The Following extract is from a book by Francis Lot titled 'The Island of Avalon', which sets out the evidence that Henry Blois used Geoffrey of Monmouth as a nom de plume.
Henry Blois and the Vita Merlini
Tatlock, [1] has penetrated , Geoffrey of Monmouth's HRB to elucidate its construction. He would be embarrassed by the blindness he suffered from not seeing Henry Blois as the author of the Merlin prophecies…. when he tells us that it is impossible to believe that ‘Geoffrey’ wrote all the prophecies. If Tatlock had not suffered from the same naivety that previous scholars were affected by(i.e. the inability to see that such tracts as Caradoc's Life of Gildas and Geoffrey's HRB were written by Henry Blois) , nearly every argument put forward to show that some prophecies were written by a separate individual other than Geoffrey would bolster the case for Henry Blois as the author of VM, HRB and the Merlin prophecies. Also he would therefore have understood why the set of Merlin Prophecies (with commentary) by John of Cornwall were also part of his fraud that prevented his authorship being discovered.
It is doubtful anyone will fully understand all the prophecies of Merlin in HRB, but Tatlock is misguided where he says it is hard to believe the prophecies ever had any intelligible meaning for anyone.[2] They were most certainly written by Henry Blois just as VM is also composed by him; and for the most part the merlin prophecies certainly had meaning originally.
For consistency, many of Merlin’s prophecies are repeated from Vulgate HRB into VM, but there are many additions. Once we understand the prophecies were written by Henry Blois, we can then see why many of the prophecies themselves (supposed to have come from a sixth century seer caled Merlin), substantiate parts of the pseudo-history comprising HRB, which, supposedly ‘Geoffrey’ wrote. The reason we may never fully understand every prophecy is that they have undergone editorial changes by Henry in the final HRB in the Vulgate version published in 1155 (although this is vastly misunderstood by our current experts such as Crick). These were followed by newer prophecies made by Merlin in VM and other prophecies supposedly by Taliesin. Ganieda’s introduction (Merlin's supposed Sister) into VM helped substantiate Merlin’s vaticinatory reliability... certainly with highly specific predictions which had recently transpired during the Anarchy.
As Henry Blois changed the sense to some prophecies and added to the original set (which we may suppose Abbot Suger possessed in an original libellus Merlini); it becomes difficult to divine the sense or purport on occasion and to whom the prophecy refers; yet at other times it is crystal clear that the prophecies speak of events which are wholly translatable to Henry’s world view and interests. Especially, once it is understood that Henry Blois is the author of the Primary Historia (that edition found at Bec which constitutes EAW and is so different from the Vulgate HRB), the First Variant and Vulgate HRB.
It would be foolish of anyone to presume to attempt to unveil the meaning of each prophecy as some prophecies have purposefully been squewed at a later date to hide Henry’s authorship when he has previously been less guarded. There seems to be a defining reason for writing the VM with several prophecies seemingly repeated from HRB. Not only has Henry Blois squewed some prophecies from HRB in VM (supposedly by Merlin himself), but he has added two more sets of prophecies which see clearly on other subjects not touched by Merlin, through Taliesin and Ganieda.
However, I feel that the whole of VM has a half-hearted approach in layout and purpose by comparison with the well-structured HRB. So, we should try to find out why Henry went to the trouble of producing the seemingly uninspired VM.
Henry wishes to demonstrate or corroborate that the updated prophecies in the Vulgate HRB (which differed from those known by contemporaries to have existed in the earlier libellus Merlini) were in fact written or understood to have existed (in another work) by the now dead ‘Geoffrey (in 1155)’…. and so Henry Blois wrote the VM. After 1155 skeptics who doubted the prophecies authenticity and antiquity were trying to discover who had added seditious prophecies to the originals.[3]
This is why many of the prophecies in VM are changed in purport from the Vulgate HRB’s new updated set (making some a lot less specific). In effect, by writing VM, Henry not only locates Merlin in antiquity (not accomplished in HRB), but has him surrounded and interacting with sixth century contemporaries; but most importantly the seditious prophecy which encourages the Celts to unite to re-establish the crown of Brutus is found in VM as well…. which puts its composition in between 1155-1158.
Therefore if ‘Geoffrey’ is now known to be dead, then those trying to find the person who added the most recent prophecy are non-plussed, because the same prophecy is in another of ‘Geoffrey’s’ works…. which, since he died in 1154, could not (as the logic goes) have been added to thwart Henry II. (As I have already covered, while Henry Blois was at Clugny in the years 1155-1158, he had tried to cause rebellion against Henry II by composing the updated prophecies about the resurgent Celts)
This same argument applies to the ‘Sixth’ in Ireland prophecy also. Gerald of Wales relates that the VM Merlin is clearer and comments on the modern insertions he detects in the prophecies saying that ‘not all these prophecies are probable, nor all fabulous’, but Gerald says King Henry II wants to read a copy. So, the idea that the VM was instigated to counter the suspicion that someone (in the 11 hundreds) was inciting sedition is not so silly if Henry II wanted to check to see if the prophecies were the same as those found in Vulgate HRB or the earlier separate composition now reffered to as the Libellus Merlini. We should not forget in the John of Cornwall set of Merlin prophecies , Henry Blois is predicted as the seventh returning as to Britain as an adopted son' as I have explained in the chapter on the JC prophecies.
The Vita Merlini is written in classical Latin hexameters; and considering what is achieved in converting prose source material from sources such as Isidore into this form of poem, ithe VM as a whole is a remarkable achievement. It has been paid little attention by commentators. Tatlock[4] believes the VM was written in 1154. I can say with certainty it was not written until after 1155, because of the reference to the 19 years (apple trees) of Stephen’s reign as we shall see shortly
The VM begins with a dedication much like the HRB. Where VM is supposedly dedicated to Robert de Chesney, most HRB copies (again supposedly written by Geoffrey) are supposedly dedicated to Robert of Gloucester. These two (along with Alexander) were detested by Henry Blois. Thus, by his dedications he is allaying any suspicion that either work might have been composed by him. Both works offer their dedicatees the humble offer of being corrected. In the Vita: I am preparing to sing the madness of the prophetic bard, and a humorous poem on Merlin; pray correct the song.
In the HRB:
Robert, Duke of Gloucester, show favour in such wise that it may be so corrected by thy guidance and counsel as that it may be held to have sprung, not from the poor little fountain of Geoffrey of Monmouth, but rather from thine own deep sea of knowledge, and to savour of thy salt.
Let me state for the record categorically, that no dedicatee ever received a copy of HRB or VM from Geoffrey of Monmouth. Modern scholars have derived their entire analysis of dating based on these late insertions of the dedicatees names into Vulgate HRB which were neither present in the Primary Historia (found at Bec i.e. that version of HRB précised in EAW) or the First Variant version constructed in 1144.
All dedications were added to the Vulgate HRB after the deaths of the dedicatees.[5] The converse applies to the VM. The difference is that when the VM circulated Robert de Chesney was alive until 1166. Unfortunately and by a huge coincidence, ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ aka the ‘Bishop of Asaph’ had been consigned to death by Henry Blois. This anomaly in Henry Blois’ methodology may explain the lack of copies which were propagated. (We should not forget either that the last fictitious act by the supposed Geoffrey was to sign (as the Bishop of Asaph) the Treaty of Winchester on the 6th of November 1153).
It may even be the case that the dedication to Robert in VM was added by Henry Blois after Robert de Chesney’s death.... just as he had done with all[6] the dedicatees in the copies of Vulgate HRB. Most commentators date the VM to 1154 as they assume Geoffrey died in 1154-5. The ploy of Henry Blois by appearing to ask correction is so that the reader is duped into thinking that he is humbly appealing to a contemporary patron or dedicatee.
Henry Blois makes a pretence in both HRB and VM as if his dedicatees were patrons of his work, but due to his ability in both cases to propel his work into the public domain, this is just part of his smoke and mirrors routine whereby Henry Blois appears to be the cleric ‘Geoffrey’ trying to advance his position.
Henry Blois is so clever at this that he gives the appearance (in the dedication of VM) of being seemingly dissatisfied with the acknowledgement which he received from Alexander (with the translation of the Merlin prophecies which supposedly had caused an interlude in the composition of HRB) and hopes for better with Robert de Chesney. (if Alexander had really given the prophecies to Geoffrey to translate why had Huntingdon not heard of the prophecies). This ridiculous misdirection by Henry Blois is discussed at length in a later chapter
Henry actually makes out that his last dedicatee in Lincoln (Alexander) did not recognise him by offering adequate reward. Writing the VM after 1155, Henry Blois predates his work to c.1148-9 by the use of the word ‘just’ (in the flattering prologue) regarding his fictional relationship with his fictitious patron Robert de Chesney: whom you have just succeeded, promoted to an honour that you deserve…
The reason for doing this was to show the continued patronage of the bishops of Lincoln. Alexander did not commission the translation of the prophecies of Merlin simply because they are all made up by Henry Blois. The dedications found in Vulgate HRB were written after the death of the dedicatees and (as I have shown) did not exist in the Primary Historia found at Bec (where no prophecies were even included in that first edition) or were either the First Variant (except the Exeter version which was a later addition).
No-one had ever met or seen Geoffrey of Monmouth in the flesh (except the fraudulent testimony of him having stood before Theobald of Bec with two unheard of witnesses) and although Henry Blois had consigned him to death in 1154-5, it is clear that the tone and compositional content of VM was authored in Henry’s time at Clugny between 1155-58. Henry authored VM while in a state of depression at his sudden loss of power, status and wealth when he suddenly left Britain after the council at Winchester in 1155 when Henry II had told him he had to relinquish his castles and also at that same council where the invasion of Ireland was discussed, This (not by coincidence) became one of the updated prophecies of Merlin.
The word ‘just’ implies Robert is recently installed. Therefore, many commentators have assumed the Vita was written in 1148. This point will be addressed when I cover the backdating of the HRB. For the moment the dedication has little bearing on our investigation. The false air of humility for the most part ensured for the contemporary reader that it ‘had been’ a commissioned work.
Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester, had no regard for Robert de Chesney. Henry had tried to secure the bishopric of Lincoln for one of his nephews but was thwarted by the pope and others. The pope agreed with the Lincoln chapter in their election and appointed Robert de Chesney as bishop. Chesney employed Foliot as a clerk at Lincoln. It is Gilbert Foliot's letters which give some background to Chesney's[7] election, showing that King Stephen of England and his brother Henry of Blois, attempted to secure Lincoln for one of their relatives.
The candidates put forward by King Stephen and Henry Blois were Henry de Sully, abbot of Frécamp, Gervase, abbot of Westminster, and Hugh, abbot of St Benet of Hulme. Henry de Sully was the son of William, Count of Chartres…. Stephen and Henry Blois’ eldest brother. William, as oldest, had not received his birth right as the eldest son to the comptal throne. He was considered too aggressive and mentally incompetent.[8]
Another candidate put forward for the bishopric of Lincoln was Gervase, the illegitimate son of King Stephen and his mistress, Damette. The third proposed candidate was Hugh, abbot of St Benet of Hulme. He was the illegitimate son of Stephen and Henry's brother who was Theobald II, Count of Champagne.
Henry Blois in VM makes a pretence.... flattering Robert de Chesney, calling him a leader and a teacher in the world… promoted to an honour that you deserve… and the clergy and the people all were seeking it for you. This is contrary to Henry’s real feelings, but uses this guile to hide his authorship. Henry also betrays himself as author with his constant reference to muses: were all to sing with my mouth and all the Muses were to accompany me, and betrays too much knowledge of their provenance established in Greek literature later on in the Vita. As I have already covered on the chapter about the Meusan plates.... he again refers to muses on his personal epitaph on the these Meusan plaques which he had commissioned himself. It is as if Henry believes he is inspired by muses. Again, to Alexander in the dedication to the prophecies of Merlin in HRB: Howbeit, since it so pleased you that Geoffrey of Monmouth should sound his pipe in these vaticinations, eschew thou not to show favour unto his minstrelsies, and if so be that he carol out of time or tune do thou with the ferule of thine own muses.
Henry Blois in VM then launches into the body and purpose of the Vita Merlini text: Well then, after many years had passed under many Kings, Merlin the Briton was held famous in the world. He was a King and prophet; to the proud people of the South Welsh he gave laws, and to the chieftains he prophesied the future. Reassuring his reader, Henry picks up the same Merlin that the HRB had made famous. But in VM he now consciously attempts to locate Merlin in a time by the historical cross referencing of bardic literature (of Myrddin, Taliesin) rather than the mythical un-defined and fabricated Merlin of HRB. (See note 2). This is the first time we hear that Merlin is a King.
Merlin had come to the war with Peredur and so had Rhydderch, King of the Cumbrians. Merlin is found lamenting as the battle took place around him: O dubious lot of mankind! as blood flowed all around. Henry assumes Cambri (Cymry), (now applied to the Welsh), was formerly used of the Britons just as he does in the HRB and has them making war on Gwenddoleu and routing the Scots. (see appendix 7)
Next in VM we find Merlin refusing food and filling the air with so many and so great complaints, new fury seized him and he departed secretly, and fled to the woods not wishing to be seen as he fled…
Henry Blois had departed secretly from England and he (like Merlin) hides himself away at Clugny hidden like a wild animal, he remained buried in the woods, found by no one and forgetful of himself and of his kindred. At Clugny, Henry reflects back on the years of his brother’s reign and reflects on how God has brought him from the most powerful man in Britain to be in self imposed exile. It is 1156 and Henry II is on the throne and King Henry II has confiscated six of Henry’s castles and virtually made him powerless. Henry Blois fled across the channel without permission just as Merlin reflects in VM. Christ, God of heaven, what shall I do? In what part of the world can I stay, since I see nothing here I can live on…. Here once there stood nineteen apple trees bearing apples every year; now they are not standing. Who has taken them away from me?
The 19 trees which are now not standing are the years that his brother was King, (fruitful years), but now he is dead. King Stephen reigned for 19 years from 1135-1154. Henry introduces the apples here as they are part of his design in the translocation of ‘Avalon’, the mystical island he had named in the HRB (inspired by the name of theButgundian town in the region of Bloislands).
Henry’s methodology in the creation of what became known as the ‘Matter of Britain’ is the creation of a ‘conflatory’ soup of detail where icons are subconsciously and hazily cross referenced. Through this confusion, allowance is given for the appearance of inaccuracy through the ages. A connection of apples and the county of Somerset leave no doubt in the readers mind that the Avalon of HRB is synonymous with an Insula Pomorum through Barinthus. refered to in VM and obviously in the interpolated part of Malmesbury's DA (given into the hands of Henry Blois).
Henry further opines in the persona of Merlin and sees that it is the will of God that he has been brought low so quickly from such lofty office. He cannot hide from the fact that many blame his interference in political affairs for much of the cause of the Anarchy: Now I see them - now I do not! Thus the fates fight against me and for me, since they both permit and forbid me to see. Now I lack the apples and everything else. The trees stand without leaves, without fruit; I am afflicted by both circumstances since I cannot cover myself with the leaves or eat the fruit.
Henry, now at Clugny with Peter the Venerable his mentor (who he refers to as a ‘Wolf in old age’), marvels that Clugny, the greatest of all religious houses, is in financial trouble. HenryBlois has to bail out the establishment and feed 400 monks out of his own personal wealth. Peter had secreted and moved Henry’s wealth abroad after attending the last council of King Henry II’s court held at Winchester in September 1155. It was at this court they had discussed invading Ireland so that it might be given to King Henry's brother. This is why Henry Blois assumes the invasion would take place sooner rather than later and includes the prophecy about the 6th (which was Henry II) invading Ireland.
Peter the Venerable in old age had found himself unable to turn around the decline at Clugny and Henry Blois relays this as if conversing with a wolf in the wood metaphorically: You, O wolf, dear companion, accustomed to roam with me through the secluded paths of the woods and meadows, now can scarcely get across fields; hard hunger has weakened both you and me. You lived in these woods before I did and age has whitened your hairs first. You have nothing to put into your mouth and do not know how to get anything, at which I marvel, since the wood abounds in so many goats and other wild beasts that you might catch. Perhaps that detestable old age of yours has taken away your strength and prevented your following the chase. Now, as the only thing left to you, you fill the air with howlings, and stretched out on the ground you extend your wasted limbs.”
As with some split personalities (which undoubtedly Henry Blois was), Henry Blois was shy and suffered from bouts of depression and certainly this must have been the case in 1155. The impetus for much of the updating of the Merlin prophecies (which we shall see) is designed to unseat Henry II. Henry Blois as writer of VM now sets the scene of the madman Merlin being overheard by a traveller in the glades of the Calidonian[9] forest: Now this traveller was met by a man from the court of Rhydderch, King of the Cumbrians, who was married to Ganieda and happy in his beautiful wife. She was sister to Merlin and, grieving over the fate of her brother, she had sent her retainers to the woods and the distant fields to bring him back.
Merlin is found lamenting in a long naturist soliloquy. The traveller sent to bring him back to his sister then sings in the hope of soothing his madness by music on the cither about Guendoloena. O the dire groanings of mournful Guendoloena! O the wretched tears of weeping Guendoloena! I grieve for wretched dying Guendoloena! There was not among the Welsh a woman more beautiful than she… for she does not know where the prince has gone, or whether he is alive or dead; and
Ganieda weeps with her, and without consolation grieves for her lost brother…. so great is the grief that consumes them both. Not otherwise did Sidonian Dido[10] grieve when the ships had weighed anchor and Aeneas was in haste to depart; so most wretched Phyllis groaned and wept when Demophon did not come back at the appointed time; thus Briseis wept for the absent Achilles.[11]
Merlin’s madness is gradually assuaged by the music and he became mindful of himself, and he recalled what he used to be, and he wondered at his madness and he hated it. He then asked to be led to the court of King Rhydderch. Gaineda his sister was there at court and he was reunited with his wife Guendoloena.
Henry Blois’ artifice throughout the Vita Merlini is to express his views using Merlin as a voice piece. He also does this in the same way through Ganieda and Taliesin. Henry Blois includes in the VM what can be termed as ‘padding’. Amongst this, the real reasons for writing the Vita are revealed.
I have no wish to bore the reader by traipsing through the VM, but it lays the groundwork which shows Henry’s authorial subtlety not only as a fabricator of tales but also the guile he possesses in corroborating these tales. As the narration of the Vita continues, Merlin points out his sister’s affair to the King by correctly predicting the calamitous death of someone. His sister tries to hide her infidelity by ridiculing Merlin’s prediction in the hope of proving her innocence against the accusation of the affair. Merlin goes back to the woods; he unselfishly frees his wife Guendoloena from his marriage bond, and then for some unknown reason decides to kill her suitor. Henry’s sources (for what can only be called narrative filler) are from Irish, Welsh, and Scottish sources.
After these distractions Henry Blois again gets down to the real business behind his construction of the VM and remembers he is Merlin in the sixth century and he is now on: the top of a lofty mountain the prophet was regarding the courses of the stars, speaking to himself out in the open air. “What does this ray of Mars mean? Does its fresh redness mean that one King is dead and that there shall be another? So I see it, for Constantine has died and his nephew Conan, through an evil fate and the murder of his uncle, has taken the crown and is King.
Henry reminds us of the Merlin from the HRB; and we are now in the reign of Aurelius Conan, which according to the HRB began about two years after the voyage of Arthur to Avalon and lasted for about two years putting us around 542.[12] Henry Blois pays little account to dating, more an overall chronology as seen in the HRB. The Battle of Arderydd where Henry Blois has set the stage for Merlin at the beginning of the poem, was fought about 577. However, Henry’s aim is to anchor the Merlin of the HRB to the Welsh Rhydderch so that he can set his narrative in a contemporaneous era. The narrative is only secondary to his main purpose. Henry’s purpose is to manipulate events by his audience believing the prophecies of Merlin come true, both from the HRB and the VM.
Henry of Blois posing as Geoffrey of Monmouth just uses the backdrop of Merlin in the woods and the characters he involves, to set a stage ready for his polemic. The apparent disjointed composition of the VM is caused by inconsequential situation and narrative which sets up his main speakers, Ganieda, Merlin and Taliesin, which all speak to Henry Blois’ agenda.
We now find Merlin in the woods again in a house and his sister is supplying him food. Then wandering about the house Merlin would look at the stars while he prophesied (for example the following), which he knew were going to come to pass as Bede and Gildas had related.
“O madness of the Britons whom a plenitude, always excessive, of riches exalts more than is seemly. They do not wish to enjoy peace but are stirred up by the Fury’s goad. They engage in civil wars and battles between relatives, and permit the church of the Lord to fall into ruin; the holy bishops they drive into remote lands.
This sentiment exactly is reiterated in the HRB by ‘Geoffrey’ rather than through the supposed words of Merlin.
The nephews of the Boar of Cornwall cast everything into confusion, and setting snares for each other engage in a mutual slaughter with their wicked swords. They do not wish to wait to get possession of the Kingdom lawfully, but seize the crown.
This could not be more precise as a description of Henry Blois and his brother Stephen. However, this reference to the Boar of Cornwall, which his audience associates with Arthur, betrays Henry Blois’ real affiliations and motivations as he sees himself and his brother as part of the heritage of ancient Britons from Brittany who emigrated during the 6th century when the Saxons encroached on Dumnonia. We start to understand why Henry Blois (as Geoffrey) has such a positive attitude toward Brittany[13] throughout the HRB. Contrarily, we can understand why he holds the Welsh in such low regard (as witnessed in GS) as they revolted against his brother Stephen and Henry himself had met the 'savages' in 1136 defending Kidwelly. Yet, commentators have been puzzled by this lack of patriotism, believing ‘Geoffrey’ was Welsh and from Monmouth. Henry’s hate of the (contemporary) Welsh witnessed in HRB is plainly seen in GS and stems from his time in 1136 in Southern Wales.
The fourth[14] from them shall be more cruel and more harsh still; him shall a wolf from the sea conquer in fight and shall drive defeated beyond the Severn through the realms of the barbarians.
Until one understands Henry changing the purport of previous prophecies it is impossible to make head nor tail as he changes icons. Originally in the libellus Merlini composition, the sea Wolf was the Danes. The description in this case of the sea wolf is in reference to the Empress Matidla’s return to England. The prophecy specifically relates to her brother Robert of Gloucester who accompanies her across the Channel to land near Arundel. Robert of Gloucester had left Arundel immediately to rally forces from Bristol before King Stephen had arrived. It was rumoured that Henry Blois had made a pact with Robert of Gloucester to install Matilda and oust his brother from the throne. It was clear that, in the latter part of 1138, his Brother was deliberately snubbing Henry Blois for the election of Archbishop of Canterbury. But this historical fact is specifically skirted over (strangely enough) by the author of the GS.
Henry Blois' meeting with Robert of Gloucester is mentioned in cursory manner in GS simply because it was undeniable. Many afterward knew the meeting had taken place. However, as the reader will realise, the gist of the GS always maintains that Henry had only ‘appeared’ to change allegiance and the author of GS portrays a position whereby Henry constantly supported Stephen. The GS maintains the view…. what may have seemed a change of allegiance outwardly…. was in appearance only. The GS storyline maintains that events dictated a change of allegiance for Henry Blois, as a more propitious course of action at that moment in time. Henry would have us believe in GS that he was always loyal to Stephen. This meeting of Robert and Henry suggests otherwise.
However, since the episode where Bishop Roger of Salisbury was abused and more specifically church rights of Canon law were broken…. Henry Blois, who was already disappointed with his brother in other previous disputes, not so much plays both sides, but has had enough of the discord which prevailed throughout the country through his own actions installing his brother on the throne. Henry had definitively been thwarted and the Archbishopric had been bestowed on Theobald of Bec.
However, through the machinations of Henry Blois, who had met Robert of Gloucester secretly, a full on battle was avoided for the present. Henry Blois met Robert on the road while Robert of Gloucester was intent with helping his sister at Arundel. Henry Blois dissuaded Robert from an attack on his brother’s forces which were presently besieging Matilda at Arundel. Henry Blois in his own words[15] from the GS: as though he had not caught up with the Earl, came to the King with a large body of cavalry.
Henry had manipulated events so that his brother King Stephen would not have to besiege Arundel or witness a staged full on battle. Henry had cleverly come up with the plan of escorting Matilda to her brother’s castle in Bristol. In a way, Matilda’s and Robert’s plans were temporarily defused and they were then both in Bristol (by the Severn).
Now back to the following prophecy in the VM which is fairly complicated: This latter shall besiege Cirencester with a blockade and with sparrows, and shall overthrow its walls to their very bases.
The obvious inference is that ‘the latter’ is the fourth just spoken of i.e. Stephen.
At Cirencester in 1141 the Empress and Robert, Earl of Gloucester built a ‘motte and bailey’ castle near the Abbey church[16] and in 1142 Stephen found it virtually undefended and attacked. He captured the inhabitants and Castle with the rampart and stockade and burnt it to its foundation. According to William of Malmesbury,[17] Stephen must have come looking for the Empress who had just escaped the besieged castle at Oxford, but she was thereafter at Wallingford. Stephen might have heard of the amassing of the Empress’s troops there, but they had recently moved off and thus it was easy to capture and destroy. However, Henry as ‘Geoffrey’ in VM has another objective in mind. He wishes to squew and confirm the words of Merlin found in HRB which appeared in Henry’s first edition Libellus Merlini (written while Stephen was alive). This reference to Cirencester was squewed in VM to conform (corroborate) with the Battle of Cirencester spoken of by Bede which was fought in 628. ‘Geoffrey’s’ original allusion to Cirencester is that Gormund made war upon Careticus, and after many battles betwixt them, drove him fleeing from city unto city until he forced him into Cirencester and did there beleaguer him. Both Gormundus the African and Isembardus the Frank, allied to the Saxons, carry out the siege. Gormundus the African is wholly an invention by ‘Geoffrey’ as he tries to concoct history along the lines of history found in the insular annals by employing fictional characters.
The later Wace version of HRB has tinder-carrying sparrows which is also found in Brut Tysilio which as we shall see later has had Henry Blois’ hand upon it; seen clearly in the references to Walter and reference to Caradoc of Llancarfan. Wace adds that Cirencester was, after that event, called Sparrow-chester. There appears to be no etymology that will explain Sparewenchestre except like so many other instances ‘Geoffrey’ loves his etymology and will create a story round it. Gaimar[18] gives a slightly longer account, making Cerdic (as below) the leader of the besieging force, but also we shall see from Gaimar’s epilogue that Henry Blois has definitely had his hand in this publication also. The reference in VM is the fire that Henry saw at Cirencester with his brother. We know he was there as the detail is good in the GS. Tatlock has pursued the source of most of Geoffrey’s fabrications and it appears nearly every fabrication or embellished episode has a definable source of inspiration; but these events and the names seem to be taken from the Chanson de Geste Gormont et Isembard and are ‘melanged’ with Guthrum's occupation of Cirencester in the year 879, mentioned in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ASC). Coincidentally, Seginus Dux of the Allobroges, Henry’s family’s own territorial people around Blois appear in the Chanson which ante-dates ‘Geoffrey’ and he probably associated the name with Sewinus archbishop of Sens…. again, in Blois lands.
Before Cerdic could conquer
Much from the Britons.
Then was Cirencester besieged.
But by the negligence of the Britons
It was set on fire by sparrows,
Which carried fire and sulphur into the town.
And set light to many houses.
And the besiegers who were outside
Made an assault with great courage.
Then was this city conquered. (Gaimar)
In VM we find more detail concerning Robert of Gloucester: He shall seek the Gauls in his ship, but shall die beneath the weapon of a King.
Robert went to France to get aid from Matilda's husband, Geoffrey IV of Anjou, and returned to England with the Empress’ very young son Henry, (later to be King Henry II). Robert of Gloucester died at Bristol Castle, where he had previously imprisoned King Stephen. Gervase of Canterbury places Robert's death in 1146 and this date is corroborated by the Annals of Winchester. The Annals of Margan Abbey, has October 31, 1147, and the date John of Hexham gives is 1148. However, Henry Blois seems to understand more about Robert of Gloucester’s death than historians portray. No chronicler attests how Robert died, but we shall see further evidence here in the VM that Henry assumes his audience is apprised of the same information he has…. and hence his allusion to the ‘weapon of a King’.
Once we understand Geoffrey of Monmouth’s, (Henry of Blois’) ploy of mixing his own recent prophecies, updating them, and sometimes changing the sense from the previous prophecies and weaving his inventions around the first set of prophecies so that Merlin appears to relate to certain topics consistently; we can then understand in the later Vulgate HRB and VM prophecies that the sense has been changed. Commentators on the VM (like San-Marte)[19] naïvely believed the prophecies portend events further than 1158. Some try to unlock the meaning of the prophecies believing they are consistent and actually did predict events from the sixth century. This is plain nonsense! Henry Blois in his construction of the prophecies uses the artifice of splicing what is known history and interlacing it with his own knowledge of recent events which are also couched as prophecy from that same ancient era when Merlin is supposed to have prophesied. Henry, on occasion refers back to his own fabricated pseudo-history in the HRB which establishes further both Merlin’s prophetic powers and HRB’s historicity as credible for those that are gullible. Henry confirms known historical events which add to the aura of prescience and here in VM makes the effort to attach Merlin’s prophecies to Welsh and northern bardic tradition. Once the authorship of the VM is established and once this mechanism is perceived, it is easier to pick out which mode of deception Henry is using. Where the unravelling of the sense of the prophecy becomes easier is when we understand the concerns and interests which Henry has been involved with.
The reason for the mix of anachronistic events is to seem more like biblical prophecies which have no strict chronology but ‘see’ through time indiscriminately. Part of Henry’s devise here is to give the air of antiquity; as if Merlin’s Prophecies were all foreseen back in the dark ages. Much of the archaic content which Henry employs can be understood by his audience historically as seemingly accurate; especially when considered in conjunction with the false history as presented HRB. These are events which already have passed, but which Merlin supposedly predicted correctly and have verifiably come to fruition or can be understood historically. The overall effect of a mystical prophet foretelling of events that his audience can directly relate to (some of which is set on a contemporaneous stage of recent history), is testament to Henry’s illusory brilliance.
