NOTE ON THE TEXT x1 The 1994 edition also contained a number of new corrections (again supervised by Christopher Tolkien), as well as a reconfigured index of names and page references. The 1994 text was first used in American editions published by Houghton Mifflin in 1999. A small number of further corrections were added into the 2002 three-volume edition illustrated by Alan Lee, published by HarperCollins in Great Britain and Houghton Mifflin in the United States. The textual history of The Lord of the Rings, merely in its published form, is a vast and complex web. In this brief note I have given only a glimpse of the overall sequence and structure. Further details on the revisions and corrections made over the years to the published text of The Lord of the Rings, and a fuller account of its publishing history, may be found in 7.R.R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography, by Wayne G. Hammond, with the assistance of Douglas A. Anderson (1993). For those interested in observing the gradual evolving of The Lord of the Rings from its earliest drafts to its published form, I highly recommend Christopher Tolkien’s account, which appears within five volumes of his twelve-volume series The History of Middle-earth. Volumes six through nine contain the major part of his study pertaining to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Shadow (1988); The Treason of Isengard (1989); The War of the Ring (1990); and Sauron Defeated (1992). Also, the final book of the series, The Peoples of Middle-earth (1996), covers the evolution of the prologue and appendices to The Lord of the Rings. These volumes contain an engrossing over-the-shoulder account of the growth and writing of Tolkien’s masterpiece. The process of studying Tolkien’s manuscripts of The Lord of the Rings involved the deciphering of versions where Tolkien wrote first in pencil and then in ink atop the pencilled draft. Christopher Tolkien has decribed his father’s method of composition in The Return of the Shadow: ‘In the handwriting that he used for rapid drafts and sketches, not intended to endure long before he turned to them again and gave them a more workable form, letters are so loosely formed that a word which cannot be deduced or guessed at from the context or from later versions can prove perfectly opaque after long examination; and if, as he often did, he used a soft pencil much has now become blurred and faint.’ The true difficulty of reading such doubledrafts can be observed in the frontispiece to The War of the Ring, which reproduces in colour Tolkien’s illustration of ‘Shelob’s Lair’ from a page of Tolkien’s manuscript. Looking very closely at the hasty ink draft alongside the illustration, one can see underneath it the earlier, hastier, pencilled draft. Also in The War of the Ring,
