You can also see the new 2018 updated information at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
The following is an extract from "The Island of Avalon" a book written by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot which uncovers the fraud perpetrated by Henry Blois while he was Abbot of Glastonbury.
http://www.amazon.com/Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-Monmouth-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437096527&sr=8-1&keywords=the+island+of+avalon+francis+lot
http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6
This work covers three genres of study
that are intricately related in which a purposeful lie has been created and
unfortunately accepted by modern scholars; the roots of which are hidden in
layers of misrepresentation. The genres can broadly be described as firstly;
the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth, his Merlin prophecies and his pseudo-history
found in the History of the Kings of Britain (HRB). Secondly, the events that
transpired at Glastonburythat cover the disinterment of King Arthur and the
appearance of Joseph of Arimathea in Glastonbury lore which we shall term
Glastonburyana. Lastly, my exposé covers
early Grail literature written by Robert de Boron and Chrétien de Troyes.
Normally in such studies there is a huge
amount of speculation and conjecture due to the nature of dealing with events
portrayed by chroniclers and manuscripts in an era when fraudulent accounts
were commonplace. However, there is a pervading commonality throughout this
exposé which can ultimately be tested which will show one way or the other
whether the points put forward herein are based in truth. At times, in such cases of medieval studies, one can
postulate that a topic has a relation to another where none exists and the main
accusation will be that the evidence provided essentially pushes for one type
of conclusion where there is no possibility of certainty. The main thrust of this work is to expose
that the prophecy of Melkin was not a fourteenth century
invention as is currently thought by modern scholars. My path toward this goal
is achieved by uncovering fraudulent works concocted by Henry Blois in the
impersonation of such personas as Geoffrey of Monmouth, Caradoc of Llancarfan
and others.
I have no intention to distort the implications of what is reliably known. I try to steer away from ill-founded or undocumented assertions, but at the same time, many of the views in this book run contrary to accepted theories put forward by modern scholarship, which are founded on incorrect a prioris. Some assertions at the beginning of the work will be put forward as understood and only later in the work the proof is elucidated further on. I will be accused of gathering conjecture, but the ultimate conclusion can be unequivocally tested, so I would ask the reader to comply with what may appear to be speculations until the subject is covered more fully as the book progresses and until the whole picture of events unfolds in progression to the end of the exposé.
I have no intention to distort the implications of what is reliably known. I try to steer away from ill-founded or undocumented assertions, but at the same time, many of the views in this book run contrary to accepted theories put forward by modern scholarship, which are founded on incorrect a prioris. Some assertions at the beginning of the work will be put forward as understood and only later in the work the proof is elucidated further on. I will be accused of gathering conjecture, but the ultimate conclusion can be unequivocally tested, so I would ask the reader to comply with what may appear to be speculations until the subject is covered more fully as the book progresses and until the whole picture of events unfolds in progression to the end of the exposé.
This book has a fresh outlook on many of the accepted
assumptions of modern scholarship where little fresh examination has been blighted
by the transference of opinion from mentor to student through the generations
and has in my opinion stagnated the advancement of medieval scholarship. Credentials verses competency is the issue.
The three genres which are the subject of our investigation span more material
than what is commonly accepted as a tolerable area of expertise in the realms
of scholarship. Without linking all
three genres of study, the seemingly disparate nature of their underlying commonality
cannot be discovered. It is my intention to uncover a lie[1] which
has far reaching ramifications when exposed.
There is no-one interested in Arthuriana who
does not recognise the genius of Geoffrey of Monmouth. The genius is in fact
Henry Blois and Geoffrey of Monmouth is a nom
de plume. Modern scholarship has treated the Matière de Bretagne and how it relates to Glastonbury lore as a
puzzle to which most of the pieces have been fitted together. There are several
pieces yet to be inserted, but the problem remains that the last pieces are
being forced together by modern scholars’ acceptance of a priori assumptions from their mentors.[2]
Even though the puzzle appears to be completed like a jigsaw puzzle to the
satisfaction of modern scholarship, it is in fact face down and without any
clear definitive picture of how our three genres interrelate.
Our three genres under investigation are
Arthuriana, Glastonburyana, and early Grail literature. The common denominator
in all three is Henry Blois. The connection between these genres of study has remained elusive purely because the fraudulent composition of certain tracts by Henry Blois has never been suspected by scholars such as Tatlock and Ferdinand Lot . However, I do not set out to prove the fraudulent composition of such works as the Vita Merlini, The History of the Kings of Britain by 'Geoffrey' or the Life of Gildas by Caradoc as a goal,
but it is merely a by-product of the main thrust of this work. One aim of this book is to
show that the Isle of Avalon is a product of Henry Blois and an Island called Ineswitrin
(originally donated to Glastonbury in 601 AD) is in fact an Island on which the
remains of Joseph of Arimathea are buried. Until it is explained to academia
how such events have transpired through the composition of fraudulent tracts, scholarship will deny such a possibility. It
is a sad truth of the modern age that until the establishment of scholastic
talent can understand a theory…. it will remain an unacceptable 'non truth'. In
essence this is why scholarship exists.
My qualification is the very fact that I am
not a scholar and have not been primed to accept assumptions . I have not been
taught to perceive or accept a fact or a consensus arrived at by mentors of present modern scholars of on any of the three genres under scrutiny in this work. But neither am I dim enough to accept
that so many facts concerning Glastonbury and the Matière de Bretagne just coincidentally happened as a fortuitous convergence of factors because
Lagorio has decreed it so and all present day scholars have accepted her premise.
I am the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot. I am
what the modern world might call a reformed Christian. My main intent is to expose the
fraudulent authorship of several works back in the twelfth century which were
concocted by Henry Blois, the Bishop of Winchester, Abbot of Glastonbury and
brother of King Stephen. The out come of such a revelation is to expose the existence of an
Island in Devon, today called Burgh Island, its association with that island of Glastonbury lore known as Ineswitrin. I also wish to show the island’s links with
the completely fabricated name of the mystical island of Avalon mentioned by Geoffrey of Monmouth and how it was that Henry Blois was able to invent the name of Galfridus Artur and compose the HRB..
Preface
Henry Blois was a man who was a genius who
died in 1171. He had been brought up by his aristocratic mother until about the
age of ten. He was able to absorb what interested him from a vast Library where
he was schooled at Clugny in France until he was in his twenties. He was from
one of the richest and noblest families in France and William the Conqueror was
his grandfather. Nowadays, commentators on Arthuriana and Glastonburyana are
confined to reference a finite set of literature concerning these affairs which
has escalated to a myriad of opinion and theory by modern scholars. The
relationships between what is commonly acknowledged as the Matter of Britain, i.e. Arthuriana, Glastonbury legend, Geoffrey of
Monmouth’s history and Grail literature, has largely remained unresolved by
commentators. There is no solution without recognising Henry Blois as the
bottom denominator. It is he who wrote The
History of the Kings of Britain (HRB); it is he who firstly interpolated
William of Malmesbury’s De Antiquitates (DA)
which establishes much of the myth surrounding Glastonbury; and it is he who
concocted the original Grail stories which connects Joseph of Arimathea and
Arthur to Glastonbury and the Arthur of HRB to Avalon. Modern scholars will
find hardest to accept the fact that he composed the prophecies of Merlin also.
If one
breaks down the false premise from which commentators have started, and one is
not duped by the apparent fraud which corroborates material from the various
genres of investigation; all these subjects interrelate through Henry
Blois. Henry Blois’ genius lies in the
fact that his greatest coup transpired after his death. This was the
disinterment of his alter ego; the ‘Chivalric King Arthur’.
As we progress through the evidence which
puts Henry Blois at the centre of the Matter
of Britain, it becomes evident that he had to hide his association with the
fraudulent tracts he had created. Henry Blois’ main defence from discovery was
respectability and power. He was the King’s brother and the most powerful
prelate in Britain during his brother Stephen’s reign. His position, his
wealth, power and royal blood, enabled Henry Blois to create a persona to hide
behind. He has affected European history by assuming the title of Geoffrey of
Monmouth and inventing the first Grail lore, even though modern scholars will
continue to deny this fact.
It is my unfortunate task to unpeel the
layers of deception which all lead back to Henry Blois and his impersonation of
Geoffrey of Monmouth. Historians have had little to relate regarding the
biography of ‘Geoffrey’ and any personal details are erroneous and based upon a
false identity built specifically by Henry Blois to hide his authorship of HRB
and the Vita Merlini (VM). Our only
view of the character of Henry Blois is arrived at through the words of
contemporary chroniclers and by his known deeds, but once the evidence in these
pages is revealed, it will be seen that there is far more to Henry Blois than
is commonly understood.
It was not through malice that Henry Blois
carried out what many may consider an outright fraud, but his actions were
dictated by events. In the beginning, Henry Blois had no intention of creating
what has now become known as The Matter
of Britain. I will endeavour to lay bare the evolving sequence of events
which complemented the formation of The
Matter of Britain and the cause and reason for his secretive authorship.
Few have suspected it was the Bishop of
Winchester who was responsible for the chivalric Arthurian legacy, but no one
yet has set out to show the evidence in a way which can be substantiated. The
accusation of a pseudo-historical account found in the First Variant version
and Vulgate HRB cannot be foisted on Geoffrey of Monmouth, Bishop of Asaph. I
will endeavour to show that Galfridus
Artur [3] never even existed, even though a trail
has been left behind which seemingly provides evidence to the contrary. We will
also discover the reasoning behind the wholly concocted prophecies of Merlin
which were latterly added to the Vulgate HRB.
There is no other greater subject matter than
‘religion’. We are on the verge of a global war because of the
misunderstandings of religion. Holy men and commentators throughout the world
have divulged opinion upon ‘God’. In western culture, belief in a risen Christ
is our own peculiar eschatology derived from an interpretation of the Prophets
of Israel. The Prophets of Israel are the basis of the Christian faith rooted
in the history of the Jews. Considering the differences between Israel and the
Muslim world, the Prophets of Israel are the basis also for Mohamed’s book
called the Koran. The Prophets of Israel provide the basis and provenance of
Islam. It is partly this fixation with prophetical literature which boosted
‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’s’ Prophetia as
the first non-biblical prophetic text to incur an exegetical tradition which
ensured the success of the HRB and the Arthurian tradition. However, it is
Christianity’s perception, interpretation and comprehension of the same
prophets of Israel which concerns us here in the conclusions of this book.
‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’s’ pseudo-history has
presented us with a colourful History of
the Kings of Britain with a heritage stemming from the sack of Troy. Henry
Blois has also fabricated legends which go to the heart of the Christian
religion in Britain. Much of the Glastonbury myth has been caused by the
interpolation of William of Malmesbury’s De
antiquitate Glastoniensis
Ecclesiæ (DA)
by Henry Blois. However, what has added to the complexity of what transpired at
Glastonbury has its roots with Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea.
A virgin birth[4]
was misinterpreted by the Jews which was prophesied[5] as
the Messiah’s destiny. The Gospel writers had to overcome logistical problems
with a certain ‘Joseph’ the mundane father of Jesus. Relevant genealogies were provided as to the
lineage of Joseph[6]
the carpenter, but the attempt to reconcile a heavenly and an earthly father of
Jesus has a bearing on the ultimate conclusion of this study which is the
substance of the Grail.
An
attempt to overcome the problems of an immaculate conception was the root of
the Gospel writer’s dilemma. The contrived disappearance of ‘carpenter’ Joseph
in the gospel accounts is a subtle rationalisation employed by the Gospel
writers following ‘Q’ who misunderstood the prophets’ words and the meaning of
the prophetical virgin birth. The reality of an earthly father was a difficult
conundrum to deal with eschatologically. A theologically more comprehendible
uncle with the same name would seem a partial solution to the Gospel writer’s
dilemma. Joseph of Arimathea’s removal of the body of Jesus from the cross and
what transpired afterward to both the body and to Joseph of Arimathea is what
gospel writers seem most at odds with. Posterity is left with a disappearance
of the body of Jesus and Joseph and the rationalisations of St Paul’s
eschatology. It is this confusion which partly leads to the later Grail legends
in which ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’s’ Arthur and knights seems to be
anachronistically connected.