Rhydderch shall die, after whom long discord shall hold the Scots and the Cumbrians for a long time until Cumbria shall be granted to his growing tusk. The Welsh shall attack the men of Gwent, and afterwards those of Cornwall and no law shall restrain them. Wales shall rejoice in the shedding of blood; O people always hateful to God, why do you rejoice in bloodshed?[20] Wales shall compel brothers to fight and to condemn their own relatives to a wicked death. The troops of the Scots shall often cross the Humber and, putting aside all sentiment, shall kill those who oppose them.
Henry’s complaint against the Southern Welsh, the Northern Welsh, the Scottish and the Cornish is that they always fought amongst themselves. In various places in the HRB and Vita, Henry (as Geoffrey) bemoans this tribal hate as the main cause for the depletion of the Briton’s power before the Saxons and Danes arrived. Henry sees these old Britons, (more properly the Celts), clearly as relatives with the Bretons because of the exodus. What has confused most commentators with ‘Geoffrey’s’ seemingly contradictory stance (regarding the Welsh especially), is that Henry personally hates the Welsh of his present day, but understands that they constitute part of what he sees as a ‘once ancient independent Christian culture’ prior to the Saxon invasion and prior to Augustine’s arrival. Henry Blois as a Norman is fully cognisant of the early establishment of Christianity in Britain, being concerned with this issue from his earliest days at Glastonbury, as we shall get to when covering DA.
As I have implied already, Henry Blois tries to manipulate events against Henry II by rousing sentiments of these old Britons as a collective, through his prophecies. This takes place after his self-imposed exile between 1155- 1157. However, the above prophecy is pure skimble-skamble based on what Henry knows of British history from ASC, Bede and Gildas.
Not with impunity, however, for the leader shall be killed; he shall have the name of a horse[21] and because of that fact shall be fierce. His heir shall be expelled and shall depart from our territories. Scots, sheathe your swords which you bare too readily; your strength shall be unequal to that of our fierce people.
Henry was no fan of the Scots either and especially King David as we shall clearly witness when I cover the GS. Anyway, not wishing to bore the reader, it is worth looking at these prophecies as some are more current than the latest version of prophecies which constitute those found in Vulgate HRB.
The city of Dumbarton[22] shall be destroyed and no King shall repair it for an age until the Scot shall be subdued in war.
Carlisle, spoiled of its shepherd, shall lie vacant until the sceptre of the Lion shall restore its pastoral staff.
Carlisle was destroyed by the Northmen and restored by William Rufus. In 1133 Henry Ist, the “Lion of Justice” of the Prophecies, re-established its bishopric. Æthelwulf (1133-1155), an Englishman, who Henry Ist had established at Carlisle in 1102 died in 1156. It was a recent event at the time of writing of the VM and Henry either knew the Bishop personally or had news of his death by a traveller en route to Rome. It is most likely the sense of ‘the spoiling of its shepherd,’[23] but Carlisle has its relevance because Henry is portraying that Merlin is predicting about things in the north as Henry has now located him there in VM. Especially, this would have relevance to Henry’s audience of VM as this now is the most recent event to have come to fruition by Merlin the seer all the way back in antiquity. Our Merlin has a remarkable focus on events just prior to and including the Anarchy and to the time when Henry is writing (the year after the nineteen years of his brother’s reign).
Segontium and its towers and mighty palaces shall lament in ruins until the Welsh return to their former domains.
The ruins of the old Roman station of Segontium are on the hill above the modern city of Carnarvon. It was situated on higher ground to the east giving a good view of the Menai Straits. There was a ‘motte and bailey’ castle in the area in Henry’s day, but it is doubtful Henry made it this far north in 1136 to have knowledge of the location personally. However, having read the Roman annals, Henry Blois would know Segontium was founded by Agricola in 77 or 78 AD after he had conquered the Ordovices in North Wales. The reason for naming Segontium is it implies Merlin knew the place by that name; thus giving the illusion of antiquity for the VM prophecies. More importantly, Merlin is again seen to be prophesying about things further north than the Merlin Ambrosius of Vulgate HRB. ‘Geoffrey’ ever faithful to his illusion of the prophecies coming from a Brythonic Merlin, proposes a location with Roman ruins so his audience would be fooled into thinking the prophecies so old that even the old name was current when the prophecies were told. The Earl of Chester, Hugh d'Avranches, gained Norman control of north Wales in 1088 by building three castles; one at Caernarfon. The Welsh recaptured Gwynedd in 1115, and Caernarfon Castle came into the possession of the Welsh princes and so Merlin is acquitted again with the powers of accurate prophecy.
Porchester[24] shall see its broken walls in its harbour until a rich man with the tooth of a wolf shall restore it.
The city of Richborough shall lie spread out on the shore of its harbour and a man from Flanders shall re-establish it with his crested ship.[25]
The fifth from him shall rebuild the walls of St David’s and shall bring back to her the pall lost for many years.[26]
The prophecy here changes in time as Henry Blois harks directly back to the narrative of HRB confirming material derived from the British annals (from which the HRB was constructed) and concerning the emigration to Brittany at the advent of the Saxon encroachment.
The City of the Legions shall fall into thy bosom, O Severn (Sabrina), and shall lose her citizens for a long time, and these the Bear in the Lamb shall restore to her when he shall come.[27]
Saxon Kings shall expel the citizens and shall hold cities, country, and houses for a long time. From among them thrice three dragons shall wear the crown. Two hundred monks shall perish in Leicester[28]and the Saxon shall drive out her ruler and leave vacant her walls. He who first among the Angles shall wear the diadem of Brutus[29]shall repair the city laid waste by slaughter. A fierce people shall forbid the sacrament of confirmation throughout the country, and in the house of God shall place images of the gods.
This last section of VM prophecies is set out to appear to conform to known events on the Saxon arrival and the eradication of the British church. ‘Rome’, in the next prophecy, refers to Augustine of Canterbury who became Archbishop. Henry Blois however, by stating he is bringing God ‘back’ establishes the fact that he was not the founder of the Church of the Britons and this fact would not be lost on Papal authorities regarding Henry’s application for metropolitan for Winchester. Therefore, Henry’s intended polemic is that primacy should not be held by Canterbury when both Winchester (by the accounts in HRB) and Glastonbury by the accounts in GR3 and DA (and Caradoc) clearly were established before Canterbury (even though fictionally by Henry’s interpolations).
Afterward Rome shall bring God back through the medium of a monk and a holy priest shall sprinkle the buildings with water and shall restore them again and shall place shepherds in them. Thereafter many of them shall obey the commands of the divine law and shall enjoy heaven by right. An impious people full of poison shall violate that settlement and shall violently mix together right and wrong.[30] They shall sell their sons and their kinsmen into the furthest countries beyond the sea and shall incur the wrath of the Thunderer.[31] O wretched crime! that man whom the founder of the world created with liberty, deeming him worthy of heaven, should be sold like an cow and be dragged away with a rope. You miserable man, you who turned traitor to your master when first you came to the throne; you shall yield to God.[32] The Danes shall come upon [you] with their fleet and after subduing the people shall reign for a short time and shall then be defeated and retire. Two shall rule over them whom the serpent forgetful of his treaty shall strike with the sting in his tail instead of with the garland of his sceptre.[33]
This section of the prophecies would seem to be Merlin referring to historical events in the Saxon and Dane era which Henry Blois’ audience would naturally accept as historic events, especially the Danes coming in ships. It is however, dispersed with allusions to recent events which they can also recognise. We see here Henry Blois’ mechanism of employing prophecy so it appears as genuine like biblical prophecy operates i.e. the prophet sees across time and picks out events from different eras as they appear to him.
In the next section, Henry refers to Neustrians[34] as if he has no connection with them and to inappropriate behaviour of the Bishops in his time.
Then the Normans, sailing over the water in their wooden ships, bearing their faces in front and in back, shall fiercely attack the Angles with their iron tunics and their fierce swords, and shall destroy them and possess the field.[35] They shall subjugate many realms to themselves and shall rule foreign peoples for a time until the fury, flying all about, shall scatter her poison over them.[36] Then peace and faith and all virtue shall depart, and on all sides throughout the country the citizens shall engage in battles.[37] Man shall betray man and no one shall be found a friend.[38] The husband, despising his wife, shall draw near to harlots, and the wife, despising her husband, shall marry whom she desires.[39] There shall be no honour kept for the church and the order shall perish. Then shall bishops bear arms, and armed camps shall be built. Men shall build towers and walls in holy ground, and they shall give to the soldiers what should belong to the needy. Carried away by riches they shall run along on the path of worldly things and shall take from God what the holy bishop shall forbid.[40] Three shall wear the diadem after whom shall be the favour of the newcomers. A fourth shall be in authority whom awkward piety shall injure until he shall be clothed in his father, so that girded with boar’s teeth he shall cross the shadow of the helmeted man.[41] Four shall be anointed, seeking in turn the highest things, and two shall succeed who shall so wear the diadem that they shall induce the Gauls to make war on them.[42] The sixth shall overthrow the Irish and their walls, and pious and prudent shall renew the people and the cities.[43]
When he has made these predictions, Henry Blois, as far as he can into the present, reminds his reader that they are from the same source as those prophecies of Merlin found in the HRB and the libellus Merlini. However, not only has Henry Blois updated prophecies in the Vulgate HRB, but now he has come up with new prophecies. Some which are designed to have us believe that Merlin is connected to the north and others which have insights into the anarchy which were not in the original updated prophecies found in Vulgate HRB.
All these things I formerly predicted more at length to Vortigern in explaining to him the mystic war of the two dragons when we sat on the banks of the drained pool.
It is silly to think that the composer of VM is any different from the author of HRB and most commentators assume ‘Geoffrey’ is the author of VM, but there are those who think VM was written by another author other than ‘Geoffrey’. It is just too obvious that the composer of the Prophecies of Merlin wrote 'Geoffrey's' HRB. The most important device which locates Avalon at Glastonbury is found in VM as Henry Blois now informs us it is called Insula Pomorum. It is silly to believe that the prophecies were written by any other than Henry Blois including those of John of Cornwall with the ridiculous commentary and supposedly translated for Henry Blois' friend. (see chapter on JC prophecies). We just have to understand that ‘Geoffrey’ is Henry Blois.
Henry Blois convinces his audience these prophecies were made while sat next to Vortigern. His gambit of remixing some of the prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB and the Libellus Merlini are so that the prophecies of Merlin in the Vulgate HRB and those found in the VM are convincingly contemporaneous i.e. they are consistent and came from Merlin…. who ‘Geoffrey’ had originally founded upon Nennius’ boy Ambrosius.[44]
Suspicion must have been much more acute as the updated Vulgate prophecies were published in 1155 and seen to have additions which were not in the Libellus Merlini. William of Newburgh (much later) angrily protests against them and to the erroneous historicity of HRB. William of Newburgh who wrote around 1190 had problems with ‘Geoffrey’ challenging the authenticity of the Arthurian legends. ‘Geoffrey’s’ pseudo-history did not concur with Gildas. William of Newburgh wrote: It is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons.
He also says: only a person ignorant of ancient history would have any doubt how shamelessly and impudently he lies in almost everything. (Especially that bit of history where Arthur is defiant and never subject to Rome as Geoffrey portrays, rather than the real version of Tacitus or Gildas).
William of Newburgh comments again: But in our own days, instead of this practice, a writer has emerged who, in order to expiate the faults of these Britons, weaves the most ridiculous figments of imagination around them, extolling them with the most impudent vanity above the virtues of the Macedonians and the Romans. This man is called Geoffrey, and his other name is Arthur, because he has taken up the fables about Arthur from the old, British figments, has added to them himself, and has cloaked them with the honourable name of history by presenting them with the ornaments of the Latin tongue....
Since these events agree with the historical truth set forth by the Venerable Bede, all the things which that man took care to write about Arthur and either his predecessors after Vortigern or his successors, can be seen to have been partly concocted by himself and partly by others, either because of a frenzied passion for lying or in order to please the Britons, most of whom are known to be so primitive that they are said still to be awaiting the return of Arthur, and will not suffer themselves to hear that he is dead....
For how could the old historians, to whom it was a matter of great concern that nothing worthy of memory should be omitted from what was written, who indeed are known to have committed to memory quite unimportant things, how could they have passed over in silence so incomparable a man, whose deeds were notable above all others? How, I ask, could they have suppressed with silence Arthur and his acts, this king of the Britons who was nobler than Alexander the Great.....
With even greater daring he has published the fallacious prophecies of a certain Merlin, to which he has in any event added many things himself, and has translated them into Latin, [thus offering them] as if they were authentic prophecies, resting on immutable truth....[45]
There was suspicion the prophecies were not authentic also. Abbot Suger had commented on several prophecies before 1150 and the impression of early provenance provided by the interpolation of Merlin prophecies into Orderic’s work has given modern scholars the illusion of early transmission of those found in Vulgate. (The device used borders on childish as I have shown on the chapter on Orderic, but amazingly modern scholars by droves are smitten by Henry Blois' fraud unable to see that the most powerful man in Britain and on the continent was capable of such overwhelming misinformation and the reasons for its dissemination) /
The illusion of a continuous unadulterated set of prophecies is also aided by the back dating of Vulgate HRB through its dedicatees and the era they lived in (i.e. 1139 when the Bec version was discovered), but there is less evidence of suspicion on the prophecies themselves (recorded) than that of the dubious historicity of the main body of HRB.
The publication of John of Cornwall’s set of Merlin prophecies by Henry Blois greatly aids the illusion that the prophecies were originally of Brythonic origin. William Newburgh’s comments about historians like Bede: who indeed are known to have committed to memory quite unimportant things, how could they have passed over in silence so incomparable a man, whose deeds were notable above all others?... should be enough to point out that not everyone was gullible. We should be very wary of Nennius’ testimony because we can see blatantly that Henry Blois actively promotes Nennius as Gildas’ work…. but I shall cover this shortly.
Henry reveals too much contemporary information in the VM prophecies. His vanity got the better of him specifically alluding to himself in the prophecies. However, because modern commentators believe ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ died in 1155, they believe it is the reason behind the Vita Merlini having had so much less exposure. The real reason for its apparent lack of readership is that because of its lack of historicity (and the fact it was in metered rhyme) it did not get copied as much in the monastic system i.e. it was not considered important enough to be copied as extensively as ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB.[46]
The veracity of Merlin’s prophecies is often given credence by scholars asking: How could any prediction of the ‘sixth’ invading Ireland be a fraud since the invasion was not accomplished until 1171? It is coincidental that this is the year of Henry Blois’ death. It has been this particular prediction which alludes to an event after ‘Geoffrey’s’ supposed death, which has for the most part provided the aura of prescience and substantiated Merlin’s credibility as a prophet.
For the less gullible commentator, Henry’s knowledge of the Winchester court discussion about invading Ireland subtracts from any predictive ability ascribed to Merlin. Merlin’s predictive ability has especially been given credence by the insertion/interpolation of the passage concerning some Merlin prophecies into Orderic which also refers to the ‘sixth’ invading Ireland. Some commentators date the interpolated chapter on Merlin’s prophecies in Orderic to 1136 or thereabout. Given the nature of the prophecies it is not only preposterous but naïve to think that the sixth King, i.e. Henry II, could be predicted to invade Ireland from this early date.[47] (given also that Ganieda's prophecies in VM cover the main events of the Anarchy).
At this point in VM, it is as if Henry Blois has just remembered why he is writing the Vita and suddenly ends these prophecies from Merlin and returns to the narrative storyline of the mad Merlin. Henry closes this prophetic section by mentioning Gildas and names Taliesin.... and records Taliesin’s recent instruction under Gildas, which immediately provides contemporaneity for Merlin with Gildas and Taliesin.
But you, dear sister, go home to see the King dying and bid Taliesin come, as I wish to talk over many things with him; for he has recently come from the land of Brittany where he learned sweet philosophy of Gildas the Wise[48].”
Ganieda returned home and found that Taliesin had returned and the prince was dead and the servants were sad. She fell down lamenting among her friends.
Gildas becomes highly relevant in Part II of the book when we consider Henry Blois’ hand in the manipulation of Glastonbury material in GR3 and DA and obviously Gildas' close association with Glastonbury as posited in the Life of Gildas written by Henry Blois using Caradoc's name as author.
We now hear Ganieda speaking about the death of the King. With only slight variation, it is as if Henry Blois was undergoing the same internal lamenting for his brother but employing Ganieda as his mouthpiece. It is couched as a poetical and thoughtful tribute to her husband Rhydderch.
As I have made plain earlier, Henry Blois has lost his power, his castles and his brother. The vision of his future when he wrote the original Libellus Merlini prophecies has now been played out. Henry Blois continues on until, (still speaking through Ganieda), he laments leaving all his nephews which he had fought so hard to elevate into positions of power in England and laments leaving his walls of Winchester and clothes himself in the monk’s mantle (as he is at the time of writing VM), in his present state at Clugny.
Therefore I leave you, ye nobles, ye lofty walls, household gods, sweet sons, and all the things of the world. In company with my brother I shall dwell in the woods and shall worship God with a joyful heart, clothed in a black mantle.”
Henry Blois is setting up his next astonishing piece of phony association (obviously from the welsh bardic tradition of Myrddin and Taliesin's relation), by bringing Taliesin and Merlin together with the most cursory introduction: Meanwhile Taliesin had come to see Merlin the prophet who had sent for him to find out what wind or rain storm was coming up, for both together were drawing near and the clouds were thickening. He drew the following illustrations under the guidance of Minerva[49] his associate.
Henry Blois uses his scholastic knowledge of previous writers through the ‘voice piece’ of Taliesin to propagate the propaganda for his new vision concerning Glastonbury. He has based much of the setting of the VM on records from the Book of Taliesin who is also contemporaneous with Rydderch, so they provide the anchor of contemporaneity with the fictitious Merlin (who had supposedly seen so much concerning events in the Anarchy). Henry Blois as author of VM has also extracted ideas from Irish[50] and Scottish sources. Some of the information in Taliesin’s speech in VM has been traced back to men such as Pliny, Solinus, Martianus Capella, Pomponius Mela and Rabanus Maurus. Henry Blois posing as Geoffrey of Monmouth through extracts taken from Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae[51] now speaks as if in the words of Taliesin. However, he starts this long nature episode reverting to Aristotle: Out of nothing the Creator of the world produced four [elements][52]
Henry then follows on with a lengthy piece on origins and discussions on various topics concerning stars, dragons and fish etc. Just as Isidore of Seville covers a variety of naturist topics; so does ‘Geoffrey’.
Isidore also leads into his discourse on Islands much the same way as Geoffrey of Monmouth does starting with Britain: Of these [islands] Britain is said to be the foremost and best, producing in its fruitfulness every single thing.
He then proceeds by describing the various British blessings found in the country culminating with the pleasing baths found in the city of Bath. Henry’s aim is to refer back to the HRB before launching into his next piece which names Bladud from the HRB.
In the HRB, Bladud is the founder of Bath. We can actually witness Henry’s mind at work here. He is enabling himself to establish as fact in the Vita, the connection between Bladud and Badon and as we know the earliest mention of the Battle of Badon is in Gildas' De Excidio Britanniae where Ambrosius Aurelianus organized a British resistance.
But, as we know, 'Geoffrey' does his best to conflate Ambrosius with Arthur (or even Merlin) and Nennius has Badon as the place of King Arthur’s last battle. But, Geoffrey’s Camlann is also brought into the salad of confusion from the Annales Cambriae where Arthur and Mordred fell (AC mentions Medraut, but it does not specify that he and Arthur fought on opposite sides), as Henry Blois has Mordred in Cornwall purely because Henry knows the topography[53] and of the river Camel's existence in Cornwall.[54]
One of Henry Blois' intentions in VM is to conflate Badon (where Arthur’s battle took place) with Avalon. As the reader will understand shortly, the purport behind Henry’s very clever design is to set up Arthur’s last known location, the Island of Avalon of HRB fame.... as being synonymous with Glastonbury. So let us see in this next extract from the HRB, why Bladud’s name is important to Henry and why this contrivance is essential to his overall plan for the future of Glastonbury.
Next succeeded Bladud his son, in whose hands the Kingdom remained for twenty years. He builded the city of Kaerbadon, that is now called Bath, and fashioned hot baths therein, meet for the needs of men, the which he placed under the guardianship of the deity Minerva, in whose temple he set fires that could not be quenched, that never turned into ashes, but as they began to fail became as it were round balls of stone.[55]
Returning back to the VM we can now see where he is guiding his contemporary audience and every reader of the HRB and the Vita Merlini since 1157.
Besides all these it has fountains healthful because of their hot waters which nourish the sick and provide pleasing baths, which quickly send people away cured with their sickness driven out. So Bladud established them when he held the sceptre of the Kingdom and he gave them the name of his consort Alaron.[56]
Immediately he has named this ‘Alaron’[57] which he has now established as being the same as where we find Bladud, (who we know was the founder of Badon, where Arthur’s battle took place); after one line on the healing powers found in this Alaron he does his trickiest bit of sophistry and conflation, he calls the same place an Island and to confuse us further he says it is near Thanet.[58]
Our ocean also divides the Orkneys from us. These are divided into thirty three islands by the sundering flood; twenty lack cultivation and the others are cultivated. Thule receives its name “furthest” from the sun, because of the solstice which the summer sun makes there, turning its rays and shining no further, and taking away the day, so that always throughout the long night the air is full of shadows, and making a bridge congealed by the benumbing cold, which prevents the passage of ships.
I have shown in appendix 15 why Henry Blois has a peculiar concern regarding the island of Thanet. The above material is taken from Pytheas’ account through Diodorus or other ancient chroniclers (Timeaus) who comments of Pytheas’ travels. Even though the special status afforded by Thanet as being near to Henry’s primary purpose (a conflation with Avalon), Isidore of Seville also talks of the same list of Islands and many others beside in the Mediterranean. Isidore provides the basis of material for ‘Geoffrey’s Islands in VM. The ensuing Island material is derived from Isidore’s XIV.vi, De insulis (“concerning islands”) but it becomes apparent why there is a change in order from his list of Islands.
Vita Merlini Isidore’s Etymologia
1. Thanatos Thanet
2. The Orkneys Ultima Thule
3. Thule Orkneys
4. Ireland Ireland
5. Gades Gades
6. The Hesperides The Fortunate Isles
7. The Gorgades The Gorgades
8. Argire & Crisse The Hesperides
9. Ceylon Chryse and Argyre
10. Tiles
11. The Fortunate Islands
Rather than reveal his real intention, Henry Blois has decided to set up his intended objective, (that of exchanging the Avalon of HRB to be synonymous with the ‘Island of Apples’) in amongst what appears to be Taliesin pronouncing upon the subject of ‘Islands’.... just after the obvious intended conflation of Alaron with Badon.
Henry Blois already has another project planned at this time at Clugny in a manuscript which was to become the forerunner of Perlesvaus, where unfortunately, he cannot change the name Insula Avallonis (for reasons that will be explained shortly).
The fact that Arthur was taken to Insula Pomorum shows (to the gullible) that it must equate to the island of Avalon mentioned in HRB. The logic of such an assumption is because the island now appears to be located in Somerset because Arthur had appeared at Glastonbury in the concocted life of Gildas and Somerset is renowned for its apples.
Posterity has been led to a conclusion to which Henry directed us in that: Insula Pomorum must be Glastonbury. In 1191 when the 'leaden cross' was unearthed in the manufactured grave created by Henry Blois.... Glastonbury was unequivocally associated with Avalon (as gleaned from Gerald's account of the unearthing); but the interpolator of DA has made this association long before the discovery. This is because the interpolator is Henry Blois and it was he who manufactured the gravesite of Arthur and Guinevere and let its location be known in DA. It is only modern scholars erroneous chronology which assumes Avalon’s association with Glastonbury was made after the disinterment. (in my discussion in the chapter on DA, it is obvious the interpolation which states where Arthur's grave is located was written into DA long before the discovery. This is obviated by there being no other commentary on the disinterment like that found in Gerald of Wales' material.
A Welsh ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ has little to gain in associating Arthur with Glastonbury. (But once suspicions are raised that Henry Blois might be the author of HRB in the latter part of his life and he is responsible for Avalon's subsequent association with Glastonbury.... it was he who then in VH deflects suspicion by saying Avalon is in Gwynedd. What the VH
achieves by locating Avalon in Gwynedd, is an apparent confirmation that HRB
was written by a Welsh man, thus deflecting authorship of HRB by Henry).
Henry Blois not only is responsible for the connection of Arthur to Glastonbury made by impersonating Caradoc, but he is also responsible for the naming of Avalon and the invention of the character of the Chivalric Arthur. He is responsible for Arthur’s association to Glastonbury found in DA and is responsible for creating Arthur’s grave between the pyramids.
It is hardly surprising that as ‘Geoffrey’ in VM, Henry persuades his audience that the apple country of Somerset possesses an Island which is known as Insula Pomorum where Arthur is known to have been taken by Barinthus. The only assumption one can draw (and to which the reader has been led in VM) is that Glastonbury must be the same location as Avalon with all the other evidences which corroborate such a conclusion found in DA (Henry's Perlesvaus mention of the lead roof of the Glastonbury chapel and Robert de Boron's reference to the Vaus d'Avaron).
Henry Blois has achieved his goal and posterity and scholarship is none the wiser even today. It will become apparent also that Henry Blois, (amongst other works of composed in anonymity), is the author of the initial Perlesvaus.
The VM continues on with Taliesin pronouncing on the Islands:
The most outstanding island after our own is said to be Ireland with its happy fertility. It is larger and produces no bees, and no birds except rarely, and it does not permit snakes to breed in it. Whence it happens that if earth or a stone is carried away from there and added to any other place it drives away snakes and bees.
Isidores work describes Ireland: Ireland (Scotia), also known as Hibernia, is an island next to Britannia, narrower in its expanse of land but more fertile in its site. It extends from southwest to north. It’s near parts stretch towards Iberia (Hiberia) and the Cantabrian Ocean (i.e. the Bay of Biscay), whence it is called Hibernia; but it is called Scotia, because it has been colonized by tribes of the Scoti. There no snakes are found, birds are scarce, and there are no bees, so that if someone were to sprinkle dust or pebbles brought from there among beehives in some other place, the swarms would desert the honeycombs.
Isidore is not certain about who the inhabitants are and conflates the Scottish to Irish, but knows its proportion and position. ‘Geoffrey’ (Henry Blois) knows where Ireland and Scotland are, so he does not pretend to be ignorant, which obviously Isidore is.[59]
The island of Gades lies next to Herculean Gades, and there grows there a tree from whose bark a gum drips out of which gems are made, breaking all laws.
Isedore’s version of Gades: Cadiz (Gadis) is an island located at the edge of the province of Baetica. It separates Europe from Africa. The Pillars of Hercules can be seen there, and from there the current of the Ocean flows into the entrance of the Tyrrhenian Sea. It is divided from the mainland by a distance of six hundred (Roman) feet. When the Tyrians, who had come from the Red Sea, occupied it, they called it in their language Gadir that is, “enclosed,” because it is enclosed on all sides by the sea. This island produces a palm-like tree whose sap, when mixed with glass, produces the precious stone called ceraunius.
It is a coincidence that Pytheas mentions this substance as floating. One would assume it is Amber[60] since it comes from tree sap.
It is here that Geoffrey of Monmouth changes the order found in Isidore because Isidore follows with the Fortunate Isles. But ‘Geoffrey’ keeps this until the end of Taliesin’s discourse, so that it seemingly grafts into the main point of re-naming Avalon. However, ‘Geoffrey’ continues with Hesperides:
The Hesperides are said to contain a watchful dragon who, men say, guards the golden apples under the leaves.
Isidores Hesperides[61] are: The isles of the Hesperides are so called after the city of Hesperis, which was located within the borders of Mauretania. They are situated beyond the Gorgades, at the Atlantic shore, in the most remote bays of the sea. Stories tell of an ever-watchful dragon guarding golden apples in their gardens. There, it is said, is a channel from the sea that is so twisted, with winding banks, that when seen from afar it looks like the coils of a serpent.
On Isidore’s Hesperides we find Golden apples not as Geoffrey later attests they are on the Fortunate isles from where he derives his Insula Pomorum. ‘Geoffrey’s’ artifice is revealed when he would rather attach his ‘apple’ scenario to an Island described adjectively (fortunate) rather than overcoming some previous nomenclature like Hesperides. We can witness the conflation with the enchanted orchard of the classical Hesperides which is eventually doubly conflated with Glastonbury later on by Henry through ‘Isle de Voirre’ or Isle of Glass. I will cover this conflation later through Henry’s ingenious etymological conversion of Ineswitrin to Ynes Gutrin which gives the Glass Island which Caradoc (Henry Blois) first introduces in Life of Gildas.
It is also though Henry Blois and his relationship with Marie and Alex, Eleanor of Aquitaine and their relation to Chrétien de Troyes where we meet Maheloas as lord of the Isle de Voirre which relates to Caradoc’s Melvas and Caradoc's Urbs Vitrea.
The Gorgades are inhabited by women with goats’ bodies who are said to surpass hares in the swiftness of their running.
Isidore’s Gorgades are described thus: The Gorgades are islands of the Ocean opposite the promontory that is called Hesperian Ceras, inhabited by the Gorgons, women with swift wings and a rough and hairy body; the islands take their name from them. They are separated from the mainland by a passage of two days’ sailing.
Argyre and Chryse [62] bear, it is said, gold and silver just as Corinth does common stones.
Isidores Argyre and Chryse are: are islands situated in the Indian Ocean, so rich in metal that many people maintain these islands have a surface of gold and silver; whence their names are derived.
Celon blooms pleasantly because of its fruitful soil, for it produces two crops in a single year; twice it is summer, twice spring, twice men gather grapes and other fruits, and it is also most pleasing because of its shining gems. Tiles produces flowers and fruits in an eternal spring, green throughout the seasons.
