"Necromancer"

[Jade of Mordor]

This might strike most of you as a stupid question, but I'm curious and I don't want to make the wrong assumption.

Was the Necromancer mentioned in The Hobbit actually Sauron? My friends and I were arguing about that, but I don't see how he could be anyone else.

[zinnite]

Yes. I think there's some some stuff about it in The Unfinished Tales (it's been a while since I've read it).

[Artanis]

Yes it is Sauron. It is said also in LotR, appendix A, Durins Folk, and in Appendix B, The tale of years.
Btw, welcome Jade.

[Jade of Mordor]

Ahh. Well, I haven't read the Unfinished Tales yet, and I probably missed a big chunk of the information in the Appendices of LotR. But thanks for clearing that up for me.

And thank you Artanis. It's good to be here.

[Maedhros]

Was the Necromancer mentioned in The Hobbit actually Sauron? My friends and I were arguing about that, but I don't see how he could be anyone else.

Something interesting about it is that, at the time of the Hobbit, there was already a vast work done about the legendarium. The Necromancer at first in The Hobbit was just an excuse that JRRT made for Gandalf to leave the party. He was later made to be Sauron.

[Tolman Muggworts]

Yes, for a while I was pretty mystified about the whole Necromancer thing. After reading some other Tolkien books I got it cleared for myself. By the way where did you get that icon fom with Maedhros hanging from Thangorodrim?

[Artanis]

That avatar is made from a painting by Ted Nasmith. You can see all of it here.

(... hoping dear Russandol doesn't mind me answering for him)

[Finrod Felagund]

Hello visitor...nice to see you...feel free to join!

[hectorberlioz]

thats one of the things i love about the hobbit, that it mentions sauron(in the form of the necromancer).
well, does anyone have a suspicion that Tolkien planned the hobbit to be a lot similar to lotr?

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
thats one of the things i love about the hobbit, that it mentions sauron(in the form of the necromancer).
well, does anyone have a suspicion that Tolkien planned the hobbit to be a lot similar to lotr?
___________________________________
My initial impression was that The Hobbit was written as an independent work seperate from the Middle-earth history, like others he wrote and read to his children (say, Roverandom), but it seems hectorberlioz may be onto something. In JRRT's long letter to Milton Waldman in 1950 there is this observation:

The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a "fairy-story", for children. Some of the details of tone and treatment are, I now think, even on that basis, mistaken. But I should not wish to change much. For in effect this is a study of simple ordinary man, neither artistic nor noble and heroic (but not without the undeveloped seeds of these things) against a high setting - and in fact (as a critic has perceived) the tone and style change with the Hobbit's development, passing from fairy-tale to the noble and high and relapsing with the return.

So the addition of the Necromancer may not have been wholly arbitrary. The immediate cause was an excuse for Bilbo and the dwarves to be on their own, but subconsciously may also have been a way of at least rudimentarilly tying the tale more firmly to the legendarium.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally posted by tuor of Gondolin
So the addition of the Necromancer may not have been wholly arbitrary. The immediate cause was an excuse for Bilbo and the dwarves to be on their own, but subconsciously may also have been a way of at least rudimentarilly tying the tale more firmly to the legendarium.

exactly what i was thinking.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
Originally posted by hectorberlioz
thats one of the things i love about the hobbit, that it mentions sauron(in the form of the necromancer).
well, does anyone have a suspicion that Tolkien planned the hobbit to be a lot similar to lotr?
___________________________________
My initial impression was that The Hobbit was written as an independent work seperate from the Middle-earth history, like others he wrote and read to his children (say, Roverandom), but it seems hectorberlioz may be onto something. In JRRT's long letter to Milton Waldman in 1950 there is this observation:



So the addition of the Necromancer may not have been wholly arbitrary. The immediate cause was an excuse for Bilbo and the dwarves to be on their own, but subconsciously may also have been a way of at least rudimentarilly tying the tale more firmly to the legendarium.

It was written separately, because the first edition of the Hobbit, where Gollum and Bilbo meet was very different from what we know it today. When Tolkien began writing LotR, he had to change that chapter so he could make it work in LotR, with the Ring and all...

I believe, Tom Shippey, a Tolkien biographer, who wrote J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century goes on and speaks of it. In fact on one of the Extended Edition DVD's he is interviewed and discusses that point as well. I think it was on the TTT EE DVD...

