What exactly is Providence besides a city in Rhode Island?

R

Rachel Port

Well-Known Member
A lot has been attributed to Providence in this class, and it often makes me feel a little uncomfortable. Many important things in the story happen by serendipity, and as Aragorn says, these things can be taken as a sign sent to help him choose what path to take. He seems to believe in fate or doom - or perhaps like Galadriel, seeing a little bit of how to make what should be, shall be - and it gives him confidence. I can see this clearly in things like the people who happen to be gathered in Rivendell at this particular time to join the Council - or even to show Elrond that a Council is called for.

But I have a feeling in some discussions that there is a specific religious meaning to the word in this context. (The reference to Providence, RI does fit with this, given the history of Roger Williams and the Mass. Bay colony.) But some of the discussions go into detail about Tolkien's mythology, especially the creation story, and how that is playing out in the story of LOTR. And underneath it I feel that some Christian theology is called in. I'm not Christian and know very little theology of any sort, and am uncomfortable with a certain religious knowledge being assumed. At such times my mind wanders, which is not all bad. But I would like to know what is going on.
 
When we talk about Providence we are generally talking about divine guidance, care, and sustainment.

Potential examples are:
Bilbo finding the Ring
Tom Bombadil giving the Barrow swords to the Hobbits
Some members turning up to the Council of Elrond
The gap in the clouds allowing Sam to see Eärendil

Often in Tolkien’s work where things appear to have gone bad, but in retrospect turn out better than anyone could have hoped for, you should consider Providence rather than mere chance being the most likely cause.
 
Hi Rachel,

What an amazing question. I know any reply will be inadequate, but this might be a useful place to start.

Your feeling about Christian theology being called in is correct. You are feeling what is most definitely there. I will out myself as a Catholic here, as was Tolkien, and I would describe that theology less as something that is called in from time to time and more as the very ground on which the story is built. Or to use another metaphor, it's the stock of the soup, permeating everything about it, often imperceptibly but nonetheless crucial to the whole.

Providence, Fate, and Free Will; these are massive ideas that have spurred centuries of thought and debate. But if I tried to sum up a Catholic conclusion to the argument it would be that one must hold two seemingly contradictory ideas and hold them both rather fiercely:

1. That we are entirely responsible and culpable for our own actions, free agents to choose good or evil; that evil is always a free choice against the good and disastrous in its consequences.

2. That the world (and the people in it) have a purpose, a design, and an ultimate destiny, and that everything it contains, even the corruptions and the evil, will be good to have been.

In all the literature I have come across, I know of no better exploration of these two themes than the writings of JRR Tolkien. It's a treasure trove to explore, and worth exploring more ;)
 
I would also suggest that JRRT had seen examples of this play out in his own lifetime.

Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany from June 1940 to June 1941. The rest of Europe was almost entirely conquered, neutral, or allied to Hitler.

'Providentially', Hitler abandoned his proposed invasion of Britain, to turn in a surprise attack on his hitherto ally, the almost equally evil Stalinist USSR (oft evil will shall evil mar) in June of 1941. Then, also 'providentially', Japan indulged in an ill judged surprise attack on the USA at Pearl Harbor, causing the USA to declare war on Japan, and then, 'providentially', Nazi Germany to hubristically declare war on the USA in support of its Axis ally.

The decision to stand and fight against the Nazi's was made by the free will of Churchill, Parliament and the British People. The provision of two powerful allies was 'providential'.

I'm sure that JRRT's conception of free will and providence came largely from his Catholic faith. But his life experience must have also played a part.
 
Thank you for your answers.

Anthony, I agree that those incidents are fateful, and that, as Gandalf says, perhaps it is better that he was delayed. I can see that they are part of a larger whole. I guess it's the divinity that I leave out. It's entirely possible to read these books over many years without the divine entering into it.