Celon and Tiles are Geoffrey’s addition and not found in Isidore’s account on the Islands in the Sea.
The island of apples which men call “The Fortunate Isle”[63] gets its name from the fact that it produces all things of itself; the fields there have no need of the ploughs of the farmers and all cultivation is lacking except what nature provides. Of its own accord it produces grain and grapes, and apple trees grow in its woods from the close-clipped grass. The ground of its own accord produces everything instead of merely grass, and people live there a hundred years or more.
Isidore’s Fortunate Islas are described as: The Fortunate Isles (Fortunatarum insulae) signify by their name that they produce all kinds of good things, as if they were happy and blessed with an abundance of fruit. Indeed, well-suited by their nature, they produce fruit from very precious trees; the ridges of their hills are spontaneously covered with grapevines; instead of weeds, harvest crops and garden herbs are common there. Hence, the mistake of pagans and the poems by worldly poets, who believed that these isles were Paradise because of the fertility of their soil. They are situated in the Ocean, against the left side of Mauretania, closest to where the sun sets, and they are separated from each other by the intervening sea.
We can see that Henry (‘Geoffrey’) has made Isidore’s Islands singular; and now conflated it with the apples of the Hesperides to suit his goal in the translocation of a nebulous Avalon in HRB to be located at Glastonbury. The implications of this are huge at this date of 1157.[64] At this point in VM Henry now leaves Isidore and a versification of his work which he employed for his own ends.
In the HRB we hear of Avalon twice; once where Arthur is …girt with Caliburn, best of swords, that was forged within the Isle of Avalon.[65] The second is where the renowned King Arthur himself was wounded deadly, and was borne thence unto the island of Avalon for the healing of his wounds.[66]
We were not introduced to Morgen or her sisters[67] in the HRB, but one assumes that ‘Geoffrey’s’ reason for their inclusion in VM was to give a valid reason why his hero of the HRB was taken to Avalon, i.e. she can cure the sick and his wounds.
Of course the nine sorceress priestesses of Pomponius Mela’s island of Sena are to be conflated with the nine maidens on Insula Pomorum in VM and we see his corroboration in Henry’s interpolation into DA. To add to Henry’s salad of conflation in DA, Avalloc just happens to have daughters and supplies the eponym for Avalon just to complete the confusion.[68]
In this instance alone we can witness Henry’s brilliance which started out innocently by randomly picking a name from a Burgundian town just as he had selected the environs of Autun for Arthur’s fictitious continental battle. To not recognize that the conversion of a completely fictitious island to which a fictitious chivalric Arthur was taken to, (to what is nowadays understood to be a real location of Avalon) is to underestimate the brilliance of Henry’s subtle method of translocation.
The translocation also bears witness to the evolvement of Henry’s propagandist thought processes where Arthur was firstly associated with Glastonbury in the Life of Gildas. Henry had initially posited Ineswitrin as synonymous with Glastonbury in life of Gildas because by doing so it established the 601 charter’s credibility. At that time Henry wished Glastonbury to be recognized as Ineswitrin. By the end of the evolution of his propaganda Henry has effectually converted Ineswitrin at Glastonbury into Avalon at Glastonbury.
Even though ‘Geoffrey’ in VM places Taliesin at the scene of Arthur’s arrival, it is irrelevant since we can clearly see Taliesin’s inclusion in the narrative is because Henry Blois utilises material derived from Taliesin which comprises some of the VM.
There nine sisters rule by a pleasing set of laws those who come to them from our country. She who is first of them is more skilled in the healing art, and excels her sisters in the beauty of her person. Morgen is her name, and she has learned what useful properties all the herbs contain, so that she can cure sick bodies. She also knows an art by which to change her shape, and to cleave the air on new wings like Daedalus; when she wishes she is at Brest, Chartres, or Pavia[69]and when she will she slips down from the air onto your shores. And men say that she has taught mathematics to her sisters, Moronoe, Mazoe, Gliten, Glitonea, Gliton, Tyronoe, Thitis; Thitis best known for her cither. Thither after the battle of Camlan[70] we took the wounded Arthur, guided by Barinthus [71]to whom the waters and the stars of heaven were well known. With him steering the ship we arrived there with the prince,[72] and Morgen received us with fitting honour, and in her chamber she placed the King on a golden bed and with her own hand she uncovered his honourable wound and gazed at it for a long time. At length she said that health could be restored to him if he stayed with her for a long time and made use of her healing art. Rejoicing, therefore, we entrusted the King to her and returning spread our sails to the favouring winds.”
Henry Blois, not forgetting that Merlin is supposedly speaking prior to the Saxon invasions, makes recorded British history into predictions that appear to have come true.
Merlin said in answer, “Dear friend, since that time how much the Kingdom has endured from the violated oath, so that what it once was it no longer is! For by an evil fate the nobles are roused up and turned against each other’s vitals, and they upset everything so that the abundance of riches has fled from the country and all goodness has departed, and the desolated citizens leave their walls empty. Upon them shall come the Saxon people, fierce in war, who shall again cruelly overthrow us and our cities, and shall violate God’s law and his temples. For He shall certainly permit this destruction to come upon us because of our crimes, that He may correct the foolish.”
Taliesin then postulates by means of prophecy the expectation of the Britons. Henry Blois using the voice of Taliesin pretends to state ‘the hope of Arthur’s return’ into a current hope of the 6th century. I would not be surprised if Henry Blois left the prophecy open so that at some future date it might apply to him; especially as he would be returning by ship if some mishap were to happen to Henry II. In any case, the meaning reiterates the same feeling current at the time, to which William of Malmesbury referred. It also conveys the same sentiment as that found in the prophecies of HRB; of a lost noble nation needing to be returned to its former peace. The return of an Arthurian figure, a saviour, might be more in line with what Henry Blois is trying to propose.
Merlin had scarcely finished when Taliesin exclaimed, “Then the people should send someone to tell the chief to come back in a swift ship if he has recovered his strength, that he may drive off the enemy with his accustomed vigour and re-establish the citizens in their former peace.
Henry Blois then cuts Taliesin short with an unequivocal prediction through the mouth of Merlin. Merlin speaks with powerful authority as he did in the HRB prophecies. He contradicts Taliesin’s generalised hope and sets about telling us what will transpire which his audience (having read HRB) knows has already taken place historically. This in effect confirms Merlin’s accuracy in the prediction about the Britons being enslaved for many years.
“No,” said Merlin, “not thus shall this people depart when once they have fixed their claws on our shores. For at first they shall enslave our Kingdom and our people and our cities, and shall dominate them with their forces for many years. Nevertheless three [73]from among our people shall resist with much courage and shall kill many, and in the end shall overcome them. But they shall not continue thus, for it is the will of the highest Judge that the Britons shall through weakness lose their noble Kingdom for a long time, until Conan[74]shall come in his chariot from Brittany, and Cadwalader[75] the venerated leader of the Welsh, who shall join together Scots and Cumbrians, Cornishmen and men of Brittany[76] in a firm league, and shall return to their people their lost crown, expelling the enemy and renewing the times of Brutus, and shall deal with the cities in accordance with their consecrated laws. And the Kings shall begin again to conquer remote peoples and to subjugate their own realms to themselves in mighty conflict.” “No one shall then be alive of those who are now living,” said Taliesin, “nor do I think that any one has seen so many savage battles between fellow citizens as you have.”
We now have Henry’s true desire of unseating Henry II confirmed in actual speech by Merlin rather than found in a list of other prophecies. It is hard to grasp to which three Henry is relating to because Henry had morphed the prophecies since he first published the initial Libellus Merlini to which his friend abbot Suger refers. Maybe originally the three were Constans Uther and Ambrosius[77] against the Saxons. Maybe it is a case of Henry squewing the number three of the Kings used to indicate William the conqueror, William Rufus and Henry Ist, but it is not clear.
What is clear is that the prophecy’s main purport, whether originally relating to the Saxon era (as is indicated by an initial resurgence and then an eventual subjugation of the Britons) is that the end of the subjugation comes through Conan and Cadwallader both coincidentally fighting against Henry II in 1155. So here we have a clear indication that Henry Blois is trying to rouse the indigenous Celts through prophecy.
Henry Blois writing as 'Geoffrey' has made it clear that if the Bretons (with Conan) and the Welsh (with Cadwallader), along with the Scots and Cornish rise up against the invaders (specifically the Angevin Henry II), they will once again retain the crown of Brutus.
I hope the reader can get an insight into how manipulative the real Henry Blois actually was. Not only did he invent the story of Brutus in Britain in HRB, he is now predicting that the fictitious crown would return to the indigenous Britons.
All these things Merlin recapped for our benefit (the reader of VM) to run according to the history as it was understood, so that we and ‘Geoffrey’s’ Anglo-Norman readers were amazed at Merlin’s accuracy. Merlin, speaking in the sixth century, comes out with a prediction, remarkably up to date by coincidently naming two people[78] on the current political landscape. Henry Blois affects sedition through a fraudulent prophecy of Merlin inciting Conan and Cadwallader to rebel against Henry II; prompting them to join in firm league, to subjugate their own realm to themselves.[79] In John of Cornwall’s rendition of the prophecies of Merlin (also fabricated by Henry Blois) it becomes evident that Henry sees himself as the natural replacement of Henry II once the rebellion has succeeded. (see chapter on JC prophecies)
The last statement of Taliesin’s in the passage above underlines that Henry Blois’ conception of Merlin is as someone who lives through the ages[80] and has witnessed these battles fought between the Britons themselves, the idiocy of which he laments constantly in that their power is reduced which has allowed the foreigners to dominate them. He has seen the various foreigners through the ages and the chaos they bring, and the sentiment of Merlin can be understood as: ‘Oh, if only the Celts, the Britons of a bygone age would stop fighting amongst themselves they would not have been invaded down through the ages’.
Merlin said, "Indeed, that is the truth. For I have lived long and seen much; our own folk turning on one another, and the chaos the barbarian brings.
The brief exchange acts as a conversational narrative conjunction before Henry Blois launches into the next lot of text, the object of which again is to endorse the historiography of the HRB.
“And I remember the crime when Constans was betrayed and the small brothers Uther and Ambrosius fled across the water.[81] At once wars began in the Kingdom which now lacked a leader, for Vortigern of Gwent, the consul, was leading his troops against all the nations so that he might have the leadership of them, and was inflicting a wretched death upon the harmless peasants. At length with sudden violence he seized the crown after putting to death many of the nobles and he subdued the whole Kingdom to himself. But those who were allied to the brothers by blood relationship, offended at this, began to set fire to all the cities of the ill-fated prince and to perturb his Kingdom with savage soldiery, and they would not permit him to possess it in peace. Disquieted therefore since he could not withstand the rebellious people, he prepared to invite to the war men from far away with whose aid he might be able to meet his enemies. Soon there came from divers parts of the world warlike bands whom he received with honour. The Saxon people, in fact, arriving in their curved keels had come to serve him with their helmeted soldiery. They were led by two courageous brothers, Horsus and Hengist,[82] who afterwards with wicked treachery harmed the people and the cities. For after this, by serving the King with industry, they won him over to themselves and seeing the people moved by a quarrel that touched them closely they were able to subjugate the King; then turning their ferocious arms upon the people they broke faith and killed the princes by a premeditated fraud while they were sitting with them after calling them together to make peace and a treaty with them, and the prince they drove over the top of the snowy mountain.
Henry Blois in this last section confirms his HRB’s historiography, whereas, before, it was written in the form of historical record in the body of HRB, it is now re-iterated here in the VM as a future awaiting…. predicted by the prophet whose vaticinations undoubtedly have materialised as history for Henry Blois’s audience. If the reader needs any help understanding this; this was revealed to Vortigern at the same time as the original prophecies in the HRB.
These are the things I had begun to prophesy to him would happen to the Kingdom.
Henry Blois then goes on to relate that Vortigern had tried to repel the Saxons he had initially invited to Britain until he was betrayed by Rowena Hengist’s sister who he was infatuated with and who poisoned him. Rowena recalls her brother back to Briton. Henry never forgets to put himself in character as Merlin, supposedly speaking as an ancient Briton and of ‘our’ army.
This therefore he did, for he came with such force against our army that he took booty from everybody until he was loaded with it, and he thoroughly destroyed by fire the houses throughout the country.
We then hear a complete contradiction in the story line where, (while these events were happening), Vortigern, now alive again, is defeated by the returning Britons from Brittany. The only reason I suspect for doing this is to locate Vortigern’s tower (for the narratives sake) in Wales.... so that he is differentiated from the good Britons who returned from Brittany[83] and associated with the savages (in Henry’s mind) that now inhabit Wales. This is entirely consistent with ‘Geoffrey’s’ sentiments. By doing this, Henry allows himself his own personal views on the Welsh and offers by way of explanation the reason he is derogatory toward them.
“While these things were happening Uther and Ambrosius were in Breton territory with King Biducus and they had already girded on their swords and were proved fit for war, and had associated with themselves troops from all directions so that they might seek their native land and put to flight the people who were busy wasting their patrimony. So they gave their boats to the wind and the sea, and landed for the protection of their subjects; they drove Vortigern through the regions of Wales and shut him up in his tower and burned both him and it. Then they turned their swords upon the Angles and many times when they met them they defeated them, and on the other hand they were often defeated by them. At length in a hand to hand conflict our men with great effort attacked the enemy and defeated them decisively, and killed Hengist, and by the will of Christ triumphed.
This episode is aligned with the pseudo-history concocted in HRB but has nothing to do with the inciting to rebellion of the Celts found in the prophecies.
After these things had been done, the Kingdom and its crown were with the approval of clergy and laity given to Ambrosius….
Henry Blois always conscious of the role of Church in the state mentions its relationship far too much throughout the VM and HRB which betrays his own sentiments of the Cluniac Gregorian reformation he had high hopes of achieving when he installed his brother Stephen on the throne.
Henry carries forward with the story line repeating and setting in order the events for the most part recorded in the HRB. The point of recapping of all this to Taliesin is fairly pointless except for reasons of corroborating the historiography of the HRB and by padding out the text. That is until he arrives at his real objective which is to splice in new prophecies as if told contemporaneously with those found in the Vulgate HRB.
Ambrosius dies and his younger brother Uther takes to fighting battles over by the Humber. He is then succeeded by his son Arthur who is still a boy and ‘Therefore after seeking the advice of clergy and laity he sent to Hoel, King of Brittany, and asked him to come to his aid with a swift fleet, for they were united by ties of blood and friendship’……whom at length conquered his enemies the Saxons and forced to return to their own country, and he calmed his own Kingdom by the moderation of his laws. He also subdued the Scots and Irish (and even more unlikely but bold in fallacious historiography) subjugated the Norwegians far away across the broad seas, and the Danes whom he had visited with his hated fleet.
He conquered the people of the Gauls after killing Frollo to whom the Roman power had given the care of that country; the Romans, too, who were seeking to make war on his country, he fought against and conquered, and killed the Procurator Hiberius Lucius who was then a colleague of Legnis the general, and who by the command of the Senate had come to bring the territories of the Gauls under their power. [84] (Vita Merlini)
Henry has no option but to invent fictional Roman names because of the existence of known history in the Roman annals. Merlin is now re-iterating and corroborating the fictional history as presented in HRB. Henry had already tried to infer that Britons had overtaken Rome, but one cannot have a fictional battle at the valley of Siesia without a commander which could be conflated by his name with a real Roman in the annals. However, Henry has neatly brought us to the juncture in the HRB where Arthur has to return from France to take on Mordred.
Meanwhile the faithless and foolish custodian Modred had commenced to subdue our Kingdom to himself, and was making unlawful love to the King’s wife. For the King, desiring, as men say, to go across the water to attack the enemy, had entrusted the queen and the Kingdom to him. But when the report of such a great evil came to his ears, he put aside his interest in the wars and, returning home, landed with many thousand men and fought with his nephew and drove him flying across the water. There the traitor, after collecting Saxons from all sides, began to battle with his lord, but he fell, betrayed by the unholy people confiding in whom he had undertaken such big things. How great was the slaughter of men and the grief of women whose sons fell in that battle!
In the Vulgate HRB we have Arthur being delivered to an Island called Avalon. We can witness Henry leading from an island Alaron through pointless text lifted from Isidore to introduce us to the Fortunate Isle (singular) which is also known as Insula Pomorum. Arthur was to receive medical care there. However, the readership of VM now has the confirmation of his trip to Avalon backed up by Taliesin, who accompanied Arthur to Insula Pomorum, but it is now not just an Island, but a court of the maidens.
After it the King, mortally wounded, left his Kingdom and, sailing across the water with you as you have related, came to the court of the maidens.
The problem for Henry Blois is that Arthur is taken to Avalon in First Variant (not the 1139 version précised in EAW) and Henry has fabricated the name Avallon from a Burgundian town and probably from the similarity of place name where [85]his father was killed i.e the Battle of Ascalon.
The Island 'Ineswitrin' is the real inspiration for Henry Blois' mystical isle in HRB as refered to by Melkin in his prophecy when the original had stated Ineswitrin instead of JG's recycled Melkin prophecy which refers to Insula Avallonis. Henry Blois has changed the name from the original version of the prophecy to Avallonis (as is recycled by JG) because he had put out propaganda which made Glastonbury into Avalon and the grave he had manufactured would eventually confirm this. Only Henry knows that Ineswitrin equates with the same location in which Melkin has said Joseph of Arimathea is buried. The original version of the Melkin prophecy had the name of Ineswitrin on it, but the recycled version given by JG, Henry had altered the name to concord with the mystical island named in HRB (see chapter on the 601a.d. charter). The strange fact is that Henry Blois has no idea where the real island of Ineswitrin is located (except that it is in the old Dumnonia) and asi showlater on he actually looked for it. (he claimed Looe Island).
Melkin’s prophecy was the inspiration for Henry Blois' fictitious island he has called Avalon on which he has conveyed Arthur according to the tale in HRB and by Barinthus in VM (since obviously Insula Pomorum and Avalon equate to the same place in Henry's mind).
Now, this small shift of definition I just bring to the attention of the reader because Arthur is now at the palace of the nymphs or court of maidens. It is plain that it is Henry who has interpolated the piffle about Avalloc and his daughters in DA, but what I am trying to demonstrate is that Henry does not care what allusions or conflations he makes; his aim (or post 1158 agenda) is to have the reader of DA and VM all understand that Glastonbury was once known as Avalon because HRB was where Arthur was last seen and Henry had concocted the grave between the piramides at Glastonbury.
Heny Blois accomplished his mission, because when Gerald of Wales spoke of Avalon.... he understood that it was the old name for Glastonbury (see the chapter on Gerald). Gerald was not convinced solely by the leaden cross which was unearthed in front of him. He had already read HRB, VM, and most importantly, the interpolated DA (as I shall cover shortly).
I imagine that when Henry Blois first devised a fictional location where Arthur was to be taken in the First Variant version written c.1144 such as the island of Avalon, he subsequently came up with the idea of manufacturing a grave at Glastonbury for Arthur and Guinevere and so subtly suggested (by using part of Isidore's tract on islands and a conflation with the fortunate isles).... he made Insula Pomorum unequivocally inseparable from an island in Somerset (in VM) which also had to be the same as Avalon.... because Barinthus had transported Arthur there. What confusion and unlikely set of events could have Glastonbury with so many names as an island. The Fortunate isle because of its association with Insula Pomorum, Ineswitrin as Caradoc supposedly attests, and Insula Avallonis
However, moving on to the conclusion of this section of VM which is in essence a recap of HRB (cleverly, more convincingly confirmed by Henry posing as ‘Geoffrey’ in the contemporaneous words of Merlin):
Each of the two sons of Modred, desiring to conquer the Kingdom for himself, began to wage war and each in turn slew those who were near of kin to him. Then Duke Constantine, nephew of the King, rose up fiercely against them and ravaged the people and the cities, and after having killed both of them by a cruel death ruled over the people and assumed the crown. But he did not continue in peace since Conan[86] his relative waged dire war on him and ravaged everything and killed the King and seized for himself those lands which he now governs weakly and without a plan.
We now enter a phase where Henry remembers that he is still the narrator of a story concerning the madness of Merlin with his friend Taliesin. After the praising of God, Henry now introduces a spring which miraculously will heal his madness. Not the most original of ideas but enough to hold and delight his readers and puts the storyline in context after the whole recap of the faux history in HRB. ….and all his madness departed and the sense which had long remained torpid in him revived, and he remained what he had once been - sane and intact with his reason restored.
Merlin then continues on in soliloquy professing to understand the movement of the heavens and the workings of animals etc. before ending with the fact that due to the water he is now normal again: For now I have the water which hitherto I lacked, and by drinking of it my brains have been made whole. But whence comes this virtue, O dear companion, that this new fountain breaks out thus, and makes me myself again who up to now was as though insane and beside myself?
At this point in the text we are told ‘Taliesin answers’ but in effect does not. He instead enters into a lengthy monologue lifted again from Isidore’s XIII, Xiii. De diversitate aquarum, (concerning the diversity of bodies of water).
The point of which this monologue serves is to relate back to the healing of the fountain which has cured Merlin of his madness where we hear amongst other such marvels.... for example that of: another fountain, called Cicero’s, which flows in Italy, which cures the eyes of all injuries. And also of: The land of Boeotia is said to have two fountains; the one makes the drinker forgetful, the other makes them remember.[87]
Merlin then commences his own lengthy monologue; its main constituent parts sourced from Isidore’s XII.vii, De avibus (concerning Birds). This goes on for some time but is also not relevant to our discussion, but it commences with: Merlin presently said to them, “The Creator of the world gave to the birds as to many other things their proper nature, as I have learned by living in the woods for many days.
Then Henry introduces another character into the storyline with the intent of carrying out a clever bit of subliminal contortion on the part of the reader.... in the hope conflation is caused in his readers minds.
He introduces us to a man named Maeldinus who, with the story line in VM, is associated with apples and would naturally lead any future investigator that enquires into his name to make the obvious conflation Henry has led us to. It is a conflation between insula Pomorum and Insula Avallonis. It is not by coincidence a certain Melchinus in his prophecy (found at Glastonbury) refers to the island of Avalon; especially now that Henry has substituted the original name of Iniswitrin to Insula Avallonis on the prophecy. I propose throughout this work that Melchinus’ prophecy is the inspiration behind Henry choosing an island on which King Arthur is last seen (in HRB) and then picking a name for it from the local environs of a town near Clugny (just as he had chosen this area in which to fight Arthur's continental campaign).
The Melkin prophecy (originally about Ineswitrin) is Henry’s template for the place Arthur is taken after his fight with Mordred. We must ignore modern scholarship's ignorance in deducing that the Melkin prophecy is a fraud (see chapter on Melkin prophecy).
Considering Melkin’s prophecy speaks of an undiscovered sepulchre it would not be silly to suggest Henry’s notion of planting Arthur’s body in the graveyard at Glastonbury is derived from Melkin’s prophecy which in effect refers to Joseph’s undiscovered tomb. Nor would it be too difficult to work out that Melkin’s duo fassula is the template for Henry’s Grail.
In progression I will show that the Melkin prophecy existed at the time Henry Blois was alive and he was responsible for the change of name on the prophecy from Ineswitrin to Avalon. It seems propitious therefore that a certain Maeldinus is arbitrarily introduced as a character in VM which suggests to readers also that his name is associated with Insula Pomorum and therefore Avalon.
After he had finished speaking a certain madman came to them, either by accident or led there by fate; he filled the grove and the air with a terrific clamour and like a wild boar he foamed at the mouth and threatened to attack them. They quickly captured him and made him sit down by them that his remarks might move them to laughter and jokes. When the prophet looked at him more attentively he recollected who he was and groaned from the bottom of his heart, saying, “This is not the way he used to look when we were in the bloom of our youth, for at that time he was a fair, strong knight and one distinguished by his nobility and his royal race. Him and many others I had with me in the days of my wealth, and I was thought fortunate in having so many good companions, and I was. It happened one time while we were hunting in the lofty mountains of Arwystli that we came to an oak which rose in the air with its broad branches. A fountain flowed there, surrounded on all sides by green grass, whose waters were suitable for human consumption; we were all thirsty and we sat down by it and drank greedily of its pure waters. Then we saw some fragrant apples lying on the tender grass of the familiar bank of the fountain. The man who saw them first quickly gathered them up and gave them to me, laughing at the unexpected gift. I distributed to my companions the apples he had given to me, and I went without any because the pile was not big enough. The others to whom the apples had been given laughed and called me generous, and eagerly attacked and devoured them and complained because there were so few of them. Without any delay a miserable sadness seized this man and all the others; they quickly lost their reason and like dogs bit and tore each other, and foamed at the mouth and rolled on the ground in a demented state. Finally, they went away like wolves filling the vacant air with howlings. These apples I thought were intended for me and not for them, and later I found out that they were. At that time there was in that district a woman who had formerly been infatuated with me, and had satisfied her love for me during many years. After I had spurned her and had refused to cohabit with her she was suddenly seized with an evil desire to do me harm, and when with all her plotting she could not find any means of approach, she placed the gifts smeared with poison by the fountain to which I was going to return, planning by this device to injure me if I should chance to find the apples on the grass and eat them. But my good fortune kept me from them, as I have just said. I pray you, make this man drink of the healthful waters of this new fountain so that, if by chance he get back his health, he may know himself and may, while his life lasts, labour with me in these glades in service to God.” This, therefore, the leaders did, and the man who had come there raging drank the water, recovered, and, cured at once recognized his friends. Then Merlin said, “You must now go on in the service of God who restored you as you now see yourself, you who for so many years lived in the desert like a wild beast, going about without a sense of shame. Now that you have recovered your reason, do not shun the bushes or the green glades which you inhabited while you were mad, but stay with me that you may strive to make up in service to God for the days that the force of madness took from you. From now on all things shall be in common between you and me in this service so long as either lives.” At this Maeldinus (for that was the man’s name) said, “Reverend father, I do not refuse to do this, for I shall joyfully stay in the woods with you, and shall worship God with my whole mind, while that spirit, for which I shall render thanks to your ministry, governs my trembling limbs.” “And I shall make a third with you, and shall despise the things of the world,” said Taliesin. “I have spent enough time living in vain, and now is the time to restore me to myself under your leadership. But you, lords, go away and defend your cities; it is not fitting that you should disturb beyond measure our quiet with your talk. You have applauded my friend enough.”
At this point in the story it looks as if Henry Blois was finding it tedious to pad out a storyline in which the main point was to implant polemic and uphold the pseudo-history of HRB. It is here that Henry decides to have one more dabble in prophecy before an abrupt end to the work, as the three men Merlin, Taliesin and Maeldinus[88] send their audience away and remain in the wood along with Merlin’s sister Ganieda.
The next set of prophecies which Henry Blois wishes to expose to the reader are supposedly spoken by Ganieda, who, incredibly sees into the future from the sixth century, so much that is relevant to her reading audience in the twelfth century, who have just lived through the Anarchy.
Even to a Norman audience her prophecies must stretch credibility; to believe that the one occasion Ganieda is found prophesying, amazingly, the content of the prophetic vision pertains to the era in which the book which contained her vaticinations was published.
The chieftains departed. The three remained, with Ganieda, the prophet’s sister, making a fourth, she who at length had assumed and was leading a seemly life after the death of the King who so recently had ruled so many people by the laws he administered. Now with her brother there was nothing more pleasant to her than the woods. She too was at times elevated by the spirit so that she often prophesied to her friends concerning the future of the Kingdom. Thus on a certain day when she stood in her brother’s hall and saw the windows of the house shining with the sun she uttered these doubtful words from her doubtful breast.
Ganieda starts with the three defining moments of the Anarchy, the seizing of Roger of Salisbury and Alexander of Lincoln at Oxford, the siege at Winchester and the battle of Lincoln. If truth were told, the Anarchy probably would not have taken place if Henry had not manipulated the crown onto his brother’s head. The events are so highly relevant to him, it is doubtful that there was anyone who would be more concerned with such issues. Again, the content exposes Henry Blois as the author.
I see the city of Oxford filled with helmeted men, and the holy men and the holy bishops bound in fetters by the advice of the Council,[89] and men shall admire the shepherd’s tower reared on high, and he shall be forced to open it to no purpose and to his own injury.[90] I see Lincoln walled in by savage soldiery and two men shut up in it, one of whom escapes to return with a savage tribe and their chief to the walls to conquer the cruel soldiers after capturing their leader.[91] O what a shame it is that the stars should capture the sun, under whom they sink down, compelled neither by force nor by war![92] I see two moons in the air near Winchester [93]and two lions acting with too great ferocity,[94] and one man looking at two and another at the same number, and preparing for battle and standing opposed.[95] The others rise up and attack the fourth[96] fiercely and savagely but not one of them prevails, for he stands firm and moves his shield and fights back with his weapons and as victor straightway defeats his triple enemy. Two of them he drives across the frozen regions of the north while he gives to the third the mercy that he asks, so that the stars flee through all portions of the fields.[97] The Boar of Brittany, protected by an aged oak, takes away the moon, brandishing swords behind her back.[98] I see two stars engaging in combat with wild beasts beneath the hill of Urien where the people of Gwent and those of Deira met in the reign of the great Coel[99] O with what sweat the men drip and with what blood the ground while wounds are being given to the foreigners![100] One star collides with the other and falls into the shadow, hiding its light from the renewed light.[101] Alas what dire famine shall come, so that the north shall inflame her vitals and empty them of the strength of her people.[102]It begins with the Welsh and goes through the chief parts of the Kingdom, and forces the wretched people to cross the water.[103] The calves accustomed to live on the milk of the Scottish cows that are dying from the pestilence shall flee.[104] Normans depart and cease to bear weapons through our native realm with your cruel soldiery. There is nothing left with which to feed your greed for you have consumed everything that creative nature has produced in her happy fertility. Christ, aid thy people! Restrain the lions and give to the country quiet peace and the cessation of wars.”