[Tuor of Gondolin]

:



So the addition of the Necromancer may not have been wholly arbitrary. The immediate cause was an excuse for Bilbo and the dwarves to be on their own, but subconsciously may also have been a way of at least rudimentarilly tying the tale more firmly to the legendarium.
------------------------------------------------------------------



It was written separately, because the first edition of the Hobbit, where Gollum and Bilbo meet was very different from what we know it today. When Tolkien began writing LotR, he had to change that chapter so he could make it work in LotR, with the Ring and all...
__________________________________________

Oddly, both observations may be correct. It is true that The Hobbit was written before LOTR, and as a children's story with a "Riddles in the Dark" scene much in needing of alteration later (The Annotated Hobbit describes the changes well), but I also seem to recall reading somewhere that JRRT observed that he found elements of Middle-earth creeping in unbidden. Ah, just found an instance, from H. Carpernter's Biography:

The story began, then, merely for personal amusement. Certainly Tolkien had at first no intention that the bourgois comfortable world of Bilbo Baggins would be related in any way to the vast mythological landscape of The Silmarillion. Gradually, however, elements of his mythology began to creep in. Inevitably the dwarves suggested a connection, for 'dwarves' (spelt in that fashion) had played a part in the earlier work; and when in the first chapter of The Hobbit the wizard mentioned 'the Necromancer' there was a reference to the legend of Beren and Luthien. Soon it was apparent that the journey of Bilbo Baggins and his companions lay across a corner of Middle-earth which had its earlier history chronicled in The Silmarillion. In Tolkien's words this was 'the world into which Mr Baggins strayed'. And if the events of the new story were clearly set long after those of The Silmarillion, then, since the earlier chronicles recorded the history of the First and Second Ages of Middle-earth, it appeared that The Hobbit was to be a tale of the Third Age.

[Maedhros]

From Morgoth's Ring: Later Quentas

It is therefore a foolish and perilous thing, besides being a wrong deed forbidden justly by the appointed Rulers of Arda, if the Living seek to commune with the Unbodied, though the houseless may desire it, especially the most unworthy among them. 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 own's 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 fëa from its body; and in the contest for mastery the body may be gravely injured, even if it he not wrested from its rightful 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.

Now we see why Sauron was called the Necromancer.

[Twista]

lol i have a character on 'Diablo 2' thats a necromancer. Doesn't look much like sauron tho ....

[Thorin II]

Tolkien already had a lot of source material for LOTR done when he wrote The Hobbit, so I suspect he was unable to avoid some connection between the two. Spending that much time creating a fantasy world would certainly make it tough to write a story in a different one. From what I recall, he had no idea The Hobbit would do so well, so I doubt he intended to tie them together the way he did.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Jade of Mordor
This might strike most of you as a stupid question, but I'm curious and I don't want to make the wrong assumption.

Was the Necromancer mentioned in The Hobbit actually Sauron? My friends and I were arguing about that, but I don't see how he could be anyone else.

That's not a stupid question at all. It took me ages to figure that out. Sauron's fortrees as the Necromancer, I believe, was at Dol Gulder (sp?) in Mirkwood.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Thorin II
Tolkien already had a lot of source material for LOTR done when he wrote The Hobbit, so I suspect he was unable to avoid some connection between the two. Spending that much time creating a fantasy world would certainly make it tough to write a story in a different one. From what I recall, he had no idea The Hobbit would do so well, so I doubt he intended to tie them together the way he did.

There was no intention to tie them together, because in the first edition of the Hobbit, the chapter with Bilbo and Gollum was completely different from what we now know it as being. He changed that chapter when he was writing the Lord of the Rings so it would work. That chapter was transformed so the Ring was more important and wasn't just a normal ring of power as it was first written. When it was changed it became more precious to Gollum and was later found to have been THE RING...

[Thorin II]

Have you ever read the original version? I'm interested to know whether it was different in any other ways.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Thorin II
Have you ever read the original version? I'm interested to know whether it was different in any other ways.
___________________________________

The best way to see is to get a copy of The Annotated Hobbit (annotated by Douglas A. Anderson).

Appendix A discusses textual and Revisional notes.