What transpired after the crucifixion are
events which lead to Grail legend, but the Grail’s relation to Glastonbury is
down to a little known prophecy called the prophecy of Melkin discovered at
Glastonbury. Our modern scholars, experts in this field of study, tell us the
prophecy, first mentioned by John of Glastonbury, is a fake. This assumption is
based upon the fact that there is no previous mention of it before the
fourteenth century. The scholars who profess this opinion confirm and readily admit
that they have no understanding of the Prophecy. This hardly qualifies as
expert opinion and all their pronouncements regarding the prophecy, its meaning
and the denial of its veracity have no substance. It is this prophecy and its relation to
Glastonbury and Henry Blois which is at the heart of the Grail legends and our
present investigation.
Augustine, who came
to Britain in the year 597 was the first Archbishop of Canterbury and is
considered the "Apostle to the English" and a founder of the English
Church. Although no Joseph of Arimathea tradition appeared before Henry Blois
at Glastonbury; there can be no denial of the fact that there was a Celtic
Briton church independent of Rome before the arrival of Augustine. The church
of the Britons was originally established with a superior prestige than that of
St. Peter and the establishment of this proposition is the ultimate outcome of
this book.
My main proof concerns
presenting evidence which shows Henry Blois as a serial interpolator,
impersonator and author of many fraudulent works. Part of our inquiry involves
a charter which grants an Island named ‘Ines Witrin’, donated by a Devonian
King to Glastonbury in 601 AD, four years after the Roman church’s envoy
Augustine sets foot on British soil. The charter indicates that Glastonbury was
already a Christian institution at this early date and somewhat independent of
Rome through the dark ages since the crumbling of the Roman Empire. Strangely
enough, it is the interpretation of this grant mentioned by William of
Malmesbury in his Gesta Regum (GR) and DA which
is at the heart of our investigation into the Matter of Britain.
Joseph of Arimathea’s
links to Glastonbury and the vestiges of a pre-Augustine Christianization of
Britain will be discovered by following who it was that started these fables of
the Britons; what basis there is for them and how they evolved. Our investigation must start
with Geoffrey of Monmouth, because the concoction of ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB is where
Henry Blois first began his foray into concealed authorship.
Once I have established for the reader that a
number of manuscripts were authored by Henry Blois, we will discover the
reasons behind his authorship and anonymity and the ingenuity of his artifice
in creating the persona of ‘Geoffrey’ and his impersonation and interpolation
of other known authors after their deaths such as Caradoc of Llancarfan,
William of Malmesbury, Wace and Geffrei Gaimar amongst others.
Our ignorance of the Matter of Britain is due to the inherent structure of modern
scholarship. Medievalist students rarely question the premise on which previous
mentors and investigators have established their theories leading to flawed
deductions in chronology. Especially where the fraudulent intent is to mislead
(which is the purport behind the composition) and has often been recognised as
fraud by researchers. The context of why the fraud was committed has been
overlooked.
Few have questioned the forgeries
manufactured by what Lot[7]
calls the ‘officine de faux’ at
Glastonbury. The exposing of certain facts within these pages should leave the
reader in no doubt that both Vita Merlini
and the HRB were written by the Bishop of Winchester, Henry Blois. This man at
the height of his power was Legate to the pope and wielded a vast influence
over Britain. His self-written epitaph on the Meusan plates provides evidence
of his regard for the authorship of books as being greater than all things
material. Yet it is the commonly accepted opinion of modern scholars that there
is not one work authored by him. The only exception which has been left to
posterity is his Libellus which
relates to affairs concerning Glastonbury in its bland factual style.
Although it is a genuine account of Henry’s
achievements at Glastonbury, it also acts as a subtle devise meant to deflect
any suspicion that his hand or authorship may be involved in other tracts of
literature. John Scott[8]
states that: Modern Scholars are
sceptical about both Glastonbury’s illustrious History and the extent of its
impoverishment in 1126. Henry Blois
is misleading us in his avowal of impoverishment found in the Libellus. The illustrious history of
Glastonbury was concocted for the most part by Henry Blois and is part of the
foundation for the Matter of Britain.
William of Malmesbury knew Henry Blois well
and refers to him as a remarkable man; a man known for his literary skill.[9] Not only did Henry Blois write the HRB, but we shall also understand more of
the stages of evolution in the construction of the HRB when we cover the events
which occurred at the time the first edition was discovered at Bec. We will
then better understand the various contradictions of allegiance portrayed by
‘Geoffrey’. It also becomes evident that the first edition of HRB, which I have
termed the Primary Historia, related
in précis (or synopsis), evidenced in Henry of Huntingdon’s letter to his
friend Warin (EAW),[10] differs in substantial storyline detail from
the First Variant and from Vulgate version of HRB. We will cover the reasons
for the differences. Scholars have made presumptions concerning the dating of
HRB based on the dedicatees and have assumed that the copy found at Bec was
profoundly the same as the Vulgate version. I shall elucidate upon the
progression of a book which went through four stages of evolution. We shall discover the reason behind the
insertion of the Prophecies of Merlin into
the HRB. I will uncover why there was
a lapse of years before ‘Geoffrey’s’ Vita
Merlini and the appearance of new prophecies concerning events in the
Anarchy (supposedly by Merlin’s sister) and why all works purporting to have
been written by ‘Geoffrey’ were written secretively by Henry Blois, under the
pseudonym of Gaufridus Artur. I shall
also cover why latterly Gaufridus Artur
was given the title ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ and ultimately Bishop of Asaph.
Once we establish that several works
including the anonymously authored Gesta
Stephani, Caradoc’s life of Gildas, the
interpolations into William of Malmesbury’s DA and GR3 and other works[11]
emanate from Henry’s hand, we are then in a position to untangle what seemed to
be an unsolvable puzzle concerning Glastonbury, its association with Avalon,
King Arthur, Joseph of Arimathea and the Holy Grail.
Henry Blois has employed many subtle methods
to create his ingenious edifice of fallacious history. The underlying reasons
for Henry’s deception will become clear, but his genius and brilliance are
evident in the works he authored and in the fact he remained undetected. The
means he employed to remain anonymous as the instigator of these works are
several and by no certainty are all his works discovered in this work, as some
have not survived to the modern era.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s epic which brings the ‘chivalric’
King Arthur onto the western historical stage has no mention of Joseph of
Arimathea or Glastonbury, yet shortly after the book’s proliferation the Island
of Avalon, the place where Arthur was taken after the battle of Camlann,
becomes linked to Glastonbury. A fraudulent unearthing of the bones of King
Arthur, found with a bogus ‘leaden cross’ dubiously stating that the burial
site is synonymous with Avalon, have (since that time) ensured both Avalon and
Glastonbury are identified as the same location.
Glastonbury’s association with Joseph of
Arimathea is primarily through the DA, the Insula
Avallonis foretold in a prophecy by Melkin and an allusion in Robert de
Boron’s Joseph d’Arimathie to the Vaus d’ Avaron. A fragment of Melkin’s work (i.e. the
prophecy), was reproduced in John of Glastonbury’s Cronica sive antiquitates Glastoniensis ecclesie. Many scholars have followed
Lagorio in thinking that Melkin’s prophecy is derived in essence as a
composite, based on material derived from Robert de Boron’s Joseph d’ Arimathie which links
Glastonbury by way of the Vaus d’Avaron.
I
shall uncover that Glastonbury’s association with the name Avalon was
manufactured by Henry Blois. The last known location of ‘Geoffrey of
Monmouth’s’ concocted persona of a chivalric King Arthur was the Island of
Avalon where he was taken grievously wounded. This has been accepted as Insula Pomorum, put forward as an
alternative description or appellation to Avalon in the VM. Its synonymy with the island of Avalon as
presented in HRB is confirmed in that the wounded Arthur is taken there by
Barinthus. As Watkin realises, this
establishes Glastonbury as commensurate with Avalon as early as 1155.[12]
The general acceptance of Arthur’s disinterment at Glastonbury is thought to be
a fraudulent staging of the event by Henry de Sully and unconnected to Henry
Blois. In fact, the disinterment stems from a polemic and propagandist strategy
which was originally fostered by Henry Blois before his death by interpolating
William of Malmesbury’s DA and by manufacturing the grave of Arthur. This view
runs contrary to modern scholarship’s opinion which understands that any
mention of Arthur in DA has been interpolated post Arthur’s disinterment in
1189-91.[13] I shall adequately show that it was Henry
Blois who planted the bones of Arthur and the lock of Guinevere’s hair and
fabricated the cross which was discovered twenty years after his death in a
manufactured grave between the pyramids.
I will also cover the confusion regarding
Yniswitrin as being another previous appellation of Glastonbury. This stems
from propaganda found in Henry Blois’ impersonation of Caradoc in his
concoction of the Life of Gildas. This
tract has direct repercussions on its relation to the 601 Charter mentioned by
William of Malmesbury and Henry Blois’ attempt to gain metropolitan status for
the whole of South West England. I shall also cover why the etymology
concerning Ineswitrin is an additional last paragraph to a book already
fraudulently written by Henry Blois who impersonated Caradoc of Llancarfan. Life of
Gildas’ first aim in composition was to associate King Arthur and Gildas
with Glastonbury written 1139-40. Its additional last paragraph (added in 1144)
was composed to contrive a synonymy between Glastonbury and Ineswitrin.
However, what I intend to prove is that
Glastonbury’s myth of the Grail stems from Melkin’s prophecy and Grail
literature was initially instigated by Henry Blois on the continent in the
guise of Master Blihis. The Melkin prophecy portends the discovery of Joseph of
Arimathea’s body in the future. It is this prophecy which speaks of the duo fassula which has associated the
‘cruets’ and Grail with Glastonbury. The duo
fassula is said by Melkin to be buried along with Joseph of Arimathea in Insula Avallonis. Throughout this work
there is ample evidence provided to show that the Prophecy of Melkin existed at
the time Henry Blois was Abbot of Glastonbury and that the prophecy is a
genuine encrypted document, but it acted as the inspirational template for the
prime archetype of the Grail in the sang réal. After the great
fire at Glastonbury in 1184 there was a loss of many books, but the
providential find of Arthur’s remains later in 1189-91 has forevermore provided
the erroneous association of Glastonbury with the fictitious Isle of Avalon and
thereafter Joseph of Arimathea with the Grail at Glastonbury.
Analysis of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s HRB has
shown that virtually every episode, place or person can be linked by a previous
association. ‘Geoffrey’s’ inspiration and his natural gift of inventiveness in
the narrative storyline and in the characters he unfolds, in nearly every case,
has a provenance and a purport to carry forward his pseudo-history. His work is
based upon sources from which he has provided an echo of history. ‘Geoffrey’s’
attempt at providing a credible provenance for his HRB is insincere as he
feigns to be translating the words of a previous writer from the British tongue
into Latin or from a book ex Britannia.
Besides the episode which concerns King Lear,[14]
which might be one of the few tales of the HRB which is thought to be entirely
of ‘Geoffrey’s’ own invention, there is an underlying framework which attempts
to parallel events portrayed in older sources in British annals. Commentators
on the existence of ‘Geoffrey’s ancient book seem undecided or unconvinced on
the ancient book’s existence. ‘Geoffrey’ avows the substance for his HRB comes
from this ancient ex
Britannia book
procured from the Archdeacon of Oxford wherein it supposedly bears witness to
an Island called Avalon. However, the purport of this present work is to set
out that Avalon, the Insula Avallonis
of Melkin fame, is a real location (which was once known as Ineswitrin), but
unconnected with King Arthur except through the inventions of Henry Blois. This
can only be achieved when the reader is fully appraised that Geoffrey of
Monmouth did not exist and that he was a fabricated persona invented by Henry
Blois, the bishop of Winchester and abbot of Glastonbury.