The word Neustrians is employed for Normans so that an air of antiquity is maintained. Here, unlike in the original Libellus Merlini where the Normans were saviours, we now fully understand that Henry II is on the throne and Henry Blois’s only hope of return to England is to rouse the Celts to rebellion by castigating the Normans.[105]
Henry Blois does not betray his Norman heritage; just as he averts all suspicion of authorship of the Gesta Stephani by being on occasion derogatory about himself. The stratagems employed to divert suspicion of authorship in the various works investigated in the course of this exposé are varied and ingenious. Henry Blois writing as ‘Geoffrey’ in the VM, speaking as Ganieda and Merlin or Taliesin feigns British nationality:
1. The war-lord Horsa and many others met their deaths at the hands of our men.
2. She promptly sent word overseas to her brother to come back with sufficiently large forces to overcome our warrior people.
3. Our men made a great effort in an attack
4. And they conquered by the sword all the territories of our native land that lie beyond the Humber.
5. During this time the faithless and foolhardy guardian of our realm
6. Your power will not prove a match for our fierce nation.
Berating the Normans has the same effect of convincing us the author of the VM is English rather than Norman. The confirmation of my proposition that Henry is employing the prophecies to rouse all the Celts to come together is laid bare here. The VM was written in the period between 1155 and 1158 when Henry was desperate to regain his power. After the council at Winchester in 1155 at which the invasion of Ireland was discussed and the handing over of many castles by the barons (especially Henry Blois'), Henry had fled the country (probably via Cornwall hence his meeting with Robert de Torigni) because he had already witnessed vengeful acts from the newly crowned king (in claiming his castles) to curb the bishop's power and expected further repercussions for all Henry's deeds during the Anarchy in which he had thwarted Matilda (the King Henry II Mother).
No Norman or Anglo-Norman, especially a cleric in Oxford, would have the audacity to write that the ‘Normans should depart and cease to bear weapons through our native realm with your cruel soldiery’. It is no wonder Gerald relates that King Henry wanted to obtain a copy of VM.
If the reader is still not convinced that Henry Blois is the author of these prophecies and the instigator of these updated prophecies which incite rebellion, he should read the version supposedly put out by John of Cornwall (which I cover in Chapter 30). This version puts Henry as the seventh king and Henry Blois vainly sees himself as an ‘adopted son’ firmly on the throne in England.
However, no Norman could deny only a few years after King Stephen’s death that the entire country was depleted. Henry’s audience would understand that it was indeed an accurate prediction by Ganieda. Henry’s last devise is to appeal to Christ (as if it were a Briton speaking) through Ganieda that peace may come.
Ganieda having seen so many tumultuous events which apply to the reign of King Stephen, six hundred years in her future, may have tested the whole of VM’s credibility. However, Henry’s vanity had Ganieda see things which concerned Henry directly. It is not by coincidence that historical records of events to which Ganieda alludes and which provides the explanation of all of Ganieda’s prophecies are covered in detail in GS (again authored by Henry Blois). Deflection and secrecy of authorship was vital, especially when we consider the consequences if the Bishop of Winchester was discovered in such a deception and of the invention of Merlin (the Merlin who had written the prophecies translated in HRB, not Myrddin).
She did not stop with this and her companions wondered at her, and her brother, who soon came to her, spoke approvingly with friendly words in this manner, “Sister, does the spirit wish you to foretell future things, since he has closed up my mouth and my book? Therefore this task is given to you; rejoice in it, and under my favour devoted to him speak everything.
‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ speaking through Merlin then goes on to convince his readers that Ganieda spoke of future events by the spirit and contrives the rhetorical question referring to his book of the prophecies of Merlin. Such a device verifies the credibility of such a book for the naïve and gullible of his reading audience (even to modern scholars).
I think Henry realises that some of his audience may pay little respect to prophecies from a woman no one has heard of before. So, the great Merlin adds his stamp of authority explaining (so that we might understand how it is that we are blessed with Ganieda’s insight) and the reasoning behind why Merlin’s mouth has been ‘shut’. This indeed must be because (in reality) Merlin’s initial book (libellus Merlini)) was already published and it had already been squewed from its original to the updated prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB. Such prophecies as the Dumbarton and Carlisle prophecies were added here in VM and it would seem odd for more newly invented prophecies to turn up that also which had not previously been mentioned. Henry could not help himself in referring to the major parts of the Anarchy which Merlin had somehow missed (not mentioned) and so they were seen (supposedly a long time ago when Merlin had seen his visions ) by Ganieda instead.
The close of the VM is rather a dull and an odd circumambulation of logic on which to end an extraordinary invention.
I have brought this song to an end. Therefore, ye Britons, give a wreath to Geoffrey of Monmouth. He is indeed yours for once he sang of your battles and those of your chiefs, and he wrote a book called “The Deeds of the Britons” which are celebrated throughout the world.
Whether ‘Geoffrey’ wrote this with his original VM or not is only contested on the point that the colophon exists in one manuscript. However, it acts as a confirmation that the two works of HRB and VM are by the same supposed author who, (even though this VM has only recently been published circa late 1156 to 1157) is now dead and supposedly died in 1154-5. Tongue in cheek, Henry Blois suggests a memorial to a person that never lived. More importantly it gives the illusion that all these prophecies were written before Henry II came to the throne.
I would rather believe it is a later addition to one manuscript which confirms by what it states that both tracts (and the predictions in both) were already written before 1154 when Geoffrey supposedly died.
Henry Blois lived until 1171, so there is the possibility of later additions by Henry. However, considering Henry’s recall to England, by Theobald of Bec, the terminus post quem fits the recently received news at Clugny. This is the news of a July battle at Coleshill. A battle in which Henry II was victorious and remained alive and therefore Henry Blois’ wish of insurrection was doubtful to come true; hence, the sudden termination of the VM with these events and Henry Blois' return to Winchester and the King’s Court.
There may only be one objection to an 1157 completion date which Tatlock discusses,[106] based upon assumptions made by Delisle,[107] but these should be dismissed. Tatlock gives a completion date not much after 1148. The discrepancy arises in a comment on the differentiation between Merlinus Ambrosius and Merlinus Caledonius or Silvester. The assertion for a date prior to 1157 is based upon two library catalogue descriptions of Geoffrey’s HRB one copied from the other[108] in Normandy, where we read… Libri XII, in quorum septimo continentur prophetiae Mellini, non Silvestris, sed alterius, id est Mellini Ambrosii.
The comment on the two Merlin’s is derived from Bec library, but Crick[109] informs us, the Leiden manuscript was catalogued in 1160, so I can see no reason to assume a date prior to 1157 given that ‘Geoffrey’ did not die in 1154-5. Tatlock seems to assume the Leyden MS, which has the VM prefixing the whole volume (containing much besides the HRB), who assigns an early HRB date (basing his premise purely upon the dedication), proposes as said…. ‘not much after 1148’ for the Vita Merlini. Tatlock dates the second of the library cataloguing ‘between early 1152 and 1154’ and the first even earlier. No previous proposition should prevent us here maintaining a completion date for the Vita Merlini as late as Aug- Sept 1157; and the terminus post quem of Chambers, Faral, Parry and Bruce is inconsequential based mainly upon the 13 December 1148 election date of Robert de Chesney to Lincoln and its supposedly recent transpiration.... made to appear by reason of the word ’just’.
Dedications as a form of dating in both HRB and VM have no bearing on the date of the work as commentators such as Crick need to understand before teaching another generation of scholars incorrectly.[110]
We can rely on Ganieda’s prophecy of the two kings meeting at Wallingford to set a date of at least 1153. That is, if it had not been shown that the ‘sixth in Ireland’ prophecy could only have occurred later than 1155. If we take the later suppositions I have made concerning the prophecies aimed at sedition and the one pertaining to Coleshill…. we can get a date as late as 1157.... nearly ten years after Tatlock’s date. This too is based on Henry Blois’ propaganda (book of Llandaff) which provided the date of the Bishop of Asaph’s death along with the conclusion drawn about De Chesney’s recent election in 1148
Henry’s dedication to Robert de Chesney was just another form of ruse to hide Henry Blois’s identity by choosing and flattering those who he had little respect for. It was also made to keep up the illusion that the bishop’s of Lincoln were his patrons. Not even Robert de Chesney could deny that his predecessor might have commissioned the prophecies from Geoffrey and that Geoffrey had taken it upon himself to write VM for his own further advancement appealing to a patron of the same diocese.
There was no request involved, and of course, if De Chesney did see VM, he would assume that Geoffrey died before he could present it. Henry Blois did not need the bishop’s of Lincolns' patronage and the entire dedicatory tone was a stratagem meant to mislead both on date andauthorship. In any case the dedication could of course have been added after De Chesney’s death, but I feel Henry Blois was responding to more immediate pressures that people suspected Ganieda's vaticinations were more recently made because of their content referring to such recent events.
The first definitive assertion of differentiation between the two Merlins’ is by Gerald de Barri in Itinerarium Cambriae written in 1188-91 long after Crick’s 1160 date for cataloguing the Leiden MS. However, 1160 is still two years subsequent to Henry’s move back to Winchester from Clugny. Even though Henry Blois was patron to Gerald,[111] Gerald never suspected Henry Blois as the author of HRB. Gerald, happy to quote Merlin, had not much good to say about ‘Geoffrey’. To my mind, (disregarding the possibility of Henry’s vaticinatory ability), the whole paragraph toward the end has to have been written after the event of Coleshill. Such a flimsy detail regarding the death of Geoffrey in 1155 seems immaterial since his persona is a fabrication anyway.
Taliesin was a sixth century poet and bard whose work has partially survived in Welsh manuscript, the Book of Taliesin. Taliesin who is believed to have sung at the courts of at least three Celtic British Kings would of course interest ’Geoffrey’ and provide a contemporaneous companion and bouncing board in the VM for Merlin.
Taliesin’s work dated from a few poems to the sixth century praises King Urien of Rheged and his son Owain mab Urien, and several of the poems imply that he also served as the court bard to King Brochfael Ysgithrog of Powys and his successor Cynan Garwyn, either before or during his time at Urien's court.
Some of the events to which his poems refer, such as the Battle of Arfderydd may be the source for historical annals as he seems to have been at the battle. His name is directly linked with the Y Gododdin from which we have the poetic account previously mentioned and he is also mentioned in Nennius’s Historia Brittonum.
Strangely, it would seem that this second Merlin Sylvestris is modelled upon Taliesin as even Taliesin’s parentage like Merlin’s was suspect. Although not an incubus, Taliesin was adopted as a child by Elffin, the son of Gwyddno Garanhir, but also more to the point, he has a possible connection to the original Melkin, (Meldred, Melvas, Maelgwn, all Kings) as Taliesin prophesied the death of Maelgwn from the Yellow Plague.
Taliesin also became companion of Bran the Blessed and King Arthur which sounds suspect as a late addition. But in the genuine life of St Cadoc written by Caradoc, we hear ‘in those days, a certain King, of the name of Maelgon, reigned over all Britain’ which I am sure was ‘Geoffrey’s’ reason for the inclusion of Maeldanus as a contemporary with Taliesin and Merlin in VM. The triple death divination and a prophetic madman called Lailoken befriended by St Kentigern of Glasgow (d.603) certainly associates more closely with a Calidonian Merlin.
The reasons for reconstituting Merlin in the Vita Merlini is because in HRB ‘Geoffrey’ had put no flesh on Merlin’s bones. His prophecies were the substance of Merlin. Later in this exposé we will see Henry’s ingenuity to explain how it is that Robert de Boron possesses certain knowledge i.e. of Joseph and the Grail where Merlin is posited (just as he is the VM), as a type of reappearing time traveller through the ages. To make Merlin seem more real, Henry needed to give him location at a point in time (real historical) with the added reality of interactive contemporaries who existed in history in the era projected by ‘Geoffrey’.
Henry Blois does clearly expose his authorship of the Vita Merlini in many places, but even in the HRB he betrays his own sentiments too often: ‘the disaster they had suffered in the loss of the Kingdom, they sent as legate Constantius the senator,…a wise man and a hardy, who had wrought more than any other to magnify the power of the commonweal’.
Henry just happens to be a legate also and it should be no shock that ‘Constantius took unto himself the crown of the Kingdom and therewithal the daughter of Coel unto wife. Her name was Helena, and all the damsels of the Kingdom did she surpass in beauty, nor was none other anywhere to be found that was held more cunning of skill in instruments of music nor better learned in the liberal arts’. Although this may seem far fetched to the reader.... we will see that Henry Blois’ prospect of a marriage to a nun is in John of Cornwall’s rendition of the prophecies.
As Tatlock points out[112] ‘one must be wary of assuming that every authentic legendary or historical Briton name here reflects in the attached narrative authentic tradition. Invented narrative attached to authentic names belonging to the same period concerned or other periods, is so common in the HRB as to be fairly called its formula’.
As I have mentioned, it seems that Henry employs a metaphor, interchanging the woods for Clugny as opposed to the material world at court he had been part of.... the court full of double dealings, deceit and lies. Henry had been greatly concerned with affairs in the Anarchy, during the years his brother was in power.
It is not silly to suggest that the innocence of the cloister boy returning home was like rediscovering inner peace. Clugny was the woods, the forest of Calidon, and a place to heal ones conscience from the madness Henry Blois had endured in England and this is reflected in the opening to VM (especially with the 19 years coinciding with his brother’s reign).
I might suggest that some who were religiously instructed from an early age undergo a self-realisation of past misdemeanours and account this religious experience as a form of madness within themselves. This may be part of the reason for its inclusion as part of the storyline in the Vita Merlini.
Although not suggested by its manuscript tradition, it would seem from the later references to the VM that it was popular, but I believe the reason for its lesser dissemination as opposed to that of the HRB is that Henry did not propagate copies throughout the monastic system on the continent…. probably because it was less acceptable in verse.
It had much less history and was designed to be read aloud at court. Therefore, it was not reproduced and distributed on the scale of the HRB. HRB’s distribution was simply achieved by handing it out to grandees and abbeys in the course of Henry’s travels; innocuously secreting its authorship, by presenting it as an interesting and inoffensive work by a non-descript cleric called Gaufridus Artur. After his supposed elevation to bishop and then his subsequent death…. the Vulgate was widely understood as having been written by Geoffrey of Monmouth (as in the text….rather than Gaufridus as stated in Primary Historia i.e. that version discovered at Bec).
The Vita Merlini in general can be seen to be derived from various sources, but it has a disconnected style compared with the unique condensation and organised construction of the HRB. The Vita is no less contrived but its structure is haltering; as if Geoffrey after a long focus has to realign his plot to make sure that the points for which the Vita was produced are made.
The overall effect is in a less flowing structure than the HRB, (but to have versified some of Isidore’s work is already a feat). Maybe this is acceptable to Henry, who, throughout the matter of fact HRB, presented it as believable History. Henry adjusted his sights and agenda and in his first word says: I am preparing to sing the madness of the prophetic bard, and a humorous poem on Merlin. He in fact carries out certain intended facets which in effect help to align his propaganda concerning a partly fictional history which was to become known as the Matter of Britain.
For consistency, many of Merlin’s prophecies are repeated from Vulgate HRB into VM, but there are many additions. Once we understand the prophecies were written by Henry Blois, we can then see why many of the prophecies themselves (supposed to have come from a sixth century seer caled Merlin), substantiate parts of the pseudo-history comprising HRB, which, supposedly ‘Geoffrey’ wrote. The reason we may never fully understand every prophecy is that they have undergone editorial changes by Henry in the final HRB in the Vulgate version published in 1155 (although this is vastly misunderstood by our current experts such as Crick). These were followed by newer prophecies made by Merlin in VM and other prophecies supposedly by Taliesin. Ganieda’s introduction (Merlin's supposed Sister) into VM helped substantiate Merlin’s vaticinatory reliability... certainly with highly specific predictions which had recently transpired during the Anarchy.
It would be foolish of anyone to presume to attempt to unveil the meaning of each prophecy as some prophecies have purposefully been squewed at a later date to hide Henry’s authorship when he has previously been less guarded. There seems to be a defining reason for writing the VM with several prophecies seemingly repeated from HRB. Not only has Henry Blois squewed some prophecies from HRB in VM (supposedly by Merlin himself), but he has added two more sets of prophecies which see clearly on other subjects not touched by Merlin, through Taliesin and Ganieda.
However, I feel that the whole of VM has a half-hearted approach in layout and purpose by comparison with the well-structured HRB. So, we should try to find out why Henry went to the trouble of producing the seemingly uninspired VM.
This is why many of the prophecies in VM are changed in purport from the Vulgate HRB’s new updated set (making some a lot less specific). In effect, by writing VM, Henry not only locates Merlin in antiquity (not accomplished in HRB), but has him surrounded and interacting with sixth century contemporaries; but most importantly the seditious prophecy which encourages the Celts to unite to re-establish the crown of Brutus is found in VM as well…. which puts its composition in between 1155-1158.
Therefore if ‘Geoffrey’ is now known to be dead, then those trying to find the person who added the most recent prophecy are non-plussed, because the same prophecy is in another of ‘Geoffrey’s’ works…. which, since he died in 1154, could not (as the logic goes) have been added to thwart Henry II. (As I have already covered, while Henry Blois was at Clugny in the years 1155-1158, he had tried to cause rebellion against Henry II by composing the updated prophecies about the resurgent Celts)
This same argument applies to the ‘Sixth’ in Ireland prophecy also. Gerald of Wales relates that the VM Merlin is clearer and comments on the modern insertions he detects in the prophecies saying that ‘not all these prophecies are probable, nor all fabulous’, but Gerald says King Henry II wants to read a copy. So, the idea that the VM was instigated to counter the suspicion that someone (in the 11 hundreds) was inciting sedition is not so silly if Henry II wanted to check to see if the prophecies were the same as those found in Vulgate HRB or the earlier separate composition now reffered to as the Libellus Merlini. We should not forget in the John of Cornwall set of Merlin prophecies , Henry Blois is predicted as the seventh returning as to Britain as an adopted son' as I have explained in the chapter on the JC prophecies.
Henry Blois is so clever at this that he gives the appearance (in the dedication of VM) of being seemingly dissatisfied with the acknowledgement which he received from Alexander (with the translation of the Merlin prophecies which supposedly had caused an interlude in the composition of HRB) and hopes for better with Robert de Chesney. (if Alexander had really given the prophecies to Geoffrey to translate why had Huntingdon not heard of the prophecies). This ridiculous misdirection by Henry Blois is discussed at length in a later chapter
Henry actually makes out that his last dedicatee in Lincoln (Alexander) did not recognise him by offering adequate reward. Writing the VM after 1155, Henry Blois predates his work to c.1148-9 by the use of the word ‘just’ (in the flattering prologue) regarding his fictional relationship with his fictitious patron Robert de Chesney: whom you have just succeeded, promoted to an honour that you deserve…
The reason for doing this was to show the continued patronage of the bishops of Lincoln. Alexander did not commission the translation of the prophecies of Merlin simply because they are all made up by Henry Blois. The dedications found in Vulgate HRB were written after the death of the dedicatees and (as I have shown) did not exist in the Primary Historia found at Bec (where no prophecies were even included in that first edition) or were either the First Variant (except the Exeter version which was a later addition).
The candidates put forward by King Stephen and Henry Blois were Henry de Sully, abbot of Frécamp, Gervase, abbot of Westminster, and Hugh, abbot of St Benet of Hulme. Henry de Sully was the son of William, Count of Chartres…. Stephen and Henry Blois’ eldest brother. William, as oldest, had not received his birth right as the eldest son to the comptal throne. He was considered too aggressive and mentally incompetent.[8]
Another candidate put forward for the bishopric of Lincoln was Gervase, the illegitimate son of King Stephen and his mistress, Damette. The third proposed candidate was Hugh, abbot of St Benet of Hulme. He was the illegitimate son of Stephen and Henry's brother who was Theobald II, Count of Champagne.
Henry’s methodology in the creation of what became known as the ‘Matter of Britain’ is the creation of a ‘conflatory’ soup of detail where icons are subconsciously and hazily cross referenced. Through this confusion, allowance is given for the appearance of inaccuracy through the ages. A connection of apples and the county of Somerset leave no doubt in the readers mind that the Avalon of HRB is synonymous with an Insula Pomorum through Barinthus. refered to in VM and obviously in the interpolated part of Malmesbury's DA (given into the hands of Henry Blois).
Peter the Venerable in old age had found himself unable to turn around the decline at Clugny and Henry Blois relays this as if conversing with a wolf in the wood metaphorically: You, O wolf, dear companion, accustomed to roam with me through the secluded paths of the woods and meadows, now can scarcely get across fields; hard hunger has weakened both you and me. You lived in these woods before I did and age has whitened your hairs first. You have nothing to put into your mouth and do not know how to get anything, at which I marvel, since the wood abounds in so many goats and other wild beasts that you might catch. Perhaps that detestable old age of yours has taken away your strength and prevented your following the chase. Now, as the only thing left to you, you fill the air with howlings, and stretched out on the ground you extend your wasted limbs.”
Henry Blois' meeting with Robert of Gloucester is mentioned in cursory manner in GS simply because it was undeniable. Many afterward knew the meeting had taken place. However, as the reader will realise, the gist of the GS always maintains that Henry had only ‘appeared’ to change allegiance and the author of GS portrays a position whereby Henry constantly supported Stephen. The GS maintains the view…. what may have seemed a change of allegiance outwardly…. was in appearance only. The GS storyline maintains that events dictated a change of allegiance for Henry Blois, as a more propitious course of action at that moment in time. Henry would have us believe in GS that he was always loyal to Stephen. This meeting of Robert and Henry suggests otherwise.
Suspicion must have been much more acute as the updated Vulgate prophecies were published in 1155 and seen to have additions which were not in the Libellus Merlini. William of Newburgh (much later) angrily protests against them and to the erroneous historicity of HRB. William of Newburgh who wrote around 1190 had problems with ‘Geoffrey’ challenging the authenticity of the Arthurian legends. ‘Geoffrey’s’ pseudo-history did not concur with Gildas. William of Newburgh wrote: It is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons.
William of Newburgh comments again: But in our own days, instead of this practice, a writer has emerged who, in order to expiate the faults of these Britons, weaves the most ridiculous figments of imagination around them, extolling them with the most impudent vanity above the virtues of the Macedonians and the Romans. This man is called Geoffrey, and his other name is Arthur, because he has taken up the fables about Arthur from the old, British figments, has added to them himself, and has cloaked them with the honourable name of history by presenting them with the ornaments of the Latin tongue....
The illusion of a continuous unadulterated set of prophecies is also aided by the back dating of Vulgate HRB through its dedicatees and the era they lived in (i.e. 1139 when the Bec version was discovered), but there is less evidence of suspicion on the prophecies themselves (recorded) than that of the dubious historicity of the main body of HRB.
The publication of John of Cornwall’s set of Merlin prophecies by Henry Blois greatly aids the illusion that the prophecies were originally of Brythonic origin. William Newburgh’s comments about historians like Bede: who indeed are known to have committed to memory quite unimportant things, how could they have passed over in silence so incomparable a man, whose deeds were notable above all others?... should be enough to point out that not everyone was gullible. We should be very wary of Nennius’ testimony because we can see blatantly that Henry Blois actively promotes Nennius as Gildas’ work…. but I shall cover this shortly.
For the less gullible commentator, Henry’s knowledge of the Winchester court discussion about invading Ireland subtracts from any predictive ability ascribed to Merlin. Merlin’s predictive ability has especially been given credence by the insertion/interpolation of the passage concerning some Merlin prophecies into Orderic which also refers to the ‘sixth’ invading Ireland. Some commentators date the interpolated chapter on Merlin’s prophecies in Orderic to 1136 or thereabout. Given the nature of the prophecies it is not only preposterous but naïve to think that the sixth King, i.e. Henry II, could be predicted to invade Ireland from this early date.[47] (given also that Ganieda's prophecies in VM cover the main events of the Anarchy).
As I have made plain earlier, Henry Blois has lost his power, his castles and his brother. The vision of his future when he wrote the original Libellus Merlini prophecies has now been played out. Henry Blois continues on until, (still speaking through Ganieda), he laments leaving all his nephews which he had fought so hard to elevate into positions of power in England and laments leaving his walls of Winchester and clothes himself in the monk’s mantle (as he is at the time of writing VM), in his present state at Clugny.
Isidore also leads into his discourse on Islands much the same way as Geoffrey of Monmouth does starting with Britain: Of these [islands] Britain is said to be the foremost and best, producing in its fruitfulness every single thing.
In the HRB, Bladud is the founder of Bath. We can actually witness Henry’s mind at work here. He is enabling himself to establish as fact in the Vita, the connection between Bladud and Badon and as we know the earliest mention of the Battle of Badon is in Gildas' De Excidio Britanniae where Ambrosius Aurelianus organized a British resistance.
But, as we know, 'Geoffrey' does his best to conflate Ambrosius with Arthur (or even Merlin) and Nennius has Badon as the place of King Arthur’s last battle. But, Geoffrey’s Camlann is also brought into the salad of confusion from the Annales Cambriae where Arthur and Mordred fell (AC mentions Medraut, but it does not specify that he and Arthur fought on opposite sides), as Henry Blois has Mordred in Cornwall purely because Henry knows the topography[53] and of the river Camel's existence in Cornwall.[54]
One of Henry Blois' intentions in VM is to conflate Badon (where Arthur’s battle took place) with Avalon. As the reader will understand shortly, the purport behind Henry’s very clever design is to set up Arthur’s last known location, the Island of Avalon of HRB fame.... as being synonymous with Glastonbury. So let us see in this next extract from the HRB, why Bladud’s name is important to Henry and why this contrivance is essential to his overall plan for the future of Glastonbury.
Henry Blois already has another project planned at this time at Clugny in a manuscript which was to become the forerunner of Perlesvaus, where unfortunately, he cannot change the name Insula Avallonis (for reasons that will be explained shortly).
The fact that Arthur was taken to Insula Pomorum shows (to the gullible) that it must equate to the island of Avalon mentioned in HRB. The logic of such an assumption is because the island now appears to be located in Somerset because Arthur had appeared at Glastonbury in the concocted life of Gildas and Somerset is renowned for its apples.
Posterity has been led to a conclusion to which Henry directed us in that: Insula Pomorum must be Glastonbury. In 1191 when the 'leaden cross' was unearthed in the manufactured grave created by Henry Blois.... Glastonbury was unequivocally associated with Avalon (as gleaned from Gerald's account of the unearthing); but the interpolator of DA has made this association long before the discovery. This is because the interpolator is Henry Blois and it was he who manufactured the gravesite of Arthur and Guinevere and let its location be known in DA. It is only modern scholars erroneous chronology which assumes Avalon’s association with Glastonbury was made after the disinterment. (in my discussion in the chapter on DA, it is obvious the interpolation which states where Arthur's grave is located was written into DA long before the discovery. This is obviated by there being no other commentary on the disinterment like that found in Gerald of Wales' material.
Henry Blois not only is responsible for the connection of Arthur to Glastonbury made by impersonating Caradoc, but he is also responsible for the naming of Avalon and the invention of the character of the Chivalric Arthur. He is responsible for Arthur’s association to Glastonbury found in DA and is responsible for creating Arthur’s grave between the pyramids.
It is hardly surprising that as ‘Geoffrey’ in VM, Henry persuades his audience that the apple country of Somerset possesses an Island which is known as Insula Pomorum where Arthur is known to have been taken by Barinthus. The only assumption one can draw (and to which the reader has been led in VM) is that Glastonbury must be the same location as Avalon with all the other evidences which corroborate such a conclusion found in DA (Henry's Perlesvaus mention of the lead roof of the Glastonbury chapel and Robert de Boron's reference to the Vaus d'Avaron).
Henry Blois has achieved his goal and posterity and scholarship is none the wiser even today. It will become apparent also that Henry Blois, (amongst other works of composed in anonymity), is the author of the initial Perlesvaus.
The VM continues on with Taliesin pronouncing on the Islands:
It is here that Geoffrey of Monmouth changes the order found in Isidore because Isidore follows with the Fortunate Isles. But ‘Geoffrey’ keeps this until the end of Taliesin’s discourse, so that it seemingly grafts into the main point of re-naming Avalon. However, ‘Geoffrey’ continues with Hesperides:
It is also though Henry Blois and his relationship with Marie and Alex, Eleanor of Aquitaine and their relation to Chrétien de Troyes where we meet Maheloas as lord of the Isle de Voirre which relates to Caradoc’s Melvas and Caradoc's Urbs Vitrea.
Of course the nine sorceress priestesses of Pomponius Mela’s island of Sena are to be conflated with the nine maidens on Insula Pomorum in VM and we see his corroboration in Henry’s interpolation into DA. To add to Henry’s salad of conflation in DA, Avalloc just happens to have daughters and supplies the eponym for Avalon just to complete the confusion.[68]
In this instance alone we can witness Henry’s brilliance which started out innocently by randomly picking a name from a Burgundian town just as he had selected the environs of Autun for Arthur’s fictitious continental battle. To not recognize that the conversion of a completely fictitious island to which a fictitious chivalric Arthur was taken to, (to what is nowadays understood to be a real location of Avalon) is to underestimate the brilliance of Henry’s subtle method of translocation.
The translocation also bears witness to the evolvement of Henry’s propagandist thought processes where Arthur was firstly associated with Glastonbury in the Life of Gildas. Henry had initially posited Ineswitrin as synonymous with Glastonbury in life of Gildas because by doing so it established the 601 charter’s credibility. At that time Henry wished Glastonbury to be recognized as Ineswitrin. By the end of the evolution of his propaganda Henry has effectually converted Ineswitrin at Glastonbury into Avalon at Glastonbury.
What is clear is that the prophecy’s main purport, whether originally relating to the Saxon era (as is indicated by an initial resurgence and then an eventual subjugation of the Britons) is that the end of the subjugation comes through Conan and Cadwallader both coincidentally fighting against Henry II in 1155. So here we have a clear indication that Henry Blois is trying to rouse the indigenous Celts through prophecy.
