 | |
| Authors | Peter Gilliver, Jeremy Marshall andEdmund Weiner |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
Publication date | 2006 |
| Publication place | United Kingdom |
| Media type | Print (hardback) |
| Pages | 240 |
| ISBN | 0-19-861069-6 |
| Website | OUP website |
The Ring of Words: Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary is a 2006 book by three editors of theOxford English Dictionary,Peter Gilliver, Jeremy Marshall andEdmund Weiner. It examinesJ. R. R. Tolkien's brief period working as alexicographer with theOED afterWorld War I, traces his use ofphilology as it is apparent in his writings, and in particular in hislegendarium, and finally examines in detail over 100 words that he used, developed or invented.
Tolkien himself acknowledged the importance of this part of his career, stating "I learned more in those two years than in any other equal period of my life"[1] (even though it lasted barely eighteen months, from the end of 1918 to the spring of 1920).[2]
The title is taken fromR. L. Stevenson'sSongs of Travel and Other Verses No. XIV, quoted on the title page:
Bright is the ring of words
When the right man rings them,
Fair the fall of songs
When the singer sings them.
Part I: "Tolkien as Lexicographer" describes Tolkien's work as an Assistant Editor on the dictionary. He would sort through the raw materials—slips of paper containing examples of the use of words from documents covering many centuries—and disentangle the development of different shades of meaning over time. He would then start to compose a dictionary entry explaining the origins and development of each word. Some of Tolkien's manuscript notes, for words likewarm,waggle,wain andwaistcoat are reproduced. Tolkien's first published work:A Middle English Vocabulary, is described with the note that "Undoubtedly, it was the rigorous discipline of hisOED service that enabled Tolkien to compile a glossary that is unparalleled for its concision, informativeness, and accuracy."[3] (Peter Gilliver presented an earlier account of this period in Tolkien's life tothe J. R. R. Tolkien Centenary Conference, and subsequently published inMythlore.)[4]
Part II: "Tolkien as Wordwright" traces ways in which Tolkien'sphilology—his love and understanding of words and language—shaped and nourished both his academic and his literary work. He could trace words back in history, and deduce their unrecorded original forms, and he could follow words through time as they developed new meanings. He could revive an ancient word in a form that made sense to modern readers (shieldmaiden),[5] or create a completely new meaning for a forgotten word (ent).[6]
Part III: "Word Studies", which takes over half of the book, looks at over 100 individual words used by Tolkien, arranged alphabetically.Hobbit is given ten pages, buthalfling also appears.Farthing,mathom andsmial are also hobbit-related (the latter being philologically grouped withSmeagol andSmaug);Arkenstone anddwimmerlaik less so. From writing beyondTolkien'slegendarium comeblunderbuss andcorrigan. The origins of such words are considered, and the sources in which Tolkien may have read them; the use he makes of them and changes he makes to their meanings are shown.
A brief epilogue considers the ways in which Tolkien's use of words has influenced other writers, and has been recorded in the OED.
The poet and art criticKelly Grovier wrote that this book covers "neglected years in the growth of the writer's imagination", and called the first two parts "incisive essays" that illuminate the philology in Tolkien's writings. However, he suggested that the final section will appeal most to lovers of words and dictionaries. He noted that, as withhobbit, almost none of the words are invented by Tolkien (even when he thought he had), but are re-uses or developments of existing words.[7]
The Tolkien biographerJohn Garth enjoyed the "vivid impression of life in the front line of words". The book "successfully reunites the academic and creative aspects of Tolkien" and also gives evidence of his influence on those who went on to work on the OED in their own turn. Garth was however disappointed at the lack of an in-depth explanation ofcomparative philology as practised at the OED.[8]
The critic Imogen Carter, in contrast, though finding the archive material fascinating, thought that the "emphasis on complex lexicographical detail" makes it less appealing except to academics and the keenest fans.[9]