關於文本的說明 x1 1994年的版本同樣包含了數項新的校訂（再次由克里斯多福·托爾金監督），以及重新編排的人名與頁碼索引。1994年的文本首次被霍頓·米夫林林出版公司於1999年用於美國版。在2002年由艾倫·李繪製插圖的三卷本中，又加入了一些小幅度的校訂，該版本由哈潑柯林斯在英國出版，霍頓·米夫林林在美國出版。《魔戒》僅就其出版形式而言，其文本歷史便是一張巨大而複雜的網。在這篇簡短的說明中，我僅僅是粗略地展示了其整體的順序與結構。關於多年來對《魔戒》已出版文本所做的修訂與校訂的更多細節，以及其出版史的更完整記述，可以在韋恩·G·哈蒙德在道格拉斯·A·安德森協助下完成的《J.R.R.托爾金：描述性書目》（1993年）中找到。對於有興趣觀察《魔戒》從最早的草稿到出版形式逐漸演變過程的讀者，我強烈推薦克里斯多福·托爾金的記述，這部分內容收錄於他十二卷系列《中土世界的歷史》中的五卷。第六至第九卷包含了他的研究中關於《魔戒》的主要部分：《闇影歸來》（1988年）、《艾辛格的叛變》（1989年）、《魔戒之戰》（1990年）以及《索倫敗亡》（1992年）。此外，該系列的最後一本書《中土世界的人民》（1996年）則涵蓋了《魔戒》序言與附錄的演變過程。這些書卷提供了一份引人入勝、彷彿身歷其境的記述，記錄了托爾金這部巨作的成長與寫作歷程。研究托爾金《魔戒》手稿的過程，涉及解讀他先用鉛筆打稿，再用墨水在鉛筆稿上覆寫的版本。克里斯多福·托爾金在《闇影歸來》中如此描述他父親的寫作方法：「在他用於快速草稿和速寫的字跡中——這些草稿本不打算長久保存，他很快會回頭將其修改成更可用的形式——字母的構成非常鬆散，以至於一個無法從上下文或後續版本中推斷或猜測的詞，在經過長時間的檢視後，可能會變得完全無法辨識；而且，如果他像往常一樣使用軟鉛筆，許多字跡現在已經變得模糊不清。」閱讀這種雙層草稿的真正困難，可以從《魔戒之戰》的卷首插畫中觀察到，該插畫彩色重現了托爾金手稿中一頁的《屍羅的巢穴》插圖。若非常仔細地觀察插圖旁的倉促墨水草稿，便能看到其下更早、更倉促的鉛筆草稿。同樣在《魔戒之戰》中，
Xii THE LORD OF THE RINGS Christopher Tolkien reproduces a page from the first manuscript of the chapter ‘The Taming of Sméagol’, and the printed text corresponding to this text is on the facing page (see pp. 90-91). One is astonished at anyone’s ability to decipher such texts. That difficulty aside, just what do these books signify to ordinary readers and to Tolkien scholars? And what is ‘the history of the writing’ of a book? Simply, these volumes show in great detail the development of the story of The Lord of the Rings from its very earliest drafts and hasty projections through its completion. We see in the earliest materials what is very much a children’s book, a sequel to The Hobbit, and as the story grows through various ‘phases’, there is an increase in seriousness and depth. We see alternate branches of development, the gradual blending and merging of certain characters, and the slow emergence of the nature of the rings and of the motivations of other characters. Some of these various ideas are abandoned altogether, while others are reworked into some variant form that may or may not survive into the final version. One could make a whole catalogue of interesting tidbits from Christopher Tolkien’s study — such as the fact that Strider was called Trotter until a very late stage in the writing of the book; that Trotter was at one time a hobbit, so named because he wore wooden shoes; that Tolkien at one point considered a romance between Aragorn and Eowyn; that Tolkien wrote an epilogue to the book, tying up loose ends, but it was dropped before publication (and now appears in Sauron Defeated); and so on. But these developments are best appreciated when read within the context of Christopher Tolkien’s commentary rather than discussed separately. The most significant achievement of these volumes is that they show us how Tolkien wrote and thought. Nowhere else do we see the authorial process itself at work in such detail. Tolkien’s hastiest comments about where the story might proceed, or why it can or can’t go such and such a way — these queries to himself were written out: Tolkien is literally thinking on paper. This gives an added dimension of understanding to Tolkien’s comment to Stanley Unwin in a 1963 letter that, when suffering from trouble with his shoulder and right arm, ‘I found not being able to use a pen or pencil as defeating as the loss of her beak would be to a hen.’ And we, as readers of these volumes, can share with Tolkien himself the wonder and bewilderment of new characters appearing as if from nowhere, or of some other sudden change or development, at the very moment of their emergence into the story. I know of no other instance in literature where we have such a ‘history of the writing’ of a book, told mostly by the author himself, with all the hesitations and false paths laid out before us, sorted out,