What appears from the outset is that
‘Geoffrey’s’ basis for writing the HRB is to provide a history about the
Britons: ‘and it now remains for me to
tell how they came and from where and this will be made clear in the following’. We shall cover the formation and development
of the original Primary Historia
found at Bec from an already created pseudo-history intended for Henry Blois’
Uncle and the Empress Matilda, to which the episodes of the Chivalric Arthur
were added in 1137-8. ‘Geoffrey’s’
inspirational muses weave scenarios evidently drawn or formatted on previous
works of known classical writers. Henry uses ancient insular annals as well as
contemporary historian’s work as source material to anchor his epic in what may
be termed a ‘conflated fabulation of history’. This is where people, places,
events, and legend, are made to seem as a genuine historical account. Henry
Blois’ genius also capitalises on the sentiment of the insular and Breton
populace and its bravado regarding an Arthur which Henry transposes his Norman
values upon…. to become the ‘Chivalric King Arthur’. There has never been a
trace of the ancient book which Geoffrey refers to or reference to whom may
have authored it, but ‘Geoffrey’ is adamant that he has an ancient source book.
As I shall cover, the Gaimar epilogue which confirms the existence of such a
book is part of Henry Blois’ deception. Henry, writing as Geoffrey of Monmouth,
supposedly cautions three ‘contemporary’ historians, William
of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon and Caradoc of Llancarfan that his history is more
complete by possession of the source book.
We shall cover Henry of Blois’ impersonation of Caradoc of Llancarfan as
I have said, but it was after Caradoc’s death when Henry wrote the life of Gildas. We will see how this inter-relates to the
engravings found on the Modena Archivolt known to portray the ‘kidnap of
Guinevere’. Although Gildas’s De Excidio et Conquestu
Britanniae[15] does not mention Arthur, the
bogus life of Gildas in effect establishes a relationship in antiquity
between Arthur and Gildas through the episode concerning King Melvas at
Glastonbury. We shall uncover that Henry
Blois’ assertion that Caradoc is the contemporary of ‘Geoffrey’ in the colophon
which mentions the three historians is purposeful misdirection. This colophon
was inserted into some manuscripts of HRB post 1157 after Huntingdon’s death.
It
will be shown in this present work that the device which has caused confusion
amongst scholars is the use of retro-dating employed by Henry Blois,
specifically employing the names of dedicatees. Thus many of the previous
conclusions about the composition and dating of HRB will need to be
reassessed. ‘Back dating’ is a ‘primary
device’ employed by Henry Blois. It is used by Henry Blois on several occasions
to distance himself from the authorship of several works by time and by
association.
Henry interpolates much of William of
Malmesbury’s ‘Enquiry into the Antiquity of
the Church of Glastonbury’ (DA) by composing most of the first 34 chapters.
After William’s death, we can also witness other interpolations in the C and B
versions of William’s GR3. The tampering with these manuscripts is the root
cause of much of the confusion which I hope to clear up satisfactorily. Henry Blois also spends considerable effort
to convince us that the patchwork compilation of the Historia Brittonum ascribed to Nennius (who may have been only a
reviser, consolidator or an interpolator)[16]
is in fact the work of Gildas. The point
of this is to convince posterity that Gildas wrote concerning Arthur…. which we
know he did not! The HRB in effect attempts to persuade us that Nennius’s
account is written by Gildas because it is the only pre-twelfth century annal
which relates directly to Arthur apart from a few cursory references in a few
accounts of ‘saints lives’[17]
and Annales Cambriae. The life
of St Cadoc upon which Henry concocted his Life of Gildas is the prime example. The life of Gildas establishes a bogus association that Gildas is
connected to Glastonbury and is partly the reason for Henry’s invention of the Life of Gildas. Gildas’ association with Glastonbury is only
otherwise established by what Henry Blois has written in his interpolation of
GR3 and expanded upon in chapter 7 of DA. However, the Life of Gildas preceded the first interpolations into DA in 1144.
Secondary additions to DA which include the St Patrick charter were added
c.1149. We shall also see a tertiary set of additions interpolated into DA
c.1160-1170 which incorporate what I have termed Henry Blois’ second agenda.
Researchers have attempted to ascertain
‘Geoffrey’s’ underlying reason for writing the HRB apart from that stated by
‘Geoffrey’. Scholars have been duped into believing that ‘Geoffrey’ was an aspiring
cleric seeking patronage and who professes his reason for writing was that he
could find no previous writer who had given an adequate account of British
history. The real reasons are multiple and set out further on. They include an
account of how the composition of HRB evolved from an unfinished original ‘faux-history’ destined for Matilda
pre-1134 which was then spliced together with additional material which became
the epic concerning King Arthur written in 1137-8. This became what I have
termed the Primary Historia. The
Primary Historia is what Huntingdon witnessed which was then developed into
the First Variant and then to one of the most influential books ever written;
the Vulgate HRB. Scholar’s assumption that First Variant post dated the Vulgate
version is entirely erroneous.
Virtually nothing is known of Geoffrey of
Monmouth, but the little that is known has provided a base for scholarship to
assume he was a real historical person. Beginning with such a false premise has
led to a maze of misinformation concerning Glastonbury and events surrounding
King Arthur’s disinterment. It has also led to the misunderstanding of the
inspiration behind the Grail material. As the reader will discover, the basis
for the events regarding Joseph of Arimathea in Britain and the true substance
of what became known as the Grail in association with him are based on genuine
historical events.
It is a strange circumstance considering the
amount written about Geoffrey of Monmouth and his HRB that we have such flimsy biographical
details. As far as I know only two
commentators[18]
have questioned the reality of the persona of Galfridus Arthur. ‘Geoffrey’ is only grounded in historical
reality by his supposed witness to a few charters and the dubious fact that he
became Bishop of St. Asaph and once stood in front of Theobald of Bec to be
ordinated. These fictitious details will be shown to have been concocted by
Henry Blois with the intention of secreting his authorship of what eventually
became a contentious book once the updated prophecies of Merlin were added to
it. At this time Galfridus Artur became known by his later appellation Geoffrey
of Monmouth. Orderic’s reference to the prophecies and Robert of Torigni’s
reference to the Bishop of Asaph also have augmented the belief by commentators
that ‘Geoffrey’ actually existed. These references will be dealt with in the
appropriate place in this book. All other reference to Geoffrey is derived from
comment about his work regarding the HRB or VM or from spurious personal details
divulged by Henry Blois or from the Gwentian
Brut. The Brut y Tywysogyon
records Geoffrey’s death in 1154-5, but this annal serves as
a continuation of Geoffrey’s HRB and is definitively mis-directional regarding
his other details. The Brut y Tywysogion
has survived as several Welsh translations of an original Latin version, which
has not itself survived. However, we will see that the original version was a
chronicle written by Caradoc of Llancarfan in Latin and Henry Blois
interpolated it with propaganda about ‘Geoffrey’. As we progress we will
understand that the original annal which Caradoc wrote pre-date’s the HRB and
is the main reason why Henry Blois ends his HRB at the point where Caradoc
starts his history. The colophon in some versions of HRB mentioning Caradoc’s
name is meant to misdirect; creating the sense that Caradoc is alive (along
with Huntingdon and Malmesbury) and we are led to believe he is ‘Geoffrey’s’
contemporary who took up the mantle of bringing his history up to date. I will show
that this colophon was written after 1155.
Henry Blois who had many Welsh monks under
his auspices has implanted material which substantiates his HRB in the Book of LLandaff. Many of
the places like Fluvium Periron which
no-one has definitively located, just happens to be given location in the Book of Llandaff. The subject of Periron is interesting concerning Henry Blois and will be discussed during an
examination of why John of Cornwall’s edition of prophesies locates it at
Tintagel. Also, I will elucidate why the prophecies, although appearing to
speak about similar subjects, vary in sense between the versions of JC, VM, and
the Merlin prophecies found in Vulgate HRB.
Henry Blois himself
publicized ‘Geoffrey’s’ death and is recorded in the Brut y Tywysogion (1154). We can account for Robert of Torigni’s
reference to the bishop of Asaph as having come from Henry Blois himself at a
meeting in Mont St Michel in 1155. The Gwentian
Brut adds a number of details about the later period of ‘Geoffrey’s’ life,
from his ordination as bishop onwards. None of these details have any
substance. It states that Geoffrey died
in Llandaff and was buried there, but there is no grave site. Also, it names
him a foster son of Uchtryd, archbishop of Llandaff and asserts that Geoffrey
taught at, and served as archdeacon of St. Teilo in Llandaff. ‘Geoffrey’s’
death is certainly Henry Blois’ providentially timed invention as Henry II came
to the throne as will become clear later. Admittedly, other material could be
accountable to the aggrandising of Llandaff by Welshmen at a later date due to
‘Geoffrey’s’ renown. His personal
disclosures like ‘pudibindus Brito’
found in some texts are all part of the illusion that ‘Geoffrey’ could not be
Norman. There is simply no contemporary who provides a personal detail of a
meeting with him in the flesh; except that evidence which I will show has been
provided and planted by Henry Blois…. most obviously as the bishop of Asaph on
the Treaty of Winchester; (which
itself was put together and the terms drawn up by Henry Blois), which brought
the Anarchy to an end.
Before I can begin to untangle a spurious
tradition at Glastonbury in part II of this book, it is necessary firstly to
leave the reader in no doubt that the man we think of as Geoffrey of Monmouth
is in fact Henry Blois. After this is established beyond doubt or speculation
by analysing the HRB and the Vita Merlini,
we can then move on to the methods employed and the reasoning’s behind such a
deception. The most difficult task for me is to convince the reader that
Geoffrey of Monmouth is Henry Blois in the shortest and quickest way possible,
because there is so much other material to cover after that. My task is made
harder by the fact that the premise that Geoffrey existed, as a real living
person, is so taken for granted by scholars.
Once HRB is understood as having been authored by Henry Blois, the
evidence falls into place as certain other manuscripts are discussed. I shall
establish his deception through a brief analysis of the HRB prophecies and
those found in Vita Merlini.[19]
Afterward having shown the prophecies of Merlin were concocted from the mind of
Henry Blois, it is just a short step to proving common authorship of the faux-history making up the rest of HRB.
I shall then analyse the Gesta Stephani so
that the reader is in no doubt that both HRB and GS were written by Henry
Blois. We can then move swiftly through the tangible material in HRB regarding
the continental battle scene in Autun (in the region of Blois) etc….
understanding that Henry is the author. The rest of the material authored by
Henry Blois, will become obvious as the deception unfolds. I will demonstrate
the subtlety of his various devices and show how a different ploy in each tract
is used to prevent his authorship being discovered. Different methods of
propagating his agenda enabled him to remain undiscovered while adding
credibility and corroborations in other texts to his fabricated history of the
Britons. After discussing the Merlin
prophecies, VM and the GS, I will explain exactly how Henry went about creating
Geoffrey’s persona and show that the Vulgate HRB and the updated prophecies
were not brought together until 1155. This runs contrary to the accepted
understanding of modern scholarship, but, ridiculously, there are still
commentators who believe the prophecies have substance and veracity. This has
been achieved by Henry Blois grafting icons and personages (in VM especially)
from Welsh prophetic material while looking backwards in time to past history
and linking retrospectively to events recorded in insular annals. Thus, he
affects the ‘skimble skamble’ nature of the murky seeings or utterings…. dicta of a Dark Age prognosticator
called Merlin.
There are many evidences to take into account
concerning ‘Geoffrey’s’ work. Orderic’s testimony needs to be considered along
with Henry of Huntingdon’s précis of what I have termed the Primary Historia. Also, abbot Suger’s
and John of Cornwall’s testimony regarding the prophecies of Merlin and Robert
of Torigni’s testimony regarding the Bishop of Asaph. Also, Alfred of
Beverley’s recycled account of Geoffrey’s work. All of this will be dealt with
in the appropriate places in this exposé. The supposed ‘Geoffrey’ had already
written his Primary Historia by the
latter half of 1138, but we also will discover that prophecies existed in an
incomplete emerging form c.1139-46 called the Libellus Merlini. It was the
political intent behind these prophecies in 1155 that were Henry’s crafty
agenda and their production was inspired by Cicero’s De Divinatione. Henry Blois was a genius, but he was a
treacherous and deceitful Machiavellian character with evolving views toward
Rome and religion. He was also sagacious, persuasive and an eloquent orator
with finely tuned diplomatic skills and political savvy. It is this image which is partly understood
by historians. I hope to expose to the reader another side of his complexity
which is secreted in his subtle skill as an author. Firstly we need to find out
how Henry Blois fits in historically.
Chapter 1
Who was the real Henry Blois?
