Akallabêth

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Can someone tell me if the 'First Phase' of the Later Quenta (in Morgoth's Ring) was written before or after the last version of the Akallabeth?

I believe the First Phase of LQ is from about 1951, while the latest version of the Akallabeth is from c. 1958.

[Arvegil145]

I see - by '1958', do you mean just additions and corrections? Since I was under the impression that the final version of the Akallabeth story (as such) was written by Tolkien around c. 1951 or so.


Anyway - the motivation behind my previous reply is that I'm not quite sure that Tolkien made up his mind about whether or not 'Avallone' was the name of the city or the name for Tol Eressea as a whole.

And if we are going to keep the version where the name refers to the city/harbour in the east of Tol Eressea, I think we should rename it to 'Avallonde', since:

1) The name is already attested

2) The element '-londe' means 'Harbour' - as opposed to '-lone' (meaning 'Island')

[Findegil]

Avallone could be the name of the habour, even so '-lone' means island. It could be a shortend version of some longer name meaning things like the 'habour on the Island near Valinor'

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

I would like to say I am categorically against changing the name to Avalonde based on a hunch. Even if it seems odd in meaning, it is not for us to make up new names in this way it seems to me.

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by ArcusCalion

I would like to say I am categorically against changing the name to Avalonde based on a hunch. Even if it seems odd in meaning, it is not for us to make up new names in this way it seems to me.

'Avallonde' is not a made-up name - it appears in the Drowning of Anadune.


See the entry on Eldamo for a more in-depth look at the development of the name: https://eldamo.org/content/words/word-3289261925.html

[Arvegil145]

Isn't the Akallabeth basically a fusion of two sources, Elvish and Mannish (i.e. The Fall of Numenor and the Drowning of Anadune)?

If so, shouldn't we expect certain things (such as the 'flying ships') to be present in one telling of the story and not the other?

In other words, just because something is missing in the Akallabeth itself, doesn't necessarily mean that Tolkien rejected it.

And since we're not creating a 'work of literature' so much as a giant 'lore compendium' (so to speak), I think we have the luxury of making things explicit that Tolkien might otherwise not.