《魔戒》十二 克里斯多福·托爾金重現了〈馴服史麥戈〉一章第一份手稿的其中一頁，與此相對應的印刷文本則刊於對頁（見90-91頁）。任何人能破解這樣的手稿都令人驚嘆。撇開解讀的困難不談，這些書對一般讀者和托爾金學者究竟意味著什麼？而一本書的「寫作史」又是什麼？簡單來說，這些卷冊鉅細靡遺地展示了《魔戒》這個故事從最早期的草稿、倉促的構想到最終完成的發展過程。在最早的資料中，我們看到的是一本非常近似童書的作品，是《哈比人歷險記》的續集；而隨著故事經歷不同「階段」的成長，其嚴肅性和深度也隨之增加。我們看到情節發展出了不同的分支，某些角色逐漸融合，魔戒的本質以及其他角色的動機也緩緩浮現。這些五花八門的想法有些被完全捨棄，另一些則被修改成某種變體形式，最終不一定能保留在定稿中。從克里斯多福·托爾金的研究中，人們可以整理出一整串有趣的瑣事——例如，在本書寫作的極晚期，「神行客」都還被稱為「快步者」；「快步者」一度是個哈比人，因穿著木屐而得名；托爾金曾一度考慮過亞拉岡和伊歐玟之間的戀情；托爾金為本書寫了一篇後記來交代所有後續，但在出版前被刪除了（現收錄於《索倫的敗亡》）；諸如此類。但這些演變最好是在克里斯多福·托爾金的評註脈絡中閱讀才能心領神會，而非分開來討論。這些卷冊最重大的成就在於，它們向我們展示了托爾金是如何寫作與思考的。在其他任何地方，我們都無法如此細緻地看到作者的創作過程本身。托爾金關於故事可能如何發展、或為何不能走某條路的那些最倉促的評論——這些給自己的提問都被寫了下來：托爾金確確實實是在紙上思考。這讓我們對托爾金在1963年寫給史丹利·安文的信中一段話有了更深一層的理解，當時他正受肩傷和右臂疼痛所苦，他說：「我發現無法使用鋼筆或鉛筆，就像一隻母雞失去了牠的喙一樣令人挫敗。」而我們，作為這些卷冊的讀者，可以在新角色彷彿橫空出世、或某些其他突然的轉變與發展在故事中誕生的那一刻，與托爾金本人一同分享那份驚奇和困惑。我不知道在文學史上還有哪個例子，能讓我們看到這樣一部書的「寫作史」，主要由作者本人講述，將所有的猶豫和錯誤路徑都攤在我們面前，並加以整理，
NOTE ON THE TEXT Xlil commented upon, and served up to a reader like a feast. We are shown innumerable instances in the minutest detail of the thoughtprocess itself at work. We see the author fully absorbed in creation for its own sake. And this is all the more exceptional because this is a history not only of the unfolding of a story and its text, but of the evolution of a world. There is an additional wealth of material beyond simple narrative text. There are maps and illustrations. There are languages and writing systems, and the histories of the peoples who spoke and wrote in these systems. All of these additional materials add multiple dimensions of complexity to our appreciation of the invented world itself. Fifty years into the published life of The Lord of the Rings, it seems extraordinary to me that we have not only such a masterful work of literature but also as a companion to it an unparalleled account of its writing. Our gratitude as readers goes to both of the Tolkiens, father and son. Douglas A. Anderson May 2004
關於文本的說明 Xlil 評論道，並像一場盛宴般呈獻給讀者。我們看到無數個例子，以最微小的細節展示了思想過程本身運作的情形。我們看到作者為了創作本身而完全沉浸其中。而這一切之所以更顯非凡，是因為這不僅是一段故事及其文本的展開史，更是一個世界的演化史。除了單純的敘事文本外，還有額外豐富的資料。有地圖和插圖。有語言和書寫系統，以及使用這些系統說寫的民族的歷史。所有這些額外的材料，都為我們對這個虛構世界本身的欣賞增添了多重維度的複雜性。《魔戒》出版至今五十年，對我來說，我們不僅擁有一部如此大師級的文學作品，還有一部與之相伴、無與倫比的創作歷程記錄，這似乎是件非凡之事。身為讀者，我們的感激之情同時獻給托爾金父子。道格拉斯・A・安德森 2004年5月
NOTE ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION In this edition of The Lord of the Rings, prepared for the fiftieth anniversary of its publication, between three and four hundred emendations have been made following an exhaustive review of past editions and printings. The present text is based on the setting of the HarperCollins three-volume hardcover edition of 2002, which in turn was a revision of the HarperCollins reset edition of 1994. As Douglas A. Anderson comments in the preceding ‘Note on the Text’, each of those editions was itself corrected, and each also introduced new errors. At the same time, other errors survived undetected, among them some five dozen which entered as long ago as 1954, in the resetting of The Fellowship of the Ring published as its ‘second impression’. That the printer had