Sauron, the Necromancer
 

The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines "necromancy" as "conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events". It is a term that evokes images of pale, black-clad sorcerers rasing the dead to do their bidding. One thinks of ghosts, the animated skeletons from Jason and the Argonauts or the zombies from The Dawn of the Dead.

Sauron, during his pre-LoTR sojourn in Dol Guldur, becomes known as the "Necromancer" and he and his minions are widely feared. Yet nowhere in the Hobbit or LoTR are "spirits of the dead" clearly apparent. Yes, we have the images of the fallen in the Dead Marshes, yet they are not animated or put to use. Indeed it is not clear that these images are spirits of any sort. Yes, we have the Barrow-Wights, but they are not spirits of the dead buried in the Barrows, but rather undefined spirits that later inhabited the Barrows. Necromancy? Maybe, maybe not. Indeed, the only example we have from the Middle Earth mythos of the spirits of the dead being put to any use is Sauron's use of an image of Eilinel to ensnare Gorlim for the purpose of betraying Barahir. But even here, the Silmarillion tells that the image of Eilinel is a "phantom devised by wizardry", rather than the spirit of Eilinel.

So where are the dead? Why does the sorcerer of Dol Guldur gain fame as the Necromancer?

As far as I know (but saying that "from second hand" because I didn't read it myself), there is something in HoME, somewhere, about Sauron possibly capturing the spirits of dead Elves who were a bit at loss when heading for Mandos. I recall there being a thread about that, let's say, a year ago? Or maybe a bit more. Maybe you could look for it - or wait for somebody more educated to elaborate (not that I would mind going through it again, either) - or try to find out what volume of HoME it was and read it for yourself (if you have access to some).

Good point, I'll wait... ;)

How about the Dead at Dunharrow or the Ringwraiths themselves?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this would probably be in Laws and Customs (Morgoth's Ring, HoME XII), which, among other things, deals with Elvish reincarnation and the fate of houseless fear - but I can't check it right now. Hope this helps.

Another thing that comes to my mind in this context is the Silent Watchers of Cirith Ungol, which seem to have been inhabited by spirits of some sort (RK, Book VI, The Tower of Cirith Ungol):
Houseless Elvish fear imprisoned in statues? Now that's a nasty thought...

Yes, well - the point is rather that the Dead at Dunharrow have nothing to do with Sauron - they are undead merely because they are oath-breakers. And the Ringwraith, that's again a different mechanism: they "faded", they are not, in fact, undead in the typical sense of the word. They are in the wraith-world, but they are not subject to Sauron's control because of any necromancy, but because of the simple magic of the Rings - ALL Rings, based on their magical nature, and not any necromancy:

I guess Morgul could be one example of a Necromancy-soaked place, though.

Quick reply- in the "Laws & Customs Among the Eldar" section of Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien explains


In canonical narrative, the Barrow-wights, summoned but not created by the Witch-king, should be understood as necromantic, evil spirits which reanimated corpses.

The Ringwraiths are a rather different matter.

Perhaps the question can be resolved simply by looking at meanings of necromancer and necromancy that Tolkien would be most familiar with. After all, I do believe he knew the OED a bit better than the Merriam Webster on line dictionary. ;)

The first uses of the words recorded in the OED focus more on communication with the dead rather than raising of the dead as spirits to be commanded. In fact, the first meaning given implies just a general reference to wizards and magic rather than to any zombie like animations.


One can always take up the OED for the assumptions behind its definitions (viz. the use of "pretended" in the second definition here, as the early employers of the word could quite well have believed in the ability) but it isn't until a usage from Swift that the idea of animated dead acting in this world appears in the quotations explicitly (if I'm reading the tiny print in my microreduced copy correctly.)

So, it is quite possible that Tolkien meant simply a wizard of the dark arts, one who communicates with the dead, even to the point of swearing oaths with them, in order to gain some advantage of knowledge, rather than to any possiblity that Sauron was press ganging the dead into his service as was the wont of the British navy.

Those with a taste for the living dead or the more ephemeral ghosts might of course apply their own thoughts, but perhaps Tolkien in this case merely meant a wizard of the dark side.

Of course, one can take this question further, since, in the context it was originally posed, it dealt with Sauron as the Necromancer--in Mirkwood. And, as noted, this is being used as Sauron's name/title, as separate from his history as Sauron because his identity, as Sauron, was not known (at least for some time) to the West.

Any speculation dealing with the broader case of Sauron being a necromancer is interesting--and probably worth pursuing--but let's not forget that most of the reasons we might come up with for thinking "necromancer" an appropriate cognomen for Sauron are divorced from his hidden identity in Mirkwood. Anything to do with the Ringwraiths is out, on that score, because the Úlairi (Ringwraiths) are clearly known to be Sauron's doing at the time of the Last Alliance (cf. "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age"). Consequently, the actions of the Witchking, Angmar in general, and the retaking of Minas Morgûl would not have been laid at Sauron's door when he was first named the Necromancer--and this would include the Barrow-wights of Cardolan.

William Cloud Hicklin has a good argument from the OED that Tolkien did not mean much of a reference to death, but merely a generally malevolent practicer of dark arts, but it would still be interesting to know what these dark arts are.

Also--it occurs to me that I am assuming it was the West that gave Sauron-in-Mirkwood the name/title "the Necromancer" but I'm not sure this is warranted on my part. Although, on the one hand, I seem to recall (but cannot readily find a passage that says so...) that Sauron either never could or never did assume fair form again after the fall of Númenor, this does not mean that Sauron would necessarily have put out so dark an image as to call himself the Necromancer--especially given that there are reasons, namely the quote from "Laws and Customs of the Eldar" that would suggest that such a name might have rung a few alarm bells in the memories of Wise had Sauron claimed it for himself.

