Editors' Introduction

This is the fifth issue of Tolkien Studies, a refereed journal dedicated to the scholarly study of the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien Studies is the first academic journal solely devoted to Tolkien. As editors, our goal is to publish excellent scholarship on Tolkien as well as to gather useful research information, reviews, notes, documents, and bibliographical material.

In this issue we are pleased to re-publish two items by Tolkien: "Chaucer as a Philologist: The Reeve's Tale," a paper originally read at the 16 May 1931 meeting in Oxford of the Philological Society and subsequently published in the Transactions of the Philological Society for 1934; and the text of the rare pamphlet version of The Reeve's Tale prepared by Tolkien for the Oxford "Summer Diversions" of 1939. For the former, Christopher Tolkien has kindly made available to us the marginal notes and corrections written by his father into his own copies of the original publication.

George Steiner's essay "Tolkien: Oxford's Eccentric Don" was originally published in the French newspaper Le Monde on 6 September 1973. Coming scant days after Tolkien's death on 2 September, Steiner's is undoubtedly one of the earliest-published considerations of his work and its place in twentieth century literature. Thus the essay has a certain historical interest, as much for praise of its subject as for its inaccuracies and misconceptions (most now long put to rest). While a good deal that Steiner says is very much on the mark, especially about the deep connection between myth and language, the importance of myth to England and of both to Tolkien, he also reflects some early misconceptions then current about Tolkien and his work. Tolkien Studies is happy to provide this early view of Tolkien, and we are also grateful that the subsequent thirty-five years has witnessed a revaluation of the man and his work.

With these exceptions, and that of the lead article (which was solicited from an expert in the field), all articles have been subject to anonymous, external review. All required a positive judgment from the Editors before being sent to reviewers, and had to receive at least one positive evaluation from an external referee to qualify for publication. In the cases of articles by individuals associated with the journal in any way, each article had to receive at least two positive evaluations from two different outside reviewers. All identifying information was removed from the articles before they were sent to the reviewers, and all reviewer comments were likewise anonymously conveyed to the authors of the articles. The Editors agreed to be bound by the recommendations of the outside referees.