1

Gabriel Murphy

The Temple, the Bargaining Model, and the Lord of the Rings: How the Religious Significance

of Middle Earth and its Indivisibility led to the War of the Ring

Introduction

In this paper, I will utilize the bargaining model of war to explain why the War of the

Ring occurred and was ultimately inevitable. I will utilize two of James D. Fearon’s essays on the bargaining model, “Signaling versus the balance of power and interests: An empirical test of a crisis bargaining model” and “Rationalist Explanations for War” to establish the parameters for the model and to provide a concrete lens through which to view the War of the Ring. I will use

Ron E. Hassner’s book War on Sacred Grounds to establish a definition of what a sacred space is and as evidence for the indivisibility of those sacred spaces. Stacie Goddard’s essay “Uncommon

Ground: Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy” is also used to analyze the indivisibility of religiously significant locations and the politics surrounding them. Finally, the aforementioned pieces will be applied to Tolkien’s work in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the

Rings to explain the causes of the War of the Ring.

Religious practices have been a central aspect of cultures across the globe for a significant span of human history. The presence and success of major religions have grown symbiotically with major human population centers. Religion is also a vital part of the history of

The Lord of the Rings and the development of the circumstances under which the story happens.

The religious history of the Elves, laid out mostly in The Silmarillion, is essential to understanding the War of the Ring. 2

Religion is also a main source of the problem of indivisibility. Not only do the pretenses of religion often make religious subjects and content indivisible, but a classic indivisibility problem is presented in the Judeo-Christian Bible. In 1 Kings 3, King Solomon is attempting to determine the mother of a baby that two women have laid claim to. He proposes that the baby is cut in half and each woman gets one half of the baby. When one of the women relinquishes her claim on half of the baby in order to keep the baby whole and alive, Solomon determines that woman to be the mother because of her prioritization of the baby’s life over her possession of it.1

This indivisibility permeates other aspects of Christianity as well many other religions due to the permanence and definition of claims to religious places. This indivisibility is one of the three conditions of war that James D. Fearon highlights when analyzing the bargaining model.2

The Lord of the Rings is the most important fantasy book in literature and, being one of the most distributed books in history, is one of the most widely appreciated. The book presents several scenarios that are applicable to the real world, both for the time that it was written and modern day. One of the most significant modern problems that the book highlights is violent conflict over a sacred space, as can be seen all across the Middle East, South Asia, and even in the United States. The War of the Ring mirrors modern conflicts, such as the battle over

Jerusalem, due to its existence as a war over sacred grounds driven by the indivisibility of those grounds and the inability to come to a compromise through bargaining over them.

1 The Bible, Authorized King James Version, (Oxford, 1998) 2 James D. Fearon, “Signaling Versus the Balance of Power and interests: An Empirical test of a Crisis Bargaining Model,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23, 2 (1994): 236 3

Defining Sacred Spaces

Religions across the globe are extremely diverse in every aspect from their size, to their mission, to their age, but most have a few similarities. One of these similarities is the presence and importance of sacred spaces. These spaces are locations that are held in high regard by worshipers of a religion due to their connections with the divine, historical significance, or location relative to important events in a religion’s history.

In order to properly address the issues facing Middle Earth as a sacred space and assess how that status was a cause of the War of the Ring, it is essential to define what constitutes a sacred space. The definition used below was adopted from Ron E. Hassner’s War on Sacred

Grounds.

Hassner puts forward three primary functions that sacred places are meant to fulfil to believers. The first function of a sacred place is to serve as a center for communication between the believer and the divine. This communication can occur through prayer, song, contact with an idol, or some other method of contact with the otherworldly. The second function of sacred places is to be a lasting presence of the divine. The ability of the worshiper to believe that they may receive a sign from the divine, be it a blessing, a healed ailment, or forgiveness, from the commune in the location is vital to the location’s status as a sacred space. The third necessary function for sacred spaces is their intentionally meaningful design. Sacred places must have a layout in the architecture or design that evokes or mirrors significant aspects of the religion that the location is sacred to. The sacred space itself should be a representation of the religion in its purest form.3

3 Ron E. Hassner, War on Sacred Grounds, (Ithaca: Cornell, 2009), 22. 4

These three functions and the actors that they are attributed to (gods, worshipers, and the locations themselves) are brought together in order to form a coherent definition of a sacred space. According to Hassner, “sacred spaces are religious centers at which the heavenly and earthly meet, sites that act as bridges between the human and the divine worlds. They are the locations at which the divine ruptures through the mundane and reveals itself to humans.”4 This is the definition that this paper will use when addressing Arda as a sacred space and assessing its indivisibility as a cause of the War of the Ring.

