|
Post by fimbrethil on Feb 7, 2008 22:27:59 GMT -6
THANK YOU, Fanuidhol, for that quote from Lay of Leithian. It answers several questions. It definitely links the name Necromancer with the being who will become Sauron. It also makes it clear that Tolkien was using the term "Necromancer" in its technical meaning:
"In glamoury that necromancer held his hosts of phantoms and of wandering ghosts"
So he was talking about re-animating the dead - at least in that line. I was disatisfied with Andorinha's explanation that the term could just mean dark magic. That would work for many authors, but not Tolkien. Tolkien was too aware of words, and their roots and histories. It didn't make sense for him to use the term Necromancer without meaning it literally.
Andorinha - I have wondered the question that you raise about Gandalf. When did Tolkien figure out who he was? I've sometimes thought that he didn't know until about the time that the hobbits figured it out in LOTR. Whenever it was, it always seemed to me to be post-Hobbit.
Stormrider - Everything I have read suggests the process you describe: that JRRT didn't know where the new Hobbit tale was leading. He didn't know about the end of the third age until he wrote it. And I've always thought that he didn't know what the Hobbit was a prelude to, until after he wrote LOTR. After all, he had to re-write a chapter of the Hobbit to make it work.
But what I am now realizing is that he also had to re-work the other, older material, to make it fit the reality he created in LOTR. I had always thought that the process was one-way: that Sil informed LOTR. Now I see that LOTR informed Sil. It means that Sil was fluid and unfixed at that point (and probably always, through Tolkien's lifetime).
Fanduihol - the information about the timing of the "ages" is helpful. He had to come up with a way to connect all these differnt pieces. And I am generally a better hand at cooking up a dragon tale than a dragon tail, but I do know where the soft underbelly is - got your sword handy?
Fimbrethil
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 7, 2008 22:32:16 GMT -6
Ah yes, Fan, apologies, I did read it, but got confused, forgot you had broached that matter way up there. Thanks for the corrective! Must have been stunned rather than blinded, though, wear sunglasses a lot lately, so could not have been the eyes, just the brain...
________________
I can understand Thu as an early 1928 character, but the only connection I can find between Thu and the term "Necromancer" comes in the p. 73 Rateliff qoute, right? Problematic for several reasons: 1. Tolkien saw fit for some reason to delete it; 2. The action-event referred to can at best be the destruction of Tol Gaurhoth, Ages before Thorin's adventure.
Aha, found some more "early" references to the term "Necromancer" but they occur in such a fashion as to leave this matter still unresolved -- for me (see The Book of Lost Tales part 2, index "Necromancer" pp 52-54.
As I understand the BLT2 material, "Necromancer" is NOT JRRT's word here. It appears in the commentaries written by Christopher Tolkien where he tries to make sense of the alterations in text from Tevildo the Cat, to Gorthu/ Thu, and then to Sauron. So, I am still trying to find a direct JRRT connection of these three characters (seen either separately, or as sequential phases of one character) with the term Necromancer.
CT says: "Sauron the Necromancer" (BLT2, p. 52) but I wonder if this is hindsight, anachronistic in this context? He continues on p. 53, discussing how much one character bleeds into the next, and cautions us himself not to make too much of incidental corespondences among them: "The Castle of the Cats 'is' the tower of Sauron on Tol-Gaurhoth, but only in the sense that it occupies the same 'space' in the narrative: beyond this there is no point in seeking even shadowy resemblances between the two establishments. ... It would scarcely be true, I think, to say even that Sauron 'originated' in a cat: in the next phase of the legends the Necromancer (Thu) has no feline attributes. On the other hand it would be wrong to regard it as a simple matter of replacement (Thu stepping into the narrative place vacated by Tevildo) without any element of transformation of what was previously there."
From this I get the feeling that even CT is uncertain as to how much continuity we should see between Tevildo and Thu, then Thu and Sauron.
The last use (I can find!) of "Necromancer" in BLT2 comes on p. 54, again, as a comment by Christopher Tolkien:
"With the entry of Felagund into the developing legend and the Elvish watchtower on Tol Sirion [souce given by CT as 1971 Simarillion pp. 120, 155-6] captured by the Necromancer...".
