You will recognize the title at once as a paraphrase of Voltaire’s famous and witty quote: “If God didn’t exist it would be necessary to invent him.”

What’s brought this up? Last night I watched a wonderful TV documentary on Arthur “The Once And Future King”, by historical presenter Michael Wood. Wood has some amazing magic that’s hard to fathom but he turns legend and history into stuff more moving and inspiring than anything Hollywood could ever produce (and NOT EXCLUDING Lord of The Rings, Avatar, Lost Horizon and all the other epics).

For example, Wood explains a super plausible hypothesis of the sword in the stone myth. He suggests it’s far, far older than the Arthur legend and rests on the “magic” of early smithing and how metal was brought forth from the ground, after heating in fire. Swords were cast in stone moulds! So when the cast was cooled and the mould opened, the wielder of magical knowledge really did draw forth a sword from the stone!

See this demonstrated by watching the documentary… here

The real point of the post is that Arthur does seem to speak to us with a deep resonance that goes far beyond the impact of mere historical truth. In fact there is no “historical truth”. All the crap about Tintagel and Glastonbury, or the supposed round table that hangs in Winchester cathedral is made up nonsense.

Faking it isn’t simply wicked though; I think it shows we all have a passionate desire to make this legend come true. We will it so! Our hearts and minds desire it.

In this, as in any age, we long to believe in the existence of love, courage, honor, justice and some intangible magic that connects us with Heaven and high places…

Maybe we need our myths? As Joseph Campbell asks in his book “Myths To Live By”     “Is the conscientious teacher–concerned for the moral character as well as for the book learning of his students–to be loyal first to the supporting myths of our civilization or to the “factualized” truths of his science? Are the two, on every level, at odds? Or is there not some point of wisdom beyond the conflicts of illusion and truth by which lives can be put back together again?”

It’s a very good question; and I like his phrase the supporting myths of our civilization. For is it not true that these legends and stories carry a psychological impact that strengthens and informs our hearts and minds? The great tales of old were not merely entertaining, they were instructional. Not only that but they were even transformational. By knowing and absorbing ourselves into these stories, we became better more en-nobled individuals.

I think so. I know I grew up a better person for believing in Peter Pan; good fairies and elves vs. goblins; Merlin the magician and even Prester John.

Anyway, back to KIng Arthur. It’s a curiously British legend, of course. But bear in mind that, up until the Saxon conquest (500 AD onwards), “Britons” meant the Celtic tribes of those sceptered isles, set in the silver sea, just to the North of our sister, France.

The best part of Michael Wood’s teaching is that I think he has the handle on the only plausible historic figure that could have been the original “King Arthur”. A Scottish king named Arturius lived around the 6th century. He was son of Aiden, the first Scottish king we really know existed. I first learned of this figure from one of Michael Wood’s books.

I go along with the sentiment of David Carroll: the only way to prove that the Legends of King Arthur were inspired by a real historical figure is to find someone who is identical to King Arthur in so many respects, that it would be impossible or at least improbable, for it to be purely coincidence.

Judge for yourself, if Artur son of Aidan is identical to the Arthur of Legend in the following respects:

1. He has the correct name, Artur or Arturius, the 6th century version of the name Arthur.
2. He was the son of a most powerful king.
3.  He was a christian (a valid point, when half the country was still pagan).
4. He lived at the correct period. (6th century.)
5. He was a contemporary and ally of the Northern King Urien, who was a real historical figure and who is mentioned in the legends as an ally of Arthur.
6.  He was an ally of the Kings of the Britons in the wars in the North against the Saxons/Angles and the Picts. Many of the battles described in Arthurian legends have no correspondence with places south of the border but match really well with place names and battles in Scotland.
7. He died in battle against the Picts. (Remember in legend Arthur’s last battle was against Mordred, whose mother was the wife of Lot, king of the Picts.)
8. Artur or Arturius had a sister or half sister called Morgan, as did King Arthur of legend. (Evidence which I was fortunate to find in the 8th cent. ‘Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee’.)

Three other points you need to know: in the 6th century, the Scots (all Celts) were called “The Welsh”. So being called “Welsh” did not stop Arthur living way to the north of all the tourist traps in the south.

There is a Roman site in Scotland “Camallan”. Is Camelot a corruption of this name? Nearby is Invalone (Avalon?) Camallen or Camlann, as it is sometimes written, was the site of Arthur’s last fatal battle.

Most importantly: be aware of the Scottish tradition that kings are equal to every other man, no better. For all the B*S* of other societies, Scottish kings are the only monarchs in history known to have lived by the precept of the legendary “round table”; that is, all men are of equal stature.