Hassner also goes on to mention two key aspects of sacred spaces: “centrality” and

“vulnerability.” Centrality is essentially a measure of the importance of the space to the religion or religions it serves and its gravity in that religion. Sacred places more relevant to the development of a religion or where significant events in that religion’s history happened will have a greater “centrality” than those that are intended to mirror the most sacred sites or those that were created far after the religion was in its developmental stages.5 The other aspect, vulnerability, is a measure of the likelihood that “foreign presence or conduct will be interpreted as an offensive act.”6

Middle Earth as a Sacred Space

This paper regards Arda, and particularly Middle Earth, as a sacred space based on the definition provided above. This section will go into detail about why it is that this location can be classified as a sacred space based mainly on evidence found in The Silmarillion.

4 Ibid. 5 Hassner, War on Sacred Grounds, 29. 6 Hassner, War on Sacred Grounds, 32. 5

The story of the creation of the world seen in The Lord of the Rings is presented in J.R.R

Tolkien’s legendarium piece The Silmarillion. The story of the creation of that world in many ways mirrors the Judeo-Christian story of the creation of the Earth as told in the Bible. The details of the origin story draw on many different religious myths from across the world, but

Tolkien’s strong ties to his Christianity came through in several parts of the Lord of the Rings mythology, and in The Silmarillion especially.

According to the book’s first section, Ainundalë, the world was created by “Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar.”7 He created the Ainur, which are similar to angels in Judeo-

Christian faiths, and whose task it was to make music that would create a symphony that created the world. Under Eru’s direction, the Ainur created the planet through song. Once they had finished playing music, the most powerful of the Ainur, the Valar, travelled to Arda to fulfill their creation and create the world for the “Children of Ilúvatar,” the name given by Eru to elves and men.8

While both elves and men ae the “Children of Ilúvatar,” the elves serve the role of the first-born sons of God and are blessed with certain special gifts that men do not possess such as immortality and rebirth when slain or dead of grief. The World was prepared mainly for the elves and when they arrived, there were special signs left for them. Varda, the vala responsible for the stars, chose to make certain stars and constellations brighter in order to be a sign to the new born elves when they arrived.

The third chapter of the “Quenta Silmarillion,” the third and most substantial section of the book, is titled “Of the Coming of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor,” and describes the

7 J. R. R. Tolkien, “Ainundalë,” The Silmarillion, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977), 15. 8 Tolkien, “Of the Beginning of Days,” The Silmarillion, 35. 6 arrival of the Elves to Middle Earth and the events surrounding that arrival. The Elves were awakened and emerged from a lake, soon after to be found by Oromë in the Eastern regions of

Middle Earth. Oromë attempted to take all of the elves with him back to Valinor so that the other

Valar could rejoice in their arrival, however, Melkor, the most powerful evil Vala, had gotten to the elves first. He brought some with him to his fortress and corrupted them into orcs, whereas others he convinced to fear Oromë and the Valar. Therefore, when Oromë arrived at the elves, some fled in fear, likely to be captured and corrupted by Melkor as well.9

The Silmarillion goes on to tell further details of the history of the Elves and the developments of Middle Earth, but the origins of the Elves’ presence on the land is what is most important to understanding Middle Earth as a sacred space. The Elves are able to treat Middle

Earth as a gift given to them by the Gods and due to their closeness with those Gods, are able to communicate with them across it.

In order to understand Middle Earth as a sacred space and its importance in The Lord of the Rings for religious purposes, it must be analyzed in a larger context, particularly from a historical angle. An important part of a sacred space’s significance comes from its connection to moments of relevance in the past. While the Elves have always known Middle Earth, and only known Middle Earth, the location is especially sacred in the universe as a whole due it’s connection to the past.

Long before the arrival of the Elves, the Universe was created by Eru and the Ainur. Of all of the places in the universe, Arda is where Eru chose to bring his children to life. This alone makes Middle Earth especially sacred in the context of the Universe. However, adding to that

9 Tolkien, “Of the coming of the elves and the captivity of Melkor,” The Silmarillion, 47. 7 sacredness is the long history of conflict that has surrounded Middle Earth. While the Valar were still creating the world, Melkor was constantly fighting against their developments. These conflicts could’ve happened anywhere in the universe, but their presence on Arda gives the location a special significance.