A remarkable fact about Henry Blois is that
relative to the power he held, so little is known of him. Characters such as
Henry have usually left behind letters such as those of Gilbert Foliot;[20]
or historians have written biographies about them. Where Henry is concerned
there is a dearth of personal anecdotes from which to compose a portrait of who
he really was.[21]
However, from what is gleaned from various accounts he was well educated,
complex and courageous. He was vain and maintained a regal veneer ostensibly to
those he wished to oppose and was also conscious of his pedigree. He started
out as an ardent believer in God having been brought up an oblate at Clugny and
recognised God’s omnipotent force. Unfortunately, many of his endeavours were
clandestine, so he did not always advocate the truth. He was a prime example of the nobili ecclesiastici destined for a high
position in the church, but these were not always churchmen of their own
volition. One side of his character
surely believed, like his contemporaries, that all events transpired by divine
consequence (his oratorical speeches reflect this) along with judgements
pronounced about his brother in GS. He was an industrious builder and employer
and benevolent to most under his auspices. However, he was manipulative and a
schemer and a pragmatist. He was conscientious in some respects, compassionate,
yet judgemental and wilful. Henry Blois was a split persona and a
contradiction, never openly malicious, but his dark side was malign. The fact most important to this exposé is
that he was a fabricator of intricately worked tales and worst of all, he was a
liar. Had he not lived, there would be
no chivalric King Arthur and Grail literature, but most importantly the
location of Joseph of Arimathea’s burial site would be lost to the present era.
Henry Blois was an able administrator and knew the value of cultivating a
healthy pilgrim trade to both Glastonbury and Winchester by the appropriation
of saint’s relics. Henry understood how to utilise the gullibility and
superstitions of the medieval mind. Henry translated the relics of the Anglo
Saxon saints of Birinus and Birstan, Haeddi and Aelfneah into the new Norman
cathedral at Winchester. Oddly enough the ‘Holy
Hole’ dug so that pilgrims could get close to St Swithun was foreseen as a
prophecy by Merlin and was obviously intended as a work by Henry Blois when
the late version of the prophecies were
completed in 1155. The high water table under the New Minster caused several
relics to be moved at the time as related by prior Robert of Winchester. Adam
of Damerham relates many of the gifts donated to Glastonbury by Henry and his
’gifts to God’ which he refers to on his Meusan plates were artful objects of
value. Henry loved art and precious objects…. and there is a blatant
contradiction in several reports of his character. On the one hand his avarice
is recorded and on the other his clear generosity in the donation of precious
artefacts is demonstrated. Henry
understood the power of religious objects, but it seems obvious he invented an
erroneous provenance and bogus history for many of the relics he produced. The
most outrageous was some of the blessed Mary’s
milk and some of her hair enclosed in a lion made of crystal.[22] The most ingenious, which we shall cover in
the chapter on the DA, is his miraculous find of the Sapphire which became part
of an altar he had had constructed. Henry Blois’ imagination and unabashed
willingness to invent, (even often what might seem blasphemous anecdotes), is
the main subject matter of this present work. But, it is how he gets away with
these blatant lies and also reconciles them to an obvious conscience, which is
the most interesting part of his character and personality. It is as if there
is a young cloistered and devout monk paired in the same body with a vain and
manipulative egomaniac. Huntingdon recognised this duality and referred to him
as a ‘monster’. The intriguing part of his character is how he was able to
separate this duality of character in public life. The respect he maintained by
most was partly comprised of deference to his aristocratic breeding but nearly
all recognised his great intelligence. As a bishop, his word would have been
respected and taken as truthful as long as the lies contained in his secret
authorial works were never equated with him. It is plainly seen in Malmesbury’s
HN that Henry could hold an audience on a grand scale and used his oratorical
skill, but some like William of Malmesbury as time went on, became wise to his
guile. Naked men on dragons, as portrayed in the Merlin prophecies, clearly
demonstrates there is no limitation to his muses. However, there are instances
of the crossover of these two personalities where impossible stories i.e. lies,
related by him, have been believed as credible because of his status…. and
these stories are often portrayed as miraculous.[23]
Henry loved the miraculous to awe his readers or listeners and hid behind the
protection of respectability which the church afforded.
What little is known of Henry Blois is
incidental and misunderstood and no clear picture of his complex character is
understood until one can appreciate more about him from the works he left
behind. Differences of opinion given in
the few passages that mention his name by contemporary historians reflect the
change of disposition he underwent from a scholarly youth; maturing and
enduring the trials of conscience and temptations of power…. until the
resignation of the loss of his power in 1158. From that point onward he
fostered the image of a venerable churchman and statesman, yet it was in this
period he instigated the initial stories of the Grail. Strangely, a point not
mentioned by commentators, is Henry’s vanity which he had inherited from his
father. His father at the siege of Antioch in a letter to Adela had inflated
his own importance and in William of Malmesbury’s first edition of GR, Stephen
count of Blois is accused of fleeing secretly using lies to turn back new arrivals.[24]
This was written before William met Henry Blois. William of Malmesbury was
much older and it did not take him long to realise the temerity of the young
Henry as shall become evident in the contention over Eadmer’s letter to the
‘youth’ of Glastonbury.
When William of Malmesbury was employed by
the monks of Glastonbury and eventually presented the DA to Henry Blois c.1134,
the dedicatory prologue has only commendations for Henry. After the usurpation
of the English crown by King Stephen and Henry’s part in this affair, the HN[25]
portrays William’s change of opinion and feelings toward the Bishop of
Winchester. William’s slight toward Henry’s father[26]
and the deference in which Henry held William (who thought of himself the
successor and equal of the Saxon Bede) also explains why Henry has no qualms in
using William’s DA to interpolate his agendas after William’s death. Henry’s
primary and secondary agendas are elucidated later in this investigation in the
chapters concerning William’s GR and DA.
Henry Blois was of noble blood, the Grandson
of William the Conqueror through his mother Adela of Normandy; ‘a powerful woman with a reputation for her
worldly influence’.[27]
Adela’s mother was Matilda of Flanders and Henry Blois’ father was Stephen
Henry, Count of Blois, Count of Chartres, and also
accounted, Stephen II Count of Troyes. His parents’ marriage was an arranged match
by Adela’s father William the Conqueror. Henry had two elder brothers of note,
Theobald and Stephen. William the eldest does not feature on the historical
stage because of mental disabilities, but Henry also had sisters. His elder
brother William had a son Henry de Sully, Abbot of
Fécamp who
plays a part later in this expose and also his sister and brother’s sons have a
bearing on the propagation of the Grail literature. Henry’s brother Theobald
had sons who were married to Marie of France and her sister Alix. This
relationship was used as a conduit in the propagation of Grail literature at
the Court of Champagne. It is a stupidity to think that the person who wrote The Lais of Marie de France[28]
is any other than Marie of Champagne, but we shall get to her in part III
of the book.
Henry was born in 1098/9 and brought up at
the Abbey of Clugny in Burgundy probably from around the age of 10 years old.
Here, he led a cloistered life and received an extremely good education and by
all accounts was highly intelligent. He was widely read in both the Greek and
Latin writers as becomes evident as the composer of HRB. He would have had
access to a vast library from which his education prospered and would have studied
the Trivium, of which ostensibly, he
was an exemplary living product; a virtuous, knowledgeable, and eloquent person.
The study of grammar, rhetoric, logic, poetry, history, and ethics were the
core liberal arts, and Henry was schooled in theology and had interests in
philosophy and the writers of the ancient world, many of whose writings must
have existed in the Library at Clugny. From the source material used in HRB, it
is not silly to speculate that he may have had a photographic memory to some
extent. However, Glastonbury also had a vast library at the time the bulk of
the pseudo-history was being composed. Peter the venerable was Henry’s mother’s
friend and became much like a mentor to Henry. It can be seen by letters
between Henry and Peter that they fell out over differences.[29] I have a strong feeling (but there is no
evidence) that this cooling of relations happened when the power of Legate went
to Henry’s head. However, returning from Rome in 1149, after his appeal to the
pope to grant him metropolitan status for Western England, he lent Clugny abbey
1000 ounces of gold and 500 ounces to repair a Golden Cross…. and then later,
while in self-imposed exile, bailed the abbey out again.
From a noble family,
Henry understood from reading the chronicles of the ancient world, the
importance of History and the provenance it provides for races and nations.
Henry is very conscious of his place in history and how posterity will perceive
him…. as is evident in GS. He vainly wishes to be remembered well in posterity.
Adam of Damerham says Henry made provision at Glastonbury that festivals might be observed with more
alacrity and his own name (alive or dead) more gratefully remembered.
The Bibliotheca Cluniacencis relates that this Henry, Bishop of Winchester, had formerly been a scholar and then
a monk in this monastery of Cluny. The Cluniac movement was the largest
religious force in Europe second to the papacy before its decline in power at
the rise of the Cistercians. To Henry, the Cluniac reforms and views were a part of his
way of life. He had regard for the autonomy of the Church against the material
influences of the state and the corruption of simony. I believe that Henry
envisaged a partnership with his brother Stephen, governing England, church and
state. However, as history tells, events evolved a different relationship
between them after 1138 in the electing of Theobald of Bec as archbishop of
Canterbury. The Cluniac reforms were a series of changes taking place in
medieval monasticism which focused on restoring the traditional monastic life,
encouraging art, education and caring for the poor. The driving force behind the
reforms was an action against corruption within the church, particularly
preventing simony and the acceptance of concubines. At the same time the Papacy
wished to gain control of all clergy and wished to stop the investiture of
bishops by secular rulers. The attempt at reform was to reinforce the rule of
St. Benedict which enabled each monastic institution to choose its own abbot.
The feudal system of lords granting lands to religious institutions and
providing protection had bred corruption and ultimately resulted in a negative
secular influence over religious houses across Europe and Britain. As the
wealth of the church and monastic institutions grew, so too did their power
through bequeathals while hereditary barons became envious of their increasing
power. This had extenuated to rulers like Henry Ist and King Stephen delaying
the appointment of bishops while reaping the reward in the interim. They would
reward lucrative Sees and monastic holdings to their favoured advisors or
relations to protect their interests. The real cause of the Anarchy during Stephen’s reign was caused by Henry Blois’ organized
usurpation of the Empress Matilda’s throne by Stephen. However, it was also a
consequence of the baron’s allegiances who wished to counter the growing power
of the clerics of these landed religious institutions and their aristocratic
Bishops. If Henry Blois had not installed his brother on the throne, squabbles
over allegiances and power would never have culminated in the Anarchy.
Thus, in contravention to
Cluniac values, Henry Blois was elected to be abbot of Glastonbury by his Uncle
King Henry Ist. It is
not clear exactly if Henry came directly to Glastonbury from Cluny in 1126 or
if he had spent time with his uncle in Normandy with his brother Stephen. There
are rumours that he had spent time in Bermondsey as Abbot or had even been
assigned to oversee the building of a Monastery at Montacute which had been
planned by his uncle. Once bishop of Winchester, he became a Knight Bishop and
he supplied knights to his uncle from Glastonbury and from Winchester and built
a network of castles.
His knowledge of fortification and siege
warfare and interest in architectural battlements is evident in the GS and was
probably established by reading classical literature on wars fought in the
ancient world and through what he had learnt by experience. In the ‘Red Book of the Exchequer’ [30]
it lists Henry of Blois as Prior of Montacute. Montacute at this era was a
possession of Glastonbury. It may well be that plans for a new religious house
were in place which were subsequently shelved, but this is conjecture. Henry’s
connection with Montacute will be discussed later, regarding his authorship of De Inventione concerning Waltham. If he were at Montacute before Glastonbury he
would have been appraised of a rumour concerning Joseph of Arimathea. This
misunderstood information, which I will show must have been provided by Melkin
himself, was passed on much later by Father William Good, which stated that
Joseph’s body was most “carefully hidden”
on a hill near Montacute. I will discuss this later as
it pertains to knowledge encoded in Melkin’s Prophecy which modern scholars
have misguidedly determined as a thirteenth/early fourteenth century
fabrication. Abbot Seffrid’s elevation to Bishop of Chichester left Glastonbury
vacant and led to Henry’s appointment to abbot of Glastonbury by his uncle
Henry Ist.
