The Middle of What?

[Elmo]

In the Akallabeth Tolkien talked of Aman, Middle Earth and Empty Lands to the East

[davem]

Tolkien defined Middle-earth in an interview with Denis Gueroult

D. Gerrolt:: I thought that conceivably Midgard might be Middle-earth or have some connection?

J.R.R. Tolkien: Oh yes, they're the same word. Most people have made this mistake of thinking Middle-earth is a particular kind of earth or is another planet of the science fiction sort but it's just an old fashioned word for this world we live in, as imagined surrounded by the Ocean.

D. Gerrolt: It seemed to me that Middle-earth was in a sense, as you say, this world we live in, but this world we live in at a different era.

J.R.R. Tolkien: No … at a different stage of imagination … yes.

Though the usual interpretation is as Nogrod has stated, Earth in the middle of the Overworld & Underworld. The interview can be heard here http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/..._Interview.php

Personally, I find the most interesting his comment that Middle-earth is this world "at a different stage of imagination". Any thoughts on what that might mean?

[Bêthberry]

Not that a source ever fully defines or explains things, yet they do sometimes demonstrate how a writer's imagination is sparked. (I suggest, in response to davem's question, that Tolkien was exceptionally able to enter into the imaginative space of the Anglo Saxon world through its poetic remains.)

Here's where Tolkien found the name in its Old English form, and here also Tolkien found the initial idea for his Earendil:

Originally Posted by couplet in Crist

"Eálá Earendel engla beorhtast
Ofer middangeard monnum sended."

Originally Posted by couplet in Modern English

"Hail Earendel brightest of angels,
over Middle Earth sent to men."

Old English poem Crist by Cynewulf

Modern English translation

I seem to recall that the Carpenter biography gives this info, but I don't have the bio at hand at the moment.

[skip spence]

Oh, and I should correct myself, in old Scandinavian or rather Norse mythology Midgård is a name for the world inhabited by people, not a name for earth, just like in Tolkien's world. Midgård is also in the middle of the world, surrounded by a vast sea. In the far west, the gods dwell in Valhalla (compare Valmar) and brave warriors slain in battle come here in the afterlife.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by davem

Personally, I find the most interesting his comment that Middle-earth is this world "at a different stage of imagination". Any thoughts on what that might mean?

The world at a stage where people had no knowledge of what was beyond the sea, where the familiar lands are just (presumably) small parts of an otherwise vast and unchartered world of unknown size and orgin. No wonder people came up with strange myths and stories.

[davem]

Originally Posted by skip spence

The world at a stage where people had no knowledge of what was beyond the sea, where the familiar lands are just (presumably) small parts of an otherwise vast and unchartered world of unknown size and orgin. No wonder people came up with strange myths and stories.

But why a 'different stage of imagination', rather than, say, a 'different stage of knowledge', or a 'different stage of understanding'?

Tolkien seems to be implying that rather than see the world, what we do is imagine it.. So, our ancestors 'imagined' the world in the way they did not out of 'ignorance' of the facts about it, but because they were at a particular stage of imagination. Yet, if we are talking about 'stages' that implies that they would have seen the world that way whatever 'facts' they had known about it.

And would Tolkien have considered that stage of the imagination higher, or lower, than our own?

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by davem

But why a 'different stage of imagination', rather than, say, a 'different stage of knowledge', or a 'different stage of understanding'?

Tolkien seems to be implying that rather than see the world, what we do is imagine it.. So, our ancestors 'imagined' the world in the way they did not out of 'ignorance' of the facts about it, but because they were at a particular stage of imagination. Yet, if we are talking about 'stages' that implies that they would have seen the world that way whatever 'facts' they had known about it.

And would Tolkien have considered that stage of the imagination higher, or lower, than our own?

The two concepts are interconnected, aren't they?

In our ancient history, men knew very little of the world but must still have wondered as to why they were there in the first place and marvelled at the natural phenomena they witnessed. With very little sure knowledge, a curious mind must fill out the blanks with imagination. It's easy to see how bolts of lightning and earthquakes could be interpreted as the works of wrathful gods.

The earth was seen as flat for a very long time. It would have been impossible to imagine a round earth at that time: why, people on the underside would surely fall off. Then, eventually, as more and more observations were contrary to the flat earth theory, it had to be corrected, which opened up the imagination to new mysteries.

In these days, the earth and most everything on it is studied and well understood. Science has plausable theories on everything from the orgin of life on earth to the very first moments of time and existence. Only extremely ignorant westerners could imagine the bolts of lightning as thown by wrathful gods riding flying steeds across the skies or that the world was created by a bearded god sitting on a cloud some 6000 years ago.

