Elrond the Sovereign: Political Theology and Tolkien’s Elven Lord Jared Bulla February 5, 2019 Elrond is one of the most powerful and wisest beings in Middle Earth during the events of The Lord of the Rings (Tolkien, 1954). He rules over the house he founded at Rivendell (Imladris) as leader of the elven community there, and arguably the whole Kingdom of the Firstborn in Middle-earth. Elrond is a leader among the elves not as an elected representative in the modern, constitutionally bound mold, but rather as a sovereign as described by the German political theorist Carl Schmitt. In his seminal work Political Theology, Schmitt (1934) describes the sovereign as the most important element in political and juristic organization, specifically related to the idea of a state of individuals who band together for security in a Hobbesian state of nature. Fundamentally, this “sovereign is he who decides on the exception” (PT, 5). The most relevant part of the argument is that it is easy to act within the bounds of written law or rule whenever conditions in a society/state are normal. But normal law must be derived from somewhere, as it does not materialize out of an objective void, and for Schmitt, this normal is derived from an authority deciding in situations of chaos, which are undefined by the norm (PT, 13). While there is no written law in the elven kingdom, this is only the descriptive vehicle of social and political norms Schmitt uses, and need not be echoed particularly in Tolkien’s work. What is relevant is that the elves have a loosely agreed upon social and political order about how they defend themselves and maintain their communities in the face of the overwhelming threat from Morgoth and his servants. Elrond’s authority is not explicitly given but can be drawn from his ancestry and connections to the larger mythological canon of the elves on Arda, which he uses as a reason for becoming a sovereign defender of the elves. Elrond’s story begins to take shape in The Silmarillion (Tolkien, 1977) as he chose, and was subsequently granted, the right to fulfill his elven half as one of the Eldar (Silmarillion, 254). His connection to Gil-galad, the last of the High Kings of the Noldor, gives him a mantle from which he can enter the larger mythology and creation story of the elves, and subsequently, claim lordship. This mythology is fundamental to forming social and political connections as a unified people, as the elves can draw legitimacy from it as it reaffirms their own creation and arc of being. Schmitt expresses the necessity of theology or mythology in order to create political legitimacy throughout his book. Tolkien elicits this connection to the elven theological story writing that “upon [Elrond’s] house the stars of heaven most brightly shone” (Silmarillion, 298). By declaring himself as one of the Eldar and being blessed by the stars (which the elves hold in the highest regard as shown form their earliest emergence in creation), Elrond is drawing on this legitimacy in the eyes of his fellow elves; in other words, this is his political theology. He furthers his own legitimacy by defining and expressing what Schmitt refers to as the ‘friend-enemy distinction’. The organized political entity (the state in modern society, and Imladris for Elrond) must decide who is a friend and who is an enemy (Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, 1932, 29-30). Elrond defines for the elven community, and often for other racial Elrond the Sovereign: Political Theology and Tolkien’s Elven Lord communities in Middle-earth, who the Enemy is, namely Sauron in the epic.1 At the Council of Elrond, Elrond “in his clear voice spoke of Sauron and the Rings of Power” (The Lord of the Rings, 242) and establishes himself as an authority in the history and events of the task at hand. And there is really no one to refute his account if it is not truthful. It is purely accepted at face value because of his status and place among the Eldar. Schmitt would be unsurprised at this acceptance considering the anarchic state of affairs in Middle-earth, referring to the decisionist type of juristic thought categorized by Thomas Hobbes: autoritas, non veritas facit legem2 (PT, 33). Elrond as the mighty authority among elves and men is referenced numerous other times metaphorically and explicitly by Tolkien in the epic. Elrond’s authority is now laid bare in its connections to how he has achieved legitimacy in the eyes of those who seek his counsel, but more fundamentally, the elven kingdom he presides over. Returning to the idea of a sovereign, the clearest textual instance of Elrond deciding on the exception is during the Council when he effectively decides what to do with the Ring.3 He extinguishes any thought of bringing the Ring across the Great Sea by saying “it belongs to Middle- earth” (LOTR, 266), and on the following page when Erestor inquires who will solve the riddle, Elrond declares they “must send the Ring to the Fire” (LOTR, 267). No one questions his authority or his decision at any time, and accept that this must be the fate of the Ring as a rule. His legitimacy lends him the authority to make the decision, implying he is the sovereign. Even though Frodo volunteers to take the Ring of what seems to be his own accord, Elrond mentions that the task appears to be appointed to him by some providential authority above them both (LOTR, 270). After this utterance, Elrond leaves no doubt that the Ring must be destroyed and Frodo must be the one to do it.4 With this example in mind, there is a strong connection between Elrond and the sovereign that Schmitt describes in Political Theology. One additional comparison worth mentioning is Schmitt’s analogy that “the exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology” (PT, 36). This is particularly strong considering that “Elrond is a master of healing” (LOTR, 221) and that Imladris naturally heals its visitor by their staying there. Many of the miracles in any faith tradition revolve around some kind of healing, whether it be physically of ailments or hunger, or spiritually of demonic possession of the soul. Elrond is the archetypal Schmittian sovereign through his decisionist leadership and his legitimate authority in connection with the mythology of his people and his juxtaposition of them to Sauron through the ‘friend-enemy distinction.’ 1 I am here leaving aside the question of whether Sauron is by his nature the enemy as the manifestation of evil, or if he is only defined as such through the subjective determinations of Elrond, and other political leaders. Regardless, he is defining the Enemy as Sauron to the main characters of the story, who had little or no conception of who the enemy is before this time. 2 ‘Authority, not truth, creates law’; legem can also be translated figuratively as ‘principle’ or ‘rule’. 3 The story of and war over the Ring fits Schmitt’s description of the state of exception like a glove. At its core the exception is most exposed through an existential threat to a political unit. 4 This last instance of decision seems to be the choice of Frodo until the reader considers the position of Frodo relative to Elrond. There is an immortal, learned healer looming over a small being heavily implying that the task is Frodo’s and he will be rewarded amongst the greatest of the Kings of Middle-earth. There is a strong implication that Frodo’s choice is ordained by powers out of his control being communicated through Elrond. Elrond the Sovereign: Political Theology and Tolkien’s Elven Lord References Schmitt, Carl. (2005). Political Theology. (George Schwab, Trans.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Schmitt, Carl. (2007). The Concept of the Political. (George Schwab, Trans.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Tolkien, J.R.R. (2001). The Silmarillion. Christopher Tolkien (Ed.). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Tolkien, J.R.R. (2004). The Lord of the Rings. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. .