I hope not to labour the reader with
historical context, but it is necessary to understand more of Henry Blois’
background if we are to recognise him as the author of the HRB under the
pseudonym of Geoffrey of Monmouth. So, briefly, William Duke of Normandy
(Henry’s grandfather) had invaded Britain and defeated Harold at Hastings in
1066 and was later crowned King at Westminster (the first of the Norman kings
of Western England). William, subduing rebellion from relations in Normandy and
the Capetian King Philip was injured after attacking the city of Mantes where
his horse had stumbled. William of Malmesbury gives a descriptive account of
how the corpulent William had ruptured his intestines on the pommel of his
saddle and retired to Rouen with a ruptured gut…. and after five weeks in
agony, he died. His body was then taken for burial to the abbey he had founded
in Caen. The body had been squeezed into a coffin too small for him and with
the obvious travel delay and the putrefying stomach gasses made worse by the
rupture, the body had exploded during the funeral. William the conqueror’s
eldest son Robert Curthose inherited Normandy and his younger brother William
Rufus became King of England. Their youngest brother Henry Beauclerc received
five thousand pounds of silver and the three were in constant contention….
Robert stirring rebellion against William Rufus in England and William
retaliating by invading Normandy taking Bayeux and Caen. Robert Curthose, in the
end, financed his army for the crusade by pawning Normandy to his brother.
While Robert was on crusade, William Rufus was killed by a rogue arrow in a
supposed hunting accident. The younger brother, Henry Beauclerc, did not delay
in taking possession of the throne to become Henry Ist of England. When Robert
returned from the crusade eventually, the two brothers met at the Battle of Tinchebray where Henry's
knights won a decisive victory, capturing Robert and imprisoning him until
Robert's death in Cardiff Castle in 1134. King Henry Ist had united Normandy and England,
but Robert Curthose had a legitimate son, William Clito,
whose claims to the dukedom of Normandy led to several rebellions which
continued until 1128. However, in 1120
after staying in Normandy for the summer and autumn, on November the 25th a
dreadful catastrophe happened as many of the nobles were returning to England.
King Henry Ist fleet lay in Barfleur Bay in the north of Normandy. The King had
recently taken into his fleet a vessel known as the ‘White Ship’, into which
many of the nobles, his heir apparent and his bastard son had boarded. Orderic
Vitalis relates that abuses and drunken insults were shouted to the priests
that had come to bless the voyage across the Channel from inebriated nobles.
The port entrance is lined on both sides by lurking rocks and the ship
foundered, drowning Prince William and many other English and Norman nobles.
King Henry’s only remaining legitimate heir to the throne was his daughter the
Empress Matilda, by his wife Matilda of Scotland, the daughter of Malcolm III
of Scotland. Matilda was the product of a political marriage uniting a
conquered Anglo Saxon England with Scotland.
In 1125 the Empress Matilda’s husband Henry V, the Holy Roman Emperor died
which presented King Henry Ist with a solution for succession after loosing the
heir in the white ship disaster. King Henry married her to Geoffrey V, Count of
Anjou, in a union which he hoped would produce a male heir and continue the
dynasty. King Henry was nervous about the barons accepting a woman as his heir
after his death. He made them swear fealty to her as the prospective heir on
more than one occasion. These unfortunate set of circumstances would lead to
the turmoil that was later termed by historians: the Anarchy. Matilda or Empress
Maud, as she is otherwise known, had three sons by Geoffrey of Anjou, the
eldest of whom eventually became King Henry II of England upon the death of
King Stephen in 1154.
Upon the death of King
Henry Ist on December 1st 1135 however, the throne was usurped by
Matilda’s cousin, the said Stephen of Blois with the Machiavellian maneuverings
of our Henry Blois, Bishop of Winchester. Given the pervading attitude to women
on the throne, it may be that Henry Blois and Stephen had previously discussed
such an action. Stephen was certainly
swift in his travel to England to claim the throne whilst Matilda was in
Normandy. Matilda had just realized she was pregnant again and after her
previous near death experience in childbirth, she was reluctant to travel by
sea to be crowned in England. She assumed her right of heritage was guaranteed,
but there were already apparently rumours that nobles in France were planning
to appoint Theobald to the throne, Henry Blois’ other elder brother. However,
Stephen beat both Matilda and Theobald and was crowned with the help of his
younger brother Henry Blois within three weeks of King Henry Ist death.
Matilda was at Argentan[31]
in Normandy, where she gave birth to her third son William on 22 July 1136,
after Stephen had been crowned. There was little or no precedent for a woman to
rule at the time which made it more readily acceptable by the nobility to
accept Stephen as the alternative heir.
Matilda was half-sister to the bastard born Robert, Duke of Gloucester,
one of many of King Henry’s illegitimate offspring, who, reluctantly appeared
and paid homage to King Stephen at court. He made a pretense of loyalty to the
King for a short while, but eventually left for Normandy to join his sister
Matilda. When they returned to England
in 1138, turmoil across Britain ensued as the barons sided by loyalty to
Matilda and the Angevin cause or to King Stephen. King Stephen had paid vast
amounts from the treasury at Winchester soon after his crowning to win the
barons’ support and fealty…. and to keep them from defecting.
Before Henry Blois
joined Clugny, his father was away on Crusade and his mother was left to manage
the family affairs and estates in the region of Blois in his absence. The Blois
region of France was considerable[32]
incorporating Clugny, Blois, Chartres, Langres, Avallon, Autun, Troyes etc. a
large swathe of Burgundy. Henry Blois having witnessed a strong and competent
mother carry on the affairs of an absent crusading father would inure Henry more
readily to the acceptance of a female rule which was posited by King Henry
before his death. Henry Blois was loyal to his uncle and the King conferred on
him the bishopric of Winchester in 1129 seeing the ability of the young Henry
and what he had achieved at Glastonbury. It may be speculated that Henry Blois
had been in Normandy with his uncle in 1128 and would seem to be the ‘someone’,
(according to Henry of Huntingdon) who recounted the hereditary line of all the
Kings of the Franks and their heritage from Troy to King Henry on one occasion
in Normandy. I will discuss this later when I cover Henry of Huntingdon, but I
would suggest the elevation to Winchester in 1129 was based upon Henry Blois
having a close relationship with his uncle and having been with his brother
Stephen while with Henry Ist in Normandy. King Henry was known to be fond of
both of these Nephews and Glastonbury was responsible for the provision of
Knights for the King’s service. It is
with this in mind, we can understand Henry Blois’ wish to please his uncle and
the prospective Queen Matilda. It is vital to understand the beginnings of the
construction of HRB[33]
as Henry envisaged writing a book on the History of the Kings (and Queens) of
Britain and their heritage from Troy. What I am suggesting is that Henry Blois
commenced a history of the Britons as a way to seek favour to the future queen.
The entertaining pseudo-history intended for Matilda remained unfinished, yet
posited the Trojan custom of primogeniture demanding that dignitas hereditatus should go to the first born. As we shall cover
in progression, it is only after Henry’s time in Wales in 1136 and the initial
purpose of his intended book had become redundant, (in that his brother was now
King); that Henry added to his initial creation…. initially intended for his
cousin and Uncle.
Primogeniture is the right, by law or custom, of the legitimate, firstborn son to inherit his parent's entire or main estate, in preference to daughters. However, 'Geoffrey of Monmouth' or rather Henry Blois , initially, Henry's intent through his Pseudo-history was to show that the Empress Matilda (who was next in line after the death of Henry Ist) had every right to inherit the crown, based upon his polemic in HRB. There was much resistance to the idea at the time by the various Barons.
Primogeniture is the right, by law or custom, of the legitimate, firstborn son to inherit his parent's entire or main estate, in preference to daughters. However, 'Geoffrey of Monmouth' or rather Henry Blois , initially, Henry's intent through his Pseudo-history was to show that the Empress Matilda (who was next in line after the death of Henry Ist) had every right to inherit the crown, based upon his polemic in HRB. There was much resistance to the idea at the time by the various Barons.
It was in Normandy in
1137-8 that the Arthuriad was then added to the pseudo-history which had
already been composed between 1129 and1134-5 (but not published). It had laid
dormant a few years in the interim until the Arthuriana was added post
1136. At this time Henry Blois’ brother
was now King and Henry was second in the power structure in all England. In
1137 Henry went to Normandy to deal with De Redvers and Matilda and in his
spare hours in Normandy in 1137 and the early part of 1138, Henry’s muses were
at work. It was in this period Henry Blois extended his initial polemically
contrived pseudo-history and added the tale of the Chivalric Arthur to an
already unfinished (temporarily shelved) pseudo-history. This became the
edition I have termed the Primary
Historia discovered at Bec in 1139…. of which we only have a précis in the
form of EAW. It is for this reason there are so many seeming inconsistencies[34]amongst
many storyline variations, which scholars of HRB have been at odds to explain
regarding a Welsh ‘Geoffrey’.
We should view the
inspiration for the beginnings of an embellished pseudo-history portraying an
illustrious heritage from Troy as being composed in direct contrast with the
dower GR of William of Malmesbury. William’s history bolstered the heritage of
the Saxons but Henry had conceived of a way of ingratiating himself to the
future queen and his uncle by writing a semi-historical book which went further
back than any other insular historian had chronicled. By decorating it with
illustrious queens and setting a precedent for an easier transition to a female
on the throne, we now have a reason why ‘Geoffrey’ appears to introduce so many
female rulers into his HRB.
Even though William of
Malmesbury may have thought well of Henry, (which is debatable), Henry was
ambivalent toward the predominantly Saxon historian. But, by having close
contact with William at Glastonbury, Henry had realized that prior to Gildas’
era, there was a nearly blank canvas in insular history in the period where
Roman annals had left off.[35]
If one felt inclined[36]
one could invent an account of history freely without being tripped up
corroboratively by other works…. but, Henry’s method of construction in HRB is
a master-class in conflation.
At the outset then, the
initial composition of HRB was instigated as a ploy to impress and supply
entertainment and curry favour. But, part of Henry’s artifice was to include in
this book a precedent which showed that in Britain there had been many good and
highly capable queens who had ruled in history prior to his Uncle’s daughter’s
prospective reign. Henry Ist designated Matilda as heir in 1127 and the barons
were made to swear fealty as I have said, some more than once. The bulk of HRB
(minus the Arthuriad) was the first intended purpose for the composition of
what might be termed the ‘initial pseudo-historia’. But, as Henry Blois is the author of HRB it
should be understood why a Welsh ‘Geoffrey’ seemingly undertakes to help the
English Kings in their effort to assert their independence of the Kings of
France. Dukes of Normandy had been
Vassals to the French Kings. Although the Saxons are not well portrayed in HRB,
we must not mix up what was intended to be written and read out in the court of
a queen and what was actually written after Henry’s brother became King and
Matilda was no longer the intended goal of his endeavour. The Saxons as a whole
are seen as the enemy, but as we shall understand, the seeming resentment
against the Normans (in the later prophecies) is against Henry II himself because Henry Blois writes prophecies intended
to cause sedition. How and why this occurs will also become apparent as we move
to the evidence which shows categorically that ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ never
existed.
Matilda was descended from West Saxon Kings,
so a flattering glorious insular history was originally envisaged by Henry at
the outset of writing. William of Malmesbury had written GR partly to flatter King Henry’s Queen Matilda
and her illustrious West Saxon heritage and latterly also dedicated a copy of
his GR to the Empress Matilda confirming her rightful place as inheritor to the
throne. Henry had plans to out shine William’s GR by producing a book outdoing past
and contemporary historians with interesting content, fabricating what could
never be verified. The book’s testimony to female reigns throughout insular
history was its partial purpose of invention and guarantee of success, while
portraying the alluring and illustrious heritage stretching back to Troy. With the first-hand knowledge of Wales and
its topography…. and Caerleon’s archeological remains, gleaned on an excursion
fighting the Welsh uprising in 1136….Henry was able to expand (with the
Arthuriad) upon an already composed pseudo-history. We can speculate that this
might have mentioned the Warlord Arthur as a fledgling Arthurian tale, given
that the tales concerning Arthur to which Malmesbury briefly refers were
current among the populace. However, the
chivalric Arthurian epic found in the Primary-Historia
was an addition after having been to Wales.[37]
The creation of a
chivalric Briton based on the persona of the warlord Arthur, presented an
interesting and entertaining read. The unpublished ‘initial pseudo-history’,
originally destined for Matilda was now spliced onto an epic about Arthur at
the period Henry was based in Normandy in 1137-8. Arthur’s crown wearing and feast days where
foreign dignitaries attend are largely based upon his uncle’s costly feasts of
splendid luxury at Whitsun, Christmas and Easter where foreign envoys could
witness the brilliant company of Henry Blois’ Uncle. King Henry in William of
Malmesbury’s words absorbed the honeyed
sweet of books and would have been the first to appreciate the ‘initial
pseudo-history’ if he had lived long enough.
