"The Necromancer"

[TheLostPilgrim]

A question: Why did Sauron take on the identity of the "Necromancer"? I ask because commonly, a "Necromancer" is thought to be one with the power to raise the dead--In fiction usually a dark, evil wizard who controls armies of undead. Why was this name given to Sauron during the period in which he dwelled in Mirkwood?

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

A question: Why did Sauron take on the identity of the "Necromancer"? I ask because commonly, a "Necromancer" is thought to be one with the power to raise the dead--In fiction usually a dark, evil wizard who controls armies of undead. Why was this name given to Sauron during the period in which he dwelled in Mirkwood?

Well, you could argue that while the Nazgul were not technically "undead" (since they never actually died) they were functionally very similar to something along the lines of litches, and anyone who was not familiar (as the wise were) with the history of them who encountered them would probably assume them to be undead. If you believed that, and you were aware of the fact the Nazgul served Sauron (or more accurately, served whoever it was who lived in Dol Guldur, it would not be a strech to assume that He was the one who had rasied them, and assuming him to be a Necromancer seems logical.
This would be doubly so if anyone was familiar with the Wtich King, who really probably actually is a necromancer (he called up the barrow wights and bad them inhabit the barrow, so he has the ability to summon spirits of some sort. And it would not suprise me if he turned out to have had a hand in the construction of the Watchers, he may have been the one to put the spirits in the stone). If a Necromancer serves an evil wizard, many might assume said wizard also knows necromancy himself.

[TheLostPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

Well, you could argue that while the Nazgul were not technically "undead" (since they never actually died) they were functionally very similar to something along the lines of litches, and anyone who was not familiar (as the wise were) with the history of them who encountered them would probably assume them to be undead. If you believed that, and you were aware of the fact the Nazgul served Sauron (or more accurately, served whoever it was who lived in Dol Guldur, it would not be a strech to assume that He was the one who had rasied them, and assuming him to be a Necromancer seems logical.
This would be doubly so if anyone was familiar with the Wtich King, who really probably actually is a necromancer (he called up the barrow wights and bad them inhabit the barrow, so he has the ability to summon spirits of some sort. And it would not suprise me if he turned out to have had a hand in the construction of the Watchers, he may have been the one to put the spirits in the stone). If a Necromancer serves an evil wizard, many might assume said wizard also knows necromancy himself.

Hmm...good points.
Not to go off on a tangent, but one thing I love about Tolkien's world is that while he does explain a lot (especially in The Silmarillion and other writings), not everything is spelled out to the letter for us, or, to put it more bluntly, spoon fed to us. In contrast, in the world of Harry Potter, the rules are very well defined, "Magic" is pretty well defined and we generally know what the nature of magic is generally and what it's limits are. Not such with Tolkien. While he gives a lot of history, and he created a world full of magical characters, beings, legends, heroes and sagas, he also left enough open to one's own imagination that the mysteries of Middle Earth are still discussed some seventy years later. For example, Gandalf is an immensely powerful being--But we are never told the limits of his power (except that he is limited from using force to control others and is not allowed to uncloak himself fully). But even while "cloaked" we never see the full extent or nature of his power or magic.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

Well, you could argue that while the Nazgul were not technically "undead" (since they never actually died) they were functionally very similar to something along the lines of litches, and anyone who was not familiar (as the wise were) with the history of them who encountered them would probably assume them to be undead. If you believed that, and you were aware of the fact the Nazgul served Sauron (or more accurately, served whoever it was who lived in Dol Guldur, it would not be a strech to assume that He was the one who had rasied them, and assuming him to be a Necromancer seems logical.

Yet, any association of the Nazgûl serving the Necromancer should have led the Wise to the conclusion that the power in Dol Guldur was Sauron. That doesn't appear to be the case though, as Gandalf risked directly entering Dol Guldur to learn just who the Necromancer was.
The situation actually was that the Wise thought one of the Nazgûl to be the Necromancer, and maybe that was indeed the intention of Sauron, who wanted time to rebuild, and such anonymity would have suited him well.

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

Not to go off on a tangent, but one thing I love about Tolkien's world is that while he does explain a lot (especially in The Silmarillion and other writings), not everything is spelled out to the letter for us, or, to put it more bluntly, spoon fed to us.

Which is one of the reasons this excellent forum thrives after over ten years of existence.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Yet, any association of the Nazgûl serving the Necromancer should have led the Wise to the conclusion that the power in Dol Guldur was Sauron. That doesn't appear to be the case though, as Gandalf risked directly entering Dol Guldur to learn just who the Necromancer was.
The situation actually was that the Wise thought one of the Nazgûl to be the Necromancer, and maybe that was indeed the intention of Sauron, who wanted time to rebuild, and such anonymity would have suited him well.

Good point. I suppose the real reason Sauron got the "Necromancer" was that wahtever was in charge in Dol Guldur was already assumed to be a necromancer, and
once it's true nature was revealed, the name had already stuck. And since it was not considered good to call Sauron Sauron, having a convenient alternate handle would likey have been considered a handy thing. Plus as long as there were Nazgul there as well (and there usually were) it is likey that there were necromancers within the walls (if one assumes all of the Nazgul are necromantically skilled, and the Witch king is simply the best at it.)

[Legolas]

All good points here, and I do love what you pointed out. With the load of material we're given about this world, there's still much left to wonder about, and it's always a joy to come across people who are just discovering it for the first time.

