Sauron, the Necromancer

[Aelfwine]

How about the Dead at Dunharrow or the Ringwraiths themselves?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Aelfwine

How about the Dead at Dunharrow or the Ringwraiths themselves?

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:

Originally Posted by FotR, Chapter 2

A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades

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

[William Cloud Hicklin]

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

For the Unbodied, wandering in the world, are those who at the least have refused the door of life and remain in regret and self-pity. Some are filled with bitterness, grievance, and envy. Some were enslaved by the Dark Lord and do his work still, though he himself is gone. They will not speak truth or wisdom. To call on them is folly. To attempt to master them and to make them servants of one's own will is wickedness. Such practices are of Morgoth; and the necromancers are of the host of Sauron his servant.

Some say that the Houseless desire bodies, though they are not willing to seek them lawfully by submission to the judgement of Mandos. The wicked among them will take bodies, if they can, unlawfully. The peril of communing with them is, therefore, not only the peril of being deluded by fantasies or lies: there is peril also of destruction. For one of the hungry Houseless, if it is admitted to the friendship of the Living, may seek to eject the fea from its body; and in the contest for mastery the body may be gravely injured, even if it be not wrested from its righful habitant. Or the Houseless may plead for shelter, and if it is admitted, then it will seek to enslave its host and use both his will and his body for its own purposes. It is said that Sauron did these things, and taught his followers how to achieve them.

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.

[Bêthberry]

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.

Originally Posted by OED, necromancer

One who practices necromancy; one who claims to carry on communication with the dead; more generally, a wizard, magician, wonder-worker, conjuror.

Originally Posted by OED, necromancy

The pretended art of revealing future events, etc., by means of communication with the dead; more generally, magic, enchantment, conjuration.

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.

[Formendacil]

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?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

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.

[Mithadan]

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.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

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.

[Rumil]

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.