King Henry had repeated from youth that a King unlettered is a Donkey crowned. There was certainly enough
in HRB to please his scholarly uncle. What must be made clear to the reader
about the evolution and transition of the Primary
Historia discovered at Bec is that it still had further developments to go.
It was definitively an altogether different book than the Vulgate version which
modern scholars believe was the version found at Bec. As political situations
in the life of Henry Blois changed, the book evolved, through the First Variant
stage in 1144 to its completion as the Vulgate edition in 1155…. with its
edition of updated prophecies.
The mention of many
Queens in Briton is part of the reasoning behind much of the first part of the
HRB; inventing a precedent for female rulers in the antiquity of the Britons.
There is Guendoloena who had married Brutus’ son and she reigned 15 years.
There was Cordeilla the daughter of Leir. Marcia succeeded her husband
Guithelinus and there was the daughter of King Octavianus and lastly of course
Helena. For obvious reasons Boudicca in Tacitus’s description of events could
not be a part of Henry’s history bias in that she was defeated AD 60 or 61, by the
Roman governor Gaius Suetonius Paulinus.
Boudica led the Iceni as well as the Trinovantes and others in revolt
and her daughter’s were raped. To think that ‘Geoffrey’ has not read Tacitus as
scholars believe is quite unbelievable. ‘Geoffrey’ converts his Troia Nova into
Trinovantum as an eponyn based on Tacitus.
We must not forget that Henry’s mother acted
much like a queen in her own region. It
was however, Margan and Cunedag in HRB who objected that Britain
should be subject to the rule of a woman and so the sentiment against the
Empress Matilda was not new. It was
partly the reason that many of the Barons supported Stephen as patrimony not
primogeniture was the norm. Boadicea was hardly a reigning queen and even
though Henry Blois writing as ‘Geoffrey’ cannot be seen to draw on Tacitus,[38]
it is likely that Henry will have read the account of Tacitus’s father in law
in Britain while Henry was in the library at Clugny. Henry was not about
aggrandizing Roman achievements in Britain but was certainly conscious of what
was in the Roman annals which recorded the invasions.
We can speculate that
the Trojan ‘initial pseudo-history’ was started by Henry Blois at the time when
William of Malmesbury was writing the history of Glastonbury Abbey when
William’s GR had been completed.
However, everything did
not go according to plan, as fortune turned against the two intended recipients
of the book. King Henry Ist died and Matilda became Henry (and his brother
Stephen’s) nemesis. Rather than let his authorial efforts go to waste, Henry
finished his book adding the Arthuriana by inventing the Welsh court at the
city of Legions.[39] What must be understood and accepted by scholars
is that there were no prophecies and there was no Merlin mentioned in the Primary Historia left at Bec in 1138.
While Stephen expended his efforts in the North, Henry was in Normandy.
At this time Henry was
expecting to become archbishop of Canterbury on his return. He may (later in
life) even have had a longer term vision of becoming Pope.[40]
Although the Primary Historia was
intended in part to entertain; the history presented for the most part was
fabricated within a broad chronological outline of known insular history.
It was certainly not
conducive for a bishop to be witnessed embellishing tales and passing them off
as history. It was thus prudent not to attach his name to the manuscript. Henry
Blois signed off with the (unlikely) authorial name Galfridus Arturus as Henry of Huntingdon related in his letter to
Warin. This will of course appear incredible to the entrenched scholar studying
Geoffrey of Monmouth, especially since the evidence has been ploughed over by
many commentators in the past seeing no reason to deny his existence. The one
thing I would caution the reader upon is that at no point has deception and
fraud on such a grand scale been suspected…. and thus the position and persona
presented by Henry Blois concerning Geoffrey of Monmouth has never been
contested. What I will show is that the flimsy biographical details could
easily have been (and were) planted by a manipulative Henry Blois intent on
hiding his authorship. But, by the works we intend to cover, there can be no
doubt that the author of the prophecies of Merlin is Henry Blois and we can
easily deduce this from the material also found in the narrative of HRB that
Henry is the author of both.
However, we shall
discuss the sequence of how Henry carried out his deception later when we
analyze the events regarding the prophecies and when they were attached to the
final edition of the HRB. For the moment we should realize that the Primary Historia has as its base a
pseudo-history initially written for
Matilda, which (when it was written), was in no way contrary to the acceptance
of Matilda as a future heir. This became the Primary Historia and (most definitively) there were no prophecies
attached to this version. The fact that ‘Geoffrey’ tells us that he is merely
translating verbatim a very ancient book from ‘old Briton’ into Latin, to
render our present vulgate HRB (and he was commissioned to translate the
prophecies) can be dismissed immediately. I will show in progression,
Archdeacon Walter was dead when the Vulgate HRB (as we know it today) was
published; and so were all the other dedicatees mentioned in other Vulgate
versions.
Henry Blois’ personal attributes as a scholar were
nurtured while at Clugny. Clugny was second to Rome as a religious institution
and at that time was favoured by the papacy. Since its inception in 910 by the
Duke of Aquitaine, Clugny had given birth to hundreds of satellite houses
across Europe and many in Britain. The Cluniac’s main regard was for its
adherence to Gregorian reform and ritualized liturgy. An increasingly rich
liturgy stimulated demand for altar vessels of gold, fine tapestries and
fabrics, stained glass, and the art of choral music. However, it was the
Cluniac’s strict adherence to the liturgy which spawned a more materialist
necessity which was to bring critics like Anselm of Bec and the austere Bernard
of Clairvaux to oppose them later.
Abbe’
Bernard of Clairvaux[41]
despised Henry Blois and contention between the two was often appealed at Rome
with the pope as arbitrator. While Henry Blois was young at Clugny, the
huge abbey was under construction and undoubtedly led to his interest in
architecture which we can see evidenced in later life. His interest in
architecture was spurred on seeing the vaulted ceilings, radiating chapels and
the statues of saints carved and painted that adorned the huge proportioned
Romanesque church. His inability to hide subconsciously his inner interests
when he comments on architecture[42]
and fortifications in the Gesta Stephani
is only one of his traits which betray his anonymity as the writer of that
manuscript. Henry of Blois witnessed the Romanesque abbey church, the largest
in Christendom being built, as he grew up at Cluny, even though it was not
completed until the year after his election to the Bishopric of Winchester. One
of the main patrons to the arts in the eleventh century was Henry Blois.
Abbot Hugh died at Cluny
about the time that the young Henry entered the monastery and Hugh’s elected
successor Pons of Melgueil was to
become the downfall of what was a prestigious institution; and probably,
through Henry’s intervention, there were several grants made to that house
during King Stephen’s reign. Much later, after the death of his brother, Henry
Blois bailed out the Abbey financially when he sojourned there in deep
reflection while distancing himself from the carnage which had transpired in
England throughout the Anarchy. Henry spent most of his early time at Clugny
under Abbot Pons until such time as Peter the Venerable took over after Pons
had left the institution in a dreadful state.
Chapter 2
Henry Blois at Glastonbury
King Henry Ist wife, Matilda of Scotland died on 1st May
1118. With the ensuing fiasco on the
‘White Ship’, King Henry’s first attempt at leaving behind a legitimate heir
was to marry Adelicia of Louvain in 1121, just after the disaster. Adelicia of Louvain was in her late
teens and Henry was fifty-three. This union left no heir and hence the call for
the Empress Matilda to perpetuate the line once her husband the Emperor had died.
King Henry arranged a union between her and Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou. King
Henry also arranged the marriage of his nephew Stephen, to Matilda of Bologne,
who was of the Anglo-Saxon royal house…. her mother Mary being daughter of King
Malcolm III of Scotland. King Henry Ist of England consolidated his position by
strategic marriages of relations in an attempt at ensuring future harmony after
his death, both in Normandy and in England.
It was Henry Blois who
was directly responsible for persuading William of Corbeil, the archbishop,
through subtle reasoning, to crown Stephen. It was Henry Blois who organized
Stephen’s reception by a select group of clergy and his acceptance as the
future King. The powerful Bishop of Salisbury aided in this endeavour as the
foremost baron in the Kingdom. Pregnancy
had prevented Matilda making the journey. In three weeks from King Henry’s
death, the crown was on Stephen’s head. This certainly could not have been
achieved without the maneuverings of the Bishop of Winchester. Henry’s
manipulation of events by persuasion is testified by chroniclers and related in
the form of an apologia in Henry’s
retrospectively composed GS (after his brother had died). Henry had studied
Quintillian, yet ran counter to his caution against a ‘practice of making an evil use of the blessings of eloquence’.
This trait became more recognized by chroniclers and was definitely recognized
by William of Malmesbury as related in HN.
Henry Blois transformed
from being an obedient servant under his uncle, to a power manipulator
immediately upon his uncle’s death. The fact that he was King Henry’s nephew
and the bishop of Winchester and had control over Glastonbury estates, gave him
more power than any other bishop in manipulating the crown onto his brother’s
head.
His time at Glastonbury
before becoming bishop had not been unproductive. He turned Glastonbury abbey
into a rich and healthy establishment. It was (by his own account), a rundown
monastery on his arrival. Glastonbury had witnessed its lands being
appropriated by deceitful clerks and land grabbing lords before Henry’s
arrival. This was Henry’s immediate concern as soon as he arrived at
Glastonbury. Henry’s seeming innocence and trepidation at reviving a rundown
institution may or may not be genuine as he expresses in his libellus: ‘the monks were lacking in the necessities of life and the church was
devoid of many great possessions. I confess that upon seeing these things I was
pained; deceived by promised hope, I was ashamed to such extent that my
passionate mind created confusion within me, because I had a preference to be
until now a poor man of Cluny, to be close to the poor, rather than in charge
of anything and elected to such a burden’.
The only reason for
doubting this as a genuine sentiment is that much of the reason for writing the
GS (as we shall discover), is to present his own case for what transpired in
the Anarchy rather than leaving his reputation in the hands of chroniclers, who
would not represent his own viewpoint to posterity. When his time came to
receive the bishopric of Winchester, he did not relinquish his abbacy at
Glastonbury which was an unusual occurrence. Maintaining abbacy of Glastonbury
was condoned by King Henry, the pope, and the monks at Glastonbury, based upon
what he had already achieved for them.[43]
He did however work tirelessly to regain misappropriated land and to enrich
Glastonbury abbey, long after he had taken on the Bishopric of Winchester. This
can be witnessed in several charters regaining such lands as Syston, Uffculme
and several others and through his building program at the abbey. Concerning
Uffculme in Devon for example, he worked tirelessly for Glastonbury’s benefit
even up to Matilda’s short dominance in 1141 where the Uffculme claim is
finally concluded. Even in Henry Blois’ libellus[44]
he admits that he nearly didn’t bother concerning himself with reclaiming
Uffculme as Robert Fitz Walter Flandrensis (who possessed it at that time) had
previously obtained it from someone else, yet it was previously known that it
was ’under the jurisdiction of
Glastonbury from old’. [45] Henry did persevere because this Robert
had sworn fealty to Stephen. Henry confronted him in front of the Curia to
Robert’s shame, and regained the land for the abbey. Strangely enough, one can
see in the Regesta Regum
Anglo-Normannorum,[46]
the charter 341 Glastonbury Abbey (1136, at Westminster) regarding the ‘Restoration of Uffculme which had been
taken from the abbey by William …. more than half the text of the charter
(as a whole), bears a strong resemblance to charter 948 restoring the manor of
Wargrave to Winchester. So, Henry might have been producing
charters prolifically now his brother was King. Henry is sure of making any
claim he wishes, now Stephen is on the throne.
