Note on the Text

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,

文本說明 x1 1994年版也包含了一些新的修訂（同樣由克里斯托弗·托爾金監督），以及重新配置的人名和頁碼索引。1994年版文本首次用於1999年由霍頓·米夫林出版的美國版本。2002年由艾倫·李繪製的三卷本中又增加了一些修正，該版本由哈珀柯林斯在英國出版，霍頓·米夫林在美國出版。《魔戒》的文本歷史，僅就其已出版的形式而言，便是一個龐大而複雜的網絡。在這篇簡短的說明中，我僅僅概述了其整體順序和結構。關於《魔戒》已出版文本多年來的修訂和修正的更多細節，以及其出版歷史的更完整記述，可在韋恩·G·哈蒙德（Wayne G. Hammond）在道格拉斯·A·安德森（Douglas A. Anderson）協助下編寫的《J.R.R.托爾金：描述性書目》（1993）中找到。對於那些有興趣觀察《魔戒》從最早草稿到出版形式的逐步演變的人，我強烈推薦克里斯托弗·托爾金的記述，該記述收錄在他的十二卷系列《中洲歷史》中的五卷裡。第六至第九卷包含了其研究《魔戒》的主要部分：《陰影歸來》（1988）；《艾辛格的背叛》（1989）；《魔戒戰爭》（1990）；以及《索倫的失敗》（1992）。此外，該系列的最後一本書《中洲人民》（1996）涵蓋了《魔戒》序言和附錄的演變。這些卷宗包含了對托爾金傑作的成長和寫作過程引人入勝的「旁觀」記述。研究托爾金《魔戒》手稿的過程涉及對不同版本的解讀，其中托爾金先用鉛筆書寫，然後再用墨水覆蓋在鉛筆草稿之上。克里斯托弗·托爾金在《陰影歸來》中描述了他父親的寫作方法：「在他用於快速草稿和素描的筆跡中，這些草稿和素描並非旨在長期保存，而是為了在他再次處理並賦予它們更可行形式之前，字母形成得如此鬆散，以至於一個無法從上下文或後續版本中推斷或猜測的詞，在長時間檢查後可能完全模糊不清；而且，如果他像往常一樣使用軟鉛筆，那麼許多內容現在已經變得模糊和微弱。」閱讀這種「雙重草稿」的真正困難可以在《魔戒戰爭》的卷首插畫中觀察到，該插畫以彩色形式重現了托爾金手稿頁面中「屍羅的巢穴」的插圖。仔細觀察插圖旁的匆忙墨水草稿，可以在其下方看到更早、更匆忙的鉛筆草稿。也在《魔戒戰爭》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,

第十二頁 《魔戒》 克里斯多福·托爾金重現了章節「馴服史麥戈」的第一份手稿中的一頁，而與此文本相對應的印刷文本則在對開頁上（見第90-91頁）。人們會對任何人解讀此類文本的能力感到驚訝。撇開這個困難不談，這些書對普通讀者和托爾金學者究竟意味著什麼？而一本書的「寫作歷史」又是什麼？簡單來說，這些卷冊詳細展示了《魔戒》故事從最早的草稿和倉促的構想，到最終完成的發展過程。我們在最早的材料中看到的是一本非常像兒童讀物的書，是《哈比人》的續集，隨著故事在各個「階段」中成長，其嚴肅性和深度也隨之增加。我們看到了不同的發展分支，某些角色的逐漸融合與合併，以及戒指本質和其​​他角色動機的緩慢浮現。其中一些想法被完全放棄，而另一些則被修改成某種變體形式，這些變體形式可能最終保留，也可能不會。人們可以從克里斯多福·托爾金的研究中整理出許多有趣的細節——例如，在書寫作的後期階段，亞拉岡（Strider）曾被稱為「小跑者」（Trotter）；「小跑者」一度是個哈比人，因穿木鞋而得名；托爾金曾一度考慮亞拉岡和伊歐玟之間的浪漫關係；托爾金曾為這本書寫了一個結語，以了結所有懸而未決的問題，但在出版前被刪除了（現在出現在《索倫的敗亡》中）；等等。但這些發展最好在克里斯多福·托爾金的評論背景下閱讀和欣賞，而不是單獨討論。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和思考的。在其他任何地方，我們都無法如此詳細地看到作者的創作過程。托爾金關於故事可能如何發展，或者為什麼它能或不能以某種方式發展的倉促評論——這些對他自己的疑問都被寫了下來：托爾金真正在「紙上思考」。這為理解托爾金在1963年寫給史坦利·昂溫的信中的評論增添了額外的維度，當時他因肩膀和右臂的毛病而受苦，他說：「我發現無法使用鋼筆或鉛筆，就像母雞失去喙一樣令人沮喪。」而我們作為這些卷冊的讀者，可以與托爾金本人一同分享新角色彷彿憑空出現，或故事中其他突如其來的變化或發展，在它們剛浮現於故事中的那一刻所帶來的驚奇與困惑。我不知道文學史上還有其他任何一本書的「寫作歷史」能如此詳盡，大部分由作者本人講述，所有猶豫和錯誤的路徑都呈現在我們面前，並被整理出來。

