Posted by Robert Dilley on November 05, 2001 at 19:06:40 from 216.211.68.90:
In Reply to: Re: Swallowdale? Uh-uh! posted by Peter H on November 05, 2001 at 14:39:02:
If you want to say that no one place was the basis for Swallowdale then, from my own searches, I fully agree. I am firmly of the opinion that, as with many other features -- including "The Lake" itself -- AR combined two or more places to suit his purposes. I followed instructions sent by Roger Wardale (before his book came out) to find his candidate for Swallowdale. The approach was about right, including the waterfall that hid the valley from below, but the dale itself was quite unconvincing. A search over much of Beacon Fell failed to yield any other plausible location.
Taking Christina Hardyment's advice I looked at Miterdale Head. Whether AR ever went there is, as far as I am aware, unknown. However, a more perfect setting for Swallowdale is hard to imagine -- a conclusion agreed by my family when I took them there later. However, Miterdale does not have the right approach (nor, unless it was very well hidden) does it have Peter Duck's cave. AR could well have taken the approach he knew from a beck running into Coniston Water, caves he would be familiar with from that area, and modelled Swallowdale itself from Miterdale Head. All I can say in conclusion is that if Swallowdale was not based on Miterdale Head, it is the most extraordinary case of nature imitating art!