Middle Earth has been the center of several significant conflicts across time. The first, referred to as the First War, “began before Arda was full-shaped, and ere yet there was anything that grew or walked upon the earth.”10 The conflicts continued throughout history and include battles all the way from the First War to the Fall of Gondolin to the War of the ring, with innumerable conflicts in between.

In addition to the Valar activity on Arda, as opposed to other locations, which contributes to its validity as sacred, Middle Earth also fulfills Hassner’s criteria of a sacred space. The Elves can communicate with the divine on Middle Earth and do so with songs and chants throughout the story. Additionally, there is clearly a lasting presence of the divine on Middle Earth. Not only are there still Maiar present on the land, but the changes made to the earth by the divine can be seen throughout the land. Finally, the layout of Middle Earth is significant to the religious properties of it. While it had not been planned to be the way it was, the shape of the country was a result of religious happenings from a time past and is significant to its connection to the divine.

Bargaining Model

The bargaining model of war is a theory in international relations that analyzes the potential benefits, losses, and outcomes of war between parties as a bargaining interaction. War was initially described as a bargaining interaction by Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote that no

10 Tolkien, “Of the Beginning of Days,” The Silmarillion, 35. 8 actor pursues war without having a larger goal because war has no value in and of itself.11 The bargaining model assesses war as an extension of politics, as a bargaining tool gain benefits such as greater access to scarce resources, a preferable border scenario, or alternate government leadership. The model has developed since the 19th century and is often used to explain many modern conflicts, such as nuclear proliferation or violence between Israel and Palestine.

Bargaining is defined as "the process of arriving at mutual agreement on the provisions of a contract.”12 The bargaining model of war sees the disagreement over policies or allocation of resources as a driving factor for conflict. These resources can include not only physical things such as oil or land, but also ideas such as security. Arriving at mutual agreement is a point that

James Fearon highlighted in his 1995 essay “Rationalist Explanations for War” when he wrote that if actors were able to agree on the outcome of a war, the war would likely be avoidable.

When the bargaining model succeeds, two actors come to an agreement and conflict is stopped or avoided. However, there are several scenarios, highlighted by Fearon, in which war will happen due to the inability to come to an agreement about what is being bargained over. The first scenario that leads to a war is uncertainty. If an actor overestimates their own force and chances or underestimates their enemies’, war is a likely occurrence, as was witnessed when

Hitler underestimated Russian forces in 1941 and marched into the country.13 The second potential cause of war under the bargaining model is an issue with commitment. The potential first strike advantage or threat of attack can both lead to a preemptive war and cause a nation to be less likely to be willing to commit to reducing or not using military strength. The final cause of war under the bargaining model, and the cause of the War of the Ring, is the indivisibility of a

11 Dan Reiter, "Exploring the Bargaining Model of War," American Political Science Association, 1, 1 (2003), 27. 12 Reiter, “Exploring the Bargaining Model of War,” 28. 13 Reiter, “Exploring the Bargaining Model of War,” 28 9 good. If the actors believe that a good can only be controlled entirely, as opposed to divided between them, war will be inevitable. This indivisibility is an explanation for the conflict over

Jerusalem, and many other religious locations, as sacred spaces cannot be divided and are sometimes laid claim to by multiple parties.

Indivisibility in Jerusalem and Middle Earth

To assess the indivisibility of both Jerusalem and Middle Earth, this paper will rely on the definition presented by Stacie Goddard in her essay Uncommon Ground. Goddard writes that “an issue is indivisible when any division of the issue acceptable to one of the antagonists is unacceptable to the other.”14 Both Goddard and Ron Hassner address the “realness” of the idea of indivisibility. Goddard states that it is a malleable “constructed phenomenon” that exists because actors are unwilling to accept the legitimacy of another actor’s claims to the indivisible thing or because they are not willing to accept any of the compromises that would lead to divisibility. Hassner believes that indivisibility is a social belief that is driven by the sacred history of the territory in question.