Uffculme was a fourteen hide manor in east Devon and may have been part
of the Glastonbury holdings prior to the invasion. At the time of the conquest
a widow called Eadgyth held a life
estate in Glastonbury property. She remarried a certain Walter de Douai, a
mercenary of William the Conqueror’s, and as a reward from William the Conqueror,
he received sixteen manors in England and the land is registered under his name
in the Doomesday book and no claim had been made. When this same Walter was ill
he came for refuge in the abbey infirmary saying he would restore the lands
once belonging to Glastonbury. But as soon as he recovered from his illness, he
reneged on the deal and record of the incident remained at Glastonbury. But
until Henry arrived, the monks had still not filed a claim. Walter died before
Henry Blois arrived, and Uffculme then passed to his son Robert of Bampton. The
rebellion of Robert Bampton is the fault of Henry Blois although this is not
conveyed in GS. At Easter court in 1136 Henry Blois had Stephen issue a charter
restoring Uffculme to Glastonbury. This angered Robert Bampton as his father
had held Uffculme since Domesday survey and Robert felt dispossessed. As we
have mentioned, it was Henry Blois who wrote the account of his brother, the
anonymously authored Gesta Stephani,
in which Henry describes this same Robert as ‘a knight not of the lowest birth or of small landed estate, but a
winebibber and a gourmand and in peacetime devoted to gluttony and
drunkenness’.
The Gesta Stephani
goes on to say that he ‘changed his love of drunkenness for a spirit of rebellion’ and was
summoned to Stephen’s court where he perjured himself. Potter and Davis,[47]
not knowing the author of the GS, remark that it is somewhat ludicrous to find
the author of the GS linked with an unknown son of Robert of Bampton. They then
go on to say that the only possible explanation is that the author had a
special interest in the man.
Attempting
to remain anonymous as the author of GS, Henry Blois can’t help himself
castigating someone who had rebelled against his brother and with whom Henry
himself had had a serious contention.
Finally, Bampton was compelled to put his castle at the King’s disposal.
Because Henry Blois wrote both the GS and his own Libellus, the sentiments match. In his account in the Libellus Henry says that it was ‘certainly a just provision and a very
fitting sentence, that he who from desire of other men’s property had laid
hands on what was not his, should by just decision of equity lose what was his
own’.
Much later in the Anarchy, when Henry has no option
but to side with the Empress against his brother; he again obtains a
reaffirmation of the grant of Uffculme for Glastonbury through Matilda in a
further updated charter. This was after Matilda’s assurance to Henry Blois to
comply in giving the bishop control over all
matters of chief account in England, especially gifts of bishoprics and
abbacies should be subject to his control.[48] The reaffirmation of the
charter which runs contrary to a Matilda ally may well have been a test of her
respect and promise to him, but it shows two things: his dedication to
Glastonbury, and more importantly, that he did change allegiance, even
momentarily. This is a very pertinent point when we come to analyse the GS. It
demonstrates that for a brief period, Henry thought it fortuitous to
side with Matilda as the balance of power had swung her way and he increasingly
perceived no way out of the inevitable train of events which was leading to her
being crowned…. since his brother was imprisoned. It is a position strongly
circumvented in the GS where Henry Blois portrays that the Bishop of Winchester
was merely biding his time until the events turned. GS portrays that Henry had
never any thought of swapping allegiance. Henry Blois in the GS is careful to
point out for posterity that he only feigned a change of allegiance.
Anyway, this particular Uffculme charter refers to
her honourable reception into Winchester. Bernard of St David’s signs the
charter and both he and Henry Blois had flanked Matilda as she entered
Winchester. This point also becomes
relevant later (concerning Henry Blois as the writer of the HRB) when we look
at both Bernard’s and Henry’s likeminded attempts to create separate
metropolitans for both Winchester and St David’s.
The continuator of Caradoc’s Brut y
Tywysogion seems to also portray Menevia having had some
preferment in ecclesiastical terms as he refers to the death of Bernard in
1147: after
extreme exertions, upon sea and land, towards procuring for the church of
Menevia its ancient liberty. Geoffrey of
Monmouth’s supposed uncle Uchtryd, bishop of Llandaff is said by the
continuator of HRB…. the Gwentian Brut, to have died in the same year.
The reasoning behind the claim of metropolitan by
St David’s is based upon a reference in Asser and also in Rhygyvarch's
Life of St David,[49]
but certainly the HRB provides supporting evidence for any claim as long as the
HRB is deemed credible. Yet the prophecies of Merlin miraculously foretell of
its re-instatement. Bishop Bernard pursued this hope and requested metropolitan
status many times to various popes. Henry Blois as the writer of the prophecies
plants this envisioned event as having sprung from Merlin in the hope of
spurring on what was predicted and thus fated. It is Henry who requests the
same from three popes regarding Winchester’s own metropolitan status. Something
predicted was more likely to effect a desired action. Essential to understanding the inclusion of
the prophecies into the HRB is that Henry Blois was also a keen admirer of
Cicero, as becomes evident as we progress. Quintus[50]
says: ‘what nation or what state
disregards the prophecies of soothsayers, or of interpreters of prodigies’.
Henry Blois understands the impact of prophecies and uses them for political
advantage[51]
while at the same time retro-fitting past historical events to seem as if they
were accurate predictions of the future; which (at the time the prophecies were
published) the reader of the prophecy can verify its accuracy. This course of
action led the gullible to believe in those prophecies which were clear enough
to understand and could be matched with past historical events. Other
prophecies of Merlin which were sometimes oblique in nature were interpreted
with different meanings. Tatlock reckons that ‘Geoffrey’ got his idea of
stopping halfway through HRB from Virgil’s Aeneid,
who also similarly employs a marvelous prophecy. However, Tatlock does not
realize that the Primary Historia was
already a composite work of Henry’s pseudo-history with the added Arthuriana
subsequently spliced onto it in 1137. He has no idea that the prophecies of
Merlin were then spliced in after the Primary
Historia’s discovery at Bec. Scholars have been led astray in the
assumption that the dedicatees were alive at the time of publication of the
Vulgate version.
Henry Blois’ reputation diminished with the advent
of the Anarchy, after his management of affairs to ensure his brother’s
crowning. When relating about previous bishops of Winchester which had passed
away, Henry of Huntingdon in his letter to Walter comments: now there sits in their place Henry, (of
Blois), nephew of King Henry, who will be a new kind of monster, composed part
pure and part corrupt, I mean part monk and part knight.”
The Cistercian monk Bernard of Clairvaux who
detested Henry called him the “Whore of
Winchester”. Yet he was highly esteemed by such men as Archbishop
Becket and John of Salisbury speaks well of his universal liberality towards
the church, but these are views of Henry in his later guise as venerable
churchman post 1158. What can be established in Henry’s transition in character
is that between1129-1158, Henry Blois could be considered a power hungry egoist
who held power in his own right and vicariously through his brother and family
heritage. From 1158 onward and his return to England, as time went by, Henry
procured the image of a venerable old man, who, by his generous deeds to Becket
and his family for example, and the high moral standpoint he took on religious
issues, he became regarded as a trustworthy protector of the church. In his
secret authorial works there is a completely different character at work.
After finishing
the VM he posed as Wace to provide a vernacular Old Norman dialect version of
the HRB adding more references and elaborations into the work like the ‘round
table’…. also mentioned in DA (although
not in the T manuscript) and in
Chrétien’s Erec and Perceval and more importantly Robert de
Boron’s work.
Geoffrey of
Monmouth’s stated reason behind writing the HRB
was finding no complete history of the Britons available. William of Malmesbury
had travelled around Britain’s monasteries collecting material for his Gesta Regum (which he had finished by
1125) and his Gesta pontificum Anglorum before
Henry had arrived at Glastonbury.
William of Malmesbury will have discussed his sources or lack of them, and I
believe this is partly what galvanised Henry into composing the faux-history which evolved into Vulgate
HRB. Apart from Bede, Gildas, and the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, there was little
to confute his interest in establishing a bogus heritage of the Britons from
Troy. Nennius has this tradition also but as I shall cover later Henry Blois is
directly responsible for promoting Nennius’ work as the work of Gildas and may
well have added the Trojan lore. As Newell suggests there are problems with
Nennius once it is understood that it alone underpins the Arthur presented in
HRB.
The Roman annals were scarce in Britain for obvious
reasons. While Henry Blois had been at
Clugny, he had read Gregory of Tour's History
of the Franks and it would appear
to have been a young Henry Blois while in Normandy in 1128 with his uncle, who
had reiterated the Franks’ provenance from Troy. Henry of Huntingdon records
‘someone’ as having told their history to King Henry Ist.
In the preface of the Antiquities (DA)[52]
William of Malmesbury refers to Henry Blois as someone who ’deserves to be cherished and honoured in the deep embrace of Christ’
……’ A remarkable man besides his splendid
birth, for his literary skill, and for the friendliness of his address, and for
his kind hearted liberality’. This
is a stark contrast to William of Newburgh’s assessment of Henry’s character, ‘He was a man of great power in the Kingdom,
and was crafty and inordinately fond of money’. The difference of opinion
just highlights the slide of Henry Blois’ reputation from the early days of
King Henry Ist.
For a man that played such a pivotal role in state
affairs, we have only have a few inconsequential notes that were written by him
to the pope; one in 1139 and the other in 1160 and a few other random letters
along with his Libellus. Is it not
strange that a man of such attested literary skill and who accounts the
authorship of books higher than all material wealth and art, should only leave
behind his simplistic Libellus? (See
appendix 1)
The Libellus
is a brief tract written by Henry that undoes any attempt to associate his hand
in any of the works that he produced. In any kind of authorship one inevitably
bears one’s heart on one’s sleeve. It is
inevitable that one betrays opinion and personal preferences and makes
statements which would leave Henry open to accusation at a later date…. if for
instance HRB was suspected to have been authored by himself.
Who could honestly look at the Libellus and the HRB together and suspect they were written by the
same man?
Henry
says he has: judged worthy to commit by
pen anything which I have earnestly done at Glastonbury to future memory. Henry
is conscious of his place in history and for this reason (in part) he writes
the GS.
Henry
was conscious of the fact that history records Kings, but he was adamant that
he was going to be remembered well in history. As the King’s brother, this
point is further established by the epitaph on the Mosan plates.[53]
The
cause of leaving behind his uninspired Libellus
was not to spell out or witness his good deeds or confirm land ownership, but
to misdirect any suspicious inquirer. The reader may think at the moment this
sounds a little like a conspiracy theory, but by the end of this exposé the
true Henry Blois is exposed. The Libellus also acts alongside the GS as a glossed character reference and apologia against his manipulation of
affairs in the ‘Anarchy’, which contemporaries thought he was largely responsible
for.
Henry’s
Libellus also counteracts any
suspicion of his hand in the interpolation of DA. The whole account in the Libellus
is doubly devious as by this stage in his life when it was written, he had
already composed HRB.
The Libellus, however, comes across as a
heartfelt document; not devoid of Henry’s genuine achievements at Glastonbury,
but we must not be fooled by Henry’s secondary motive for writing it. He
complains of being deceived by a promised
hope and recalling the awful state in which he found Glastonbury on
Sigfrid’s elevation to Bishop. He wondered how circumstances had transpired to
leave him such a huge task and recalls his steadfast purpose was the result of
faith which overcame doubt in his ability to find a solution. King Henry’s counsellor
had been given custody of Glastonbury abbey when Sigfrid was elevated to Bishop
of Chichester.
In the short period before Henry Blois was elected, abbot Geoffrey Rufus took
control of five churches belonging to the abbey. Henry used his influence as
the King’s nephew to reinstate these against an influential courtier: conquered at last by the request of the
King, I retained two, three I gave up to him. But, the three churches Henry
had been constrained to leave with Geoffrey, reverted back to the abbey upon
Geoffrey’s death.
As
history relates, Henry was an able administrator and it was not until he had
witnessed power upon being appointed bishop of Winchester that desire for
greater power ensued. In 1138 when King Stephen snubbed Henry Blois’ wish to be
archbishop of Canterbury…. soon after that betrayal Henry obtained the papal
legation instead. This in effect gave him as much power as the King himself,
but it inevitably led to the destruction of any pious purity and innocence
which had been part of his youth at Clugny: I
was able to not be rich and famous and be deemed rich and famous. Henry was at the centre of political life when
his brother became King until such time he finds himself at Clugny in
self-imposed exile in 1155.