Roger, thanks. What little of Christian theology I know anything about tends to be Catholic. You can probably imagine why that can be uncomfortable for a Jew. The conflict between free will and destiny is also part of Jewish theology, but I find being Jewish comfortable because we have no credo, and you can be Jewish without belief. One of the consequences of COVID for me has been attending classes at my synagogue, and sometimes we go into uncomfortable places in Jewish theology. Recent discussions have included scholars who find an explanation of the Holocaust in the sin of the Golden Calf. Such attempts to make sense of evil make me furious. But attempts to figure out what "light unto the nations" means are not much better. I may believe there is an ultimate destiny, but I'm not always sure humanity is part of it.

I can see how Tolkien's Catholicism underlies his work, and how that is a part of literary analysis, however. But can it be studied within other frames as valid?

Flammifer, would you classify Mrs. Simpson as an instrument of that Providence?

Again, thanks.
 
Last edited:
Hi Rachel,

No, I would not classify Mrs. Simpson as an instrument of Providence. I am curious to know why you would suggest it?

If Edward VIII had not married Wallis Simpson, and had remained king, instead of abdicating, and George VI taking the throne, I don't think it would have changed the course of British history through WWII (though, of course, who knows?). The monarch really does not have much power under the modern British constitution.
 
Can it be studied within other frames? Most certainly, and one of the most surprising things to me about Tolkien has always been how much it inspires that. What is it about his writings that cause people from such diverse backgrounds to sit and talk endlessly about them, to try to deconstruct Elvish metaphysics, or understand how fate and free will interplay, about whether a character is culpable in a particular choice, hero or pitiable fallen? We could talk for years and never run out things we want to talk more about. I find that fascinating.
 
Flammifer, I was half-joking, but Edward VIII was pro-German and it would have been awkward enough, whatever his power would or would not have been.

Roger, yes, I agree. That's the real genius of the man, and it's the reason the books are still read and studied - not to mention enjoyed. In terms of place in my life, I'd certainly place him with the greats of English literature, largely because of the depth and complexity of the characters and what they face.
 
Rachel Port said:
...classes at my synagogue, and sometimes we go into uncomfortable places in Jewish theology. Recent discussions have included scholars who find an explanation of the Holocaust in the sin of the Golden Calf. Such attempts to make sense of evil make me furious. But attempts to figure out what "light unto the nations" means are not much better. I may believe there is an ultimate destiny, but I'm not always sure humanity is part of it.
Click to expand...
My parents sent me to Sunday School at a very liberal reform synagogue. Almost no theology was involved, and we certainly didn't try to explicate any passages from the Bible. I'd be shocked by the idea that anyone tries to explain the Holocaust via the sin of the golden calf if I didn't already know the world is full of misguided, foolish ideas. It doesn't bother me too much if someone holds a thoughtless belief as long as they're not too smug about it.

As far as ultimate destiny, I always assumed when I was younger that we were going to the stars, if we didn't blow ourselves up first. Now that I have grandkids it's become both more fraught and less personal. We grew up with the near-certainty of nuclear war. Now it's the near-certainty of more subtle global disasters. Somehow, I still have Estel.

I realize there is nothing whatsoever in this post that has anything to do with "Questions for Narnion", but ever since you began posting, Rachel, I've felt some kind of recognition/connection. Your inputs here are appreciated. Reciprocation is attempted.
Rachel Port said:
you can be Jewish without belief.
Click to expand...
And you can even be Jewish without Hope. I'm glad to have the latter. But as far as belief, I just like to say "I used to be an agnostic, but now I'm not so sure".
 
Jim, reciprocation appreciated. I sometimes feel a little out of place, so your words are welcome.

Adult education is much more interesting than Sunday school was way back when. I didn't even know there was Jewish theology. For some Jews the Golden Calf is a kind of Original Sin. But I think that if you start with certainty (and that Golden Calf reference was from a very Orthodox rabbi) you have to stretch to explain the inexplicable.

Jim Deutch said:
And you can even be Jewish without Hope. I'm glad to have the latter. But as far as belief, I just like to say "I used to be an agnostic, but now I'm not so sure".
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a story of a man who called himself agnostic, saying he would be an atheist except that when he hears the aria Porgi Amor from The Marriage of Figaro he has doubts.

Apologies to everyone for the digression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top