he assumes power there. Outsiders would not be aware of a transfer of power although they noted the increasing strength of that power.

I will not try to guess what Tolkien thought when he wrote of "The Necromancer" in The Hobbit. But I will quote a piece of his thoughts about Sauron long afterwards when he work on The Silmarillion (The History of Middle-Earth; volume 10: Morgoth's Ring; part 3: The Later Quenta Silmarillion; chapter II: The Second Phase; sub-chapter: Laws and Customs among the Eldar; sub-heading: OF rebirth and other doom's of those that go to Mandos):
So at least in an afterthought Tolkien did blame Sauron for doing some kind of necromancy.

Rerspectfully
Findegil

Well, that sounds more like possession of the living by Sauron and his followers that necromancy. Although it is similar in nature to the Haitian voodoo tradition mentioned by Ransom and Rumil earlier in this thread, so perhaps there is a conncetion.

Eeeeek...Findegil and Saucepan Man, you are scaring me!

Here's what I found:

"Necromancy is not to be confused with conjuring devils or demons for help. Necromancy is the seeking of the spirits of the dead. The spirits are sought because they, being without physical bodies, are no longer limited by the earthly plane. Therefore, it is thought these spirits have access to information of the past and future which is not available to the living. It has been used to help find sunken or buried treasure, and whether or not a person was murdered or died from other causes."

So, according to this, as I have often thought, and your quotes from Tolkien's works, THe Necromancer may have been snatching the "Houseless" from mid-air and forcing them to supply him with information. I would suspect him of offering the "Houseless" new bodies -- in return for a sight into the future, or some unseen past event.

What tickles my brain is that he did have a Palantir, and just with that he might be considered a Necromancer. Imagine, if someone saw a Palantir, and did not understand what it was?
Think of poor little Pippn, having stared into Saruman's Palatir, which was once used by the Necromancer?!! Oh the horrors he saw! One would surely mistake that for speaking with spirits, if one had never seen anything like that before.

Just a few possible thoughts...anyone have similar?

[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

Thanks for directing to this thread, Squatter.
I've got a literature-type question which I'm hoping the learned here can answer. Is there any indication in the Letters or elsewhere, which came first, Sauron or the Necromancer?
When Tolkien conceived the Necromancer in the Hobbit, had he already decided that he was Sauron?
Or did he, when writing LotR, think, oh, I know, I'll take that spooky Necromancer I created for the Hobbit and build up his character, he can be a Maian follower-of-Morgoth, he'll become more powerful and be called Sauron.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:50 AM February 05, 2004: Message edited by: Lalaith ]

Actually they both came first in a manner of speaking.

Sauron existed in the mythology before the writing of The Hobbit. Originally called Thû, he entered Tolkien's writings during the 1920s as Morgoth's most powerful servant. However, when The Hobbit was published, the Necromancer was not intended to be Sauron: it was only when he came to write The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien realised how conveniently the two characters could be combined.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 3:50 PM February 05, 2004: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]