quietly reset The Fellowship of the Ring, and that copies had been issued without proof having been read by the author, never became known to Tolkien; while his publisher, Rayner Unwin, learned of it only thirty-eight years after the fact. Tolkien found a few of the unauthorized changes introduced in the second printing when (probably while preparing the second edition in 1965) he read a copy of the twelfth impression (1962), but thought the errors newly made. These, among others, were corrected in the course of the reprinting. Then in 1992 Eric Thompson, a reader with a keen eye for typographic detail, noticed small differences between the first and second impressions of The Fellowship of the Ring and called them to the attention of the present editors. About one-sixth of the errors that entered in the second printing quickly came to light. Many more were revealed only recently, when Steven M. Frisby used ingenious optical aids to make a comparison of copies of The Lord of the Rings in greater detail than was previously accomplished. We have gladly made full use of Mr Frisby’s results, which he has generously shared and discussed. In the course of its fifty-year history The Lord of the Rings has had many such readers who have recorded changes made between its various appearances in print, both to document what has gone before and to aid in the achievement of an authoritative text. Errors or possible errors were reported to the author himself or to his publishers, and information on the textual history of the work circulated among Tolkien enthusiasts at least as early as 1966, when Banks
關於五十週年紀念版的說明：此版《魔戒》是為紀念其出版五十週年而準備的。在對過去的版本和印刷進行了詳盡的審查後，我們進行了三百到四百處的校訂。目前的文本是基於2002年哈潑柯林斯（HarperCollins）出版的三卷精裝版，而該版本又是對1994年哈潑柯林斯重排版的修訂。正如道格拉斯·A·安德森在前文的〈關於文本的說明〉中所評論的，這些版本本身都經過了校正，但同時也各自引入了新的錯誤。與此同時，其他錯誤則一直未被發現，其中包括早在1954年《魔戒現身》作為「第二版印象」重新排版時就已出現的大約六十個錯誤。印刷商悄悄重排了《魔戒現身》，且在作者未校對樣書的情況下就發行了複本，這件事托爾金從未得知；而他的出版商雷納·安文則在事發三十八年後才知曉。托爾金在閱讀第十二版印象（1962年）時（可能是在1965年準備第二版期間），發現了第二次印刷中引入的一些未經授權的改動，但他以為這些是新出現的錯誤。這些錯誤以及其他一些錯誤，在後續的重印過程中得到了修正。然後在1992年，一位對印刷細節有敏銳眼光的讀者艾瑞克·湯普森，注意到了《魔戒現身》第一版和第二版印象之間的微小差異，並提請現任編輯們注意。第二次印刷中出現的錯誤，約有六分之一很快就被發現了。更多的錯誤直到最近才被揭露，當時史蒂芬·M·弗里斯比使用巧妙的光學輔助工具，對《魔戒》的各個版本進行了前所未有的詳細比較。我們很高興能充分利用弗里斯比先生的研究成果，他慷慨地分享並與我們討論了這些結果。在《魔戒》五十年的歷史中，有許多這樣的讀者記錄了其不同印刷版本之間的變化，既是為了記錄過往，也是為了協助達成一個權威文本。錯誤或可能的錯誤被回報給作者本人或他的出版商，而關於這部作品文本歷史的資訊，至少早在1966年就已在托爾金的愛好者之間流傳，當時班克斯
NOTE ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION XV Mebane published his ‘Prolegomena to a Variorum Tolkien’ in the fanzine Entmoot. Most notably in later years, Douglas A. Anderson has been in the forefront of efforts to achieve an accurate text of The Lord of the Rings (and of The Hobbit); Christina Scull has published ‘A Preliminary Study of Variations in Editions of The Lord of the Rings’ in Beyond Bree (April and August 1985); Wayne G. Hammond has compiled extensive lists of textual changes in ¥.R.R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography (1993); and David Bratman has published an important article, ‘A Corrigenda to The Lord of the Rings’, in the March 1994 number of The Tolkien Collector. The observations of Dainis Bisenieks, Yuval Kfir, Charles Noad, and other readers, sent to us directly or posted in