Henry Blois writing as 'Geoffrey' has made it clear that if the Bretons (with Conan) and the Welsh (with Cadwallader), along with the Scots and Cornish rise up against the invaders (specifically the Angevin Henry II), they will once again retain the crown of Brutus.
I hope the reader can get an insight into how manipulative the real Henry Blois actually was. Not only did he invent the story of Brutus in Britain in HRB, he is now predicting that the fictitious crown would return to the indigenous Britons.
Henry carries forward with the story line repeating and setting in order the events for the most part recorded in the HRB. The point of recapping of all this to Taliesin is fairly pointless except for reasons of corroborating the historiography of the HRB and by padding out the text. That is until he arrives at his real objective which is to splice in new prophecies as if told contemporaneously with those found in the Vulgate HRB.
The Island 'Ineswitrin' is the real inspiration for Henry Blois' mystical isle in HRB as refered to by Melkin in his prophecy when the original had stated Ineswitrin instead of JG's recycled Melkin prophecy which refers to Insula Avallonis. Henry Blois has changed the name from the original version of the prophecy to Avallonis (as is recycled by JG) because he had put out propaganda which made Glastonbury into Avalon and the grave he had manufactured would eventually confirm this. Only Henry knows that Ineswitrin equates with the same location in which Melkin has said Joseph of Arimathea is buried. The original version of the Melkin prophecy had the name of Ineswitrin on it, but the recycled version given by JG, Henry had altered the name to concord with the mystical island named in HRB (see chapter on the 601a.d. charter). The strange fact is that Henry Blois has no idea where the real island of Ineswitrin is located (except that it is in the old Dumnonia) and asi showlater on he actually looked for it. (he claimed Looe Island).
Melkin’s prophecy was the inspiration for Henry Blois' fictitious island he has called Avalon on which he has conveyed Arthur according to the tale in HRB and by Barinthus in VM (since obviously Insula Pomorum and Avalon equate to the same place in Henry's mind).
Now, this small shift of definition I just bring to the attention of the reader because Arthur is now at the palace of the nymphs or court of maidens. It is plain that it is Henry who has interpolated the piffle about Avalloc and his daughters in DA, but what I am trying to demonstrate is that Henry does not care what allusions or conflations he makes; his aim (or post 1158 agenda) is to have the reader of DA and VM all understand that Glastonbury was once known as Avalon because HRB was where Arthur was last seen and Henry had concocted the grave between the piramides at Glastonbury.
Heny Blois accomplished his mission, because when Gerald of Wales spoke of Avalon.... he understood that it was the old name for Glastonbury (see the chapter on Gerald). Gerald was not convinced solely by the leaden cross which was unearthed in front of him. He had already read HRB, VM, and most importantly, the interpolated DA (as I shall cover shortly).
I imagine that when Henry Blois first devised a fictional location where Arthur was to be taken in the First Variant version written c.1144 such as the island of Avalon, he subsequently came up with the idea of manufacturing a grave at Glastonbury for Arthur and Guinevere and so subtly suggested (by using part of Isidore's tract on islands and a conflation with the fortunate isles).... he made Insula Pomorum unequivocally inseparable from an island in Somerset (in VM) which also had to be the same as Avalon.... because Barinthus had transported Arthur there. What confusion and unlikely set of events could have Glastonbury with so many names as an island. The Fortunate isle because of its association with Insula Pomorum, Ineswitrin as Caradoc supposedly attests, and Insula Avallonis
He introduces us to a man named Maeldinus who, with the story line in VM, is associated with apples and would naturally lead any future investigator that enquires into his name to make the obvious conflation Henry has led us to. It is a conflation between insula Pomorum and Insula Avallonis. It is not by coincidence a certain Melchinus in his prophecy (found at Glastonbury) refers to the island of Avalon; especially now that Henry has substituted the original name of Iniswitrin to Insula Avallonis on the prophecy. I propose throughout this work that Melchinus’ prophecy is the inspiration behind Henry choosing an island on which King Arthur is last seen (in HRB) and then picking a name for it from the local environs of a town near Clugny (just as he had chosen this area in which to fight Arthur's continental campaign).
Considering Melkin’s prophecy speaks of an undiscovered sepulchre it would not be silly to suggest Henry’s notion of planting Arthur’s body in the graveyard at Glastonbury is derived from Melkin’s prophecy which in effect refers to Joseph’s undiscovered tomb. Nor would it be too difficult to work out that Melkin’s duo fassula is the template for Henry’s Grail.
In progression I will show that the Melkin prophecy existed at the time Henry Blois was alive and he was responsible for the change of name on the prophecy from Ineswitrin to Avalon. It seems propitious therefore that a certain Maeldinus is arbitrarily introduced as a character in VM which suggests to readers also that his name is associated with Insula Pomorum and therefore Avalon.
The next set of prophecies which Henry Blois wishes to expose to the reader are supposedly spoken by Ganieda, who, incredibly sees into the future from the sixth century, so much that is relevant to her reading audience in the twelfth century, who have just lived through the Anarchy.
Even to a Norman audience her prophecies must stretch credibility; to believe that the one occasion Ganieda is found prophesying, amazingly, the content of the prophetic vision pertains to the era in which the book which contained her vaticinations was published.
Henry Blois does not betray his Norman heritage; just as he averts all suspicion of authorship of the Gesta Stephani by being on occasion derogatory about himself. The stratagems employed to divert suspicion of authorship in the various works investigated in the course of this exposé are varied and ingenious. Henry Blois writing as ‘Geoffrey’ in the VM, speaking as Ganieda and Merlin or Taliesin feigns British nationality:
No Norman or Anglo-Norman, especially a cleric in Oxford, would have the audacity to write that the ‘Normans should depart and cease to bear weapons through our native realm with your cruel soldiery’. It is no wonder Gerald relates that King Henry wanted to obtain a copy of VM.
If the reader is still not convinced that Henry Blois is the author of these prophecies and the instigator of these updated prophecies which incite rebellion, he should read the version supposedly put out by John of Cornwall (which I cover in Chapter 30). This version puts Henry as the seventh king and Henry Blois vainly sees himself as an ‘adopted son’ firmly on the throne in England.
I think Henry realises that some of his audience may pay little respect to prophecies from a woman no one has heard of before. So, the great Merlin adds his stamp of authority explaining (so that we might understand how it is that we are blessed with Ganieda’s insight) and the reasoning behind why Merlin’s mouth has been ‘shut’. This indeed must be because (in reality) Merlin’s initial book (libellus Merlini)) was already published and it had already been squewed from its original to the updated prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB. Such prophecies as the Dumbarton and Carlisle prophecies were added here in VM and it would seem odd for more newly invented prophecies to turn up that also which had not previously been mentioned. Henry could not help himself in referring to the major parts of the Anarchy which Merlin had somehow missed (not mentioned) and so they were seen (supposedly a long time ago when Merlin had seen his visions ) by Ganieda instead.
I would rather believe it is a later addition to one manuscript which confirms by what it states that both tracts (and the predictions in both) were already written before 1154 when Geoffrey supposedly died.
The comment on the two Merlin’s is derived from Bec library, but Crick[109] informs us, the Leiden manuscript was catalogued in 1160, so I can see no reason to assume a date prior to 1157 given that ‘Geoffrey’ did not die in 1154-5. Tatlock seems to assume the Leyden MS, which has the VM prefixing the whole volume (containing much besides the HRB), who assigns an early HRB date (basing his premise purely upon the dedication), proposes as said…. ‘not much after 1148’ for the Vita Merlini. Tatlock dates the second of the library cataloguing ‘between early 1152 and 1154’ and the first even earlier. No previous proposition should prevent us here maintaining a completion date for the Vita Merlini as late as Aug- Sept 1157; and the terminus post quem of Chambers, Faral, Parry and Bruce is inconsequential based mainly upon the 13 December 1148 election date of Robert de Chesney to Lincoln and its supposedly recent transpiration.... made to appear by reason of the word ’just’.
Dedications as a form of dating in both HRB and VM have no bearing on the date of the work as commentators such as Crick need to understand before teaching another generation of scholars incorrectly.[110]
There was no request involved, and of course, if De Chesney did see VM, he would assume that Geoffrey died before he could present it. Henry Blois did not need the bishop’s of Lincolns' patronage and the entire dedicatory tone was a stratagem meant to mislead both on date andauthorship. In any case the dedication could of course have been added after De Chesney’s death, but I feel Henry Blois was responding to more immediate pressures that people suspected Ganieda's vaticinations were more recently made because of their content referring to such recent events.
Taliesin’s work dated from a few poems to the sixth century praises King Urien of Rheged and his son Owain mab Urien, and several of the poems imply that he also served as the court bard to King Brochfael Ysgithrog of Powys and his successor Cynan Garwyn, either before or during his time at Urien's court.
Some of the events to which his poems refer, such as the Battle of Arfderydd may be the source for historical annals as he seems to have been at the battle. His name is directly linked with the Y Gododdin from which we have the poetic account previously mentioned and he is also mentioned in Nennius’s Historia Brittonum.
Strangely, it would seem that this second Merlin Sylvestris is modelled upon Taliesin as even Taliesin’s parentage like Merlin’s was suspect. Although not an incubus, Taliesin was adopted as a child by Elffin, the son of Gwyddno Garanhir, but also more to the point, he has a possible connection to the original Melkin, (Meldred, Melvas, Maelgwn, all Kings) as Taliesin prophesied the death of Maelgwn from the Yellow Plague.
Taliesin also became companion of Bran the Blessed and King Arthur which sounds suspect as a late addition. But in the genuine life of St Cadoc written by Caradoc, we hear ‘in those days, a certain King, of the name of Maelgon, reigned over all Britain’ which I am sure was ‘Geoffrey’s’ reason for the inclusion of Maeldanus as a contemporary with Taliesin and Merlin in VM. The triple death divination and a prophetic madman called Lailoken befriended by St Kentigern of Glasgow (d.603) certainly associates more closely with a Calidonian Merlin.
Henry just happens to be a legate also and it should be no shock that ‘Constantius took unto himself the crown of the Kingdom and therewithal the daughter of Coel unto wife. Her name was Helena, and all the damsels of the Kingdom did she surpass in beauty, nor was none other anywhere to be found that was held more cunning of skill in instruments of music nor better learned in the liberal arts’. Although this may seem far fetched to the reader.... we will see that Henry Blois’ prospect of a marriage to a nun is in John of Cornwall’s rendition of the prophecies.
It is not silly to suggest that the innocence of the cloister boy returning home was like rediscovering inner peace. Clugny was the woods, the forest of Calidon, and a place to heal ones conscience from the madness Henry Blois had endured in England and this is reflected in the opening to VM (especially with the 19 years coinciding with his brother’s reign).
I might suggest that some who were religiously instructed from an early age undergo a self-realisation of past misdemeanours and account this religious experience as a form of madness within themselves. This may be part of the reason for its inclusion as part of the storyline in the Vita Merlini.
It had much less history and was designed to be read aloud at court. Therefore, it was not reproduced and distributed on the scale of the HRB. HRB’s distribution was simply achieved by handing it out to grandees and abbeys in the course of Henry’s travels; innocuously secreting its authorship, by presenting it as an interesting and inoffensive work by a non-descript cleric called Gaufridus Artur. After his supposed elevation to bishop and then his subsequent death…. the Vulgate was widely understood as having been written by Geoffrey of Monmouth (as in the text….rather than Gaufridus as stated in Primary Historia i.e. that version discovered at Bec).
The overall effect is in a less flowing structure than the HRB, (but to have versified some of Isidore’s work is already a feat). Maybe this is acceptable to Henry, who, throughout the matter of fact HRB, presented it as believable History. Henry adjusted his sights and agenda and in his first word says: I am preparing to sing the madness of the prophetic bard, and a humorous poem on Merlin. He in fact carries out certain intended facets which in effect help to align his propaganda concerning a partly fictional history which was to become known as the Matter of Britain.
[1] If indeed one of the many hundreds of scholars over the past hundred and fifty years had indeed entertained the possibility of Henry’s authorship we might be able to assign the title scholar to any one of them. However, the myopia which persists in the scholastic community is like a genetic disease passed down, where no-one can see the wood for the trees. This is more testament to Henry Blois’ brilliance than their lack of it.
[3] This argument is also given credence by the fact that the colophon of HRB, which, in effect adds a confirmation that the dedicatees were alive at the time the prophecies were added…. is an addition to the Vulgate to counter the argument that the dedicatees were not found in the First Variant version and were added subsequently. The colophon speaks to William of Malmesbury and in effect pre-dates the Vulgate to at least 1143.
[1] If indeed one of the many hundreds of scholars over the past hundred and fifty years had indeed entertained the possibility of Henry’s authorship we might be able to assign the title scholar to any one of them. However, the myopia which persists in the scholastic community is like a genetic disease passed down, where no-one can see the wood for the trees. This is more testament to Henry Blois’ brilliance than their lack of it.
[3] This argument is also given credence by the fact that the colophon of HRB, which, in effect adds a confirmation that the dedicatees were alive at the time the prophecies were added…. is an addition to the Vulgate to counter the argument that the dedicatees were not found in the First Variant version and were added subsequently. The colophon speaks to William of Malmesbury and in effect pre-dates the Vulgate to at least 1143.
[4] Geoffrey of Monmouth's Vita Merlini. J. S. P. Tatlock. Speculum Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1943), pp. 265-287
[5] There may be an original dedication to Robert of Gloucester in a First Variant version but this in all likelhood would have post-dated 1147.
[6] This even applies to the Count of Meulan
[7] In about 1160 Chesney became embroiled in a dispute with St Albans Abbey in the diocese of Lincoln, over his right as bishop to supervise the abbey. The dispute was eventually settled when the abbey granted Chesney land in return for his relinquishing any right to oversee St Albans.... a dispute Henry was involved in.
[8] There was an incident where he threatened to kill Bishop Ivo of Chartres over a jurisdictional dispute and his mother Adela conferred the inheritance to Theobald II, the second eldest son.
[11] Henry Blois was familiar with the Heroides of Ovid.
[12] As we shall discuss further on in the Vera Historia, Arthur supposedly reigned for 39 years and died in his fortieth year. HRB states that Arthur died in 542 and also says that Arthur acceded the throne at the age of 15. We can calculate therefore that according to Henry Blois (the writer of HRB and the Vera Historia) that Arthur must have been born in 486 acceded to the throne in 503 and died 39 years later in 542.
[13] See appendix 18
[14] The Fourth is in reference to the fourth in line from William the Conqueror. The Conqueror was followed by William Rufus and then by Henry I, making King Stephen the fourth.
[15] The Gesta Stephani is part apologia for Henry Blois’ own tarnished reputation as a manipulator. It is also a sentimental memorial to his dead brother, and part genuine history. The details are too specific on occasion for GS not to have been written by Henry Blois himself.... even though it appears otherwise. He conceals himself by employing devices to deflect suspicion of his authorship.
[16] Walker, David. "Gloucestershire Castles," in Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 1991, Vol. 109.
[17] William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, 523
[18] Historie des Engles, 11. 855
[20] Henry, from his own experience at Kidwelly in Wales looks on the Welsh as savages as is clearly expressed in GS and accounts for the contradictions of 'Geoffrey's' Welsh-ness in HRB. Originally the pseudo-history written by Henry was destined for Matilda and Henrry Blois' Uncle King Henry I. It was intended to be presented as a history where the Welsh were rough warriors. This then became hard to compliment the idea of a Chivalric (highly civilised) Arthur from Wales; hence the contradictions.
[21] See appendix 1.5
[22] See Appendix 2
[23] I do not think this has any relevance to Henry II being knighted at Carlisle.
[26] See appendix 5
[27] See appendix 6
[28] See appendix 7
[29] See appendix 8
[30] The Danes and the Dane law
[31] Perhaps Geoffrey’s reference to the Viking Thunder God Thor, yet in two cases in HRB it seems to refer to God.
[32] See appendix 11
[33] This refers to Matilda and Stephen ruling at the same time. King Stephen was also forgetful of his oath to the church and to his brother Henry himself. Instead of being able to rule with ‘garlanded sceptre’, Stephen is stung as if from a serpent’s tail. Henry makes plain in the Gesta Stephani.... it is God’s judgement against Stephen for wrongs against the church.
[34] See appendix 32
[35] The faces front and back is difficult to unravel, but the allusion is to the Norman Conquest and more specifically the battle of Hastings.
[36] The Norman subjection of Wales and Scotland the subsequent power feuds of continentals.
[37] This directly relates to the Anarchy.
[38] To convey the mistrust that prevailed throughout the country during the Anarchy is the aim of the prophecy. This could be a personal reference to Henry’s own snubs from Stephen and the changes of allegiance, ‘no one keeping their word’.
[39] See appendix 9
[40] See appendix 10
[41] See appendix 12
[42] See appendix 13
[43] See appendix 14
[44] See Appendix 36.
[46] It seems fairly certain that the initial distribution and copying was carried out by Henry Blois as he travelled.
[47] The passage in Orderic which establishes credibility for the existence of the prophecies in the minds of ‘scholars’ (by its appropriate insertion and clever reference to ‘time’) is quite obviously an interpolation and will be covered shortly.
Crick, appears to be duped into believing the existence of a body of prophecies by stating Orderic Vitalis, first known reader of Geoffrey’s Merlinian prophecies, understood their function immediately. In the same analysis she states: the Prophecies of Merlin, the core of Geoffrey’s own Historia, was arguably Geoffrey’s own creation. How then is it possible to predict the Sixth in Ireland if it is Geoffrey’s work and yet supposedly written prior to Henry I death (or even Orderic’s).... unless ‘Geoffrey’ is an actual prophet.
The evident solution is that it is an interpolation by Henry Blois into Orderic, as he is the inventor of both Merlin. his prophecies and Geoffrey. Henry Blois dupes posterity by inserting an entire section concerning the Merlin prophecies which were originally in the early Libellus Merlini with one added prophecy (the sixth in Ireland) qualifying their existence in the time of Henry I by stating (in the Orderic interpolation): up to the times of Henry I and Gruffudd, who still,” uncertain of their lot, await the future events” that are ordained for them.
I realise that to become a scholar one must spend a lot of time in dusty libraries and not much on the street. But one does not even have to be ‘street wise’ to recognise the obvious guile and intended insinuation in Henry’s interpolation. The interpolation in Orderic must have taken place post 1155.
[48] The Life of Gildas by the Monk of Rhuys tells that after Gildas settled in Brittany people began to flock to him to entrust their sons for their instruction to his superintendence and teaching.
[49] Minerva was the Roman goddess of wisdom and sponsor of arts, trade, and defence.... also mentioned in the prologue of John of Cornwall’s prophecies
[50] See Appendix 16
[51] Adam of Damerham witnesses that Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae sive Origines was donated to Glastonbury abbey by Henry Blois
[52] Aristotle Metaphysics
[53]It becomes plain that Henry knows Cornwall, but this only becomes evident when we cover John of Cornwall’s prophecies.
[54] From the Annales Cambriae, Camblanus becomes Geoffrey’s Camlann. However, more probably Colchester was called Camulodunum and Henry changed the location having visited Cornwall and Tintagel. Henry Blois knows the river Camel is four miles distant from Tintagel and on it stands Camelford. Henry Blois has conveniently used conflation for his own end and located the battle in Cornwall,
[55] HRB II, x
[56] The account of Bladud is found in the HRB, II, x.
[58] See Appendix 15
[59] Saint Isidore of Seville (c. 560 – 4 April 636) served as Archbishop of Seville and Geoffrey surely knew his source would be discovered, however the source for Geoffrey’s purposes is contemporaneous enough.
[60] Herodotus in book 3 says ‘I cannot speak with certainty nor am I acquainted with the islands called the Cassiterides from which tin is brought to us….it is never the less, certain that both our tin and our amber are brought from these extremely remote regions, in the western extremities of Europe’.
[61] According to the Sicilian Greek poet Stesichorus, and the Greek geographer Strabo, in his book Geographika (volume III), the garden of the Hesperides is located in Tartessos, a location placed in the south of the Iberian Peninsula. Since they are beyond the Gorgades which one must assume are the Canaries it would seem the Hesperides may be the Cape Verde Islands as Isidore states: Islands (insula) are so called because they are ‘in salt water’
[62] Pliny refers to Chryse as an Island and was on the Medieval mappaemundi as an Island. Mention of Argyre is made in the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea as the last part of the inhabited world toward the east. However, in Pliny’s Natural History he mentions a Land of Gold via a peninsula. Pomponius Mela, says two lands lay to the east of India one Argyre was said to boast soil of Gold and Chryse was said to have soil of Silver. ‘In the vicinity of Tamus is the Island of Argyre, in the vicinity of the Ganges, that of Chryse’.
[63] See Appendix 17
[64] Scholars have contrived an a priori which assumes the name Avalon has no association with Glastonbury until Arthur’s disinterment when the leaden cross is found. This is an obvious mistake derived from not recognising Henry Blois authorship of HRB or his interpolations into DA
[65] HRB IX, iv
[66] HRB XI, ii
[67] It will be discussed later on in the chapter on Vera Historia de morte Arthuri, Henry’s later addition of this lore to HRB where Morgen is also mentioned.
[68] We should remember that the DA interpolations which associate Avalon with Glastonbury were written into DA long before the unearthing of the Arthur in 1189-91.
[69] Pavia is presumably Paris; Brest and Chartres also places more relevant to Henry Blois than a Welsh Geoffrey of Monmouth.
[70] Geoffrey’s reference to the battle of Camlann is made to accord with an entry in the 10th-century Annales Cambriae, recording the battle in the year 537 which mentions Mordred (Medraut). ‘The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) perished’.
[71] There seems little doubt that the Navigatio Brendani is the source; the early eleventh century account of the voyage of St. Brendan. Followed by the Norman poem (ed. Fr. Michel), Voyages Merveille de St. Brendan (Paris 1878), where a certain ‘Barintz’ does the same (II. 75,101) and this version would certainly be known by Henry Blois as it was written for his uncle’s Queen Adeliza. Barint in the St Brendan legend starts the saint off on his voyage by telling him of a marvellous isle.
[72] ‘Geoffrey’ has based Arthur’s arrival at Avalon after the battle of Camlan. ‘Geoffrey’s’ artifice is clearly revealed in setting up the association of ‘Alaron’ with his various Island material which leads into his Fortunate Isle scenario. ‘Geoffrey’s’ statement in the HRB where Arthur ‘wounded deadly, and was borne thence unto the island of Avalon for the healing of his wounds, where he gave up the crown of Britain unto his kinsman Constantine’ assumes that giving up his crown, he died there at Avalon and was never seen again. It is this same assumption that facilitated any credence given to the fabricated find of Arthur’s remains at Glastonbury in 1191. As we know, initially in Primary Historia, Arthur is not taken to Avalon…. otherwise this would have been mentioned by Huntingdon. In First Variant Henry Blois omits the ambiguous word letaliter ‘mortally wounded’, so a clear progression in storyline is witnessed. Ultimately to where a grave is manufactured by Henry Blois to coincide with Arthur having died at Avalon.
[73] The three Geoffrey refers to may be Cadvan, Cadwallo, and Cadwallader, on the basis of Book XII of the HRB.
[74] See appendix18
[75] See appendix 19
[76] See appendix 20
[77]Ambrosius’ name is employed in HRB to conflate with Gildas and Bedes' accounts.... as Ambrosius is the resistance leader conflated with Arthur by ‘Geoffrey’.
[78] Not Cynan and Caduallo or Caedwalla
[79] We can see the same seditious prophecy in Vulgate HRB: Cadwallader shall call unto Conan, and shall receive Albany to his fellowship. Then shall there be slaughter of the foreigners: then shall the rivers run blood: then shall gush forth the fountains of Armorica and shall be crowned with the diadem of Brutus. Cambria shall be filled with gladness and the oaks of Cornwall shall wax green. The island shall be called by the name of Brutus and the name given by foreigners shall be done away. Here again, we are told the he-goat from the castle of Venus with a silver beard will succeed and there will then be peace in his time. It does not take too much imagination to see who this might refer to.
[80] The same is posited by Robert de Boron who obtained his sense of Merlin from Henry Blois.
[81] HRB, VI, v-xix.
[82] See appendix 1.5
[83] HRB XII, xix: And, as barbarism crept in, they were no longer called Britons but Welsh, a word derived either from Gualo, one of their Dukes, or from Guales. Also we can see Henry’s hatred of the Welsh of his era: But the Welsh, degenerating from the nobility of the Britons, never afterwards recovered the sovereignty of the island…
[84] See Appendix 31
[85] Henry ‘s Father died May 19, 1102 in Ramla, Holy Land at the Battle of Ascalon. This may have some Freudian bearing on the choice of name in choosing the Burgundian town’s name.
[87] Similar non-sense was in the prophecy about the fountains at Winchester in the HRB prophecies.
[88] The fact that there is a King Melvas at Glastonbury and a Maheloas, a great baron, lord of the Isle of Voirre in Chrétien’s ‘Erec’ and here a Maeldanus (of royal race) all attached to Glastonbury, all having emanated from Melkin or the Maeldanus in the Life of Cadoc (on which Henry based his life of Gildas)..... just indicates Henry’s ability to conflate sources.
[89] See appendix 21
[90] See appendix 22
[91] See appendix 23
[92] See appendix 26
[93] On 14 September, 1141, Queen Matilda and Empress Matilda, ‘the two moons’ brought their rival forces to the rout of Winchester. See also appendix 22
[94] Duke Henry the future King Henry II and Stephen are the two lions, and the one man looking at two and another man looking at two are Henry Blois and Theobald of Bec already mentioned at the ’Ford of the Staff’ (Wallingford). Henry Blois and Theobald of Bec are the peacemakers as neither side (situated each side of the river), wanted to fight. As Henry equates himself with Cicero he would know: A bad peace is always better than a good war.
[95] The one man is Henry Blois looking at the two. The two are the Queen Matilda, Stephen’s wife.... and the Empress Matilda. ‘Another’ is Robert of Gloucester looking at the two also, preparing for battle.
[96] William the Conqueror was accounted the first, William II, was the third son of William the conqueror of England, called William Rufus. He was the second. The third was Henry Ist and the fourth was King Stephen, the brother of Henry Blois. Orderic Vitalis… crowned on the eighteenth of the calends of January being the fourth King of the Norman race.
[97] See appendix 25
[98] See appendix 24
[99] See appendix 27
[100] See appendix 28
[101] See appendix 29
[102] See appendix 30
[103] ‘In the same week, a like good fortune smiled on King Stephen in another part of the Kingdom. For the earl of Albemarle and Roger de Mowbray had an engagement with the King of Scotland,' and having put to the sword a multitude of the Scots, avenged the cruel slaughter which these people had made of the English without any respect for the Christian religion. The Scots, it appears, fearing the sword which threatened them, fled towards the water, and rushing into the river Tweed where there was no ford, in their attempt to escape death, met it by drowning.' After the war had continued for a length of time between the two Kings, and it had been accompanied by great atrocities on the one side and on the other, to the general loss, envoys were sent by divine inspiration, to treat of peace between the two Kings, now weary of pillage and slaughter, as well as of continual anxiety and toil; and thus their alliance was renewed’.
[104]See appendix 30. Also, a poem in Canu Taliesin entitled The Battle of Gwen Ystrat: “The men of Catraeth arise with the day around a battle-victorious, cattle-rich sovereign this is Uryen by name, the most senior leader."
[105] We should also note that Henry’s importance in determining events in England is evidenced in a self-written and vain epitaph on the Meusan plates: lest England groan for it, since on him (Henry Blois) it depends for peace or war, agitation or rest.
[106] Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Vita Merlini 272
[107] Bibl. Ecc. Des Chartres, LXXI, 506-509, and in Faral II 20-22.
[108] Crick’s 76&92 MSS
[109] The Historia regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth IV. Dissemination and reception in later middle ages Prof. Julia C. Crick, 204
[110] The most balanced scholar in his approach to Geoffrey’s work is Prof. O. J. Padel: What is certain is Geoffrey’s subtlety and the complexity of his work: the gravest error that we students can commit is to underestimate it. The more one learns about his work, the more one feels that Geoffrey was always one step ahead of his twentieth-century readers: anything that we may establish, by dint of hard work and detailed scholarship, is open to revision by some future discovery.
[111] David Knowles. Saints and Scholars. P 55. It is largely due to Gerald’s record, who only knew Henry in his later life after his return from Clugny in 1158, which has secured Henry’s reputation in posterity as a revered elder statesman of the church giving generous patronage and wise council to such as King Henry II and Becket alike.
[112] Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Vita Merlini 269
http://www.amazon.com/Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-Monmouth-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437877385&sr=8-1&keywords=THE+ISLAND+OF+AVALON&pebp=1437877399037&perid=1QYSH100YBFW2BA8M8B9http://www.amazon.com/Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-Monmouth-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437877385&sr=8-1&keywords=THE+ISLAND+OF+AVALON&pebp=1437877399037&perid=1QYSH100YBFW2BA8M8B9
[5] There may be an original dedication to Robert of Gloucester in a First Variant version but this in all likelhood would have post-dated 1147.
[6] This even applies to the Count of Meulan
[7] In about 1160 Chesney became embroiled in a dispute with St Albans Abbey in the diocese of Lincoln, over his right as bishop to supervise the abbey. The dispute was eventually settled when the abbey granted Chesney land in return for his relinquishing any right to oversee St Albans.... a dispute Henry was involved in.
[8] There was an incident where he threatened to kill Bishop Ivo of Chartres over a jurisdictional dispute and his mother Adela conferred the inheritance to Theobald II, the second eldest son.
[11] Henry Blois was familiar with the Heroides of Ovid.
[12] As we shall discuss further on in the Vera Historia, Arthur supposedly reigned for 39 years and died in his fortieth year. HRB states that Arthur died in 542 and also says that Arthur acceded the throne at the age of 15. We can calculate therefore that according to Henry Blois (the writer of HRB and the Vera Historia) that Arthur must have been born in 486 acceded to the throne in 503 and died 39 years later in 542.
