I have dusted off a copy of the Hobbit and compared the runes on the map with those on the cover of Easton's. It looks like Easton press has it correct in the two spots you mention Urulókë.
The errors (or differences) are on the second line.
1. Between the "M" and the "P" is a dot on my map, and two vertical bars on the Easton Press cover
2. Also after the same "P" as mentioned ad 1. there is a rune missing on the Easton Press cover
The errors (or differences) are on the second line.
1. Between the "M" and the "P" is a dot on my map, and two vertical bars on the Easton Press cover
2. Also after the same "P" as mentioned ad 1. there is a rune missing on the Easton Press cover
And of course as mentioned the middle section is missing (intentionally).
Maybe we should mail Easton Press and they will correct it implying a second edition
Maybe we should mail Easton Press and they will correct it implying a second edition
Can you provide an image of your copy, SonOfDolf? I think I understand what you are saying, but there are two occurances of M & P on that line, so I am not 100% sure...
Also, here is another image that clearly shows the first rune (on the second line) as having been corrected:
The fourth line still appears to have the wrong rune. I found a better image (more accurate ) to show what I am talking about.
I have marked the rune in question. Note that it is not the same rune as the one in blue, but Easton's is appears to be the same. Can you confirm? it is hard to tell from just cover scans, perhaps the right side of the Easton rune is not vertically connected, which would make it correct.
Also, here is another image that clearly shows the first rune (on the second line) as having been corrected:
The fourth line still appears to have the wrong rune. I found a better image (more accurate ) to show what I am talking about.
I have marked the rune in question. Note that it is not the same rune as the one in blue, but Easton's is appears to be the same. Can you confirm? it is hard to tell from just cover scans, perhaps the right side of the Easton rune is not vertically connected, which would make it correct.
In my copy the 4th and the 5th rune on the second line are switched. This from a 2nd impression of the 1976 Allen&Unwin deluxe edition. Will update with an image soon.
Here it is:
Here it is:
7 Oct, 2011
(edited)
2011-10-7 10:47:56 PM UTC
Edited by SonOfDolf on 2011-10-7 11:10:26 PM UTC
Edited by SonOfDolf on 2011-10-7 11:30:28 PM UTC
Edited by SonOfDolf on 2011-10-7 11:38:19 PM UTC
Edited by SonOfDolf on 2011-10-7 11:30:28 PM UTC
Edited by SonOfDolf on 2011-10-7 11:38:19 PM UTC
2011-10-7 10:47:56 PM UTC
Reading from this link
http://mulubinba.typepad.com/ra_viewe ... f/2011/04/thrors-map.html
it looks like my map is correct!
Stand by the grey stone when the thrush knocks, and the setting sun with the last light will shine on Durin's Day will shine upon the key-hole
"when" - the rune for w is a "P"
........
edit: I'm confused now because I checked another Hobbit (2004) and the runes are on the back of the map in mirror writing but taking that into account the order is the same as the Easton Press order.
edit 2: found this info: "Tolkien’s use of the runic alphabet is pretty
straightforward, but there is some variation between a strictly letter-for-letter transliteration (as in FIUE (‘five’) in which the silent ‘e’ is preserved)
and a more phonetic approach (for example,DoR for ‘door’ rather thanDooR). Also notable in the moon-letters is the use ofHWEN (‘hwen’) for ‘when’,
which follows Old English usage."
So in conclusion
1. the 1976 Hobbit is wrong after all.
2. Easton press has the right order, but there is a version of their Hobbit where the runic "H" is missing the middle bar
http://mulubinba.typepad.com/ra_viewe ... f/2011/04/thrors-map.html
it looks like my map is correct!
Stand by the grey stone when the thrush knocks, and the setting sun with the last light will shine on Durin's Day will shine upon the key-hole
"when" - the rune for w is a "P"
........
edit: I'm confused now because I checked another Hobbit (2004) and the runes are on the back of the map in mirror writing but taking that into account the order is the same as the Easton Press order.
edit 2: found this info: "Tolkien’s use of the runic alphabet is pretty
straightforward, but there is some variation between a strictly letter-for-letter transliteration (as in FIUE (‘five’) in which the silent ‘e’ is preserved)
and a more phonetic approach (for example,DoR for ‘door’ rather thanDooR). Also notable in the moon-letters is the use ofHWEN (‘hwen’) for ‘when’,
which follows Old English usage."
So in conclusion
1. the 1976 Hobbit is wrong after all.
2. Easton press has the right order, but there is a version of their Hobbit where the runic "H" is missing the middle bar
I just had a look at all my books (ut, sil, bolt1, bolt2, hob, fr, tt, rotk and atlas) and they all have the incorrect fourth rune on the second line. It will be interesting if they fix this if/when they reprint the ones that aren't in the "set of 5". I hope so as it will define a first and second state of those books, which adds a bit of interest, if nothing else.
I have just combed eBay, and found images of both states for most of the books, so clearly they fixed it at some point. I emailed my contact at Easton Press to find out more information on when the change was made.
Oh, and just to close out the other "error" - I was imagining things with the fourth line - with better images, it is clear that the rune matches Tolkien's map drawing. Red herring!
Oh, and just to close out the other "error" - I was imagining things with the fourth line - with better images, it is clear that the rune matches Tolkien's map drawing. Red herring!
Good detective work, Jeremy. I do like the fact that this site is frequented by people that are quite happy to put the effort into solving life's (un)important little questions :)
I suspect that the UT/BoLT1/BoLT2/Atlas/Guide to Middle-Earth probably only exist with the defective rune as these haven't been reprinted as yet (and the Guide won't be reprinted). If they do reprint (and they probably will, I suspect), hopefully it will be with the correction.
The nice thing about these books is that they are pretty cheap. Other than the Atlas which I had to pay a little more for, I only paid an average of about $50 a book, and I got them in two batches, so the postage was not as bad as buying individual books (which probably wouldn't be worth it outside of the US).
I suspect that the UT/BoLT1/BoLT2/Atlas/Guide to Middle-Earth probably only exist with the defective rune as these haven't been reprinted as yet (and the Guide won't be reprinted). If they do reprint (and they probably will, I suspect), hopefully it will be with the correction.
The nice thing about these books is that they are pretty cheap. Other than the Atlas which I had to pay a little more for, I only paid an average of about $50 a book, and I got them in two batches, so the postage was not as bad as buying individual books (which probably wouldn't be worth it outside of the US).
Nice detective work, indeed. I don't look in for two days and this thread has exploded into life. Having nothing to add, and only having EP's The Silmarillion (why would I buy anything else! ) --all I will say is: their Silmarillion appears to have all the textual errors from the first impression present; presumably because they used this text (photographically) for their edition. Think they might want to update that too...
BH
BH