public forums, have also been of service. Efforts such as these follow the example of the author of The Lord of the Rings during his lifetime. His concern for the textual accuracy and coherence of his work is evident from the many emendations he made in later printings, and from notes he made for other emendations which for one reason or another have not previously (or have only partly) been put into effect. Even late in life, when such labours wearied him, his feelings were clear. On 30 October 1967 he wrote to Joy Hill at George Allen & Unwin, concerning a reader’s query he had received about points in the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings: ‘Personally I have ceased to bother about these minor “‘discrepancies’’, since if the genealogies and calendars etc. lack verisimilitude it is in their general excessive accuracy: as compared with real annals or genealogies! Anyway the slips were few, have now mostly been removed, and the discovery of what remain seems an amusing pastime! But errors in the text are another matter’ (italics ours). In fact Tolkien had not ‘ceased to bother’, and ‘slips’ were dealt with as opportunities arose. These, and the indulgence of his publisher, allowed Tolkien a luxury few authors enjoy: multiple chances not only to correct his text but to improve it, and to further develop the languages, geography, and peoples of Middle-earth. The fiftieth anniversary of The Lord of the Rings seemed an ideal opportunity to consider the latest (2002) text in light of information we had gathered in the course of decades of work in Tolkien studies, with Steve Frisby’s research at hand, and with an electronic copy of The Lord of the Rings (supplied by HarperCollins) searchable by keyword or phrase. The latter especially allowed us to develop lists of words that varied from one instance to another, and investigate variations in usage, as they stood in the copy-text and relative to earlier editions and printings. Of course Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings over so long a period of time, some eighteen years, that inconsistencies in its text were almost inevitable. Christopher Tolkien even observed to us that some apparent inconsistencies of form in his
關於五十週年紀念版的說明 XV 梅班在同人誌《樹人會議》上發表了他的〈托爾金作品版本異同考序言〉。近年來，最值得注意的是，道格拉斯·A·安德森一直站在致力於取得《魔戒》（以及《哈比人》）精確文本的最前線；克莉絲汀娜·斯卡爾在《躍馬客棧之外》雜誌上發表了〈《魔戒》各版本差異初步研究〉（1985年4月及8月）；韋恩·G·哈蒙德在其著作《J.R.R.托爾金：描述性書目》（1993年）中彙編了詳盡的文本變更清單；而大衛·布拉特曼則在1994年3月號的《托爾金收藏家》上發表了一篇重要文章〈《魔戒》勘誤表〉。丹尼斯·比塞尼克斯、尤瓦爾·克菲爾、查爾斯·諾德及其他讀者直接寄給我們或在公開論壇上發表的觀察意見，也對我們有所助益。這些努力都遵循了《魔戒》作者在世時的榜樣。他對其作品文本準確性與連貫性的關切，從他在後續印刷版本中所做的諸多修訂，以及他為其他因故未能（或僅部分）實施的修訂所做的筆記中，可見一斑。即使在晚年，當這些勞心費神的工作使他疲憊時，他的感受依然明確。1967年10月30日，他寫信給喬治·艾倫與昂溫出版社的喬伊·希爾，談及他收到一位讀者關於《魔戒》附錄中一些問題的詢問：「就我個人而言，我已不再為這些微小的『出入』費心了，因為如果說這些家譜和曆法等缺乏逼真性，那也是因為它們普遍過於精確了：相較於真實的編年史或家譜！無論如何，這些小失誤本來就不多，現在大多已被移除，而發現剩下的那些似乎成了一種有趣的消遣！但文本中的錯誤則是另一回事」（斜體為我們所加）。事實上，托爾金並未「不再費心」，只要有機會，他就會處理那些「小失誤」。這些機會，加上他出版商的寬容，讓托爾金享受到少有作家能有的奢侈：多次機會不僅能修正他的文本，更能加以改進，並進一步發展中土大陸的語言、地理和民族。《魔戒》五十週年紀念似乎是一個理想的時機，讓我們得以根據數十年來在托爾金研究領域所收集的資訊，手邊有史蒂夫·弗里斯比的研究成果，還有一份由哈潑柯林斯出版社提供的、可按關鍵字或詞組搜索的《魔戒》電子檔，來審視最新的（2002年）文本。後者尤其讓我們能夠整理出前後用法不一的詞彙列表，並調查其在底本中相對於早期版本和印刷本的用法變化。當然，托爾金創作《魔戒》耗時甚長，約十八年，因此文本中出現不一致之處幾乎在所難免。克里斯多福·托爾金甚至向我們指出，他父親作品中一些形式上明顯的不一致...
