# Talk:Tolkien's maps

The caption of the section of the Wilderland map included in this article mentions Tolkien's "charming hand lettering". This is referenced (I haven't read the sources). The wording implies that JRR Tolkien drew the map. However, the map as published in the book holds the monogram of Christopher Tolkien. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Campbell was writing about Thror's map of the mountain. She comments among other things that (ref #1)
"Tolkien's maps often have capitals decorated with double descenders (see Thror's map), while Christopher's maps have capitals with thicker single descenders, indicating he used a very fine but flexible steel nib. Tolkien varied the lettering style on Thror's map according to the culture represented: rounder uncials for Elvish maps, thinner Roman letters for hobbits and men, and runes for Dwarves. Bilbo, we are told, wrote with a thin, spidery hand, which is seen on early versions of Thror's map, but this subtlety is lost in the professionally illustrated versions."
I've tweaked the wording. If we want JRRT's own lettering we can use a detail of Thror's map instead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Niggle1892: The map of Wilderland has Christopher Tolkien's monogram (CJRT) in the bottom right hand corner, above the title. This should not be surprising, given that JRRT later entrusted the cartography to his son. In The Letters of JRR Tolkien, we can glean some of the misgivings JRRT had with his own illustration and while it isn't specifically recorded, I believe we should accept this attribution. This was at a time when CJRT still lived in the family home so the documentation characteristic of the LOTR era is absent. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a case for adding a matching extract of JRRT's own map of Wilderland: the comparison is interesting, allows readers to see why redrawing was adopted, and not least shows JRRT's own cartography and humour. Maybe this is what we should do. Let me see... Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 OK, I've made a thumbnail of the map, a sorry business of data loss and absurd over-reduction, but there it is. The odd thing is, despite the visible CJRT monogram, both Hammond & Scull and Tolkien Gateway state in terms that JRRT drew the finished map. We haven't quite got to the bottom of this. A resolution might run something like this:
JRRT drew the preliminary map. (fact)
Publishers objected. (fact)
JRRT redrew the map. (fact)
Publishers still objected.
JRRT asked CJRT to sort out the mess.
CJRT made minor adjustments to JRRT's redrawn map.
JRRT thanked CJRT and told him to add the CJRT monogram, even though the map was mainly JRRT's work.
Finished map is described as JRRT's work. (fact) (e.g. H&S, The Annotated Hobbit, McIlwaine)
Finished map has CJRT's monogram. (fact)
It would be nice to find evidence for or against this story. At the moment, the official story doesn't make sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you by any chance have a 1st edition copy of the Hobbit to hand? It would be useful to confirm whether there was a change in the map of Wilderland between the 1st and 2nd editions. Sadly I gave my facsimile 1st edition away to a friend last year. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Alas not, but it should be possible to find images described as "first edition endpapers" on the web, let's have a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I've found an image and it is the same as the current version. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
... great! - which implies what? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd say, in the light of the discussion below, that it was always JRRT's artwork! Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: In his letter to Susan Dagnall of 4 January 1937 (Letters, 2nd edition, p. 14), JRRT describes the revised map of Wilderland that he's enclosing with his other illustrations as a version that he has redrawn. If it had actually been the work of the 12-year-old son who was the apple of his eye, wouldn't parental pride and love have made it impossible for him not to say so? Furthermore, I don't think that there are any grounds for believing that the monogram that appears on the map is Christopher's. The letters of which it's comprised are J, R and a Gaelic T—there is no C. It's true that JRRT often used a monogram including all four of his initials, but there are several other instances of his using only a single R—see, for example, his paintings of 'The Trolls', 'Beorn's Hall' and 'The Hall at Bag End'. When Christopher signed a map, he simply initialled it, either as 'CT' (in his map of part of the Shire) or as 'CJRT' (in his others). Also the border around the map's 'Wilderland' is plainly by the same hand as the decorative frieze at the bottom of one of JRRT's paintings of Erebor (The Art of The Hobbit, p. 111). All things considered, I'm in no doubt that Hammond & Scull and Catherine McIlwaine were correct in attributing the map to JRRT. Niggle1892 (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

How very interesting. I've had a nose around with Scholar, and the academics are as confused as we are, but as you say, both H&S and McI say it's JRRT's. Can we find proof that the monogram is his, not Christopher's? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not aware of JRRT's using this particular monogram elsewhere, but that's not surprising—he had so many of them. One might add that it would be strange if Christopher had devised a monogram for himself that did not include a C. Also, the lettering on the map is much more like other handwriting of JRRT's than the lettering on Christopher's maps—see the lower case 'g's, for example. As far as I can see, all of such evidence as exists points to the map's being JRRT's, and there's literally no reason at all to attribute it to Christopher. Niggle1892 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Not an RS, but here is a collection of JRRT's monograms, and he did use "JRT" monograms at times, and this one appears to be one, with a Gaelic T and no C. —Kusma (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I can see that as a T now that you've described it. Are we all happy to revert the text to Niggle's version? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Do we keep the older version of the map... it's an interesting comparison. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, why not, it's definitely Tolkien's, and it shows how much work he had to do to reach the finished version. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

We have in the article a long section (a good deal longer than the one for the impression of depth) given to the geomorphical problems with Tolkien's maps - and all of it is sourced to what is really a WP:SPS, even if authored by a geologist. Maybe we could argue that the source can be treated as an RS on account of WP:EXPERTSPS (though satisfying the requirement of whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications would be a separate issue); but then a quick search doesn't really bring up any other results discussing the issues brought up in that Tor article (blog?). Which raises, in my view, the question if so much attention on the geomorphical issues really WP:DUE. I think it is not: I could see a short 3-4 line mention of the criticism by Acks in the Tor article, and maybe other critiques if someone can dig up sources for that, but definitely not the current two long paragraphs on the matter. Thoughts?  JavaHurricane 15:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. The section is due and needed for several reasons. Firstly, it forms quite a small part of the article as a whole. Secondly, even within 'Functions', it is balanced not against 'Impression of depth' but against all the rest of the functions, as it represents a professional scientific dissenting voice to set against the literary opinions of the Tolkien scholars. Thirdly, the text concisely summarises quite a detailed and technical appraisal of the maps, and these points would not be clear to non-geologists without the explanation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. Due weight is determined in terms of coverage in WP:RSs, and a single blog-like article, even if written by an expert, doesn't justify giving it so much attention in the article (indeed, the longest of the four subsections of the "Functions" part). Do you have any other sources on this matter?  JavaHurricane 10:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
We may be able to find more, but the geologist is certainly a reliable source, and the section needs to be given due weight to balance the numerous other sources which are all favourable to Tolkien. Cutting down the only section on the 'against' side would indicate bias towards Tolkien, which would be improper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I've added four more geologists (well, five: one of the articles is jointly written) to the mix. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the FALSEBALANCE/DUE issues are sorted now with the additional sources.  JavaHurricane 13:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)