On May 1st 2008 my first book King Lucius of Britain will be released by Tempus.
I began this book in 1995 while ensconced in a cabin on the Gatineau river in Quebec; there I had the occasion, thanks to my brother, to delve into researching the mission of St. Augustine to Canterbury in 597. Out of that investigation came a collection of observations regarding a consistently recurring phenomenon; in all books post 1904 mention of King Lucius are footnoted with the conclusion of Adolph von Harnack that Lucius was actually King of Edessa, King Abgarus the Great to be specific. This never really sat comfortably with me and the more I turned my attention to this the more I realized a mistake had been made. Exposing that mistake has taken a decade of sporadic searching. What this book does is reopen the question of the context and identity of a 2nd century British King otherwise forgotten and pushed into the realm of legend and myth. This book is the first book ever to be solely dedicated to King Lucius and as such offers a foundation and resource for further Archaeological and Historical study.
Did King Lucius of Britain exist? Read the book.
3 comments:
Can you get your book in Canada? It's interesting to know the history of this King.
Dear David,
I haven't managed to get my hands on your book yet (I only discovered its existence today), so all I've read is the publisher's blurb at Oxbow.
My problem is not with the existence of King Lucius - who I have always preferred with his local name Lucan, but with the myth of his asking the pope to let him be Baptised.
In AD 177 the pope was just another bishop and he had no jurisdiction in the British Isles. We know that Aristibule (Aristobulus) had been sent from Tyre in AD37 as Bishop. We assume (because it was common then) that he arrived either in the Bristol Channel or the south Cornwall coast. It is believed that he set up in the general Glastonbury-Gloucester area, and possibly north west of there - which means at least in part of the territory later ruled over by Lucan.
I am therefore highly suspicious of stories that Lucan asked permission from the bishop in distant and unrelated Rome to be Baptised. By AD 190, someone may have suggested to him that if he wished to revive a perhaps lapsed episcopal line, that he should send to the pope, but even that makles me suspicious at that early date, when there is every reason to believe that there were other bishops present in the British Isles. But dragging the pope in at that stage smacks far too much of the ubiquitous later Roman re-writing of history to bolster the papal claims of universal power.
Nevertheless, three cheers to Lucan.
Fr. Michael
David,
Only recently having discovered King Lucius (through researching my name which--according to some sources--is said to be connected with him) I was very interested to learn about your theory.
I've just purchased your book and am happily digging into it, and enjoying it a great deal. It is fascinating material and I'm glad you are challenging Harnack's thinking. Bravo to you, and to King Lucius! I hope your book spurs more research and the shedding of light on this elusive, yet compelling figure.
Post a Comment