Finding Arthur

[David Thorpe]

As he did in his earlier work, Finding Merlin, Adam Ardrey again unearths the truth by expertly dissecting the fabrications of medieval religious and political propagandists to reveal the real, historical man behind the myth - an Arthur who was not English, not Christian nor a king. Citing a wealth of literary, archaeological and linguistic evidence, Ardrey makes a compelling case for the real life Arthur - an immensely capable warlord of Dalriadic and Manauan descent who on behalf of his father, the King of Dalriada and Manau, wages a brilliant campaign resulting in the first glimmers of a united Scotland.
If this book does not set the legend on its ear, it will be only because those who through a millenneum of concentrated effort succeeded in creating the pure fantasy of a south Britian "King" Arthur. Some of us prefer the facts.

[kilted scholar]

According to blurb from his publisher, Adam Ardrey is an advocate and lives in Bothwell, near Glasgow, with his wife and three children. He has previously worked in television and as a solicitor.

[McClef]

The book will find little favour in Wales, Cornwall and Somerset, all of which claim him.

[Father Bill]

As one who deals daily with the relationship between fact and preferred story, you just have to choose which world you want to live in. For the best exploration of that dichotomy I've ever seen in literature, try the old movie "Don Juan DiMarco" - a romantic comedy with a philosophical turn to it. The psychiatrist has to decide which world is the better place for his patient... and for himself.

[Chas]

Hmm. His first book "Finding Merlin" is not universally accepted as being factual. A great many would put it somewhere between opinion and fanciful.

[Grizzly]

The book will find little favour in Wales, Cornwall and Somerset, all of which claim him.

Well said Trefor, I dont think his book will sell many copies in Tintagel, Caerwent, South Cadbury or Glastonbury. It may however keep their residents warm through the cold winter by being burnt in the fireplace.

[Kalok Sundancer]

As he did in his earlier work, Finding Merlin, Adam Ardrey again unearths the truth by expertly dissecting the fabrications of medieval religious and political propagandists to reveal the real, historical man behind the myth - an Arthur who was not English, not Christian nor a king. Citing a wealth of literary, archaeological and linguistic evidence, Ardrey makes a compelling case for the real life Arthur - an immensely capable warlord of Dalriadic and Manauan descent who on behalf of his father, the King of Dalriada and Manau, wages a brilliant campaign resulting in the first glimmers of a united Scotland.
If this book does not set the legend on its ear, it will be only because those who through a millenneum of concentrated effort succeeded in creating the pure fantasy of a south Britian "King" Arthur. Some of us prefer the facts.

I saw a show a while back that took another route on the Arthurian legend that examined "facts" and made the rather interesting claim that Aurthur was actually a Roman that stayed behind after the occupations of Britain. Interestingly, there is a fictional movie that takes a similar tack, which I have also seen.

I don't know how accurate the documentary was, it seemed to me like they took some liberties with the facts, but it was an interesting.

[Father Bill]

You know, the greatest value of legend is in their teaching value and ability to bring societies together, and as such they're best left alone as they are.

Until the invention of the printing press, information was largely passed as "wisdom" in the form of apprenticeships. After that, people learned that they could learn from the printed word, and MISTAKENLY came to assume that whatever was printed was fact.

The big issue here is to separate truth from fact. It is not necessary for something to be fact for it to be true.

To stick with the Arthurian legend, is it necessarily fact that Lancelot (and in some versions Galahad) was given quasi-divine/ quasi-magical military abilities because he was without sin, or is it better that it teaches that the more purely we live our lives the more able we will be to do that which is beyond the norm?

The former may or may not be fact. As such it can be attacked by historians who assail those with a literal interpretation. The latter, on the other hand, can be assailed by no-one. Whether or not it is fact, it remains as a great truth in the broader and invulnerable sense of wisdom.

Sometimes, we're better off not to know the facts.

[Kalok Sundancer]

You know, the greatest value of legend is in their teaching value and ability to bring societies together, and as such they're best left alone as they are.

Until the invention of the printing press, information was largely passed as "wisdom" in the form of apprenticeships. After that, people learned that they could learn from the printed word, and MISTAKENLY came to assume that whatever was printed was fact.

The big issue here is to separate truth from fact. It is not necessary for something to be fact for it to be true.

To stick with the Arthurian legend, is it necessarily fact that Lancelot (and in some versions Galahad) was given quasi-divine/ quasi-magical military abilities because he was without sin, or is it better that it teaches that the more purely we live our lives the more able we will be to do that which is beyond the norm?

The former may or may not be fact. As such it can be attacked by historians who assail those with a literal interpretation. The latter, on the other hand, can be assailed by no-one. Whether or not it is fact, it remains as a great truth in the broader and invulnerable sense of wisdom.

Sometimes, we're better off not to know the facts.

I quite agree. There are many "legendary" books that are best looked at as a good story and a great book of allegories for teaching rather than being literally interpreted as outright facts. Sometimes it's those literal interpretations that get us into trouble as human beings.

[David Thorpe]

Hmm. His first book "Finding Merlin" is not universally accepted as being factual. A great many would put it somewhere between opinion and fanciful.

Understandable. It was a slap in the face to many scholars, past and present, who made false assumptions at best. Rome wasn't built in a day, and it will take time for other academicians to catch on.