Page 120 hb version Silmarillion has no mention of "Necromancer" that I can find, even without the shades. Pages 155-6 do detail Gorthaur, identified now on 156 as Sauron, as capturing Tol Sirion. Here, 156, Sauron is referred to as a sorceror of "dreadful power" etc. -- but the key word "Necromancer" is sadly missing. The index does not contain the term either, and the sometimes helpful name glosses for Gorthaur (p. 332) and Sauron "the Abhored One" (p.348) do not mention "Necromancer" either. Here Sauron is, as we already know for LotR times, classed as a maia, but does this hold for the earlier characters? So, no direct connection of "Necromancer" with any of the Icky Persons in the early, pre LOtR tales? No identification found (so far!) with the term maia, until LotR and the late example of Sauron.
A quick check of Unfinished Tales gives me no "Necromancer" as well, but I'll have to go through all 12 HOME volumes now to see what else may be available on this term...
In a partial glimpse I have through the Google book search format p. 81 in Rateliff has a section on "The Necromancer" in which he says: "... the Necromancer [note capitalization] is an old acquaintance. This character goes back, in one form or another, all the way to the end of the 'Lost Tales' period." p. 81
But again, he is, I think, using the term anachronistically, reading it backwards into texts where it never actually appeared. As his earliest example of this creature, he gives us Tu (not THU, though the 'U's both have the circumflex). :
"Tu the wizard, 'for he was more skilled in magics than any that have dwelt everyet beyond the land of Valinor'. According to one account, Tu, or Tuvo learned 'much black magic' from Melko in the Halls of Mandos during the latter's imprisonment there... Tu set up a wizard kingship in the middle lands... Ruler of the Dark Elves of Palisor, ... the wizard king dwelt underground in endless caverns beside a dark lake." p. 81
BLT 1 has Tu in its index, p. 294, as "The wizard or fay who became King of the Dark Elves" pp 232-4. 237, and 244. Here the connection between Tu and Thu is very tenuous, if it exists at all, even less connection than between Tevildo and Thu. Even Rateliff stresses that this Tu: "For all his sinister associations, this 'eldest of wizards' is not evil." p. 81 Nor is title "Necromancer" associated with this Elven-fay wizard king. Later in BLT1, Fukil/ Fankil/ Fangli (sharp tooth?) shows up, as a more reprehensible character than Tu; he is called a "son of Melko" by JRRT, p. 237, but I think this is in a figurative sense only(?). Again no mention of the term "Necromancer." P. 244, last BLT1 mention of Tu, no "Necromancer."
I see Rateliff assumes the term "fay" to mean maia (in regard to Fankil's origins: "Fangli is a fay or Maia..."p. 82). I wonder again, if this is ever presented in a genuine JRRT context? I have not tried to follow this line yet, maybe some one else knows?
A bit later on p. 82 Rateliff gives us the fatal word: "Thu the necromancer." But again, there is no attribution of this connection to an actual JRRT quote. Rateliff finally does, dipping into vol. 3 of HOME, quote what may well be the first use of the term "necromancer", (see The Lay of Leithian, canto VII, lines 2064 - 2079, p. 272 in the paper back version:
Men called him Thu, ... In glamoury that necromancer held his hosts of phantoms and of wandering ghosts."
Here at last we have the connection I was seeking. But it still troubles me. Just as we can use the term "superman" attributively -- "A. Lincoln was a 'superman' in his fight to maintain the Union." -- without implying that was THE Superman of comic book legend, so, "necromancer" here is in small case, and used as a descriptive, not the upper case "Necromancer" used as a direct title in the Hobbit. Quibbling here? Maybe, not sure what to do with this entry. Will need the help of others at this point. Do we want to see this as a title for Thu? And does this extend a vital connection between Thu and the Necromancer character in The Hobbit? Frankly, I have my doubts, but may be prejudiced here.