I would say that different 'stages of knowledge' precede different 'stages of imagination'; yet the opposite could also be close to the truth. Knowledge can restrict imagination but is probably not possible without it either. We imagine what we don't know. Some leave it at that, others go out to learn the truth.

The imagination of Tolkien was close to escapism I would say. And most fans of his probably agree that it can be nice sometimes to flee the drudgery of everyday life into a magical world of elves and dragons. The greatest quality of Tolkiens works is how realistic he made his illusion, making it much easier to immerse one self into it.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Eálá Earendel engla beorhtast

To which decades later Tolkien returned:

Aiya Earendil elenion ancalima!

Hail Earendil brightest of stars!

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I would say that different 'stages of knowledge' precede different 'stages of imagination'; yet the opposite could also be close to the truth. Knowledge can restrict imagination but is probably not possible without it either. We imagine what we don't know. Some leave it at that, others go out to learn the truth.

Just don't give me all this stuff to jump on!

We're getting scaringly philosophical in here...

Okay I'll just make a few comments on this: "We imagine what we don't know. Some leave it at that, others go out to learn the truth."

Up to the 19th century people thought that imagination was a faculty of mind that was able to separate those impressions that in fact belonged together and to join together different parts of things that were separate. Therefore a unicorn was just a human mind's application of a horned beast to a horse or a centaur the compilement of a human "upper body" tied to a horse's hind. Both were parts of earlier experiences so there was nothing new in there. Just splitting and adding from previous experiences.

In the end this was a theological question of whether a human mind could come forwards creating something there wasn't before - already Nicolas Cusanus thought in the 15th century that the humans were able to come up with new things as there were spikes and stalks in nature but only humans could produce a fork adding these two things up. But the general opinion was and were for a long time that all humans could do was to imitate the works of nature (powered by a God) and thus imagination was just dissecting or bringing together of things already existant in the God's creation perceived by men.

With the advent of romanticism there then emerged the idea of humans as all powerful creratures (hinted in the humanism of Pico della Mirandolla and other 15th century "humanists"). The added feature in the 19th century was the break from the past were the human geniuses were given the gift of actually creating something new or more real than the world around us from their individual psyche (or whatever). And you thought Freud invented the unconscious? No he didn't. It was the talk of the town already with the 19th century idealistic-romantic philosophers who aligned themselves with the artists (like Blake & fellows).

So the sentence: "We imagine what we don't know" only comes possible in the latter part of the 19th century and even then it has work to do to gain universal appeal. Now Tolkien surely was cognizant of this discussion...

The latter part then... "Some leave it at that, others go out to learn the truth".

The question of the meaning of the word 'truth' is one of the hardest ones. Truth comparing to what, reality itself (which is it outside human classifications - which is unprovable, or which is made by men whereafter we argue in a circle?), anyone's opinion, feeling of certainty, emotional tiedness, religious belief?

There's no easy answer here...

But was Tolkien going for the "correspondency theory" of truth, meaning that our language and the world just somehow share the same structures making our sentences able to say things in truth / express them correctly - even if our language today has possibly lost some of the key things the generations before us knew as some people say? Or is this just easy escapism in confronting the real world (whatever it is but the one that keeps disappointing us) which denies the past values?

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Up to the 19th century people thought that imagination was a faculty of mind that was able to separate those impressions that in fact belonged together and to join together different parts of things that were separate. Therefore a unicorn was just a human mind's application of a horned beast to a horse or a centaur the compilement of a human "upper body" tied to a horse's hind. Both were parts of earlier experiences so there was nothing new in there. Just splitting and adding from previous experiences.

In the end this was a theological question of whether a human mind could come forwards creating something there wasn't before - already Nicolas Cusanus thought in the 15th century that the humans were able to come up with new things as there were spikes and stalks in nature but only humans could produce a fork adding these two things up. But the general opinion was and were for a long time that all humans could do was to imitate the works of nature (powered by a God) and thus imagination was just dissecting or bringing together of things already existant in the God's creation perceived by men.

With the advent of romanticism there then emerged the idea of humans as all powerful creratures (hinted in the humanism of Pico della Mirandolla and other 15th century "humanists"). The added feature in the 19th century was the break from the past were the human geniuses were given the gift of actually creating something new or more real than the world around us from their individual psyche (or whatever). And you thought Freud invented the unconscious? No he didn't. It was the talk of the town already with the 19th century idealistic-romantic philosophers who aligned themselves with the artists (like Blake & fellows).

The imagination of man has been and continue to be crippled by religious dogmas.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The question of the meaning of the word 'truth' is one of the hardest ones. Truth comparing to what, reality itself (which is it outside human classifications - which is unprovable, or which is made by men whereafter we argue in a circle?), anyone's opinion, feeling of certainty, emotional tiedness, religious belief?

Don't even go there, mate! Much indeed is shades of gray but not all is relative either