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Xlil評論過的文本，它像盛宴般呈獻給讀者。我們看到了無數個思維過程本身運作的極其細微的例子。我們看到作者為了創作本身的緣故而完全投入其中。而這尤其非凡，因為這不僅是一個故事及其文本的展開史，更是一個世界的演變史。除了簡單的敘事文本之外，還有豐富的額外材料。有地圖和插圖。有語言和書寫系統，以及使用這些系統的民族的歷史。所有這些額外材料都為我們對這個虛構世界的欣賞增添了多重複雜性。《魔戒》出版五十年後，在我看來，我們不僅擁有一部如此精湛的文學作品，還有其寫作過程的無與倫比的記錄作為其伴侶，這實在是非凡。作為讀者，我們對托爾金父子二人深表感謝。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

《魔戒》五十週年紀念版說明 為慶祝《魔戒》出版五十週年而準備的此版本中，在對過去各版本和印刷品進行詳盡審查後，進行了三百到四百處的修訂。目前的文本是基於哈珀柯林斯出版社2002年三卷精裝本的排版，而該版本又是哈珀柯林斯出版社1994年重新排版版本的修訂。正如道格拉斯·A·安德森在前言《文本說明》中所述，這些版本本身都曾被修正，但每個版本也引入了新的錯誤。同時，其他錯誤則未被發現地存留下來，其中約有六十處錯誤早在1954年《魔戒首部曲：魔戒現身》以「第二版」出版時重新排版時就已出現。印刷商悄悄地重新排版了《魔戒首部曲：魔戒現身》，並且在未經作者校閱的情況下發行了副本，這件事托爾金從未得知；而他的出版商雷納·昂溫則是在事發三十八年後才知曉。托爾金在閱讀1962年第十二刷的副本時（可能是在1965年準備第二版期間），發現了第二刷中引入的一些未經授權的更改，但他認為這些錯誤是新造成的。這些錯誤，以及其他一些錯誤，在重印過程中得到了修正。隨後在1992年，艾瑞克·湯普森，一位對排版細節有著敏銳洞察力的讀者，注意到了《魔戒首部曲：魔戒現身》第一版和第二版之間細微的差異，並提請現任編輯們注意。第二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示，當時史蒂芬·M·弗里斯比利用巧妙的光學輔助工具，對《魔戒》的副本進行了比以往任何時候都更詳細的比較。我們欣然充分利用了弗里斯比先生的成果，他慷慨地分享並討論了這些成果。在其五十年的歷史中，《魔戒》擁有許多這樣的讀者，他們記錄了其各種印刷版本之間的變化，既是為了記錄過去的內容，也是為了幫助實現一個權威的文本。錯誤或可能的錯誤會被報告給作者本人或其出版商，而關於該作品文本歷史的資訊至少早在1966年，當班克斯...

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

第五十週年紀念版附註 XV 梅班在同人誌《樹人會議》上發表了他的《托爾金校勘本導論》。尤其值得一提的是，近年來，道格拉斯·A·安德森一直走在最前線，致力於校訂《魔戒》（以及《哈比人》）的準確文本；克莉絲汀娜·史卡爾在《布里之外》（1985年4月和8月號）上發表了《魔戒各版本差異初步研究》；韋恩·G·哈蒙德在《J.R.R.托爾金：描述性書目》（1993年）中彙編了大量的文本變更清單；而大衛·布拉特曼則在《托爾金收藏家》（1994年3月號）上發表了一篇重要文章《魔戒勘誤表》。戴尼斯·比塞尼克斯、尤瓦爾·基菲爾、查爾斯·諾德以及其他讀者直接寄給我們或在公共論壇上發表的意見，也提供了幫助。這些努力效仿了《魔戒》作者生前的做法。他對作品文本準確性和連貫性的關注，從他後來印刷版本中進行的許多修訂，以及他為其他因種種原因尚未（或僅部分）實施的修訂所做的筆記中可見一斑。即使到了晚年，當這些工作讓他感到疲憊時，他的感受依然清晰。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，內容是關於他收到的一位讀者對《魔戒》附錄中某些問題的詢問：「就我個人而言，我已不再為這些細微的『差異』而煩惱，因為如果家譜和曆法等缺乏真實性，那也只是因為它們普遍過於精確：與真實的編年史或家譜相比！總之，錯誤很少，現在大部分都已消除，而發現剩餘的錯誤似乎是一種有趣的消遣！但文本中的錯誤則是另一回事了」（斜體為本書所加）。事實上，托爾金並未「停止煩惱」，而「錯誤」也隨著機會的出現而得到處理。這些，以及出版商的寬容，讓托爾金享有了少數作者才能擁有的奢侈：不僅有多次機會修正文本，還能改進文本，並進一步發展中土世界的語言、地理和民族。《魔戒》五十週年紀念似乎是一個理想的機會，可以根據我們在數十年托爾金研究工作中收集到的資訊，並結合史蒂夫·弗里斯比的研究成果，以及哈珀柯林斯出版社提供的可按關鍵字或詞組搜尋的《魔戒》電子版，來審視最新的（2002年）文本。後者尤其使我們能夠整理出在不同實例中有所變化的詞彙清單，並調查它們在底本中以及相對於早期版本和印刷品的使用差異。當然，托爾金寫作《魔戒》的時間長達約十八年，因此文本中出現不一致之處幾乎是不可避免的。克里斯多福·托爾金甚至向我們指出，他作品中某些明顯的形式不一致之處...