[13] See appendix 18
[14] The Fourth is in reference to the fourth in line from William the Conqueror. The Conqueror was followed by William Rufus and then by Henry I, making King Stephen the fourth.
[15] The Gesta Stephani is part apologia for Henry Blois’ own tarnished reputation as a manipulator. It is also a sentimental memorial to his dead brother, and part genuine history. The details are too specific on occasion for GS not to have been written by Henry Blois himself.... even though it appears otherwise. He conceals himself by employing devices to deflect suspicion of his authorship.
[16] Walker, David. "Gloucestershire Castles," in Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 1991, Vol. 109.
[17] William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, 523
[18] Historie des Engles, 11. 855
[20] Henry, from his own experience at Kidwelly in Wales looks on the Welsh as savages as is clearly expressed in GS and accounts for the contradictions of 'Geoffrey's' Welsh-ness in HRB. Originally the pseudo-history written by Henry was destined for Matilda and Henrry Blois' Uncle King Henry I. It was intended to be presented as a history where the Welsh were rough warriors. This then became hard to compliment the idea of a Chivalric (highly civilised) Arthur from Wales; hence the contradictions.
[21] See appendix 1.5
[22] See Appendix 2
[23] I do not think this has any relevance to Henry II being knighted at Carlisle.
[26] See appendix 5
[27] See appendix 6
[28] See appendix 7
[29] See appendix 8
[30] The Danes and the Dane law
[31] Perhaps Geoffrey’s reference to the Viking Thunder God Thor, yet in two cases in HRB it seems to refer to God.
[32] See appendix 11
[33] This refers to Matilda and Stephen ruling at the same time. King Stephen was also forgetful of his oath to the church and to his brother Henry himself. Instead of being able to rule with ‘garlanded sceptre’, Stephen is stung as if from a serpent’s tail. Henry makes plain in the Gesta Stephani.... it is God’s judgement against Stephen for wrongs against the church.
[34] See appendix 32
[35] The faces front and back is difficult to unravel, but the allusion is to the Norman Conquest and more specifically the battle of Hastings.
[36] The Norman subjection of Wales and Scotland the subsequent power feuds of continentals.
[37] This directly relates to the Anarchy.
[38] To convey the mistrust that prevailed throughout the country during the Anarchy is the aim of the prophecy. This could be a personal reference to Henry’s own snubs from Stephen and the changes of allegiance, ‘no one keeping their word’.
[39] See appendix 9
[40] See appendix 10
[41] See appendix 12
[42] See appendix 13
[43] See appendix 14
[44] See Appendix 36.
[46] It seems fairly certain that the initial distribution and copying was carried out by Henry Blois as he travelled.
[47] The passage in Orderic which establishes credibility for the existence of the prophecies in the minds of ‘scholars’ (by its appropriate insertion and clever reference to ‘time’) is quite obviously an interpolation and will be covered shortly.
Crick, appears to be duped into believing the existence of a body of prophecies by stating Orderic Vitalis, first known reader of Geoffrey’s Merlinian prophecies, understood their function immediately. In the same analysis she states: the Prophecies of Merlin, the core of Geoffrey’s own Historia, was arguably Geoffrey’s own creation. How then is it possible to predict the Sixth in Ireland if it is Geoffrey’s work and yet supposedly written prior to Henry I death (or even Orderic’s).... unless ‘Geoffrey’ is an actual prophet.
The evident solution is that it is an interpolation by Henry Blois into Orderic, as he is the inventor of both Merlin. his prophecies and Geoffrey. Henry Blois dupes posterity by inserting an entire section concerning the Merlin prophecies which were originally in the early Libellus Merlini with one added prophecy (the sixth in Ireland) qualifying their existence in the time of Henry I by stating (in the Orderic interpolation): up to the times of Henry I and Gruffudd, who still,” uncertain of their lot, await the future events” that are ordained for them.
I realise that to become a scholar one must spend a lot of time in dusty libraries and not much on the street. But one does not even have to be ‘street wise’ to recognise the obvious guile and intended insinuation in Henry’s interpolation. The interpolation in Orderic must have taken place post 1155.
Crick, appears to be duped into believing the existence of a body of prophecies by stating Orderic Vitalis, first known reader of Geoffrey’s Merlinian prophecies, understood their function immediately. In the same analysis she states: the Prophecies of Merlin, the core of Geoffrey’s own Historia, was arguably Geoffrey’s own creation. How then is it possible to predict the Sixth in Ireland if it is Geoffrey’s work and yet supposedly written prior to Henry I death (or even Orderic’s).... unless ‘Geoffrey’ is an actual prophet.
The evident solution is that it is an interpolation by Henry Blois into Orderic, as he is the inventor of both Merlin. his prophecies and Geoffrey. Henry Blois dupes posterity by inserting an entire section concerning the Merlin prophecies which were originally in the early Libellus Merlini with one added prophecy (the sixth in Ireland) qualifying their existence in the time of Henry I by stating (in the Orderic interpolation): up to the times of Henry I and Gruffudd, who still,” uncertain of their lot, await the future events” that are ordained for them.
I realise that to become a scholar one must spend a lot of time in dusty libraries and not much on the street. But one does not even have to be ‘street wise’ to recognise the obvious guile and intended insinuation in Henry’s interpolation. The interpolation in Orderic must have taken place post 1155.
[48] The Life of Gildas by the Monk of Rhuys tells that after Gildas settled in Brittany people began to flock to him to entrust their sons for their instruction to his superintendence and teaching.
[49] Minerva was the Roman goddess of wisdom and sponsor of arts, trade, and defence.... also mentioned in the prologue of John of Cornwall’s prophecies
[50] See Appendix 16
[51] Adam of Damerham witnesses that Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae sive Origines was donated to Glastonbury abbey by Henry Blois
[52] Aristotle Metaphysics
[53]It becomes plain that Henry knows Cornwall, but this only becomes evident when we cover John of Cornwall’s prophecies.
[54] From the Annales Cambriae, Camblanus becomes Geoffrey’s Camlann. However, more probably Colchester was called Camulodunum and Henry changed the location having visited Cornwall and Tintagel. Henry Blois knows the river Camel is four miles distant from Tintagel and on it stands Camelford. Henry Blois has conveniently used conflation for his own end and located the battle in Cornwall,
[55] HRB II, x
[56] The account of Bladud is found in the HRB, II, x.
[58] See Appendix 15
[59] Saint Isidore of Seville (c. 560 – 4 April 636) served as Archbishop of Seville and Geoffrey surely knew his source would be discovered, however the source for Geoffrey’s purposes is contemporaneous enough.
[60] Herodotus in book 3 says ‘I cannot speak with certainty nor am I acquainted with the islands called the Cassiterides from which tin is brought to us….it is never the less, certain that both our tin and our amber are brought from these extremely remote regions, in the western extremities of Europe’.
[61] According to the Sicilian Greek poet Stesichorus, and the Greek geographer Strabo, in his book Geographika (volume III), the garden of the Hesperides is located in Tartessos, a location placed in the south of the Iberian Peninsula. Since they are beyond the Gorgades which one must assume are the Canaries it would seem the Hesperides may be the Cape Verde Islands as Isidore states: Islands (insula) are so called because they are ‘in salt water’
[62] Pliny refers to Chryse as an Island and was on the Medieval mappaemundi as an Island. Mention of Argyre is made in the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea as the last part of the inhabited world toward the east. However, in Pliny’s Natural History he mentions a Land of Gold via a peninsula. Pomponius Mela, says two lands lay to the east of India one Argyre was said to boast soil of Gold and Chryse was said to have soil of Silver. ‘In the vicinity of Tamus is the Island of Argyre, in the vicinity of the Ganges, that of Chryse’.
[63] See Appendix 17
[64] Scholars have contrived an a priori which assumes the name Avalon has no association with Glastonbury until Arthur’s disinterment when the leaden cross is found. This is an obvious mistake derived from not recognising Henry Blois authorship of HRB or his interpolations into DA
[65] HRB IX, iv
[66] HRB XI, ii
[67] It will be discussed later on in the chapter on Vera Historia de morte Arthuri, Henry’s later addition of this lore to HRB where Morgen is also mentioned.
[68] We should remember that the DA interpolations which associate Avalon with Glastonbury were written into DA long before the unearthing of the Arthur in 1189-91.
[69] Pavia is presumably Paris; Brest and Chartres also places more relevant to Henry Blois than a Welsh Geoffrey of Monmouth.
[71] There seems little doubt that the Navigatio Brendani is the source; the early eleventh century account of the voyage of St. Brendan. Followed by the Norman poem (ed. Fr. Michel), Voyages Merveille de St. Brendan (Paris 1878), where a certain ‘Barintz’ does the same (II. 75,101) and this version would certainly be known by Henry Blois as it was written for his uncle’s Queen Adeliza. Barint in the St Brendan legend starts the saint off on his voyage by telling him of a marvellous isle.
[72] ‘Geoffrey’ has based Arthur’s arrival at Avalon after the battle of Camlan. ‘Geoffrey’s’ artifice is clearly revealed in setting up the association of ‘Alaron’ with his various Island material which leads into his Fortunate Isle scenario. ‘Geoffrey’s’ statement in the HRB where Arthur ‘wounded deadly, and was borne thence unto the island of Avalon for the healing of his wounds, where he gave up the crown of Britain unto his kinsman Constantine’ assumes that giving up his crown, he died there at Avalon and was never seen again. It is this same assumption that facilitated any credence given to the fabricated find of Arthur’s remains at Glastonbury in 1191. As we know, initially in Primary Historia, Arthur is not taken to Avalon…. otherwise this would have been mentioned by Huntingdon. In First Variant Henry Blois omits the ambiguous word letaliter ‘mortally wounded’, so a clear progression in storyline is witnessed. Ultimately to where a grave is manufactured by Henry Blois to coincide with Arthur having died at Avalon.
[73] The three Geoffrey refers to may be Cadvan, Cadwallo, and Cadwallader, on the basis of Book XII of the HRB.
[74] See appendix18
[75] See appendix 19
[76] See appendix 20
[77]Ambrosius’ name is employed in HRB to conflate with Gildas and Bedes' accounts.... as Ambrosius is the resistance leader conflated with Arthur by ‘Geoffrey’.
[78] Not Cynan and Caduallo or Caedwalla
[79] We can see the same seditious prophecy in Vulgate HRB: Cadwallader shall call unto Conan, and shall receive Albany to his fellowship. Then shall there be slaughter of the foreigners: then shall the rivers run blood: then shall gush forth the fountains of Armorica and shall be crowned with the diadem of Brutus. Cambria shall be filled with gladness and the oaks of Cornwall shall wax green. The island shall be called by the name of Brutus and the name given by foreigners shall be done away. Here again, we are told the he-goat from the castle of Venus with a silver beard will succeed and there will then be peace in his time. It does not take too much imagination to see who this might refer to.
[80] The same is posited by Robert de Boron who obtained his sense of Merlin from Henry Blois.
[81] HRB, VI, v-xix.
[82] See appendix 1.5
[83] HRB XII, xix: And, as barbarism crept in, they were no longer called Britons but Welsh, a word derived either from Gualo, one of their Dukes, or from Guales. Also we can see Henry’s hatred of the Welsh of his era: But the Welsh, degenerating from the nobility of the Britons, never afterwards recovered the sovereignty of the island…
[84] See Appendix 31
[85] Henry ‘s Father died May 19, 1102 in Ramla, Holy Land at the Battle of Ascalon. This may have some Freudian bearing on the choice of name in choosing the Burgundian town’s name.
[87] Similar non-sense was in the prophecy about the fountains at Winchester in the HRB prophecies.
[88] The fact that there is a King Melvas at Glastonbury and a Maheloas, a great baron, lord of the Isle of Voirre in Chrétien’s ‘Erec’ and here a Maeldanus (of royal race) all attached to Glastonbury, all having emanated from Melkin or the Maeldanus in the Life of Cadoc (on which Henry based his life of Gildas)..... just indicates Henry’s ability to conflate sources.
[89] See appendix 21
[90] See appendix 22
[91] See appendix 23
[92] See appendix 26
[93] On 14 September, 1141, Queen Matilda and Empress Matilda, ‘the two moons’ brought their rival forces to the rout of Winchester. See also appendix 22
[94] Duke Henry the future King Henry II and Stephen are the two lions, and the one man looking at two and another man looking at two are Henry Blois and Theobald of Bec already mentioned at the ’Ford of the Staff’ (Wallingford). Henry Blois and Theobald of Bec are the peacemakers as neither side (situated each side of the river), wanted to fight. As Henry equates himself with Cicero he would know: A bad peace is always better than a good war.
[95] The one man is Henry Blois looking at the two. The two are the Queen Matilda, Stephen’s wife.... and the Empress Matilda. ‘Another’ is Robert of Gloucester looking at the two also, preparing for battle.
[96] William the Conqueror was accounted the first, William II, was the third son of William the conqueror of England, called William Rufus. He was the second. The third was Henry Ist and the fourth was King Stephen, the brother of Henry Blois. Orderic Vitalis… crowned on the eighteenth of the calends of January being the fourth King of the Norman race.
[97] See appendix 25
[98] See appendix 24
[99] See appendix 27
[100] See appendix 28
[101] See appendix 29
[102] See appendix 30
[103] ‘In the same week, a like good fortune smiled on King Stephen in another part of the Kingdom. For the earl of Albemarle and Roger de Mowbray had an engagement with the King of Scotland,' and having put to the sword a multitude of the Scots, avenged the cruel slaughter which these people had made of the English without any respect for the Christian religion. The Scots, it appears, fearing the sword which threatened them, fled towards the water, and rushing into the river Tweed where there was no ford, in their attempt to escape death, met it by drowning.' After the war had continued for a length of time between the two Kings, and it had been accompanied by great atrocities on the one side and on the other, to the general loss, envoys were sent by divine inspiration, to treat of peace between the two Kings, now weary of pillage and slaughter, as well as of continual anxiety and toil; and thus their alliance was renewed’.
[104]See appendix 30. Also, a poem in Canu Taliesin entitled The Battle of Gwen Ystrat: “The men of Catraeth arise with the day around a battle-victorious, cattle-rich sovereign this is Uryen by name, the most senior leader."
[105] We should also note that Henry’s importance in determining events in England is evidenced in a self-written and vain epitaph on the Meusan plates: lest England groan for it, since on him (Henry Blois) it depends for peace or war, agitation or rest.
[106] Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Vita Merlini 272
[107] Bibl. Ecc. Des Chartres, LXXI, 506-509, and in Faral II 20-22.
[108] Crick’s 76&92 MSS
[109] The Historia regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth IV. Dissemination and reception in later middle ages Prof. Julia C. Crick, 204
[110] The most balanced scholar in his approach to Geoffrey’s work is Prof. O. J. Padel: What is certain is Geoffrey’s subtlety and the complexity of his work: the gravest error that we students can commit is to underestimate it. The more one learns about his work, the more one feels that Geoffrey was always one step ahead of his twentieth-century readers: anything that we may establish, by dint of hard work and detailed scholarship, is open to revision by some future discovery.
[111] David Knowles. Saints and Scholars. P 55. It is largely due to Gerald’s record, who only knew Henry in his later life after his return from Clugny in 1158, which has secured Henry’s reputation in posterity as a revered elder statesman of the church giving generous patronage and wise council to such as King Henry II and Becket alike.
[112] Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Vita Merlini 269
http://www.amazon.com/Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-Monmouth-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437877385&sr=8-1&keywords=THE+ISLAND+OF+AVALON&pebp=1437877399037&perid=1QYSH100YBFW2BA8M8B9http://www.amazon.com/Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-Monmouth-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437877385&sr=8-1&keywords=THE+ISLAND+OF+AVALON&pebp=1437877399037&perid=1QYSH100YBFW2BA8M8B9
http://www.amazon.com/Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-Monmouth-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437877385&sr=8-1&keywords=THE+ISLAND+OF+AVALON&pebp=1437877399037&perid=1QYSH100YBFW2BA8M8B9http://www.amazon.com/Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-Monmouth-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437877385&sr=8-1&keywords=THE+ISLAND+OF+AVALON&pebp=1437877399037&perid=1QYSH100YBFW2BA8M8B9
Appendix 1.5
Not with impunity, however, for the leader shall be
killed; he shall have the name of a horse and because of that fact shall be
fierce.
Henry Blois’ device here is to pretend that Merlin is predicting the coming of
Horsa or as ‘Geoffrey’ calls him in both HRB and VM Horsus.
By feigning prediction of the Saxon arrival through prophecy, he adds historical accuracy to both VM and HRB. A record of both Hengist and Horsa are attested in Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum and in Nennius’ Historia Brittonum. Their names are also recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, all of which Henry Blois used as source material to construct the HRB. Because their names are found in the British annals as two Germanic brothers in the Anglo-Saxon era who led the Angle, Saxon and Jutish armies which invaded the territories of the Britons in the 5th century.... Merlin is supposed to be seeing their arrival as part of his prophetic vision…. regardless of the anachronism.[1] He is staged in the later era of Rhydderch in VM. The point is, his audience is unaware of chronology yet the two brothers both establish authenticity for Geoffrey’s works as they are part of the Briton’s history. In the VM: The Saxon people, in fact, arriving in their curved keels had come to serve him with their helmeted soldiery. They were led by two courageous brothers, Horsus and Hengist, who afterwards with wicked treachery harmed the people and the cities. For after this, by serving the King with industry, they won him over to themselves and seeing the people moved by a quarrel that touched them closely they were able to subjugate the King; then turning their ferocious arms upon the people they broke faith and killed the princes by a premeditated fraud while they were sitting with them after calling them together to make peace and a treaty with them, and the prince they drove over the top of the snowy mountain.
By feigning prediction of the Saxon arrival through prophecy, he adds historical accuracy to both VM and HRB. A record of both Hengist and Horsa are attested in Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum and in Nennius’ Historia Brittonum. Their names are also recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, all of which Henry Blois used as source material to construct the HRB. Because their names are found in the British annals as two Germanic brothers in the Anglo-Saxon era who led the Angle, Saxon and Jutish armies which invaded the territories of the Britons in the 5th century.... Merlin is supposed to be seeing their arrival as part of his prophetic vision…. regardless of the anachronism.[1] He is staged in the later era of Rhydderch in VM. The point is, his audience is unaware of chronology yet the two brothers both establish authenticity for Geoffrey’s works as they are part of the Briton’s history. In the VM: The Saxon people, in fact, arriving in their curved keels had come to serve him with their helmeted soldiery. They were led by two courageous brothers, Horsus and Hengist, who afterwards with wicked treachery harmed the people and the cities. For after this, by serving the King with industry, they won him over to themselves and seeing the people moved by a quarrel that touched them closely they were able to subjugate the King; then turning their ferocious arms upon the people they broke faith and killed the princes by a premeditated fraud while they were sitting with them after calling them together to make peace and a treaty with them, and the prince they drove over the top of the snowy mountain.
Hengist and Horsa arrived in Britain as
mercenaries serving Vortigern, eventually leading to the ‘Night of the Long
Knives’, when Hengist's men massacred the Britons at a peace accord. However,
Henry forgets his own plot as it was Cadwallader,
renouncing worldly things for the sake of God and His Kingdom everlasting, came
unto Rome. (the prince they drove over the top of the snowy
mountain). ‘Over the snowy mountain’
refers to a sojourn in Rome. However, ‘Geoffrey’s’ notion that Cadwaladr died
in Rome is fiction and derives from a confusion of his own making where he
originally read that it was Caedwalla, King of Wessex who died on a pilgrimage
to Rome in 689.[2]
Appendix 2. Dumbarton
Until it is recognized
that Geoffrey of Monmouth was a nom de
plume used by Henry Blois, commentators will find it difficult to
understand the inconsistencies found in Merlin’s predictions. We should understand that Henry conflates his
source material with the sole purpose of anchoring his supposed prophecies as
if they were made in Merlin’s era, providing contemporaneity for them by events
which records show transpired in the sixth century. This gambit is also used in
association with a location and its history.
For ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ Dumbarton represented the Brythonic Britons which was the Kingdom of Strathclyde and its northern half occupied by the Damnonii, belonging to the Cornish variety of the British race, but its first King Rhydderch Hael, (Columba's and Kentigern's friend) is the real reason it is mentioned because Henry has set VM in the court Rhydderch
For ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ Dumbarton represented the Brythonic Britons which was the Kingdom of Strathclyde and its northern half occupied by the Damnonii, belonging to the Cornish variety of the British race, but its first King Rhydderch Hael, (Columba's and Kentigern's friend) is the real reason it is mentioned because Henry has set VM in the court Rhydderch
Dumbarton (from Dùn Breatann or Dùn Breatainn means
"fort of the Britons” and therefore links for Geoffrey the Britons of
Wales to the Strathclyde area and therefore merits attention in his prophecies.
The inhabitants, (as he indicates not being rebuilt) are the wretched souls
taken into slavery to Ireland we witness later on in the Vita where wretched people cross the water. In 869 AD, when Olaf the White, the Norse King of Dublin, brought a
raiding army to plunder Scotland, Olaf and his brother Ivarr laid siege to the
formidable rock fortress of Dumbarton. For four months starving the Britons
out, until the fortress’ well dried up. They ferried a ‘great host’ of Britons
to Ireland as slaves on a fleet of 200 ships. The real reason that Henry
concerns himself with Dumbarton is to place Merlin Caledonius in the North and
predict occurrences about the north to establish the new northern Merlin.
Merlin was of course corroborated as hailing from the north also through Blaise
and Merlin being in Northumberland…. as presented in Robert de Boron’s work. ( I cover elsewhere that Robert de Boron's prose work derives directly from versified work which originated from Henry Blois which is no longer extant).
Geoffrey, unconcerned
with exactitude in his concoction of the VM, has Rhydderch and Merlin with
Taliesin and so indicates Taliesin as a partial source through his historical works. Taliesin’s poem is a first-person eyewitness
account (as Merlin’s presence on the battlefield pretends to be) and glorifies
a victory by Urien, prince of Rheged, in which he led his warriors in defence
against a host of invaders at a site in Gwen Ystrad. The Battle of Argoed Llwyfain, details of which Henry Blois also conflates as witnessed at the end of the Vita Merlini comes from the early Welsh poem Gwaith Argoed Llwyfain also by Taliesin. The main purpose of the inclusion of a prophecy regarding Dumbarton is to make his audience believe that unlike the Merlin Ambrosius of HRB, this Merlin actually did make predictions concerning the north…. in the area he is seemingly being portrayed to have lived in.
My guess is that many questioned
the high relevance of the previous prophecies to events and people 'Norman' and Henry’s
family, also Winchester and concerns with the numbering of Kings up to King Stephen (Matildawho was numbered five but never explicitly and Henry II who was of course sixth).
To avoid suspicion, Henry locates Merlin in VM (not achieved in HRB), while at the same time
linking him to Taliesin and Rhydderch…. because people have
asked questions about his historical presence. They must have enquired how it was that none had heard of
Merlin before or in what area he lived. It is for this reason the northern
Merlin persona is created in VM.
Appendix 3
Porchester shall see its broken walls in its
harbour until a rich man with the tooth of a wolf shall restore it. Portchester
Castle is a
medieval castle built within a former Roman fort at Portchester and is located
at the northern end of Portsmouth Harbour.
The Normans, at the beginning of the 12th century, commenced the
erection of the Castle, under the orders of Henry Ist, and in 1133, at the
instigation of Henry Blois. He gave a Charter to the Augustinian Monks of
Normandy: This Charter, 'Granted to God,
and the Church of the Blessed Mary of Portcestre, and to the Canons regularly
serving there, the Church of St. Mary, there founded by him, with the land and
titles belonging to the Church, for the benefit of the souls of his father and
mother and William, his brother, his ancestors and successors, and for the
prosperity and safety of his Kingdom. Dated at Burnham on our passage overseas,
1133.
It seems that the church was already erected and functioning in 1133 with the monks in possession. The Church is one of the finest Romanesque churches in Wessex and the most precisely dated. The Canons did not stay long at Portchester, for they were moved away between 1145 and 1153, to a more spacious house at Southwick and there built a new Priory by Henry Blois who controlled Southwick and its brothels.
Papal Bulls issued by Pope Eugenius II in 1145 and 1153 were addressed to the Priors of Portchester and Southwick respectively, setting forth that the Pope received the Churches and the Priories under his protection.
It seems that the church was already erected and functioning in 1133 with the monks in possession. The Church is one of the finest Romanesque churches in Wessex and the most precisely dated. The Canons did not stay long at Portchester, for they were moved away between 1145 and 1153, to a more spacious house at Southwick and there built a new Priory by Henry Blois who controlled Southwick and its brothels.
Papal Bulls issued by Pope Eugenius II in 1145 and 1153 were addressed to the Priors of Portchester and Southwick respectively, setting forth that the Pope received the Churches and the Priories under his protection.
After the Norman
Invasion, the manor of Portchester was granted to William Maudit, a powerful
magnate, and it was probably he who built Portchester Castle. At this time it
would probably have been defended by a wooden palisade and a moat, with the
original Roman stone walls of the fort acting as the defence of the outer
bailey.
Maudit died in about 1100, and his property passed onto his son, Robert Maudit. He died in 1120, and a few years later the family estates came into the hands of William Pont de l'Arche through marriage to Robert Maudit's daughter. This same William Pont de l'Arche was also the man who refused to give Henry Blois the keys to Henry Ist coffers at Winchester just after King Stephen’s arrival and crowning.
Maudit died in about 1100, and his property passed onto his son, Robert Maudit. He died in 1120, and a few years later the family estates came into the hands of William Pont de l'Arche through marriage to Robert Maudit's daughter. This same William Pont de l'Arche was also the man who refused to give Henry Blois the keys to Henry Ist coffers at Winchester just after King Stephen’s arrival and crowning.
The evidence for
building at this time is that the stonework of the castle is similar to that of
St Mary's parish church, which was built in the 1130s in the outer bailey.
The church was built for an Augustinian priory which Pont de l'Arche
established within the castle in 1128.
Given the relationship between Henry and William, it is hard not to see that since the cannons were moved to Southwick, after the death of William Pont de l'Arche in 1148, one assumes it was taken over by Henry Blois. Although who inherited it is uncertain.
However, when the Bishop supported the Empress Matilda…. William Pont de l'Arche handed the royal castle over to the Empress for he was still Castellan. After the rout at Winchester when Henry Blois’ allegiance reverted to his brother and after the Angevin victory at Wilton, William Pont de l'Arche, picked a very serious quarrel with the King’s brother, the bishop of Winchester[3]and was sent reinforcements in the person of Robert son of Hildebrand (a person of low birth).
While holed up with the Castellan he seduced his wife and locked William Pont de l'Arche in his own dungeon in Winchester’s castle. Henry Blois as the writer of the Gesta Stephani takes great pleasure in describing Robert’s downfall from what sound like syphilis: the traitorous corrupter lay in the unchaste bosom of the adulteress and crept through his vitals, and slowly eating away his entrails it gradually consumed the scoundrel.
There is little doubt that William Pont de l'Arche would have been released after starting the calamity and one must assume since the cannons were moved to Southwick, that Henry had appropriated Porchester castle in 1143 in the episode described in the GS before a grant reinstating it to Henry Maudit.
Given the relationship between Henry and William, it is hard not to see that since the cannons were moved to Southwick, after the death of William Pont de l'Arche in 1148, one assumes it was taken over by Henry Blois. Although who inherited it is uncertain.
However, when the Bishop supported the Empress Matilda…. William Pont de l'Arche handed the royal castle over to the Empress for he was still Castellan. After the rout at Winchester when Henry Blois’ allegiance reverted to his brother and after the Angevin victory at Wilton, William Pont de l'Arche, picked a very serious quarrel with the King’s brother, the bishop of Winchester[3]and was sent reinforcements in the person of Robert son of Hildebrand (a person of low birth).
While holed up with the Castellan he seduced his wife and locked William Pont de l'Arche in his own dungeon in Winchester’s castle. Henry Blois as the writer of the Gesta Stephani takes great pleasure in describing Robert’s downfall from what sound like syphilis: the traitorous corrupter lay in the unchaste bosom of the adulteress and crept through his vitals, and slowly eating away his entrails it gradually consumed the scoundrel.
There is little doubt that William Pont de l'Arche would have been released after starting the calamity and one must assume since the cannons were moved to Southwick, that Henry had appropriated Porchester castle in 1143 in the episode described in the GS before a grant reinstating it to Henry Maudit.
The earliest
extant reference to the castle is in a grant from 1153 in which Henry II
granted the castle to Henry Maudit even though Henry II ascended to the throne
in 1154 and Stephen was not even dead.
Another reason for Portchester castle’s inclusion in the prophecy in the
Vita Merlini is no doubt the
connection to Marcus
Aurelius Carausius; as it is thought that it was originally built by him. He
is the Aurelius that Geoffrey of Monmouth fixes upon to conflate with Arthur as
his name appears in British annals, a one-time self-appointed Emperor of
Britain.[4]
‘Geoffrey’ refers to Portchester as Kaerperis so as to conflate it with one of
Nennius’ unidentified cities and is then borrowed as such by Henry of
Huntingdon.
One would suppose the rich man in the prophecy is Henry Blois himself even though history does not record his involvement in any rebuilding of walls; we might assume this is autobiographical. His reference to himself as the ‘fang of a wolf’ is part of his camouflage. When we understand that it is Henry writing Porchester shall see its broken walls in its harbour until a rich man with the tooth of a wolf shall restore it… one assumes he is alluding to himself. The wolf is derived from the association of ‘Wulf Island’, the old bishop of Winchester’s residence and this is why it is termed ‘Wolvesey Palace’, Henry Blois’ residence of splendour. My guess is that Henry organized the rebuilding of the wall’s at Porchester and ‘Merlin’ just happened to see into the future way back in the sixth century, a wealthy person (with a connection to a wolf) doing the same.