But if Sauron DIDN'T take that title to himself, what DID he call himself when he first returned to Mirkwood?

Interestingly, in the various drafts of the Tale of Years (published and un-) Tolkien referred to the Lord of Dol Guldur as the "Sorceror"- Necromancer replacing it in the published version. However "Necromancer" in the Hobbit appears in the first draft of the first chapter.

One wonders, without confirmation, if during the Lay of Leithian period Tolkien imagined the Lord of Werewolves and Vampires as having installed the Unbodied Dead in the hroa of animals.

This thread has moved very fast and there are some truly excellent posts here. Pitchwife correctly identifies Morgoth's Ring and specifically Laws and Customs of the Eldar as a source of information on the Feär, the souls or spirits of Elves (and Men) and William Cloud Hicklin helpfully quotes portions of the relevant sections. In addition to the excerpts addressed by William, Tolkien mentions the Summons of Namo (Mandos) which is intended to gather the Feär of the Elves into the West. Some Elvish Feär resist the Summons due to reasons mentioned in William's quote and some directly or indirectly respond to Morgoth's Counter-Summons. These Elvish spirits can remain "unhoused" or take over another body. It is unclear if the Feär of Men are subject to the counter-summons as they are fated to depart from Arda at death. Yet these sections of Laws and Customs seem to make up the backbone for what Tolkien considers to be "necromancy". Sorry Bethberry, I don't think he meant a reference to the general dark arts.

Formendacil makes a great point that there appears to be virtually no direct textual evidence about the reasons Sauron is named the Necromancer in his Dol Guldur days. We cannot attribute prior knowledge of Sauron's apparently known Necromantic tendencies to this nickname because Sauron's identity was not known. This begs the question of why the Wise did not identify the Necromancer as Sauron on this basis alone.

As distastful as it may seem, the Silent Watchers were likely animated by corrupted Elvish Feär. The Barrow-Wights? Likely the same. Werewolves, Vampires, perhaps even Dragons? Elves or minor Maiar. Sauron was certainly busy. But what about the time he inhabited Dol Guldur and what textual evidence exists of his activities? Well, William does mention Sauron's connection with Werewolves. In the Hobbit, there clearly are some sentient wolves; the Wargs. Even later, Gandalf, after the attack by wolves upon the Fellowship, seems to ascribe to those wolves a preternatural quality.

I wouldn't necessarily jump on the Watchers 'inhabited by some evil spiirit' as necessarily entrapping unhoused fear. Adfter all, like any good classically-educated Englishman Tolkien was familiar with the Platonic tripartite soul, and the Watchers for all we can tell were possessed merely of the sensual, not the nutritive or rational.

One tap for yes, two taps for no
 

Hi all,

A link to a similar discussion from long Ages past--

Did Sauron practice Necromancy?

Actually quite an interesting read as Great Minds obviously think alike and many of the same points are made! Also links to an even older thread on the Watchers.

May I suggest a simpler explanation ?

Having used the term "Necromancer" in The Hobbit, Tolkien was stuck with the term. I think if he'd envisaged publishing The Lord of the Rings while writing The Hobbit he'd never have used the term in relation to Sauron.

That old thread likked above, from 2004, includes the sotrt of thing that can plague us all when new information is discovered:

Ah, but John Rateliff's History of the Hobbit has rather changed things- from the very first draft of 'An Unexpected Party:'

So there you have it: "Sauron the terrible" was already "peeping over the edge" from the outset!

Sorry for posting without contributing to the debate, but I simply cannot keep quiet.

Good job everyone, this is the best debate I have seen on the downs for quite some time, I have been intriqued and entertained while reading your posts. . . I just wish I could contribute my self.

Hungry Houseless--now, wouldn't that be an awesome personal title?

It has never struck me that Tolkien is talking about the Unhoused fëar
actually raiding graves to find a home in the passage William Cloud Hicklin quotes.

Rather Tolkien is referring to the dangers of communicating with these exiles and even of sharing one's hröa. It's more a "Beware of squatters" rather than a fear of the dead rising.

So... quite contrary to what I'd heard, The Hobbit was always meant to be set in the same world as The Silmarillion?

Going with what Formy said, maybe Sauron, before his true identity was known, decided to take a nick name. Maybe he say the name Necromancer as a fitting name because it is associated with animated corpses and the like. Since he had just come back from dying... Just a thought.

Yeppers- or rather, Tolkien drew on his legendarium as convenient to provide a setting for his childrens' story, which he didn't regard at the time as 'canonical.' Beren and Luthien, Gondolin, the Three Kindreds of the Elves and "Faery" in the West- all there from the start. On the other hand so also is the Gobi Desert.

Tolkien himself misled us all in his letters, making the claim for both Hobbit and the Numenor legend that they were originally unrelated to, but then brought into, the main mythology. In both cases it just tweren't so.

More on this on the "proto-geography of the Third Age" thread.

So, the question remains, were there actual 'zombies' in Middle Earth? As a native of the Pittsburgh region, I take my zombies seriously. We actually have a copy of "The Zombie Survival Guide' by Max Brooks in the office...you know, just in case. :eek:

Now this discussion has shown that there are many disembodied spirits that can be put to evil uses. Me, I'm looking more for the stereotypical zombie, the shambling reanimated corpse that attacks, Terminator-like, without cease, until it is dismembered or its brain is destroyed. The hobbits' experience in the Barrow give some indication that such creatures are possible. The skeletal arm that tries to grip the sword in the Barrow is, technically, reanimated dead, and so if we were to start with something a little fresher, add a little meat to the bones, give it a hunger for more than sacrifice...

And who knows what Sauron the Necromancer could accomplish?

Fortunately, the ancient weaponsmiths of Arnor perfected the +5 Shotgun of Zombie-slaying......