If my doubts stand, then the first mention of the capitalized, title "Necromancer" (that I know of) comes in the Bladorthin portion of the Hobbit, and here, again, we have the same old problem. Is the Necromancer of The Hobbit Thu or Sauron at this time? We still lack a direct connection. Thu may or may not be Sauron, and "The Necromancer" of Bilbo's tale, still may not be Sauron until LotR.
Additionally, the Bladorthin quote still bothers me, resolving its place in the text hangs upon understanding what JRRT meant by inserting this section in the first place when it so obviously does not fit with the context of Thorin/ Bilbo's lifetime?
Perhaps in 1930 - 1935, JRRT had no idea about the Age, or Era of The Hobbit when he first began writing it down? Maybe at this point he either had NO time slot for it in the mythos, or he thought Bilbo's epic was occurring just a bit after the life of Tinuviel?
At any rate, unless someone finds another direct quote from JRRT, I guess the use of "necromancer" as an adjective comes with Canto VII Lay of L (any date here Fan?); but the first use of "The Necromancer," or "Necromancer" capitalized as a proper noun, is the Bladorthin text of The Hobbit, later discarded.
LOL! Unfortunately, the rest of you will have to analyze this as well; for me, the matter grows ever more obscure and I would remove my shades, the better to discern the dim corners of this topic, but I fear being blinded more than simply stunned!
______________
Sigh, still need to find when/ if in JRRT's hand, fay = maia, and if/ when Tolkien decided to make Gandalf a maia rather than a man...
Maybe learning calculus would be easier?
Thanks to ALL!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 7, 2008 22:42:28 GMT -6
Ah, I see while I have been madly shuffling through the books, others have posted ahead of me -- perhaps the answers are now all nicely laid out?! I'll check!
Fan, I can get no further into Rateliff than p. 82, does he offer anything more on "The Necromancer" in terms of direct quotes of JRRT? I get the feeling Rateliff read Chris Tolkien's assumed connections from the BLT commentaries and adopted the premise that there was a direct, proven connection between the title "Necromancer" and Thu, as well as a direct, full connection of Thu with Sauron (something CT does not really say).
LOL, should read the latest posts before I write anything more!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 7, 2008 22:54:15 GMT -6
OK, whew! Nothing more added after Fan's post on Thu coupled with "necromancer" from LL used "adjectively."
Here, my doubts are expressed above, I'm still looking for a proper noun, title, capitalized "Necromancer." But, as I mentioned, maybe I'm overdoing it here? Still, it explains things better (to my mind), like NEVER a mention of the name Sauron in all of the Hobbit, not even in the early versions Rateliff gives us. Or does he have an early version where Sauron is actually named? No prior use of "Necromancer" as a title before Hobbit (if I'm allowed to discount adjective lower case "necromancer" of LL).
Still, we have only vague connections between Thu and Sauron, partially smeared by Chris Tolkien himself, who is not certain how connected Thu is to the Sauron of LotR. I think Rateliff follows CT in assuming the characters are simple developmental stages (Thu = Sauron) and I think Rateliff overplays "necromancer" for "The Necromancer." But willing to admit, this could go either way!
Ah RE: "At some point while writing The Hobbit, perhaps Elrond's recognition of Glamdring and Orcrist, inspired the division of Ages. That is something to research."
Well, we've both come up with that escape for Tolkien. It would explain his putting the Beren/ Luthien matter into the Hobbit, then cutting it out. You plenty smart Fan! I like it. Sigh, next project, when does JRRT first have an outline of the Ages!?
RE Fimbrethil: "So he was talking about re-animating the dead - at least in that line. I was disatisfied with Andorinha's explanation that the term could just mean dark magic. That would work for many authors, but not Tolkien. Tolkien was too aware of words, and their roots and histories. It didn't make sense for him to use the term Necromancer without meaning it literally."
Good point, especially if we decide the connection between Thu and Sauron is direct and integral in JRRT's thought. Not sure about that yet, but "circumstantial evidence" is mounting up that way. Do we, late in LotR, have an example (like this of Thu in LL as a little n "necromancer") for Sauron directly discoursing with the dead, controlling them? He does not even control the Dead who made the Paths of the Dead, does not use "ghost" armies the way Aragorn does (a true necromancer himself for his direct speech with the King of the Dead). Off hand, I can't recall Sauron using ghosts, even the Nazgul are still, in one sense alive and "fleshed" aren't they?
