The Keys of Middle-earth

The book has been warmly received by scholars, though they find some issues with it. Kay Marsh, reviewing the book for Studies in the Novel, calls it "an attractive solution" to the "alterity" (otherness) of medieval literature, with a well-chosen selection of texts; she recommends it as "both useful and entertaining". In her view, the line-by-line translations make the texts accessible and invite the reader to read sections of untranslated (but copiously glossed) Middle English works like Sir Orfeo. Marsh praises the "well-researched" introduction which covers both Tolkien's career and the study of medieval languages; and notes the "five short essays" on parallels between Middle-earth and the medieval texts. Marsh suggests that there could have been more of a discussion of paleography, the process of creating medieval manuscripts, something that would be new to most of Lee and Solopova's readers.[2]

Miranda Wilcox, in The Medieval Review, calls the book an excellent introduction, both for students to use as a text and as a resource for instructors. She writes that it offers a "judicious" selection of recent scholarship in the "compelling context" of the literary phenomenon that is Tolkien's Middle-earth. In her view, the book highlights Tolkien's scholarly "appreciation of both the technical and literary aspects of medieval texts". She finds the facing-page presentation of medieval texts and their translations valuable, illustrating some of the linguistic issues that so fascinated Tolkien.[3]

John Holmes writes in Tolkien Studies that it has a relatively narrow scope (Old and Middle English, and Old Norse; no Silmarillion, which would have demanded the Finnish Kalevala at least) but provides real depth with "fresh, literal" translations and close examination of the similarities of the sources to Tolkien's writings. Holmes finds the book a "first rate" anthology of medieval texts, with "remarkably thorough" notes, but a somewhat nervous guide to Tolkien's works, wary of criticism from other academics.[4] Arden R. Smith, writing in the same journal, comments that The Keys of Middle-earth is "essentially an anthology" that in Lee and Solopova's words "[draws] out parallels [with Tolkien's fiction] wherever possible", and states that it seems to be meant for an academic readership.[5]

Michael Drout, in Notes and Queries, writes that while the book is a success in that it achieves most of its goals, it "could have been so much better", if it had avoided so much academic caution, such as quibbling about their title, and gone more boldly for providing a helpful introduction to Tolkien's medievalism for the student. In his view, the selection of texts is good, and they are presented and set in context fairly and non-tendentiously, but the fragments are too short for most academic purposes. Drout finds most valuable the quotations from the unpublished lecture notes that Tolkien used at Oxford; in his view, access to this material gave the editors the chance to "make a major contribution to the field which, unfortunately, they did not exploit to the fullest", not helped by listing unpublished manuscripts in "Further reading". He notes "minor but telling" errors, like Aragorn being "haunted" by the rhyme "All that is gold does not glitter" – in fact, he writes, it was composed for Aragorn by Bilbo; or again, the knights of Dol Amroth didn't arrive at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields with Aragorn, as they were already there defending the city of Minas Tirith.[6]

The medieval historian and author Kari Sperring, writing in Strange Horizons, calls the selection of medieval texts "strong", and describes the presentation of the relationship between Tolkien's fiction and his research interests as clear and insightful. However, she feels that the book "falls between two stools", giving an "outsider view" of his writing, seen through the ancient texts, but that it lacks the more "personal insight" that Tolkien scholars might provide. Further, in her view, it "elides" other influences such as Tolkien's Catholicism and modern writers such as William Morris. All of this leaves her wondering what the book was for: it lacks the glossary and grammar needed for an undergraduate text in Old or Middle English, while the material is in her view rather technical for a lay audience.[1]