xvi THE LORD OF THE RINGS father’s work may even have been deliberate: for instance, although Tolkien carefully distinguished house ‘dwelling’ from House ‘noble family or dynasty’, in two instances he used house in the latter sense but in lower case, perhaps because a capital letter would have detracted from the importance of the adjective with which the word was paired (‘royal house’, ‘golden house’). There can be no doubt, however, that Tolkien attempted to correct inconsistency, no less than outright error, whenever it came to his attention, and it was our opinion, with the advice and agreement of Christopher Tolkien, that an attempt should be made to do so in the anniversary edition, in so far as we could carefully and conservatively distinguish what to emend. Many of the emendations in the present text are to marks of punctuation, either to correct recent typographical errors or to repair surviving alterations introduced in the second printing of The Fellowship of the Ring. In the latter respect and in every case, Tolkien’s original punctuation is always more felicitous — subtle points, when one is comparing commas and semi-colons, but no less a part of the author’s intended expression. Distinctive words such as chill rather than cold, and glistered rather than glistened, changed by typesetters long ago without authorization, likewise have been restored. A controlled amount of regularization also seemed called for, such as naught rather than nought, a change instituted by Tolkien but not carried through in all instances; Dark Power rather than dark power when the reference is obviously to Sauron (or Morgoth); Barrowdowns by Tolkien’s preference rather than Barrowdowns; likewise Breehill rather than Bree Hill; accented and more common Driadan rather than Druadan; capitalized names of seasons when used as personification or metaphor, according to Tolkien’s predominant practice and the internal logic of the text; and Elvish rather than elvish when used as a separate adjective, following a preference Tolkien marked in his copy of the second edition of The Lord of the Rings. In addition, we have added a second accent to Numenorean(s), as Tolkien often wrote the name in manuscript and as it appears in The Silmarillion and other posthumous publications. The result, nonetheless, still includes many variations in capitalization, punctuation, and other points of style. Not all of these are erroneous: they include words such as Sun, Moon, Hobbit, and Man (or sun, moon, hobbit, man), which may change form according to meaning or application, in relation to adjacent adjectives, or whether Tolkien intended personification, poetry, or emphasis. His intent cannot be divined with confidence in every case. But it is possible to discern Tolkien’s preferences in many instances, from statements he wrote in his check copies of The Lord of the Rings or from a