One would suppose the rich man in the prophecy is Henry Blois himself even though history does not record his involvement in any rebuilding of walls; we might assume this is autobiographical. His reference to himself as the ‘fang of a wolf’ is part of his camouflage. When we understand that it is Henry writing Porchester shall see its broken walls in its harbour until a rich man with the tooth of a wolf shall restore it… one assumes he is alluding to himself. The wolf is derived from the association of ‘Wulf Island’, the old bishop of Winchester’s residence and this is why it is termed ‘Wolvesey Palace’, Henry Blois’ residence of splendour. My guess is that Henry organized the rebuilding of the wall’s at Porchester and ‘Merlin’ just happened to see into the future way back in the sixth century, a wealthy person (with a connection to a wolf) doing the same.
Appendix 4
The city of Richborough shall lie spread out on the
shore of its harbour and a man from Flanders shall re-establish it with his
crested ship.
Henry Blois substantiates
part of his narrative from the HRB when Arthur returns from the continent to
take his vengeance on Mordred.
All told, they numbered some eight hundred thousand
Paynims and Christians, and in their company and relying on their assistance he
came to meet Arthur on his arrival at Richborough haven.[5]
The point of this
prediction is that it is employed as a method of substantiating the arrival of
Arthur in the HRB and therefore corroborates the HRB’s historical accuracy of
Arthur returning from his continental campaign. It is supposedly what Merlin
saw as a future event. If his audience
believes the prophecies are credible; for the gullible the story of Arthur must
also be true…. because Merlin predicted the event.
Appendix 5
The fifth from him shall rebuild the walls of St
David’s and shall bring back to her the pall lost for many years.
This refers back to the passage in the
Prophecies of Merlin where Menevia shall
be robed in the pall of the City of the Legions.[6] Henry
Blois, writing as Geoffrey of Monmouth associates the metropolitan of Caerleon
to St David’s (completely fictitiously and put forward to create Arthur’s
utopian metropolis presented in HRB). It is upon this premise (from Rhygyvarch's Life of St David) that bishop Bernard worked to reinstate
the Archbishopric. We know Henry has
read[7]
Rhygyvarch's Life of St David and because
of the information supplied in the Life …. Henry attempts to help his friend
Bernard to reinstate the Archbishopric, which once (according to Rhygyvarch and
Asser), existed in Menevia.
‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB makes Caerleon one of the
most important cities in Britain where he creates for it a long and glorious
history from its foundation by King Belinus. The reader should understand that King Belinus is fictional, but it
becomes a metropolitan see; the location of an Archbishopric superior to
Canterbury[8]
and York, under Saint Dubricius.
We are told in the fiction found in HRB that St David therefore moved the ‘City of the Legions’[9] archbishopric to St David's Cathedral.
We are told in the fiction found in HRB that St David therefore moved the ‘City of the Legions’[9] archbishopric to St David's Cathedral.
At that time two of the Metropolitan Sees, York, to
wit, and the City of the Legions, were vacant without their shepherds.
Wherefore, being minded to consult the common wish of his peoples, he gave York
unto Samson, a man of high dignity and illustrious by the depth of his piety;
and Caerleon unto Dubricius, whom the providence of God had before singled out
as like to be right serviceable in that same place.[10]The
importance of the See is clear…. because ‘apparently’ Kings were crowned there,
not in Roman Canterbury: Dubricius,
Archbishop of the City of Legions that he should crown as King Arthur.[11]
In 1115, when this part of Wales was under
Norman control, King Henry Ist of England appointed Bishop Bernard as Bishop of
St David's who commenced construction of a new Cathedral consecrated in 1131. In 1123, Pope Calixtus II had granted a
compromise of Bishop Bernard’s request to re-establish the metropolitan and bestowed a Papal privilege upon St
David's, making it a centre of pilgrimage.... the Pope decreeing “Two pilgrimages
to St David's is equal to one to Rome, and three pilgrimages to one to
Jerusalem!” This brought many pilgrims to West Wales.
Henry pretends in the prediction found in the prophecy that the Menevian See is the same as that of Caerleon and it is also synonymous with the city of Legions of the HRB (as in Nennius)…. but now had moved its inherited status to St. David’s. Bishop Bernard of St David’s was a friend of Henry Blois and we saw them together at Winchester[12] (without the archbishop of Canterbury) both of them seen to be setting up the new short term monarch Empress Matilda as recounted in GS.
However, Geoffrey’s rendition of events is fictional: At that time also died David, that most holy Archbishop of Caerleon, in the city of Menevia, within his own abbey, which he loved above all the other monasteries of his diocese, for that it was founded by the blessed Patrick who had foretold his nativity.[13]
If the reader is still in doubt who is driving this myth, one should consider that it was Henry Blois who miraculously found a ‘gem’ at Glastonbury belonging to St. David and know that Patrick’s association with Glastonbury is fictitious (which I will cover in the chapter on DA). Henry Blois is using Rhygyvarch's Life of St David and his own fabrications found in HRB to substantiate his further fictions presented in the interpolated part of DA.
Henry pretends in the prediction found in the prophecy that the Menevian See is the same as that of Caerleon and it is also synonymous with the city of Legions of the HRB (as in Nennius)…. but now had moved its inherited status to St. David’s. Bishop Bernard of St David’s was a friend of Henry Blois and we saw them together at Winchester[12] (without the archbishop of Canterbury) both of them seen to be setting up the new short term monarch Empress Matilda as recounted in GS.
However, Geoffrey’s rendition of events is fictional: At that time also died David, that most holy Archbishop of Caerleon, in the city of Menevia, within his own abbey, which he loved above all the other monasteries of his diocese, for that it was founded by the blessed Patrick who had foretold his nativity.[13]
If the reader is still in doubt who is driving this myth, one should consider that it was Henry Blois who miraculously found a ‘gem’ at Glastonbury belonging to St. David and know that Patrick’s association with Glastonbury is fictitious (which I will cover in the chapter on DA). Henry Blois is using Rhygyvarch's Life of St David and his own fabrications found in HRB to substantiate his further fictions presented in the interpolated part of DA.
This prophecy in the VM expresses the
aspirations cherished by the Welsh of a re-established metropolitan long before
Giraldus Cambrensis took up the cause from Bernard. It also shows that Henry
repeats prophecies made in Vulgate HRB for consistencies sake in VM. His
readership recognises these.... while he subtly changes the sense of some previous
prophecies in HRB and also introduces us to new ones in VM.
Bernard’s request for metropolitan is aligned with Henry Blois’ at Winchester. Bernard had been proposing a metropolitan based on Rhygyvarch's Life of St David and Asser’s testimony, but his friend (Henry) attempted to bring his hope to fruition by predicting it in a bogus prophecy.[14]
According to Welsh belief (and now perpetuated by the cult of Arthur and Caerleon in the HRB), Menevia had been the seat of an archbishop until the time of Samson, twenty fifth from Dewi or David, who fled to Dol in Brittany taking the pall with him.[15] The fifth as a number in the VM presents a problem in that it was Henry Ist (the third in the HRB and Vita numbering system) who rebuilt the walls and it cannot be Matilda (the fifth).
Henry Blois is reticent to mention her as the ‘fifth’ (in his wholly fabricated and evolving numbering system) in any of the prophecies.... whereas all the other numbered monarchs are easily distinguished. Yet, Matilda is the fifth in the sequence of rulers because Henry II is the 'sixth' indisputably. (At the time the Libellus Merlini was originally released there was no premonition of a fifth or sixth as Henry assumed his brother would pass the crown to Eustace. This in effect establishes that the prophecies in Vulgate HRB are evolved from the separate Libellus Merlini given to Abbot Suger). Henry only refers directly to Matilda twice, firstly as the eagle in the ‘third nesting’ and then.... as her of the ‘broken covenant’.[16]
Since the sixth (Henry II) in the normal numbering sequence had already assumed the crown at the time of writing of the VM c.1156-7, the explanation to the fifth from him shall rebuild the walls of St David’s may well be that the ‘fifth’ in this instance applies to the pope. It is not too silly to speculate that Henry wrote the prophecy assuming the next pope would be Anastasius V or more probably believed St David’s would succeed in their quest after Adrian IV (1154-1159). Either way it was good odds that the next pope would be an Anastasius or an Adrian the fifth.
Bernard’s request for metropolitan is aligned with Henry Blois’ at Winchester. Bernard had been proposing a metropolitan based on Rhygyvarch's Life of St David and Asser’s testimony, but his friend (Henry) attempted to bring his hope to fruition by predicting it in a bogus prophecy.[14]
According to Welsh belief (and now perpetuated by the cult of Arthur and Caerleon in the HRB), Menevia had been the seat of an archbishop until the time of Samson, twenty fifth from Dewi or David, who fled to Dol in Brittany taking the pall with him.[15] The fifth as a number in the VM presents a problem in that it was Henry Ist (the third in the HRB and Vita numbering system) who rebuilt the walls and it cannot be Matilda (the fifth).
Henry Blois is reticent to mention her as the ‘fifth’ (in his wholly fabricated and evolving numbering system) in any of the prophecies.... whereas all the other numbered monarchs are easily distinguished. Yet, Matilda is the fifth in the sequence of rulers because Henry II is the 'sixth' indisputably. (At the time the Libellus Merlini was originally released there was no premonition of a fifth or sixth as Henry assumed his brother would pass the crown to Eustace. This in effect establishes that the prophecies in Vulgate HRB are evolved from the separate Libellus Merlini given to Abbot Suger). Henry only refers directly to Matilda twice, firstly as the eagle in the ‘third nesting’ and then.... as her of the ‘broken covenant’.[16]
Since the sixth (Henry II) in the normal numbering sequence had already assumed the crown at the time of writing of the VM c.1156-7, the explanation to the fifth from him shall rebuild the walls of St David’s may well be that the ‘fifth’ in this instance applies to the pope. It is not too silly to speculate that Henry wrote the prophecy assuming the next pope would be Anastasius V or more probably believed St David’s would succeed in their quest after Adrian IV (1154-1159). Either way it was good odds that the next pope would be an Anastasius or an Adrian the fifth.
Bernard, however, claimed metropolitan
jurisdiction over Wales and presented his suit unsuccessfully before six
successive popes starting way back in 1120.
Henry originally wrote this prophecy when Bernard was alive as part of
the Libellus Merlini which circulated
prior to the latest version found in HRB. However, a pope Alexander III was the
next pope; so Henry’s prediction was wide of the mark. If there had been a pope
which was a fifth and St. David’s had gained metropolitan status, it would have
been a major success in Merlin’s predictive ability.
David Fitz Gerald[17]followed
Bernard at St David’s after his death. His sister Angharad married William de
Barri and she was the mother of Gerald of Wales. It was Gerald who persisted
with this hope of a change in status and it is clear why Gerald of Wales was
such a staunch advocate of the creation of St David’s as a metropolitan. After
Bernard died, David FitzGerald was consecrated in 1148 by Theobald of Bec, at
the same time as Robert de Chesney. But,
Theobald secured a promise from FitzGerald to no longer seek the elevation to
metropolitan of St David's.
However, this continued as a contentious issue driven partly by Henry’s (Merlin's) prophecy. Part of the intent of the prophecies was to manipulate events. It is fascinating that so many commentators actually relate Merlin prophecies to events after 1157. 1157 is where the VM prophecies end.
In Asser’s Life of King Alfred, he clearly describes his kinsman, Nobis, (also of St David's), as Archbishop. There seems little doubt that there were three metropolitans. Henry posing as Geoffrey (speaking as Merlin ) makes it plain that Augustine usurped London’s status.[18]
In the Annales Cambriae, Elfodd is termed 'archbishop of the land of Gwynedd’ in his obit, under the year 809. Rhygyfarch's Life of Saint David states Saint David was anointed as an archbishop by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, a position confirmed at the Synod of Llanddewi Brefi by popular acclaim: Then, blessed and extolled by the mouth of all, he is with the consent of all the bishops, Kings, princes, nobles, and all grades of the whole Britannic race, made archbishop, and his monastery too is declared the metropolis of the whole country, so that whoever ruled it should be accounted archbishop. St David's lost its status and fell under the metropolitan jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Asser’s testimony is the basis for assuming it was ever a metropolitan. King Henry Ist, intruded Bernard, into St David’s much to the annoyance of the Welsh. The Brut y Tywysogyon states that Henry Ist 'made him bishop in Menevia in contempt of the clerics of the Britons’.
However, this continued as a contentious issue driven partly by Henry’s (Merlin's) prophecy. Part of the intent of the prophecies was to manipulate events. It is fascinating that so many commentators actually relate Merlin prophecies to events after 1157. 1157 is where the VM prophecies end.
In Asser’s Life of King Alfred, he clearly describes his kinsman, Nobis, (also of St David's), as Archbishop. There seems little doubt that there were three metropolitans. Henry posing as Geoffrey (speaking as Merlin ) makes it plain that Augustine usurped London’s status.[18]
In the Annales Cambriae, Elfodd is termed 'archbishop of the land of Gwynedd’ in his obit, under the year 809. Rhygyfarch's Life of Saint David states Saint David was anointed as an archbishop by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, a position confirmed at the Synod of Llanddewi Brefi by popular acclaim: Then, blessed and extolled by the mouth of all, he is with the consent of all the bishops, Kings, princes, nobles, and all grades of the whole Britannic race, made archbishop, and his monastery too is declared the metropolis of the whole country, so that whoever ruled it should be accounted archbishop. St David's lost its status and fell under the metropolitan jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Asser’s testimony is the basis for assuming it was ever a metropolitan. King Henry Ist, intruded Bernard, into St David’s much to the annoyance of the Welsh. The Brut y Tywysogyon states that Henry Ist 'made him bishop in Menevia in contempt of the clerics of the Britons’.
Appendix 6
The City of the Legions shall fall into thy
bosom, O Severn, and shall lose her citizens for a long time, and these the
Bear in the Lamb shall restore to her when he shall come.
Henry Blois
switches back in time so that the Vita
Merlini and the prophecies within it coincide and corroborate the storyline
in HRB. The prophecy supposedly tells of the migration of Britons to Brittany.
Caerleon on Usk is by the Severn and the citizens of old Briton who lived in
the City of the Legions will lose her citizens for a long time. What or who
‘the bear in the lamb’ refers to is anybody’s guess. Maybe the bogus animal symbolism
refers to Uther
and Ambrosius or even Henry himself. We know he sees himself coming back to
England as the adopted son at the time of writing VM and JC…. as he is doing
his best to incite rebellion against Henry II in this three year period.
It is plain to see that Henry Blois, writing as Merlin, sees the Normans originally as saviours overcoming the Saxons in the first set of prophecies. The obvious change of position is c.1156; he is writing in the persona of Merlin and ridding the foreigners from ‘our land’ and these are the Normans…. as he tries to incite the rebellion of the Celts against King Henry. Henry Blois sets up the Britons emigration to Brittany in general as being synonymous with the plight of the citizens of the City of the Legions i.e. the old Britons being forced abroad by the Saxons. The old Britons will be restored when he (Henry) will come (or at least that was the plan at the time of writing in Clugny).
It is plain to see that Henry Blois, writing as Merlin, sees the Normans originally as saviours overcoming the Saxons in the first set of prophecies. The obvious change of position is c.1156; he is writing in the persona of Merlin and ridding the foreigners from ‘our land’ and these are the Normans…. as he tries to incite the rebellion of the Celts against King Henry. Henry Blois sets up the Britons emigration to Brittany in general as being synonymous with the plight of the citizens of the City of the Legions i.e. the old Britons being forced abroad by the Saxons. The old Britons will be restored when he (Henry) will come (or at least that was the plan at the time of writing in Clugny).
Amongst others he did lay out one upon the river
Usk nigh the Severn sea, that was of many ages called Kaerusk, that was the
mother city of Demetia. But after that the Romans came hither, the old name was
done away and it was called the City of the Legions.[19]
Whether or not Nennius’ Urbs legionum was always synonymous with Caerleon is debatable. What we do know is that Caerleon’s grandiose Arthurian history is totally fabricated by ‘Geoffrey’ based on the remnants of Roman architecture Henry witnessed at Caerleon: Howbeit, when he made known his desire unto his familiars, he, by their counsel, made choice of the City of Legions wherein to fulfil his design. For, situate in a passing pleasant position on the river Usk in Glamorgan, not far from the Severn sea, and abounding in wealth above all other cities, it was the place most meet for so high a solemnity.[20]
‘Geoffrey’ has read Bede and knows of the martyrdom of Saints Julius and Aaron. He connects their names to religious houses in Caerleon for both cannons and nuns in the glorious city of the ‘legantine’[21] primatial See. It is not by accident that it so happens to imitate the set up at Winchester with the cathedral and its new minster and its nunnaminster as Tatlock[22] observes.
However, Tatlock is far from realising the reasons: Geoffrey shows much more concern, especially with Winchester and its Church. First of all he gives it a distinction which was coveted by other religious houses and which nothing justifies.[23] Tatlock seems to think that Winchester is overly glorified because: there was someone at Winchester who was worth pleasing.[24]
We should not forget one of Uther’s two dragons wrought of Gold was: in ecclesia prime sedis Guintonie, the ‘primatial’ See of Winchester. We should also understand with this glorification of Winchester, there is a marked contrast in ignoring Canterbury. It does not take much to work out why. What is astounding is that Tatlock discusses the erection of Winchester into an archbishopric through Henry’s friend Pope Innocent II and Henry’s disappointment with not gaining the Archbishopric of Canterbury without any suspicion of the involvement of Henry Blois as author of HRB or the prophecies.
It is not without irony that Winchester in the prophecies loses its arch-episcopal see and the one person trying to re-establish this fictional standpoint in reality is never suspected as the author of the prophecies or HRB. Without the obvious corroboration that each gives to the other there would be little historicity to establish either. However, Henry does betray himself as the author in that: in HRB he never mentions Glastonbury and Arthur himself is given no connection to Winchester so as to avoid the very suspicion…. which through his avoidance, highlights his involvement.
Henry’s pursuit of metropolitan is always at the heart of his early polemic in establishing the pre-existence and pre-eminence of Winchester before the arrival of Augustine: Afterward Rome shall bring God back through the medium of a monk and a holy priest shall sprinkle the buildings with water and shall restore them again and shall place shepherds in them. Henry’s polemic is simple: How could Canterbury assume its primacy when Merlin is predicting the coming of Augustine? Especially when, prior to the Saxon invasion, ‘Geoffrey’s’ polemic in HRB makes it abundantly clear through Constans at Winchester that there was already a Briton Church. The reader will come to understood how important GR3 and DA interpolations combine with HRB to add credence to Henry’s case at Rome as we progress.
Whether or not Nennius’ Urbs legionum was always synonymous with Caerleon is debatable. What we do know is that Caerleon’s grandiose Arthurian history is totally fabricated by ‘Geoffrey’ based on the remnants of Roman architecture Henry witnessed at Caerleon: Howbeit, when he made known his desire unto his familiars, he, by their counsel, made choice of the City of Legions wherein to fulfil his design. For, situate in a passing pleasant position on the river Usk in Glamorgan, not far from the Severn sea, and abounding in wealth above all other cities, it was the place most meet for so high a solemnity.[20]
‘Geoffrey’ has read Bede and knows of the martyrdom of Saints Julius and Aaron. He connects their names to religious houses in Caerleon for both cannons and nuns in the glorious city of the ‘legantine’[21] primatial See. It is not by accident that it so happens to imitate the set up at Winchester with the cathedral and its new minster and its nunnaminster as Tatlock[22] observes.
However, Tatlock is far from realising the reasons: Geoffrey shows much more concern, especially with Winchester and its Church. First of all he gives it a distinction which was coveted by other religious houses and which nothing justifies.[23] Tatlock seems to think that Winchester is overly glorified because: there was someone at Winchester who was worth pleasing.[24]
We should not forget one of Uther’s two dragons wrought of Gold was: in ecclesia prime sedis Guintonie, the ‘primatial’ See of Winchester. We should also understand with this glorification of Winchester, there is a marked contrast in ignoring Canterbury. It does not take much to work out why. What is astounding is that Tatlock discusses the erection of Winchester into an archbishopric through Henry’s friend Pope Innocent II and Henry’s disappointment with not gaining the Archbishopric of Canterbury without any suspicion of the involvement of Henry Blois as author of HRB or the prophecies.
It is not without irony that Winchester in the prophecies loses its arch-episcopal see and the one person trying to re-establish this fictional standpoint in reality is never suspected as the author of the prophecies or HRB. Without the obvious corroboration that each gives to the other there would be little historicity to establish either. However, Henry does betray himself as the author in that: in HRB he never mentions Glastonbury and Arthur himself is given no connection to Winchester so as to avoid the very suspicion…. which through his avoidance, highlights his involvement.
Henry’s pursuit of metropolitan is always at the heart of his early polemic in establishing the pre-existence and pre-eminence of Winchester before the arrival of Augustine: Afterward Rome shall bring God back through the medium of a monk and a holy priest shall sprinkle the buildings with water and shall restore them again and shall place shepherds in them. Henry’s polemic is simple: How could Canterbury assume its primacy when Merlin is predicting the coming of Augustine? Especially when, prior to the Saxon invasion, ‘Geoffrey’s’ polemic in HRB makes it abundantly clear through Constans at Winchester that there was already a Briton Church. The reader will come to understood how important GR3 and DA interpolations combine with HRB to add credence to Henry’s case at Rome as we progress.
Appendix 7
Two hundred monks shall perish in Leicester and the
Saxon shall drive out her ruler and leave vacant her walls.
This prophecy is in reference to the defeat
of Brocmail and the slaughter of the monks at Leicester.[25]
‘Geoffrey’ here either makes a mistake regarding the location of Leicester or
as is quite normal, sets up an episode which is taken from a British annal such
as Bede and then relays it
incorrectly for his own ends to bring it in line with a future scenario he is
about to concoct. This is certainly the case here in the HRB, where he uses Bede
as his source when relating the massacre of Bangor. Bede in his Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum
is in fact referring to the battle of Chester in which Brocmail, tasked with
protecting the monks, abandons them to be massacred.
In ‘Geoffrey’s’ rendition of the event Brocmail dies bravely. In both versions, monks from Bangor die. It is to this historic episode, the location is wrongly apportioned to Leicester rather than Chester. The confusion may or may not be deliberate as Bede refers to Chester by its English name Legacaestir which is strikingly similar to Legecestria the term ‘Geoffrey’ uses for Leicester in the HRB from the Anglo Saxon Laegrecastrescir.
It is the HRB rather than Bede’s historic episode, to which the Vita Merlini prophecy refers. Regardless of the differences of historic Bede, HRB and Vita…. ‘Geoffrey‘s’ number of monks does not agree with the annals, but it does agree with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
In ‘Geoffrey’s’ rendition of the event Brocmail dies bravely. In both versions, monks from Bangor die. It is to this historic episode, the location is wrongly apportioned to Leicester rather than Chester. The confusion may or may not be deliberate as Bede refers to Chester by its English name Legacaestir which is strikingly similar to Legecestria the term ‘Geoffrey’ uses for Leicester in the HRB from the Anglo Saxon Laegrecastrescir.
It is the HRB rather than Bede’s historic episode, to which the Vita Merlini prophecy refers. Regardless of the differences of historic Bede, HRB and Vita…. ‘Geoffrey‘s’ number of monks does not agree with the annals, but it does agree with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
In this whole section of VM Henry Blois seems
to be presenting as prophecy some areas and topics which he had presented as
the course of history in the HRB. This confirmation does in effect add credence
to the history as presented in the HRB, because Merlin, (as he later attests at
the end of VM), gave all these prophecies in the time of Vortigern. In effect the
reader now sees them as past matter of fact events. We start to see how clever
and conscious of history Henry Blois is. He in effect is rewriting it in the
HRB and adding his own later confirmation in the Vita.
Appendix 8
He
who first among the Angles shall wear the diadem of Brutus shall repair
the city laid waste by slaughter. A fierce people shall forbid the
sacrament of confirmation throughout the country, and in the house of God shall
place images of the gods.
Commentators
believe this passage to be directly relative to Athelstan….as he is said to be
the first to wear the crown of the Saxons in Britain: But the Saxons were more wise, kept peace and concord amongst
themselves, tilled their fields and builded anew their cities and castles, and
thus throwing off the sovereignty of the Britons, held the empire of all
Loegria under their Duke Athelstan, who was the first to wear a crown amongst
them.[26]
As we will get to later, when I cover the First Variant, (which was composed with a Roman papal audience in mind which incidentally provides strong evidences which might persuade the pope to grant metropolitan to Winchester), we shall see that Henry has had to follow historical annals more closely than what he later redacted in the Vulgate HRB. However, this specific prophecy is looking backward through time and known history and the repair of the city probably refers to Leicester.
As we will get to later, when I cover the First Variant, (which was composed with a Roman papal audience in mind which incidentally provides strong evidences which might persuade the pope to grant metropolitan to Winchester), we shall see that Henry has had to follow historical annals more closely than what he later redacted in the Vulgate HRB. However, this specific prophecy is looking backward through time and known history and the repair of the city probably refers to Leicester.
While on the subject of the crown of Brutus I will
clarify another prophecy: …the Lynx that
seeth through all things, and shall keep watch to bring about the downfall of
his own race, for through him shall Neustria lose both islands and be despoiled
of her ancient dignity. Then shall the men of the country be turned back into
the island for that strife shall be kindled amongst the foreigners. An old man,
moreover, snowy white, sitting upon a snow-white horse, shall turn side the
river of Pereiron and with a white wand shall measure out a mill thereon.
Cadwallader shall call unto Conan, and shall receive Albany to his fellowship.
Then shall there be slaughter of the foreigners: then shall the rivers run
blood: then shall gush forth the fountains of Armorica and shall be crowned
with the diadem of Brutus. Cambria shall be filled with gladness and the oaks
of Cornwall shall wax green. The island shall be called by the name of Brutus
and the name given by foreigners shall be done away. Henry wrote the prophecy above which also
refers to the crown of Brutus in the hope that he might return to England after
Henry II had been defeated by a Celtic uprising (which he himself is trying to
instigate) and have the crown himself. This is why he is so nervous about
returning to England in 1158. The Lynx or ‘pest’ is Henry II.
Henry Blois is predicting the present King is going to lose both Britain and Ireland. The old man is him (as I will cover later). Henry Blois has most probably a white charger and he did divert the River Parratt and build a mill on it. But the real trickery of Henry is inciting Conan from Brittany with the Welsh and other Celts.... referring to the Normans as foreigners.[27] Henry Blois’ genius is having Merlin predict these things archaically referring to Neustria and Armorica as if these could only have been prophesied back in the sixth century.
Henry Blois is predicting the present King is going to lose both Britain and Ireland. The old man is him (as I will cover later). Henry Blois has most probably a white charger and he did divert the River Parratt and build a mill on it. But the real trickery of Henry is inciting Conan from Brittany with the Welsh and other Celts.... referring to the Normans as foreigners.[27] Henry Blois’ genius is having Merlin predict these things archaically referring to Neustria and Armorica as if these could only have been prophesied back in the sixth century.
Appendix 9
The husband, despising his
wife, shall draw near to harlots, and the wife, despising her husband, shall
marry whom she desires. There shall be no honour kept for the church and the
order shall perish.
This may well just be an ‘of the day’ straightforward prophecy which
reflects court behaviour of the day couched in prophetic language. It may well refer to French King Louis and Eleanore of
Aquitaine. There is no doubt that Henry twists prophecies from HRB to VM. The
likeness of this prophecy in HRB: With the
stench of their nostrils shall they corrupt women, and their own wives shall
they cause to be as harlots… shows that Henry causes
so much confusion by squewing the prophecies and changing the icon or person....
that few can make sense of them, if one applies a rigid accountability for each
animal etc. mentioned in every circumstance.
The reason I think they were squewed by Henry, but made to seem as if they were consistent from anearleir edition of prophecies labelled as the Libellus Merlini then (with updated changes) into Vulgate HRB and subsequently on to the VM version.... is because the first set of prophecies were seen to be too obviously concocted in the recent era by his audience. Also the propensity (as we shall cover shortly) to cover topics as affairs of state (such as coinage denomination), the Anarchy, Henry’s close interests and his own family etc. must have made him wary of discovery.
The reason I think they were squewed by Henry, but made to seem as if they were consistent from anearleir edition of prophecies labelled as the Libellus Merlini then (with updated changes) into Vulgate HRB and subsequently on to the VM version.... is because the first set of prophecies were seen to be too obviously concocted in the recent era by his audience. Also the propensity (as we shall cover shortly) to cover topics as affairs of state (such as coinage denomination), the Anarchy, Henry’s close interests and his own family etc. must have made him wary of discovery.
Henry Blois, well versed in scripture In some prophecies he may just be using
biblical analogy and thus highlights the differences in state and church affairs in
a metaphor.
Henry fell out with his brother on several occasions. King Stephen, receiving bad advice from the likes of the Beaumont’s, inflamed the Anarchy and caused dissention amongst the barons. These advisors may well be the Harlots in Henry’s eyes which is clearly established in the Gesta Stephani. The Church was not side-lined.... as Henry tried his best to hold Stephen to the oath he had made to the church.
King Stephen also betrayed the trust that Henry assumed would be forthcoming after his part in facilitating the usurpation of the crown. Therefore, the ‘wife’ in the Vita prophecy i.e. the Church despised Stephen.... and when it came down to the Council held at Winchester by Henry Blois; the Church bishops threw in their lot with Matilda.
Therefore one could speculate that ‘she’- the Church.... ‘marries who she desires’. The audience of the Vita may have interpreted the meaning in this way as the outcome of events after the Winchester council over which Henry presided. Later, Stephen’s wife pleads with Henry Blois, and Henry having found that Empress Matilda was worse than Stephen in keeping her word…. soon changed allegiances back to his brother. In fact Henry Blois was probably the main instigator of the rumour that caused Matilda’s flight from London which lost her any chance of gaining the crown.