Here Fan's point about the Barrow Wights may help. Are they corporeal, or purely spiritual? Do they but "re-animate" secondarily the bodies they find in the graves? If Barrow wights are spirits of the dead, not just pure spirit from the beginning, then, maybe, this is a way of seeing Sauron as controlling ghosts, acting as a necromancer? But is it Sauron, or Morgoth who set the wights about their tasks?
__________
Hmmm, now whot's all dis stuff bout dragon tails?
|
|
|
Post by fimbrethil on Feb 7, 2008 23:25:43 GMT -6
Andorinha,
Your point about the LL reference using "necromancer" as a description rather than a title is solid. I guess I have to withdraw my earlier comment about it definitely linking the Hobbit Necromancer with the entity-that-would-be-known-as-Sauron. Rats.
You said: Perhaps in 1930 - 1935, JRRT had no idea about the Age, or Era of The Hobbit when he first began writing it down? Maybe at this point he either had NO time slot for it in the mythos, or he thought Bilbo's epic was occurring just a bit after the life of Tinuviel?
Alternatively, he had no intention of putting Hobbit in the same world as his other stories, he just borrowed names and references from his epics and tossed them into his children's story for seasoning. Kind of like the way he stuck Tom Bombadil into LOTR. There may have been no intention to try to have it make sense as a whole cloth. This idea suggests a randomness to the original creation, with lots of clean-up later to make it work.
Again, we see his willingness to do this in the re-writing of "Riddles in the Dark." (BTW, is the original chapter published anywhere? I have seen a first edition Hobbit, so I have read it. But I wonder if the text is available anywhere currently in print.)
Fimbrethil
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 7, 2008 23:34:54 GMT -6
AKKK, don't you people ever sleep! Fimbrethil, I just added a bunch to my last message, including an excellent point you made.
RE: "Your point about the LL reference using "necromancer" as a description rather than a title is solid. I guess I have to withdraw my earlier comment about it definitely linking the Hobbit Necromancer with the entity-that-would-be-known-as-Sauron. Rats."
I'm still a bit sceptical concerning this. It looks "OK" to me but I can't "prove" that just because Tolkien did not make "necromancer" a proper title in LL, he deffinitely did not mean it as such. When Fan gets out of the kitchen (and what does she want with a roasting pan 4 feet long, one foot deep and wide?) we may get a good counter-blast. Stormrider may also have special insights here.
RE Fimbrethil's: "Alternatively, he had no intention of putting Hobbit in the same world as his other stories, he just borrowed names and references from his epics and tossed them into his children's story for seasoning. Kind of like the way he stuck Tom Bombadil into LOTR. There may have been no intention to try to have it make sense as a whole cloth. This idea suggests a randomness to the original creation, with lots of clean-up later to make it work."
I LIKE IT! Bold thinking, but it seems to fit with my gut feeling here. Making the mythos, the Hobbit and LotR less a well-planned history than it seems later, after he went back to join things up into a single-flow narrative. Yeah, I REALLY LIKE IT! Thanks. But now, do we have to find quotes to "prove" it tonight?
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Feb 8, 2008 4:35:25 GMT -6
There Morgoth's servants fast him caught and he was cruelly bound, and brought to Sauron, captain of the host, the lord of werewolf and of ghost, most foul and fell of all who knelt at Morgoth's throne. In might he dwelt on Gauroth Isle; but now had ridden with strength abroad, by Morgoth bidden to find the rebel Barahir.
pg 401, paperback lines 253 - 261. Bold is mine.
Lay of Leithian Recommenced. CT dates it as soon as LotR was finished. No time got to get ready for work... Fan
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 8, 2008 10:15:38 GMT -6
THANKS FAN!
Ah, good, a ghost that fits the bill nicely, referring to a once living being, enspirited, now dead and with its spirit roaming, but still able to be contacted/ contracted and controlled. BUT -- as you mention -- in this section/ version of LL, we have already come a long way, B-text here being amended to C and maybe even D text, written in the LATE 1950s? Where Christopher Tolkien tells us "It is clear then that a new start on the Lay of Leithan was one of the first things that he turned to when The Lord of Rings was complete." (Lays of Beleriand, vol. 3, p. 394).