父親的作品甚至可能是經過深思熟慮的：例如，雖然托爾金仔細區分了 house（意指「住宅」）與 House（意指「貴族家庭或王朝」），但在兩個例子中，他使用了小寫的 house 來表達後者的意思，或許是因為大寫字母會減損與該詞搭配的形容詞的重要性（如「royal house」、「golden house」）。然而，無庸置疑，每當托爾金注意到不一致之處，他都會試圖修正，其努力不亞於修正純粹的錯誤。在克里斯多福·托爾金的建議與同意下，我們認為應該在週年紀念版中進行這樣的嘗試，只要我們能謹慎且保守地區分出哪些地方需要修訂。當前文本中的許多修訂都是針對標點符號，旨在修正近期的印刷錯誤，或修復《魔戒現身》第二次印刷時遺留下來的改動。在後者方面，托爾金原始的標點在任何情況下都總是更為貼切——當比較逗號與分號時，這些都是細微之處，但同樣是作者意圖表達的一部分。諸如 chill 而非 cold、glistered 而非 glistened 這類獨特的詞語，很久以前被排版工人未經授權地更改，同樣也已恢復。某種程度的統一化似乎也是必要的，例如用 naught 取代 nought，這是托爾金發起但未在所有情況下貫徹的變更；當明顯指涉索倫（或魔苟斯）時，使用 Dark Power 而非 dark power；根據托爾金的偏好使用 Barrow-downs 而非 Barrowdowns；同樣地，使用 Bree-hill 而非 Bree Hill；使用帶重音且更常見的 Drúadan 而非 Druadan；根據托爾金的主要做法及文本的內在邏輯，將用作擬人化或隱喻的季節名稱大寫；以及當 Elvish 作為獨立形容詞使用時，遵循托爾金在他那本第二版《魔戒》上標註的偏好，將其大寫。此外，我們為 Numenorean(s) 加上了第二個重音符號，因為托爾金在手稿中經常這樣寫，並且在《精靈寶鑽》及其他身後出版的作品中也是如此呈現。儘管如此，結果仍然包含了許多在大小寫、標點及其他風格上的變化。並非所有這些都是錯誤的：它們包括像 Sun、Moon、Hobbit 和 Man（或 sun、moon、hobbit、man）這樣的詞，這些詞的形式可能會根據意義或應用、相鄰的形容詞，或者托爾金是否意圖擬人化、詩意或強調而改變。在每一種情況下，他的意圖都無法被有信心地推測出來。但在許多情況下，從他寫在《魔戒》校對本中的陳述，是有可能辨別出托爾金的偏好的。
NOTE ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION XVii close analysis of its text in manuscript, typescript, proof, and print. Whenever there has been any doubt whatsoever as to the author’s intentions, the text has been allowed to stand. Most of the demonstrable errors noted by Christopher Tolkien in The History of Middle-earth also have been corrected, such as the distance from the Brandywine Bridge to the Ferry (ten miles rather than twenty) and the number of Merry’s ponies (five rather than s7x), shadows of earlier drafts. But those inconsistencies of content, such as Gimli’s famous (and erroneous) statement in Book III, Chapter 7, ‘Till now I have hewn naught but wood since I left Moria’, which would require rewriting to emend rather than simple correction, remain unchanged. So many new emendations to The Lord of the Rings, and such an extensive review of its text, deserve to be fully documented. Although most readers will be content with the text alone, many will want to know more about the problems encountered in preparing this new edition, and their solutions (where solutions have been possible), especially where the text has been emended, but also where it has not. To this end, and to illuminate the work in other respects, we are preparing a volume of annotations to The Lord of the Rings for publication in 2005. This will allow us to discuss, at a length impossible in a prefatory note, the various textual cruces of The Lord of the Rings, to identify changes that have been made to the present text, and to remark on significant alterations to the published work throughout its history. We will also explain archaic or unusual words and names in The Lord of the Rings, explore literary and historical influences, note connections with Tolkien’s other writings, and comment on differences between its drafts and published form, on questions of language, and on much else that we hope will interest readers and enhance their enjoyment of Tolkien’s masterpiece. Wayne G. Hammond & Christina Scull May 2004
關於五十週年紀念版的說明 我們對其文本的手稿、打字稿、校樣和印刷版本進行了仔細分析。每當對作者的意圖有任何疑問時，文本都獲准維持原樣。克里斯多福·托爾金在《中土世界的歷史》中指出的多數可證實的錯誤也已得到修正，例如從白蘭地橋到渡口的距離（十英里而非二十英里）以及梅里的小馬數量（五匹而非六匹），這些都是早期草稿留下的影子。但那些內容上的不一致之處，例如金靂在第三卷第七章中著名（且錯誤）的陳述：「自離開摩瑞亞以來，至今我除了劈柴之外什麼也沒砍過」，這類問題需要重寫才能修正，而非簡單的校訂，因此仍保持不變。對《魔戒》如此多的新修訂，以及對其文本如此廣泛的審閱，理應被完整記錄。雖然大多數讀者僅滿足於文本本身，但許多人會想更深入了解我們在準備這個新版本時遇到的問題及其解決方案（在可能的情況下），特別是那些文本被修訂之處，也包括那些未被修訂之處。為此，並為了從其他方面闡明這部作品，我們正在準備一本《魔戒》的註釋集，預計於2005年出版。這將使我們能以一篇序言無法容納的篇幅，來討論《魔戒》中各種文本的疑難之處，指出當前文本所做的變更，並評註其出版史上各個時期的重大改動。我們也將解釋《魔戒》中的古字或罕見詞彙與名稱，探討文學和歷史影響，點出與托爾金其他著作的關聯，並評論其草稿與出版形式之間的差異、語言問題，以及許多我們希望讀者會感興趣並能增進他們對托爾金這部傑作的享受的內容。 韋恩·G·哈蒙德 & 克莉絲汀娜·斯卡爾 2004年5月