Wayne and Christina


Addenda and Corrigenda
to the 50th Anniversary Edition
of The Lord of the Rings (2004–5)

Edited with a prefatory note
by Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull

Following are points noted for the 50th anniversary edition in addition to corrections made in 2005 and recorded in The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion. Some, but not all, of these were addressed in some, but not all, later HarperCollins and Houghton Mifflin (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) printings. Page numbers refer to the 2004 and later typesetting we have designated ‘A’ in our blog post of 8 February 2012. Some later editions have been reset or have different pagination in the preliminaries. Significant revisions of existing addenda or corrigenda are marked thus: [REVISED].

p. vii, l. 12 after titling: For ‘108’ read ‘109’.

p. xiii, l. 22: For ‘changed in 1965’ read ‘changed to 1965’.

p. xv, l. 14: For ‘assitance’ read ‘assistance’.

p. xv, l. 13 from bottom: For ‘decribed’ read ‘described’.

p. xix, l. 11: For ‘Yuval Kfir’ read ‘Yuval Welis’.

p. xx, l. 17: For ‘felicitous - subtle’ (with a hyphen) read ‘felicitous – subtle’ (with an en dash).

p. xx, final line: For ‘check copied’ read ‘check copies’.

p. 27, l. 20: The en dash at the beginning of this line should be followed by a space.

p. 50, Ring inscription: As noted in The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion, the inscription reproduced in 2004 printings of the 50th anniversary edition is incorrect, taken from earlier, rejected lettering by Tolkien.

p. 158, footnote: The (volume number) ‘III’ is superfluous in an edition with continuous pagination (and, of course, for editions in one volume).

p. 159, stanzas beginning ‘They rolled the Man slowly up the hill’: Two stanzas have been pushed together. There should be a space following the line ‘and a dish ran up with the spoon’.

p. 169, l. 7 from bottom: The greeting of the letter, ‘Dear Frodo,’ should not be indented.

p. 170, l. 9: The first line of the poem (‘All that is gold does not glitter,’) should be indented.

p. 367, l. 13 after titling: For ‘They all resolved’ read ‘They are all resolved’.

p. 373, l. 8: For ‘come to bid our’ read ‘come to bid you our’.

p. 756, ll. 19–21: The sentence ‘“I am,” said Pippin’ should be run on with Gandalf’s dialogue in the preceding paragraph. This was the case in the first edition of The Return of the King and for many years thereafter, until it was separated in the 1994 HarperCollins resetting. The separate paragraph persisted into the 2002 HarperCollins edition given us as our copy-text for 2004, and as this was not a point previously noticed, and there was no issue of comprehension whether the sentence was run on or not – indeed, normal English practice would have it separated – we gave it no thought when producing the anniversary edition. In his manuscripts and typescripts, however, Tolkien consistently has Pippin’s dialogue run on, perhaps to show a quick (nervous?) response to Gandalf’s question, and this would suggest that the sentence should be returned to its former position, ‘standard practice’ notwithstanding. (Tolkien uses a similar, though not identical, device in Book I, Chapter 1, during the ‘long-expected party’, where Bilbo’s comments to the gathering are set in italics, followed by comments from the crowd run on.)

p. 977, l. 19: For ‘Fréalaf’ read ‘Fréaláf’.

p. 1033, l. 19 after titling: For ‘see Vol. I p. 4 and III p. 1112’ read ‘see pp. 4 and 1112’.

p. 1041, n. 1 (etc.): Larry Kuenning has pointed out to us that eight footnotes in Appendix A are printed within quotation marks in the first Ballantine Books edition (1965) but not in the current text. In the first edition of The Return of the King, Tolkien stated in a note on the first page of Appendix A: ‘Actual extracts from the longer annals and tales that are found in the Red Book are placed within quotation marks’ (p. 313; cf. The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion, p. 682). In the second edition this became: ‘Actual extracts from longer annals and tales are placed within quotation marks. . . . Notes within quotation marks are found in the sources. Others are editorial.’ In the first edition, however, only one note appeared within quotation marks, on p. 323 (n. 1, ‘The sceptre was . . . crowning of Aragorn’). Tolkien corrected this error in his revised text for Ballantine Books, where the following footnotes are enclosed within quotation marks (the Ballantine pagination is cited, with new standard pagination in square brackets):

p. 399 [1041], ‘These are a strange . . . feet of the Mountains’
p. 400 [1042], n. 1, ‘In this way the ring . . . at great peril’
p. 400 [1042], n. 2, ‘These were the Stones . . . covered Númenor for ever’
p. 401 [1043], n. 1, ‘The sceptre was . . . crowning of Aragorn’
p. 410 [1050], ‘That law was made . . . Elendil was descended’
pp. 437–8 [1070], ‘For her shield-arm . . . Master of Buckland.]’
p. 443 [1074], ‘It is said that Thorin’s shield . . . got his name’
p. 445 [1076], n. 1, ‘Such dealings with their dead . . . and that is enough’.