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

十六 《魔戒》 父親的工作甚至可能是故意的：例如，儘管托爾金仔細區分了表示「住所」的 house 和表示「貴族家庭或王朝」的 House，但在兩個例子中，他將後者意義的 house 用了小寫，或許是因為大寫字母會削弱與該詞搭配的形容詞的重要性（「王室之家」、「黃金之家」）。然而，毫無疑問，托爾金會盡力糾正任何他注意到的不一致之處，甚至包括明顯的錯誤。我們認為，在克里斯多夫·托爾金的建議和同意下，應在週年紀念版中嘗試這樣做，只要我們能謹慎且保守地辨別哪些地方需要修訂。現有文本中的許多修訂是針對標點符號的，要麼是為了糾正最近的排版錯誤，要麼是為了修復《魔戒首部曲》第二版印刷中引入的殘留改動。在後一方面，以及在所有情況下，托爾金的原始標點符號總是更為恰當——當比較逗號和分號時，這些是細微之處，但它們同樣是作者預期表達的一部分。諸如 chill 而非 cold，以及 glistered 而非 glistened 等獨特詞彙，這些詞彙在很久以前被排字工人未經授權地更改，現在也已恢復。一定程度的規範化似乎也是必要的，例如 naught 而非 nought，這是托爾金本人實施但並未在所有情況下貫徹的更改；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 Barrowdowns 而非 Barrowdowns；同樣地，Breehill 而非 Bree Hill；重音且更常見的 Driadan 而非 Druadan；當季節名稱被擬人化或用作比喻時，根據托爾金的主要習慣和文本的內在邏輯，將其大寫；以及當 Elvish 作為獨立形容詞使用時，使用 Elvish 而非 elvish，這遵循了托爾金在他《魔戒》第二版副本中標記的偏好。此外，我們在 Numenorean(s) 上添加了第二個重音，因為托爾金在手稿中經常這樣書寫該名稱，並且它也出現在《精靈寶鑽》和其他遺作中。儘管如此，結果仍然包含許多大小寫、標點符號和其他風格方面的變異。並非所有這些都是錯誤的：它們包括諸如 Sun、Moon、Hobbit 和 Man（或 sun、moon、hobbit、man）等詞，這些詞的形式可能會根據意義或應用、與相鄰形容詞的關係，或者托爾金是否意圖擬人化、詩意或強調而改變。在所有情況下，他的意圖都無法自信地被推斷出來。但從托爾金在他《魔戒》校對副本中的陳述或從一個

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

「第五十週年紀念版附註 XVii」對其手稿、打字稿、校樣和印刷文本進行了仔細分析。每當對作者的意圖有任何疑問時，文本都保持不變。克里斯托弗·托爾金在《中洲歷史》中指出的大部分可證明錯誤也已得到糾正，例如白蘭地河橋到渡口之間的距離（十英里而非二十英里），以及梅里小馬的數量（五匹而非七匹），這些都是早期草稿的痕跡。但那些內容上的不一致，例如金靂在第三卷第七章中那句著名（且錯誤）的陳述：「自從我離開摩瑞亞以來，我只砍過木頭，別無他物」，這需要重寫才能修正，而非簡單的更正，則保持不變。對《魔戒》如此多的新修訂，以及對其文本如此廣泛的審查，都值得充分記錄。儘管大多數讀者會滿足於文本本身，但許多人會想了解更多關於準備這個新版本時遇到的問題，以及它們的解決方案（如果可能的話），特別是文本被修訂過的地方，以及未被修訂的地方。為此，並為了在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。這將使我們能夠以序言筆記中不可能的篇幅，討論《魔戒》中各種文本難點，識別對現有文本所做的更改，並評論其出版歷史中對已出版作品的重大修改。我們還將解釋《魔戒》中的古老或不尋常的詞語和名稱，探索文學和歷史影響，指出與托爾金其他著作的聯繫，並評論其草稿和出版形式之間的差異，關於語言問題，以及許多我們希望會引起讀者興趣並增強他們對托爾金傑作享受的其他內容。韋恩·G·哈蒙德 和 克莉絲汀娜·史卡爾 2004年5月