[3] Gaufridus
Arturus was the first appellation that Henry Blois gave the author of the book
found at the abbey of Bec. Geoffrey of Monmouth was to become his name at a
later date.
[4] The virgin
birth as spoken of by the prophets relates to the birth of the spirit in man
not the ludicrous notion that a messiah was born from a single un-impregnated
woman.
[5] Isaiah 7.14 Therefore
the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and
bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
[6] Mathew 1.16. Jacob was the father
of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the
Messiah.
[8] John Scott. The
Early History of Glastonbury p.2
[9] Antiquities of Glastonbury William of
Malmesbury Ch.83
[11] For instance: Wace’s Roman
de Brut., Geoffrey Gaimar’s L'Estoire des Bretons which was never even written
[12] Aelred Watkin.
The Glastonbury Legends. P.17. If Avalon
and the isle of apples are considered to be identical, and here again we are on
the verge of identification of Avalon with Glastonbury. Watkin has
misunderstood that there is no transitional verge!!! The isle of Avalon appears
in the First Variant in 1144 (not mentioned in the copy found at Bec related in
EAW). Willam of Malmesbury died in 1143 and William had never mentioned the
place or intoned that Glastonbury was synonymous with Ineswitrin in his Life of St Dunstan, but Glastonbury’s
assimilation of synonymy was interpolated into DA by Henry Blois.
[13] John Scott, The early history of Glastonbury. P.34.
Finally we can be sure that all
references to King Arthur must have been written after the purported discovery
of his remains buried between the two pyramids in 1190-1. This is the
modern scholastic view based mainly on Lagorio’s erroneous standpoint in that Arthuriana
and Grail legend appeared at Glastonbury following continental Grail literature
and a fortuitous convergence of factors.
Scott’s view, that any mention of Arthur in DA
prior to the unearthing could not have been interpolated before the event, does
not hold true. There is ‘Caradoc’s’ association of Arthur to Glastonbury which
stems from Henry Blois. But, Henry II died on 6 July 1189 and if the
date for the unearthing is correct in 1190-91, we should ask: how do we account
for the reference to King Arthur in association with Glastonbury in a charter
written by Henry II granting concessions to Glastonbury while still alive.
Scholars need to recognise that Arthur was connected to Glastonbury by Henry
Blois’ propaganda interpolated in DA long before Arthur’s disinterment. Carta Henrici Regis Secundi Filii Matildis
Imperatricis De Libertatibus Concessis Ecclesie Glaston. Volume 1, P 186. The
Great Chartulary of Glastonbury Dom Aelred Watkin…… Baldredo, Ina, inclito Arthuro, Cuddredo et multis aliis regibus
Christianis….
[14] The template for
Henry Blois inspiration for the story of King Lear may well be based upon
Henry’s father.
[15] Gildas relates heavily to biblical
sources and looks on the British as descendants of the Israelites, but his
works generally bemoan the state of the British nation through the invasions
and internal division of the Britons.
[16] However,
Grandsen’s Historical Writing in England
p.6 does point out stylistic unity and comment upon the preface of Historia Brittonum which accuses the
Britons of slothfully neglecting their past and concludes there is no earlier
pre-cursor to the Historia from which
it might be compiled.
[17] This mention of
Arthur as a named persona in history rebuts the suggestion of Ashe and Padel in
assuming that there is a mix up in tradition between Riotamus and Arthur.
However, the suggestion that Riotamus’s military expedition to the Continent is
the inspiration for the Continental campaign which ‘Geoffrey’ ascribes to
Arthur is a very plausible explanation in how Henry Blois (impersonating
Geoffrey) allowed himself to stray from what is reliably known in history with
the conflation of Riotamus’s expedition. O.J.Padel correctly points out: But it is a long way from this to supposing
that Riotamus was the actual prototype of the legendary Arthur. As already
mentioned, Arthur was famed in Brittonic folklore and local legend before
Geoffrey wrote, and was the inspiration for his figure.
[18] De Buck in Acta SS, LVII,94, and D.R. Thomas,
Hist. Diocese of St Asaph Oswestry vol
I, 33,214 regarding Geoffrey’s episcopate and biography
[19] Any reader
wishing to follow the trail of the prophecies should read the chapter on John
of Cornwall because this has the most certain evidence that Henry Blois wrote
that Version. However I have left that until last so that it explains the
progression of the prophecies which the reader will appreciate after having
covered much other material.
[20] It is not by
accident that no letters exist for Henry Blois as he would purposefully have
disposed of all the evidence which might have betrayed his viewpoints which we
now find in his work under pseudonyms. Ironically, Knowles p.289, while on the
subject of Henry Blois’ lack of letters says that they are ‘the best mirror of
a man’s character and mind and motives whether he be a Cicero or a Bernard’.
The irony is that Henry left no letters and looked upon himself as superseding
Cicero in craft (which in effect he has attained), albeit under secreted
authorship.
[21] Two biographies on Henry exist. Lena Voss, Heinrich von Blois and Michael .R. Davis’ Henry of
Blois.
[22] John of
Glastonbury in his Cronica ch.9, when mentioning Mary’s milk also says a crystal cross which the Blessed Virgin
brought to the Glorious King Arthur must also be derived from some
propaganda put out by Henry Blois.
[23] One such
example is where John of Hexam relates what he has heard: We have learnt from a truthful source that as people were hearing mass
one day at Windsor, a light had shone into the interior of the church. In
astonishment, some of the men went outside and looking up saw an unusual star
shining in the sky. Returning to the church, they saw that the light from the
stellar rays was beaming inside. One wonder was followed by another. Many saw
that the cross on the altar was moving from right to left and left to right in
a manner of people in distress. This happened three times. Then for almost half
an hour the whole cross moved and was bathed in pouring sweat before resuming
its former state….I have learnt that Bishop Henry of Winchester narrated this
story.
[25] William of Malmesbury’s Historia
Novella current until 1143 when he died.
[28] Marie of France
is second to ‘Wace’ and Robert to mention the ‘table roȕnd’
so
one could assume is part of Henry’s family circle. See Appendix 36
[29] The letters of
Peter the Venerable, Giles Constable. Whereupon
while I thought a mutual love which we had for one another was in a small space
of time hurt, I was unable to disguise, so that not to cure the same, I would
yield the antidotes of many words.
[30] H. Hal. The Red Book of the Exchequer, vol 2,
752. In a passage ‘ex libro Abbatis de Feversham’, it is
stated that Henry was prior of Montacute previous to his appointment as Abbot
of Glastonbury. Even though Lena Voss in her autobiography of Henry Blois is
unaware of this fact, it is here, a pertinent fact especially concerning that
which Father William Good had to say about Joseph of Arimathea’s burial place.
It also becomes relevant in Henry’s part in writing the De Inventione Sanctae Crucis Nostrae in Monte Acuto et De ductione
ejusdem, apud Waltham, see William Stubbs 1861 JH & J Parker.
[31] Geoffrey and Matilda had marched into southern Normandy
and seized a number of key castles around Argentan that had formed Matilda's
disputed dowry and had fought on the side of rebels in 1135.
[33] As O. J Padel
naively ponders: Another aspect is Geoffrey’s
purpose in writing his work, and its overall structure: is it primarily about
Arthur, although he occupies only the final portion of the work; or was it intended as an overall history of
Britain, with Arthur merely its high point
[34] For Example, as
I have mentioned, primogeniture posited as a Trojan custom. For inconsistency
we should look at Mempricus and Malin, Marganus and Cunedagius, Ferreux and
Porrex, which Tatlock puts down to thoughtless embellishment. The pseudo-history was initially composed as
a book to be presented to the Queen to be read at court as entertainment so
that Barons would accept Matilda more readily since her younger brother, William Adelin had died in the White Ship disaster
of 1120. Thus, we have a string of fictitious Queens presented in HRB, but
primogeniture was not a consistent theme for the plan of HRB and was only
really an essential feature of the initial pseudo-history. The fictitious
Queens were absorbed in the soup of transition from pseudo-history to Primary Historia. Ultimately there was a change of use of the
original pseudo-history as it became the Primary
Historia.
[35] Gildas states
that ‘I shall not follow the wrings of my own country, which (if there ever
were any of them) have been consumed in the fires of the enemy.
[36] Henry, writing
as Geoffrey, sets out in the dedication of HRB that no one had given a good
account of insular history. So
often while turning over in my own mind the many themes which might be
subject-matter of a book, my thoughts would fall upon the plan of writing a
history of the Kings of Britain, and in my musings thereupon it seemed to me a
marvel that, beyond such mention as Gildas and Bede have made of them in their
luminous tracts, I could find nothing concerning the kings that had dwelt in
Britain before the Incarnation of Christ, or even concerning Arthur and the
many others that succeed him after the Incarnation.
It
should not be forgotten though that this is a rationale given for Geoffrey
having written the book as no dedications were attached to the Primary Historia at Bec. The point is
that it still reflects Henry’s own view for the initial construction of the
pseudo-history for Matilda.
[37] Unfortunately
no chronicler makes a direct reference to Henry’s brief excursion into Wales
and again unfortunately just as we are about to get a description of Wales from
the author of GS the folios are missing. However, we shall see that the author
of GS is Henry and also he was at the defeat of the Welsh at Kidwelly.
[38] There is not
much in Tacitus which would concur with Henry’s set of events.
[39] In Huntingdon’s
letter to Warin, even though it is a précis of HRB, it seems odd that the very
brief account covering all the Arthuriad…. only supplies the skeletal outline
of the expanded form found in the First Variant and Vulgate HRB. We might
expect a certain amount of expansion on Arthuriana in the period between the
finalisation of the Primary Historia
finished in 1138 and the appearance of the First Variant version published in
1144. It is not a certainty that the
whole chivalric court ideal in an expanded form found in the Vulgate HRB was initially
part of the Primary Historia…. the original Historia Brittonum as Huntingdon referred to it. Other storyline details vary from EAW to
First Variant, but these additions cannot be explained by Henry’s polemically
motivated insertions such as the three Archbishops etc in the later First
Variant.
[40] Speculum, VI
222
[41] It is not by
accident that one of the 40 or so books donated by Henry Blois to Glastonbury
noted by Adam of Damerham is by Bernard of Clairvaux (on loving God) and no
doubt will have been used to confound Bernard in disputation.
[42] Henry could be
said to be a connoisseur of Architecture. Nicholas Riall, posits that ‘Henry had a lifelong fascination for
buildings and architectural innovation.
Quite probably the work undertaken at Glastonbury, St Cross, the
hospital of St Mary at Winchester and Wolvesey Palace was influenced by what
Henry saw of the development by Abbot Suger of the Monastic buildings at St
Denis’. We should not forget the edifice at Clugny either.
[43]
Dom David
Knowles, The Monastic Order in England: Strangely
enough, no contemporary was found to blame explicitly his retention of
Glastonbury during his 40 years of episcopal life, but whatever excuses he may
have found for himself from reasons of expediency, such a practice was
uncanonical, contrary to all monastic principle, and a precedent for the worst
abuses.
[44] Trans from M.J.
Franklin, English Episcopal Acta VIII, 205-211. See Appendix 1
[45] This
interesting observation shows that the pre-Norman abbey had control over lands
in Devon and has a bearing later in the investigation into the 601 charter of
Ineswitrin by the King of Devon.
[47] Gesta Stephani. ed. K.R. Potter &
R.H.C. Davis Clarendon 1976 p.29.
[49] Rhygyvarch's Life of St David. ‘and his monastery too is
declared the metropolis of the whole country, so that whoever ruled it should
be accounted archbishop’.
[51] ‘For wishes
fathering thought’s’ as Tatlock puts it, ‘we might look at the glorification
given to the quasi-primatial see of Winchester’. As an overall effect of having written HRB
and as a direct result of the hope of the Britons and the Merlin prophecies,
Henry II son Geoffrey and count Conan IV daughter Constance gave their son the
name Arturus. According to William of Newburgh, those who were said to have
long awaited the Arthur of tradition cherished high hopes of an actual Arthur.
[52]William of
Malmesbury. De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie.
No comments:
Post a Comment