In addition, quotation marks were added within note 1 on p. 401 (original edition p. 323, new edition p. 1043), after ‘silver fillet’ and before ‘The sceptre of Númenor’, creating an ‘editorial’ comment within a ‘source’ text.

Tolkien’s original copy for emendations in the Appendices was lost after the Ballantine Books edition was produced; the printed Ballantine sheets therefore became the only possible basis for the subsequent revision of the Appendices in the primary (Allen & Unwin, Houghton Mifflin) hardcover editions. The Allen & Unwin typesetters, however, seem to have overlooked the new quotation marks in the notes, or else a comparison was made with the first edition setting and the marks were dropped because they were not present earlier; and in the process, the existing quotation marks around p. 323, n. 1 were removed. Since later editions looked to the standard hardcover text as a guide to resetting, all have omitted the quotation marks Tolkien meant to include. Even the later resetting by Ballantine Books appears to have been made without comparison against that publisher’s original edition.

We have discussed these points with Christopher Tolkien, who informs us that his father marked the corrections indicated above in a copy of the original printing of The Return of the King.

p. 1058, l. 11: For ‘Elven-home’ read ‘Elvenhome’. In the typescript for the printer, the word was broken between two lines, and the typesetter mistakenly retained the hyphen.

p. 1079: In the text below the genealogical chart, ‘Dáin I slain by a dragon, 2589’ should be followed by a full stop, by analogy with the accompanying lines of text.

p. 1100, Baggins of Hobbiton family tree: The death date of Bingo Baggins should read ‘1360’. The error ‘1363’ entered in the 1994 edn., from which HarperCollins took the family trees for the anniversary edition, but was correct in the 2002 copy-text we examined. – For ‘Odo | Proudfoot’ read ‘Odo | Proudfoot’, i.e. underline the first name.

p. 1101, Bolger of Budgeford family tree: For ‘Gerda Boffin’ (wife of Adalbert), read ‘= Gerda Boffin’, i.e. include an equals sign to indicate marriage.

p. 1102, Boffin of the Yale family tree [REVISED]: For ‘Lavender Grubb’ (wife of Otto the Fat) read ‘= Lavender Grubb’, i.e. include an equals sign to indicate marriage. For ‘1346’, the year of birth of Griffo Boffin (at lower left), read ‘1344’.

p. 1103, Took of Great Smials family tree: For ‘3 daughters’ (of Adalgrim Took) read ‘3 daughters’, i.e. underline to indicate that they attended Bilbo’s party. The underline was present from the first edition, but (as elsewhere) dropped out due to wear after multiple printings. Also, for ‘[BILBO]’ read ‘[BILBO]’.

p. 1111, note 1: For ‘matters’ read ‘other matters’.

p. 1116, l. 12: For ‘dictated’ read ‘indicated’.

p. 1120, l. 19: For ‘8 =d’ read ‘8=d’, with the space after ‘8’ closed up by analogy with other text in this paragraph.

p. 1121, l. 13 from bottom: For ‘undotted i’ read ‘undotted i’ (with an italic i).

p. 1123, n. 1, l. 3: For ‘hr’ read ‘hr’.

p. 1136, l. 7: For ‘hámfœst’ (with an oe digraph) read ‘hámfæst’ (with an ae digraph).

p. 1137, l. 29: For ‘butterflies to the falcon’ read ‘butterflies to the swift falcon’.

We have been asked which of ‘sword-thain’, as printed (with a hyphen) on p. 777, and ‘swordthain’, as printed (without a hyphen) on pp. 803 and 804, is the correct form. Each is acceptable, but a distinct preference by Tolkien cannot be determined from so small a sampling. The same is true in regard to ‘City of the Kings’ (i.e. Gondor) on p. 973 but ‘city of the Kings’ on p. 1062; and here it may be that Tolkien chose, in the first instance, to capitalize ‘City’ as a means of denoting special import or majesty to the name.