One of the most common examples of territory that is considered indivisible is the holy city of Jerusalem. An ancient city with ties to Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and other faiths, there are several different parties that often lay claim to the city. While some parties are willing to divide the city or share locations within it, others believe that the city must be controlled as a whole. In Jerusalem, many Israelis claim that a united Jerusalem will be the capital of the Jewish

14 Stacie E. Goddard, “Uncommon Ground: Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy,” International Organization, 60, 1 (2006), 37 10 state, whereas Palestinians insist that any deal excluding sovereignty over the city is "an unacceptable compromise ... [that] will make their blood boil.”15

Arda is similar to Jerusalem in many ways. Middle Earth’s status as a sacred space, established above, causes it to have a similarly divisive quality to groups of different religions. In simpler terms, Jerusalem is to the Earth in actuality as Middle Earth is to the Universe in the

Lord of the Rings legendarium. Middle Earth is territory that is sacred to the Elves, and they are unwilling to accept any other claims to the land as legitimate. They also are unwilling to accept any situation where their control over Middle Earth is not total and sovereign. The War of the

Ring was a result of the Elves’ unwillingness to accept any compromise that would’ve divided

Middle Earth.

The War of the Ring

The War of the Ring is the main military conflict in The Lord of the Rings. The war was a conflict between the combined forces of Sauron and Saruman, made up of orcs and men of the south, and the united forces of the free folk, consisting mostly of men of Gondor and Rohan but also including elves, hobbits, dwarves, and Ents. The major battles of the war were fought in several locations across Middle Earth, mostly in the southern and eastern areas of the land. The two sides were fighting over the One Ring at a base level, but ultimately, they were fighting over control of Middle Earth.

The conflict over Middle Earth was inevitable because of Elrond’s and the other good peoples’ leaders’ inability to view Middle Earth as divisible and yield any land to Sauron’s forces. If Elrond was willing to compromise, or believed that Sauron was, he would have invited

15 Stacie E. Goddard, “Uncommon Ground: Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy,” International Organization, 60, 1 (2006), 35 11 the enemy to his Council in order to draft a peaceful solution and avoid war. However, due to his inability to see Middle Earth as anything but an indivisible sacred space, Elrond was a cause of the War of the Ring.

The conflict in the War of the Ring was mainly driven by the indivisibility problem highlighted by Hassner and Fearon as an impediment to the success of the bargaining theory of war.16 Elrond and the free peoples want to keep the land in their own hands and are unwilling to share it due to its sacred nature. Sauron and his forces are trying to take over Middle Earth and implement their own religion, in which Sauron serves the role of the divine, turning the land into a sacred space for them as well. Because of the contradictory religious claims over a sacred space leading to violence, the War of the Ring mirrors Israeli-Palestinian conflict over

Jerusalem. In both conflicts, both parties have legitimate claims to the land, which neither opposing side is willing to recognize. While it would likely be less costly for both sides involved to avoid war in both scenarios, the indivisibility of the land that they are fighting over makes the rise of the conflicts inevitable.

Conclusion

The War of the Ring is ultimately a religious conflict that develops because two parties, the forces of Elrond and the good people and the forces of Sauron and the orcs, are unable to come to a compromise over a sacred space with contradictory claims. Middle Earth is sacred because of the ability of the Elves to communicate with the divine there through song and prayer as well as the presence of the divine in the space. The physical layout of Middle Earth also contributes to its existence as a sacred space because its “construction” was a result of the actions

16 Goddard, “Uncommon Ground,” 33. 12 of divine beings. The space is also considered sacred because of the historic activity of divine beings on the land. While the battles between the Valar and Melkor could’ve been fought anywhere, they were fought on Arda, further signifying the location’s sacredness.

The main cause of the War of the Ring was indivisibility, as explained by James Fearon as a cause of war under the bargaining model of war. The bargaining model views war as an aspect of bargaining interactions where war, or the stopping of it, can be used as a bargaining chip to gain greater access to things such as natural resources or improved borders. However, when the object of a conflict is indivisible in the eyes of one or both parties, the bargaining will be unattainable, despite it likely being in the best interests of both parties. The War of the Ring in

The Lord of the Rings is a resemblance and expansion of the violence between Israel and

Palestine as a conflict over indivisible, sacred ground leading to the failure of the bargaining model of international relations.

13

Bibliography

Fearon, James D. “Signaling Versus the Balance of Power and interests: An Empirical test of a Crisis

Bargaining Model,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23, 2 (1994)

Goddard, Stacie E. “Uncommon Ground: Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy,”

International Organization, 60, 1 (2006)

Hassner, Ron E. War on Sacred Grounds, Ithaca: Cornell, 2009

Reiter, Dan. "Exploring the Bargaining Model of War," American Political Science Association, 1, 1

(2003)

The Bible, Authorized King James Version, Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1998)

Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, (2004)

Tolkien, J.R.R. The Silmarillion, London: HarperCollins, (2004)