It lies outside of the story, but it is worth remembering (or pointing out) the writing process. Among others (some with names and places with roots in Tolkien's Quenta Silmarillion),"The Necromancer" was originally just some 'black sorcerer' that Tolkien alluded to in The Hobbit as a device to make the world seem much more vast and dangerous than little ole Bilbo and his hobbit hole. He was simply namedropping. At time of publishing, Tolkien didn't know the Necromancer would be revealed as Sauron or what Sauron would be doing in Bilbo's world. It was a self-contained child's tale written with no intention of a sequel.

Even the most integral parts of the story behind The Lord Of The Rings including the story behind the Ring's power and the full identity/activities of the Necromancer and Gandalf were not conceived until after The Hobbit was published. So many people wrote Tolkien to ask for more details that he decided to write the sequel. How did the Ring come about? Where does Gandalf go? What's the Necromancer doing?

Responding to his publisher's letters in late 1937 onward encouraging him to write a follow-up to The Hobbit, he wrote:

But if it is true that The Hobbit has come to stay and more will be wanted, I will start the process of thought, and try to get some idea of a theme drawn from this material for treatment in a similar style and for a similar audience – possibly including actual hobbits. My daughter would like something on the Took family. One reader wants fuller details about Gandalf and the Necromancer. But that is too dark – much too much for Richard Hughes' snag. I am afraid that snag appears in everything; though actually the presence (even if only on the borders) of the terrible is, I believe, what gives this imagined world its verisimilitude. A safe fairy-land is untrue to all worlds. (Letter 17)

I did not think any of the stuff [ed. - early draft of The Silmarillion] I dropped on you filled the bill. But I did want to know whether any of the stuff had any exterior non-personal value. I think it is plain that quite apart from it, a
sequel or successor to The Hobbit is called for. I promise to give this thought and attention. But I am sure you will sympathize when I say that the construction of elaborate and consistent mythology (and two languages) rather occupies the mind, and the Silmarils are in my heart. So that goodness knows what will happen. Mr Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional and inconsistent Grimm's fairy-tale dwarves, and got drawn into the edge of it – so that even Sauron the terrible peeped over the edge. (Letter 19)

The Hobbit sequel is still where it was, and I have only the vaguest notions of how to proceed. Not ever intending any sequel, I fear I squandered all my favourite 'motifs' and characters on the original 'Hobbit'. (Letter 23)

And later, updating them on the sequel's progress:

I think The Lord of the Rings is in itself a good deal better than The Hobbit, but it may not prove a very fit sequel. It is more grown up - but the audience for which The Hobbit was written has done that also. The readers young and old who clamoured for 'more about the 'Necromancer' are to blame, for the N. is not child's play. (Letter 35)

As The Lord Of the Rings was being written to answer these questions somewhat, it became darker and more adult, and the world of The Hobbit was fused into the previously separate world of Tolkien's legends (which he wasn't sure would ever be published). Because of this, small changes had to be made in The Hobbit in order to reconcile the two stories (particularly Chapter 5, the account of Bilbo winning the riddle game with Gollum, which is explained in a note at the front of subsequent editions).

Sauron's character as an evil apprentice of Morgoth evolved over the years of writing; he had several names and his nature shifted a few times (originally with feline connections) before Tolkien settled on "Sauron." At one time in the writing process Sauron was named Thû the Necromancer (in The Lay of Leithian, a story that takes thousands of years before The Hobbit) which is how the association came about (as evident above in the Letter 19 excerpt).

What Sauron was doing to be called that while in Dol Guldur thousands of years later is still anyone's guess, but as I said, it is mostly a consequence of Tolkien having not actually fleshed those details out at time of writing - the references to The Necromancer, Radagast, Gandalf's travels, a council of white wizards, and a number of other things were there to impress upon children that Bilbo lived in massive world where all sorts of other things bigger than he were moving and clashing with no intention of ever explaining them further.

This is a theme of the book for me, and Gandalf even closes the book with such a thought:

“You don’t really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!”

“Thank goodness!” said Bilbo laughing, and handed him the tobacco-jar.

[mhagain]

Originally Posted by Legolas

"The Necromancer" was originally just some 'black sorcerer' that Tolkien alluded to in The Hobbit as a device to make the world seem much more vast and dangerous than little ole Bilbo and his hobbit hole. He was simply namedropping. At time of publishing, Tolkien didn't know the Necromancer would be revealed as Sauron or what Sauron would be doing in Bilbo's world.

Actually the Necromancer was always meant to be Sauron, even from the earliest drafts; quoting from History of the Hobbit here:

"Don't be absurd" said the wizard. "That is a job quite beyond the powers of all the dwarves, if they could be all gathered together again from the four corners of the world. And anyway his castle stands no more and he is flown to another darker place - Beren and Tinúviel broke his power, but that is quite another story."

That's a clear reference to the Lay of Leithian and the contemporary Silmarillion material, and leaves it in no doubt that even before LotR was begun Tolkien had this identity for him in mind.

It could of course still be a case of Tolkien lifting the character of Thû the Necromancer from his other writings and dropping him into the Hobbit, but the point remains: the Necromancer = Sauron was something that was intended even before the Hobbit was completed and the common conception that this was a later idea (one that only arose during the writing of LotR) is in fact quite false.