Quote:
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?
|
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.
Quote:
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.
|
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.
Quote:
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.
|
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.