Here, in the LL text of p. 401 Fan gives us, I note, the name Sauron has replaced the older Thu. Not only is this a late text then, post LotR, but we are still dealing with the conundrum CT set us: how much of Tevildo bleeds through to Thu, how much of Thu is preserved in Sauron. Does the necromancer function of Thu pass on to become the automatic heritage of Sauron, or was this aspect re-invented for him AFTER LotR got fairly written, and it was necessary to connect the 1938 Hobbit Necromancer with some figure in LotR?
So, I think what this verse LL version gives us is a "classical styled" necromancer function for Sauron, sometime after LotR? What I'd like to see is some similar statement for the period around the time of the Hobbit's writting to help us decide IF "The Necromancer" there COULD be Sauron at that time. (Of course, in a poem, what rhymes handily with "host"? Did he stick "ghost" in there to complete the verse? Just kidding, I accept this "ghost" as sufficient to demonstrate a late, post LotR small n "necromancer function for Sauron.)
I very vaguely remember, or seem to, some connection of Sauron with ghosts in LotR itself, if it exists, and can be found, it might add some more weight, I think, to the circumstantial pile.
I see I've got to read this verse text in full. I've mined LL before for discrete items, but never approached it as a separate read. Intimidated by the verse form? Been trying the chant-out-loud system to "get into" 19th century-styled verse lately, worked for me with some of Chesterton's presentations, maybe here as well?
Now, I'm also getting interested in Tu, or Tuvo of BLT1, from the fragment (232-34) of Gilfanon's Tale, I'm beginning to see that Tu might have represented the willfully "Fallen" element of the Elvenkind, those who consorted with Melko, knowing him to be evil? Might have some impact on the creation of the goblins not merely from the kidnap/ tortured victims but also some Elves who could/ would deliberately seek to join evil. In a Christian context, this would make them less pitiable, gack, even less worthy of redemption/ rehabilitation?
Stormrider, in your reading of the Tevildo material, did you run across any necromancer quotes, or anything on Tu, the wizard-elf-king?
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Feb 8, 2008 16:50:34 GMT -6
Andorinha wrote: A quick check of Unfinished Tales gives me no "Necromancer" as well, but I'll have to go through all 12 HOME volumes now to see what else may be available on this term...
This is one of those times that the 13th volume of HoMe comes in real handy: The History of Middle-earth Index. This index is for the British editions that were a matched set, which I don't have. Its value to me is that it tells me what volume to check, even though the page references may be wrong. Necromancer is found in vol II as you already know, vol V, VI, VII, IXa, and Necromancers in vol X.
I did not feel it necessary to complicate our discussion with Tu, Tevido and Tuvo, since as Andorinha wrote "Here the connection between Tu and Thu is very tenuous, if it exists at all, even less connection than between Tevildo and Thu." But since it was brought up, just because all of the various T named characters have little relation to each other does not mean that the name Sauron is not simply a substitute for Thu.
Darn it, I've got to cook dinner for the hungry horde and I still don't have Dragon's Tail. I'll be back! Fan
I need a homonym checker. I just replaced horde for hoard.
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Feb 8, 2008 19:04:33 GMT -6
I decided to check Letters. The index entry for Necromancer states "see Sauron" Letter #17 dated 15 Oct 1937: "One reader wants fuller details about Gandalf and the Necromancer" Letter #19 dated 16 Dec 1937: "...Sauron the terrible peeped over the edge." The comment was about The Hobbit.
There are some other references dated later that tie Sauron and The Necromancer together.
I get up at 4am every morning. I can barely keep my eyes open. See you in the morning. Fan
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 8, 2008 19:12:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 8, 2008 19:36:46 GMT -6
RE: Fan "Letter #19 dated 16 Dec 1937: '...Sauron the terrible peeped over the edge.' The comment was about The Hobbit."