Another question that has been put to us concerns the poem The Road Goes Ever On and On as spoken by Bilbo and Frodo on pp. 35 and 73 respectively. In the first instance, the lines ‘Until it joins some larger way / Where many paths and errands meet’ do not have a comma following ‘way’, but there is a comma after ‘way’ in the second instance. Which is correct? This punctuation has been the same since the first printing of The Fellowship of the Ring, and the manuscripts as presented in The Return of the Shadow offer no help. In the circumstances, we would judge that there is no means of saying that one version or the other is correct and the other is not. Indeed, both may have been intended by Tolkien: Bilbo having set off with ‘eager feet’, it could be argued that the absence of a comma in his verse suggests eagerness, while a comma in Frodo’s verse slows its pace appropriate to his ‘weary feet’.

New index (2005)

p. 1144, col. 2, entry for ‘Barad-dûr’: Add citations: 437, 899.

p. 1149, col. 1, entry for ‘Company of the Ring’: In the penultimate line, for ‘872 Nine Walkers’ read ‘872; Nine Walkers’.

p. 1150, col. 1, entry for ‘Desolation of the Morannon’: For ‘1093’ read ‘619, 631, 648, 887, 1093, 1094’.

p. 1152, col. 1, entry for ‘Ecthelion II’: For ‘see also’ read ‘see also’.

p. 1152, col. 1, entry for ‘Eldacar, of Anor’: For ‘Anor’ read ‘Arnor’.

p. 1154, col. 1, entry for ‘Emyn Muil’, sub-entry ‘East Wall of Rohan’: For ‘432’ read ‘423’.

p. 1156, col. 1, entry for ‘First Age’: For ‘1107’ read ‘1108’.

p. 1156, col. 2, entry for ‘Gamgee, Frodo’: For ‘Frodo’ read ‘Frodo (Frodo Gardner)’.

p. 1157, col. 1, add entry: ‘Gamgee, Holfast (Holfast Gardner) 1105’.

p. 1157, col. 2, entry for ‘Gardner, Frodo’: Delete citation, add cross-reference: ‘see Gamgee, Frodo (Frodo Gardner)’.

p. 1157, col. 2, entry for ‘Gardner, Holfast’: Delete citation, add cross-reference: ‘see Gamgee, Holfast (Holfast Gardner)’.

p. 1159, col. 1, entry for ‘Grip’: For ‘Grip’ read ‘Grip (Farmer Maggot’s dog)’ to be consistent with our entries for Fang and Wolf.

p. 1160, add entry: ‘Heathen kings 825, 853’.

p. 1165, col. 1, entry for ‘Morannon’: Add citation: 882. Add cross-reference: ‘see also Desolation of the Morannon’.

p. 1168, col. 1, entry for ‘Oliphaunt’: The citations should read, in correct order and without repetition, ‘646, 647, 661, 662, 675, 811, 828, 843, 845, 846, 848, 858, 937, 957, 987’.

p. 1170, col. 1, entry for ‘Rhûn, Sea of’: Delete citations for pp. 248, 755.

p. 1171, col. 1, entry for ‘Rúmil’: Replace with two entries:

Rúmil (Elf of Lothlórien) 343, 344, 346, 347

Rúmil (Noldo, inventor of letters) 1117

p. 1173, col. 2, add entry: ‘Spiders 723; see also Shelob; Ungoliant’.

p. 1175, col. 2, entry for ‘Took, Hildigard’: Add citation: 1103.

p. 1176, col. 1, entry for ‘Towers of the Teeth’: Add citation: 639.

p. 1176, col. 2, entry for ‘Udûn’: For ‘930’ read ‘931’.

In his essay ‘Indexing and Poetry in The Lord of the Rings’ (Lembas Extra 2004, reprinted in Roots and Branches: Selected Papers on Tolkien (2007)), Tom Shippey comments that we group together the three versions of the poem The Road Goes Ever On and On, but divide the two versions of, or excerpts from, Upon the Hearth the Fire Is Red, ‘though they are clearly the same poem, and referred to as such in the text’. His point ‘is not that indexers get things wrong, but that hobbit-poetry does not lend itself to tidy listings’ (Roots and Branches, p. 236). Our point in mentioning this is not to suggest a change, but only to acknowledge Tom’s point, while noting that our groupings are correct according to (varying) first lines.

We would like to thank the Departamento de Traduccion Irreverente, Merlin DeTardo, Timothy Fisher, Carl Hostetter, Yuval Kfir, Larry Kuenning, Erik Mueller-Harder, Charles Noad, Zoran Pajic, Calvin Rice, and Pekka Tuomisto for calling some of these errors to our attention.

[ go to home page ]
[ go to addenda and corrigenda page ]

Copyright © 2005–2014 by Wayne G. Hammond & Christina Scull
This page was last updated on 26 August 2014
Design by NimbleFingers