SUPER!!! That's the first bit of "uncontestable" evidence for JRRT putting Sauron into the Hobbit that I've EVER seen. The date of 1937 clinches it! Funny, I've got a scrawled reference on the edge of the paper, p. 26. "Sauron is Necromancer introd [introduced?] from start! Hobbit book integrated from start, or still largely independent of ME corpus at first?" LOL, well, I MUST have seen this bit sometime in the last 7 years, but it did not stick in my mind.
WELL DONE, FAN AND THANK YOU!!!
Er, wait a minute, any chance that this Letter is a forgery? Check your copy, I notice in mine that it looks sort of "pasted in," and instead of printer's ink, its obviously written up in dried, pink lemonade...
Thanks for the URLs Stormrider, I need to review those threads before crawling off to write about Tu.
Hmmm, here's a recipe for "Dragon-tail Humble Pie," be eating a lot it for a while now. Grrrr.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 9, 2008 6:48:05 GMT -6
OK, for me, this situation requires a note of recapitulation, i.e., where do we stand now?
We have one use (so far) of the term necromancer associated with Thu in 1928, but, as I have stated elsewhere, I don't think we can be certain this means that Thu was The Necromancer, rather than just a person who practiced that art. So, until further clarification comes, something showing Thu as The Necromancer, I'm going to shelve that item as being inconclusive.
For definite items tying the later morph Sauron to The Hobbit we are left, at this point, with one statement from Letter 19, p. 26 which tells us that :"Mr Baggins began as a a comic tale among conventional and inconsistent Grimm's fairy-tale dwarves and got drawn into the edge of it [it = the backstory mythology] -- so that even Sauron the terrible peeped over the edge."
We have also the curious incident of the use of Beren and Luthien's battle with Thu (apparently now shifted by 1930 - 1937 to Sauron): Thorin [here called Gandalf] --
" 'The goblins of Moria have been repaid' said Gandalf; 'we must give a thought to the Necromancer'. 'Don't be absurd' said the wizard [here Bladorthin]. '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 [others>] his castle stands no more and [his>] he is flown [added: to another darker place] -- Beren and Tinuviel broke his power, but that is quite another story.' " cf Rateliff, Mr Baggins, p. 73.
For this notational statement, with several correction/ emendations in it, we have Fan's report that Rateliff assumes it could have been written any time between 1930 and 33 "when he loaned it to CS Lewis to read."
Are we agreed that these are the only two passages that directly connect Sauron (or Thu) to any version of the narrative of The Hobbit? Here, not having Rateliff's works, I can only pick up 4 page chunks of his text from the Google book search format -- if I'm clever enough to figure out what words will trigger a hit. So I cannot check his index, or read ahead to see if Rateliff ever discovered more Sauron-Hobbit connections.
IF, these two passages are the only ones, what do they reliably tell us about how Tolkien put The Hobbit together, especially how deeply it was embedded in the mythology; and when did it become a part of the backstory?
We know the idea of hobbits was originally foreign to the mythology, JRRT tells us he had no idea, who or what a hobbit might be when he first penned that name in the famous exam booklet. This would have been 1928 at the earliest, a time when Thu was still the evil lord, second in command to Morgoth. We know also that there were a series of oral presentations from as early as 1928, influenced by The Marvellous Land of the Snergs and several other sources. Sometime between 1930 and 1935 the first written form of the hobbit's tale came into existence. Here, I think Letter 19 becomes very important. Tolkien says the The Hobbit grew from a brother's Grimm like fairy tale that only gradually was drawn into the mythology, and finally was pulled that way far enough that the character Sauron "peeped" into it.
I think this allows us to still view The Hobbit as an independent tale from its inception, with only a few coincidental connections to the mythology, but that sometime during the writing of the second phase, JRRT started bleeding discrete items of the back story into his new narrative. But, for some reason, he then decided to cut the passage mentioned by Rateliff, removing the reference to Beren and Luthien. This act (were there others?) then left The Hobbit with few connections to the mythology save the large ones regarding the use of the same geography, and all the material that mentioned Elrond and Rivendell. But also, with the removal of the Beren/ Luthien passage, all direct connections to Thu or Sauron were now gone. Why?
Fan, Stormrider and I came up with reasons for the removal of this passage, connected with the apparent absurdity of crossing the time lines of the various Ages (see Fan's message # 19 on this thread). If, by 1935 JRRT still had no conception of the lay out of the various Ages, it might make sense for him to use the Beren/ Luthien material. Do we have any way of figuring out when JRRT first conceived his Age sequence? That would help considerably. IF he had a time line in place before 1935, this reference makes no sense at all, and I suspect since it is a "chopped-up" passage with bits "added" and non-grammatical structures in it, it may have been just a jotted note on the page, a musing Tolkien then thought better of it and then ignored. And, IF there was no time line before 1935, why did he not keep it in the text?
For the main item, the Letter #19, I can accept this as JRRT's admission that at first The Hobbit had no real contact points with the mythology, but gradually as he began the written versions, the mythology started to creep into it, until the idea of associating The Necromancer with Sauron came into his mind (around 1933?). Here, I am still not certain when JRRT would have made this connection. Did earlier versions have a Necromancer, with no real personna attached? Or was there no Necromancer at all in the narrative until JRT dropped Sauron into the text and Sauron brought the title with him? Here I still have a problem: when does JRRT ever connect Sauron with the title Necromancer, or even call him a necromancer, small n? Fan provides us with a ghost controlling Sauron in the late 1950s Lay of Leithian, but this does us no good as it is 20 years too late to prove such a connection with the Sauron of 1935.
AKKK, this goes round still in circles for me.
1. I need to find IF there are any other Sauron = necromancer passages, or, more vitally useful, Sauron = The Necromancer passages in any version of The Hobbit prior to 1938, or any other text in the mythology before that date.
2. I need to find out when Thu first becomes replaced by Sauron.
3. How much of the material describing the nature, functions, actions of Thu is applicable to Sauron?
So far, for me, I think the only real progress made has come with the realization (thanks to Fan) that by 1937, the date of the Letter, JRRT himself had made the connection between Necromancer and Sauron, even if it was still no where made specific in the published text of The Hobbit. I had mistakenly assumed Necromancer = Sauron came only in the 1940s with the expanded role of Sauron in the LotR.
Well Fan, Stormrider, Fimbrethil, and any others who become involved here, if youse guys want to move to another sub topic here, why don't you carry on with any other points you were interested in? Unless any of you think it is still profitable to jump in here? I don't want to hog Fan's topic. Meanwhile, I imagine this particular issue will simmer nicely on its own until one or another of us finds some more information? LOL, I've gots lots more reading to do!
THANKS ALL!
Still munching dat pie, not bad!
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 9, 2008 8:10:06 GMT -6
I have some information on the Tevildo/Thu/Sauron warp but I can't take time this morning to go into it. I'm taking my mother-in-law shopping and then we have a play later tonight. I may try to get back on here this afternoon if I have time. Hang in til I get back!
There may be some info on the timeline structuring in Shaping of Middle Earth...do you have that HoME book?
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 9, 2008 14:26:52 GMT -6
The Book of Lost Tales 1 - DelRey branch of Ballantine Books, June 1992, Chapter II, The Music of the Ainur p.49 states:
The Lays of Beleriand - DelRey branch of Ballantine Books, October 1994, The Lay of Leithian chapter pp. 263 states:
The Lays of Beleriand same edition as noted above, pp. 307-308 state:
The Book of Lost Tales 2 DelRey branch of Ballantine Books, June 1992, in The Tale of Tinúviel chapter, p. 53 states: The italics are part of this passage and the bold N's are my emphasis.
Whew! There is more!
The Book of Lost Tales 2 DelRey branch of Ballantine Books, June 1992, in The Tale of Tinúviel chapter, p9. 54-55 states:
So it started out with Tevildo Prince of Cats, then morphed into Thû, Lord of Werewolves who was also a werewolf himself and was also referred to as Necromancer, and morphed again into Sauron. Does this tie it up well enough for everyone?
I have skipped around a lot but I think the Synopsis I is The Tale of Tinúviel and Synopsis II is The Lay of Leithian.
|
|