The allusion by Henry Blois to the church…. couched in the same terms as in the prophecy, can also be witnessed in the GS. Henry Blois similarly referenced the church in a speech made at the council of London amongst the pillars of the church to the effect: that in King Henry’s time especially the church had been shaken; had been a prostrate and downtrodden handmaid and had suffered most disgraceful wrongs.[28]
Henry fell out with his brother on several occasions. King Stephen, receiving bad advice from the likes of the Beaumont’s, inflamed the Anarchy and caused dissention amongst the barons. These advisors may well be the Harlots in Henry’s eyes which is clearly established in the Gesta Stephani. The Church was not side-lined.... as Henry tried his best to hold Stephen to the oath he had made to the church.
King Stephen also betrayed the trust that Henry assumed would be forthcoming after his part in facilitating the usurpation of the crown. Therefore, the ‘wife’ in the Vita prophecy i.e. the Church despised Stephen.... and when it came down to the Council held at Winchester by Henry Blois; the Church bishops threw in their lot with Matilda.
Therefore one could speculate that ‘she’- the Church.... ‘marries who she desires’. The audience of the Vita may have interpreted the meaning in this way as the outcome of events after the Winchester council over which Henry presided. Later, Stephen’s wife pleads with Henry Blois, and Henry having found that Empress Matilda was worse than Stephen in keeping her word…. soon changed allegiances back to his brother. In fact Henry Blois was probably the main instigator of the rumour that caused Matilda’s flight from London which lost her any chance of gaining the crown.
The allusion by Henry Blois to the church…. couched in the same terms as in the prophecy, can also be witnessed in the GS. Henry Blois similarly referenced the church in a speech made at the council of London amongst the pillars of the church to the effect: that in King Henry’s time especially the church had been shaken; had been a prostrate and downtrodden handmaid and had suffered most disgraceful wrongs.[28]
Appendix 10
Then shall bishops bear arms, and armed camps shall
be built. Men shall build towers and walls in holy ground, and they shall
give to the soldiers what should belong to the needy. Carried away by
riches they shall run along on the path of worldly things and shall take from
God what the holy bishop shall forbid.
One of the causes of friction between the Church and the barons was that hereditary and aristocratic barons were nearly on a par with bishops in terms of wealth. In that era as lands were donated to the church both by the crown and by those who bequeathed lands booking a place in heaven, the church and monasteries became richer. It became necessary after Henry Ist died to protect these lands from marauding knights and barons as peace throughout the realm crumbled. Castles were put up in various bishoprics and a transposition took place were those who were supposed to be protectors of the flock became protectors of their own wealth.
Even though abbeys and bishoprics were expected to provide knights for the crown, these were now stationed at the vast array of castles that were springing up all over the country. The bishop of Winchester built castles at Winchester (Wolvesey), Merdon, Farnham, Bishops Waltham, Downton and Taunton.[29] Alexander bishop of Lincoln had castles at Newark, Sleaford and Banbury. While plunderers, as has many times been revealed, were everywhere pillaging the property of the churches, some bishops made sluggish and abject by fear of them, either gave way or lukewarmly and feebly passed a sentence of excommunication that was soon revoked; others but it was no task for bishops) filled their castles full of provisions and stocks of arms, knights and archers and though they were supposed to be warding off the evil doers who were plundering the goods of the church showed themselves always more cruel..[30]
One of the causes of friction between the Church and the barons was that hereditary and aristocratic barons were nearly on a par with bishops in terms of wealth. In that era as lands were donated to the church both by the crown and by those who bequeathed lands booking a place in heaven, the church and monasteries became richer. It became necessary after Henry Ist died to protect these lands from marauding knights and barons as peace throughout the realm crumbled. Castles were put up in various bishoprics and a transposition took place were those who were supposed to be protectors of the flock became protectors of their own wealth.
Even though abbeys and bishoprics were expected to provide knights for the crown, these were now stationed at the vast array of castles that were springing up all over the country. The bishop of Winchester built castles at Winchester (Wolvesey), Merdon, Farnham, Bishops Waltham, Downton and Taunton.[29] Alexander bishop of Lincoln had castles at Newark, Sleaford and Banbury. While plunderers, as has many times been revealed, were everywhere pillaging the property of the churches, some bishops made sluggish and abject by fear of them, either gave way or lukewarmly and feebly passed a sentence of excommunication that was soon revoked; others but it was no task for bishops) filled their castles full of provisions and stocks of arms, knights and archers and though they were supposed to be warding off the evil doers who were plundering the goods of the church showed themselves always more cruel..[30]
Henry Blois was
one of the worst offenders and thus uses this ploy to state an understood fact
as if it were a prophecy written back in the 6th century. Again a prophecy which concerns Henry Blois' immediate interests.... that Merlin is supposedly at random to have perceived by foresight into the distant future and to which can only apply to the time when the prophecies surfaced.
At the same time Henry alleviates any suspicion of authorship of the Merlin prophecies to himself by implicating such inappropriate behaviour by the church.... of which he is guilty himself. He makes the same complaint in the Gesta Stephani for the same reasoning: likewise the bishops, the bishops themselves, though I am ashamed to say it, not indeed all but a great many out of the whole number, girt with swords and wearing magnificent suits of armour, rode on horseback with the haughtiest destroyers of the country and took their share of the spoil.
At the same time Henry alleviates any suspicion of authorship of the Merlin prophecies to himself by implicating such inappropriate behaviour by the church.... of which he is guilty himself. He makes the same complaint in the Gesta Stephani for the same reasoning: likewise the bishops, the bishops themselves, though I am ashamed to say it, not indeed all but a great many out of the whole number, girt with swords and wearing magnificent suits of armour, rode on horseback with the haughtiest destroyers of the country and took their share of the spoil.
The towers in holy
ground could be a direct reference to himself building a castle like tower as
part of Wolvesey
palace near the holy ground of the abbey…. gave
orders for a most vigorous investment both of the bishops castle which he had
built in very elegant style in the middle of the town and of his palace, which
he had fortified strongly and impregnably just like a castle.[31]
There is no doubt as to the tower being in Winchester at the time as Roger of Wendover relates that Matilda ‘besieged the tower of the bishop of Winchester’. One castle which was in the middle of the city[32] must have been near the cathedral (holy ground) and the other Wolvesey, (which had a tower also) is not far from the cathedral. At Wolvesey, the garderobe tower is that joining the north-east angle of the keep and the round tower of the ruins and is recorded to have been built by Henry Blois in 1138.
There is no doubt as to the tower being in Winchester at the time as Roger of Wendover relates that Matilda ‘besieged the tower of the bishop of Winchester’. One castle which was in the middle of the city[32] must have been near the cathedral (holy ground) and the other Wolvesey, (which had a tower also) is not far from the cathedral. At Wolvesey, the garderobe tower is that joining the north-east angle of the keep and the round tower of the ruins and is recorded to have been built by Henry Blois in 1138.
Henry bemoans the
state of affairs of which he was very much part of. He at one stage had more
knights at his disposal than Robert of Gloucester and paid their wages from
ecclesiastical coffers. Henry is looking back at the dreadful state of affairs
in the anarchy while relating these offences as if Merlin had foreseen exactly what his
audience understood had transpired in their own age.
Henry is morose and reminisces and seems to be castigating as an apologist not only his own materialism but that of the whole Anarchy. He refers to the holy bishop in the prophecy and his audience must have thought that he is one of the culpable. Again a tactic which avoids suspicion of authorship of the prophecies. Not only does it reflect the views of the GS…. it has too much in common with the bishop himself.... bishops will then bear arms, will then follow the military life, will set up towers and walls on sacred ground and give to soldiers what should go to the poor!!
What is more astounding is that any Scholar would even consider that Merlin (as a seer) would just happen upon such insights specific to the first half of the twelfth century.
Henry is morose and reminisces and seems to be castigating as an apologist not only his own materialism but that of the whole Anarchy. He refers to the holy bishop in the prophecy and his audience must have thought that he is one of the culpable. Again a tactic which avoids suspicion of authorship of the prophecies. Not only does it reflect the views of the GS…. it has too much in common with the bishop himself.... bishops will then bear arms, will then follow the military life, will set up towers and walls on sacred ground and give to soldiers what should go to the poor!!
What is more astounding is that any Scholar would even consider that Merlin (as a seer) would just happen upon such insights specific to the first half of the twelfth century.
Appendix 11
What an unutterable crime
that man, whom the Creator of the universe made worthy of heaven in honourable
liberty, should be roped and led to the sale like a cow! You miserable man, you
who turned traitor to your master when first you came to the throne; you shall
yield to God.
When it is understood that Henry Blois is writing the VM in the period between 1155 and 1157, it is plain that he is twisting some of the prophecies from a previous version. He is actually referring to events which happened in the early Anarchy and may well have featured in the early Libellus Merlini. We may speculate that Henry Blois is squewing the meaning here in VM so as to appear consistent with the previous set of prophecies put out in the Libellus Merlini.
When it is understood that Henry Blois is writing the VM in the period between 1155 and 1157, it is plain that he is twisting some of the prophecies from a previous version. He is actually referring to events which happened in the early Anarchy and may well have featured in the early Libellus Merlini. We may speculate that Henry Blois is squewing the meaning here in VM so as to appear consistent with the previous set of prophecies put out in the Libellus Merlini.
When the King Stephen came to
England, he held his council at Oxford; where he seized the Bishop Roger of
Sarum, and Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, and the chancellor Roger, his nephew;
and threw all into prison till they gave up their castles. (Anglo-Saxon
chronicle 1137)
The prophecy is Henry Blois’ allusion to
events which actually transpired in 1139 where the Bishops Roger of Salisbury and Alexander of Lincoln
were seized by Stephen at the instigation of the Court, whilst Bishop Nigel of
Ely fled to Roger’s castle at Devizes.
Roger of Salisbury was dragged to Devizes and forced to open and surrender the castle. Roger had been ‘the throne’ (or was in charge of state affairs) while Henry Ist was away in Normandy at times and was well trusted by King Henry Ist.
Roger, may be understood to have abused his position for his own material gain during this time. As we can see in the account below written by Henry Blois in the GS, King Stephen was being led astray on bad advice and Henry Blois was annoyed at his brother’s naivety. It was probably the Beaumont brothers who implied that Bishop Roger was planning to join the Angevin cause. Stephen was led to believe that if he did not act by seizing Roger of Salisbury and his relations castles…. they may be used against him. Especially if Roger and his relatives joined Matilda.
Henry is at the heart of this decision and advises against such action. The Beaumont twins again influence the King to his detriment. It is for this reason Henry Blois posing as Merlin includes this passage in the VM as it affected him greatly…. that his brother would not listen to his advice as we can plainly understand in GS.
By the King’s order, the captive bishops were kept apart from each other in abominable conditions. Roger was contained in the stall of a cowshed,[33] and Alexander in a vile hovel; they were also kept from obtaining any food. King Stephen ordered Roger’s son to be brought forward, with a halter round his neck, threatening to hang him before the gates of the castle, unless the bishop of Ely surrendered forthwith. We can see by the next two extracts how much this incident affected Henry Blois, as he knew it was the beginning of Stephen’s downfall. As I cover later, in the chapter elucidating the authorship of the Gesta Stephani, Henry knows this action was taken against Stephen’s own better judgement to placate courtiers:
Roger of Salisbury was dragged to Devizes and forced to open and surrender the castle. Roger had been ‘the throne’ (or was in charge of state affairs) while Henry Ist was away in Normandy at times and was well trusted by King Henry Ist.
Roger, may be understood to have abused his position for his own material gain during this time. As we can see in the account below written by Henry Blois in the GS, King Stephen was being led astray on bad advice and Henry Blois was annoyed at his brother’s naivety. It was probably the Beaumont brothers who implied that Bishop Roger was planning to join the Angevin cause. Stephen was led to believe that if he did not act by seizing Roger of Salisbury and his relations castles…. they may be used against him. Especially if Roger and his relatives joined Matilda.
Henry is at the heart of this decision and advises against such action. The Beaumont twins again influence the King to his detriment. It is for this reason Henry Blois posing as Merlin includes this passage in the VM as it affected him greatly…. that his brother would not listen to his advice as we can plainly understand in GS.
By the King’s order, the captive bishops were kept apart from each other in abominable conditions. Roger was contained in the stall of a cowshed,[33] and Alexander in a vile hovel; they were also kept from obtaining any food. King Stephen ordered Roger’s son to be brought forward, with a halter round his neck, threatening to hang him before the gates of the castle, unless the bishop of Ely surrendered forthwith. We can see by the next two extracts how much this incident affected Henry Blois, as he knew it was the beginning of Stephen’s downfall. As I cover later, in the chapter elucidating the authorship of the Gesta Stephani, Henry knows this action was taken against Stephen’s own better judgement to placate courtiers:
The
count of Meulan, and those other adherents of the King who were on terms of the
closest intimacy with him, indignant at this splendid pomp of the bishops, were
inflamed against them and with a furious blaze of envy, and far from stifling
the fire of their malice, once it was a light they made many shameful and
slanderous accusations of them to the King. For they went on saying that those
bishops owned the primacy of the Kingdom, all the splendour of their wealth,
the whole force of men for personal ostentation and profit, not for the King’s
honour; that they had built castles of great renown, raised up towers and buildings of great strength,
and not put the King in possession of his Kingdom, but to steal his Royal
Majesty from him and plot against the Majesty of his crown; wherefore it would
be judicious and was most expedient for the Kings peace to lay hands on them,
that they might give up to the King for his honour the castles and whatever
else could give rise to strife and wars, but that there should be yielded to
their disposal, in pious and Catholic fashion what pertained to the church and
to the sacred character and rights of the Bishop. If the King they said, were
minded to follow their advice as he relied on their valour and wisdom, he would
arrest those men without formalities and put them in custody not as bishops but
as sinners against the Pacific office of the Bishop and suspected enemies of
his peace and public order, until by the restoration to Caesar of their castles
and those things that belonged to Caesar the King was safer from suspicion of
rebellion (the charge alleged against the bishops) and his country was more
tranquil. On hearing these councils, which they goading him perpetually, put
before him with more envy and suspicion than piety and justice, the King was in
a quandary and great in decision of mind, since on the one hand it was a
serious and unlawful step to commit a disrespectful assault on the priestly
order, and on the other it went against the grain and seemed a slight not to
listen to his intimate advisers and the chief men of his court. At length
overcome by their persistent entreaties and the constant and vehement pressure
that they brought to bear, for his own honour and a piece of the Kingdom he
allowed them to do to the bishops as they asked. In this he certainly yielded
to the weight of very foolish or rather mad
advice, because if it is unfitting and forbidden to offend any man,
according to the well-known maxim, ’do not do to another what you do not wish
done to yourself’. It is much baser and
less permissible to show disrespectful violence in any way to the highest of
the ministrants at the holy altar. For to do one in the sight of men is
acknowledged to be a great transgression; to bring the other to pass is
considered, and really is, a monstrous sin against God himself. Hence also the
Lord says in the words of the prophet,’ he that touches you touches the apple
of mine eye’. And in the gospel he that despiseth you despiseth me’. And to
inflict dishonour so rashly and recklessly, or dishonourable extortion, on the
ministrants at the holy altar he thus for bids them in the words of the prophet
saying ‘touch not mine anointed’. For my
part, I proclaimed firmly and boldly that God himself cannot be more swiftly or
more grievously offended by anything than by any man's offence, in word or
deed, to those appointed to serve at his table. And indeed the sons of
Korah, because they rose up proudly and haughtily against those set over them,
not only incurred reproach from God but perished by being swallowed up alive.
Saul too, because in imperious and unseemly fashion he rose up against the
priests of the Lord, was not only dispossessed from his Kingdom in the sight of
the Lord but fell by a most cruel death in war. Having set forth these few words to put straight the insolent despisers
of God’s servants, let me at length return to my subject.[34]
William of Malmesbury said that after the
three bishop’s humiliation by King Stephen, the King had been urged to atone for his sin and finally had not rejected a summons
to the church council. It can be seen in the next piece why this is so
close to Henry Blois’s feelings and why it is given prominence as one of the Merlin prophecies in the VM. Henry Blois is recorded by William of
Malmesbury on the same topic:
Next
he (Henry Blois) made a speech before the council in Latin as he was addressing
educated men on the indignity of arresting the bishops, of whom the Bishop of
Salisbury had been seized in a room at court and the Bishop of Lincoln in his
lodging, while the Bishop of Ely, from fear of such a precedent, had escaped
disaster by a speedy flight to Devizes. It was a lamentable crime he said, that
the King had been so led astray by those who instigated him to this as to order
hands to be laid on his men, especially when they were bishops, in the peace of
his court. To the King's disgrace he had added a wrong to heaven, in that,
under pretence of the bishops being at fault, churches were robbed of their
property. The King's outrage upon divine law caused him so much grief that he
would sooner suffer great damage to his person and possessions than that the
dignity of bishops should be lowered by such a humiliation. The King moreover,
had often been urged to atone for his sin and finally had not rejected a
summons to the council. Therefore let the Archbishop and others take counsel
together about what should be done; he himself would not fail to carry out the
decision of the Council either out of regard for the King who was his brother,
or philosophy property or even danger to his life.[35]
There can be little doubt as to the author of
the Vita Merlini being the same as
the Gesta Stephani (even to the point that as above the author of GS....I proclaimed firmly and boldly). Henry Blois forgets for a moment his anonymous authorship
referring to the Bishop of Winchester as different from himself or in the third
person, when he interjects; for my part,I proclaimed firmly and boldly that God himself cannot be more swiftly
or more grievously offended by anything. This obviously was a great offence
to Henry. Ganieda prophesy’s again of the same event at the end of the VM and
exposes definitively Henry as both author of Vita Merlini and GS.
Henry understood Stephen’s actions against the three bishops offended God himself. He thought it was the very reason for the troubles Stephen endured in the Anarchy. At the capture of Stephen when William of Ypres and the Count of Meulan had deserted; Henry even has Stephen admit his own fault in the GS: when at length they disarmed him and he kept on crying out, in a humble voice of complaint that this mark of ignominy had indeed come upon him because God avenged his injuries.
Henry understood Stephen’s actions against the three bishops offended God himself. He thought it was the very reason for the troubles Stephen endured in the Anarchy. At the capture of Stephen when William of Ypres and the Count of Meulan had deserted; Henry even has Stephen admit his own fault in the GS: when at length they disarmed him and he kept on crying out, in a humble voice of complaint that this mark of ignominy had indeed come upon him because God avenged his injuries.
Henry
Blois is in effect putting words into his brother’s mouth in the hope that
posterity views his brother in a better light. This is in fact a defining
moment in the Anarchy where Henry realised that his advice was no longer listened
to by Stephen.... and the Beaumont's and other envious toady courtiers had (by their
iniquitous advice), caused King Stephen to make a grave error of judgement that
offended Henry greatly…. and other clergy.
If Orderic Vitalis’ portrayal is more
accurate in reality, he then confirms the Beaumont’s suspicions were in fact
real. The fact that Orderic implies
Roger of Salisbury as a pending turncoat, might be more accurate than Henry’s
tarnished view (against church) in hindsight. Looking back, Henry sees this as
the defining moment of Stephen’s downfall, but if the bishops had gone over to
the Angevin cause, it would have been the end of the Blois brothers.
Orderic relates that Bishop Roger had: useful connetions, and strong castles, as he had been at
the head of affairs throughout all England during the whole of King Henry's
lifetime, obtained a bad reputation above all the great men of the realm for
being disloyal to his King and lord, Stephen, and favouring the party of Anjou.
He had accomplices intimately attached to him, in a son who was the King's
chancellor, and two nephews of great influence, one of whom was bishop of
Lincoln, and the other bishop of Ely. Emboldened by their vast wealth, these
men presumed to harass the lords of their neighbourhood with various outrages.
Roused by these sharp attacks, many of them formed a league against the
bishops, and when an opportunity offered, took arms by common agreement, and
tried to obtain satisfaction for the wrongs which they had suffered. The two
brothers, Waleran and Robert, with Alain of Dinan, and several others, raised a
quarrel at the city of Oxford with the retainers of the bishops, and falling on
them, several men were slain on both sides, and the bishops Roger and Alexander
were arrested. But the bishop of Ely, who was not yet come to the King's court,
being lodged with his attendants in a vill outside the city, had no sooner
heard the dreadful news than, moved by his evil conscience, he fled with all
haste to the strong castle of Devizes. He then, having laid waste with fire the
whole country round, put the castle in a posture of defence, and determined to
defend himself in it against the King with all the force he could muster. The
King, much incensed on hearing this, marched an army towards the place, and,
sending forward William d' Ypres, charged with severe threats, swore that
bishop Roger should be kept without food till the hostile castle was given up
to him. He also seized Roger, surnamed ‘the Poor’, the bishop's son, and gave
orders that he should be hung before the castle gates in sight of the rebels ;
for his mother, Maud of Rimsbury, the bishop's concubine, kept possession of
the main building of the fortress. At last, the bishop of Salisbury, by the
King's leave, had a conference with his nephew, and much blamed him for not
retiring to his own diocese, but stealing away in a rage to a place belonging
to another, when he found that the peace was broken; and reducing thousands to
want by the devouring flames. But his arrogant nephew, with his followers,
persisting in their rebellion, and the incensed King having commanded that
Roger should be immediately hung on a gallows, his trembling mother being
informed of the lamentable condition of her son, in her anxiety for him leapt
up and said: "It was I that bore him, and I ought not to lend a helping
hand to his destruction. Yea, rather I ought to lay down my own life to save
his." Accordingly she immediately sent a message to the King, offering him
the strong fortress …..
Henry of
Huntingdon has a similar take on the events: For, after receiving amicably Roger, bishop of Salisbury; and his
nephew Alexander, bishop of Lincoln; he (Stephen) violently arrested them in
his own palace, though they refused nothing which justice demanded, and
earnestly appealed to it. The King threw Bishop Alexander into prison and
carried the bishop of Salisbury with him to his own castle of Devizes, one of
the stateliest in all Europe. Therefore he tormented him by starvation, and put
to the torture his son, the King's chancellor who had a rope fastened round his
neck, and was led to the gallows. Thus he extorted from him the surrender of
his castle. Unmindful of the services which the bishop had rendered him, more
than all others, in the beginning of his reign. Such was the return for his
devotedness. In a similar manner he obtained possession of Sherborne Castle,
which was little inferior to Devizes. Having got hold of the bishop's
treasures, he used them to obtain in marriage for his son Eustace the hand of
Constance Lewis the French King's sister. Returning thence, the King took with
him to Newark, Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, whom he had before thrown into
prison at Oxford. One observation which strikes me is that if it had not
been for Florence of Worcester, the relevance of the Cowshed and Henry’s
allusion to being led like a cow for sale from it; the prophecy would have less
relevance. It is something that obviously struck Henry from personally
witnessing a starving Roger in that awful situation.
Appendix 12
Three shall wear the diadem after whom shall
be the favour of the newcomers. A fourth shall be in authority whom
awkward piety shall injure until he shall be clothed in his father, so that
girded with boar’s teeth he shall cross the shadow of the helmeted man. For consistency’s sake not all prophecies are
changed from the original version but some are squewed in the updated Vulgate
HRB prophecies from the original Libellus
Merlini version and then the same words with another sense may be found in
the VM.
For instance in HRB we find similar: They that come after shall strive to outsoar the highest, but the favour of the newcomers shall be exalted. Henry is writing prophecies for consistency’s sake for HRB and the VM which originally had occurred in Libellus Merlini. Prophecies have been subsequently altered long after they have lost their usefulness. So, whereas Henry Blois may have composed a prophecy during the reign of Stephen which spoke of three wearing the diadem of Brutus, to be followed by a fourth, and he and his brother were looked upon as new men or newcomers…. Henry has now diluted the meaning in VM, now his brother is dead…. while mixing these with more pertinent prophecies from the anarchy which his audience can now recognize as having transpired. The earliest set of prophecies which were in the so called Libellus Merlini which circulated separately.... were those which Abbot Suger refers to; and concerned themselves with recent historical events such as the white ship sinking, the cut of coins, and dress code of the outer apparel etc. etc.
For instance in HRB we find similar: They that come after shall strive to outsoar the highest, but the favour of the newcomers shall be exalted. Henry is writing prophecies for consistency’s sake for HRB and the VM which originally had occurred in Libellus Merlini. Prophecies have been subsequently altered long after they have lost their usefulness. So, whereas Henry Blois may have composed a prophecy during the reign of Stephen which spoke of three wearing the diadem of Brutus, to be followed by a fourth, and he and his brother were looked upon as new men or newcomers…. Henry has now diluted the meaning in VM, now his brother is dead…. while mixing these with more pertinent prophecies from the anarchy which his audience can now recognize as having transpired. The earliest set of prophecies which were in the so called Libellus Merlini which circulated separately.... were those which Abbot Suger refers to; and concerned themselves with recent historical events such as the white ship sinking, the cut of coins, and dress code of the outer apparel etc. etc.
However, back to
VM prophecy above concerning the three wearing the crown. These are William the
Conqueror, William Rufus and Henry Ist up until the fourth which is Stephen. To
understand this fully, the prophecies found in the Libellus Merlini and those found in the Vulgate HRB are used as a
device by Henry Blois to expand upon and redeploy prophecies which have their
sense changed or perhaps have been outdated and not come to fruition.
Henry ostensibly displays to his Anglo-Norman readers that the prophecies of Merlin in the Vulgate HRB are spoken of by the same person as those found in the VM….so a level of consistency is required. Any update or additional detail to the prophecy is still linked back to the concept of an original sixth century seer, but the reader allows discrepancy having had the sense of his prophecies slightly mistranslated or misunderstood. The extract below from the HRB prophecies.... to which the one above is intrinsically linked back (to events at the Norman invasion of his Grandfather William the Conqueror)…. is so that both the updated HRB prophecies and VM prophecies seem to come from and are consistent with the earlier Libellus Merlini. It also relates to how Henry Blois’ view of the world stood, 10 years before Henry wrote the Vita Merlini
Henry ostensibly displays to his Anglo-Norman readers that the prophecies of Merlin in the Vulgate HRB are spoken of by the same person as those found in the VM….so a level of consistency is required. Any update or additional detail to the prophecy is still linked back to the concept of an original sixth century seer, but the reader allows discrepancy having had the sense of his prophecies slightly mistranslated or misunderstood. The extract below from the HRB prophecies.... to which the one above is intrinsically linked back (to events at the Norman invasion of his Grandfather William the Conqueror)…. is so that both the updated HRB prophecies and VM prophecies seem to come from and are consistent with the earlier Libellus Merlini. It also relates to how Henry Blois’ view of the world stood, 10 years before Henry wrote the Vita Merlini
The
island shall be drenched in nightly tears, whence all men shall be provoked
unto all things. Woe unto thee, Neustria, for the brain[36]
of the Lion shall be poured forth upon thee; and with mangled limbs shall he be
thrust forth of his native soil. They that come after shall strive to outsoar
the highest, but the favour of the newcomers shall be exalted. Piety shall do
hurt unto him that doth possess through impiety until he shall have clad him in
his father. Wherefore, girdled about with the teeth of wolves, shall he climb
over the heights of the mountains and the shadow of him that weareth a helmet.[37]
The island of Britain is in tears because of
the bedlam caused by the invasion. Referring to the Normans as if the author
(i.e. Merlin AKA Henry Blois , the quintessential Norman) was not a part of their heritage…. Henry Blois turns to the episode of his uncle Henry Ist body being readied for
burial.
King Henry Ist (the lion in both HRB and VM) died on 1 December 1135. Henry’s uncle’s corpse was taken to Rouen accompanied by the barons, where it was embalmed; his entrails were buried locally at Port-du-Salut Abbey in Normandy, and the body preserved in salt was taken on to England, where it was interred at Reading Abbey. Henry of Huntingdon, tells us a man named Ewan was paid a large reward to sever the King’s head with an axe. Therefore as the supposed prophecy states.... his soft tissue (brain included) was buried in Normandy and his mangled limbs (the body), was buried in England (thrust from his native shore) i.e. Normandy.
We are appraised that Henry Blois (through the voice of Merlin) is referring to his ancestors and what is common knowledge to his readership. He now turns to himself and his brother as he betrays his expectancy of future events: They that come after shall strive to outsoar the highest, but the favour of the newcomers shall be exalted. The Anarchy was unfinished at the time these were originally written. Henry expects great things as he will be in charge of spiritual affairs (Legate) of the church and his brother those of state. As a team of ‘newcomers’, he envisages a new system of Gregorian values or Cluniac vision; of both state and church existing together, perhaps without papal interference.
Henry Blois envisions his brother accepting piety even though it was through impiety his brother gained the crown and predicts that his brother will be clothed in the father i.e. will embrace the church. Piety shall do hurt unto him that doth possess through impiety until he shall have clad him in his father.
Henry Blois then refers to himself as his brother’s protector Wherefore, girdled about with the teeth of wolves, from Wolvesey[38] using possibly ‘the tooth of the wolf’ originally. The point Henry was making is that the prophecy alluded to himself by vaticinatory pun i.e. the Wolf from Wolvesey.
Henry Blois wrote the original Libellus Merlini c.1141-5 a copy of which he had given to his friend Abbot Suger. When Henry brought out the updated version of prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB, some of his future expectations written at that earlier time for the Libellus Merlini had not come to fruition in 1155. These were now squewed in the later Vulgate edition, but seemingly (appeared to all) to have remained consistent with the Libellus edition. We can speculate that in the interim period the First Variant had a set of the Libellus Merlini prophecies added which have since been substituted to the updated version from Vulgate.
The prophecy concerning the ‘Sixth’ was never even thought about in the numbering system of Kings when the original Libellus was handed to a few of Henry’s circle. The numbering system in the Libellus Merlini only went to 4. No original First Variant has survived.... all copies have the corrected and updated 1155 prophecies in all four copies. Yet it is obvious (except to modern scholars that First Variant Preceeded the Vulgate version. (see chapter on First Variant).
King Henry Ist (the lion in both HRB and VM) died on 1 December 1135. Henry’s uncle’s corpse was taken to Rouen accompanied by the barons, where it was embalmed; his entrails were buried locally at Port-du-Salut Abbey in Normandy, and the body preserved in salt was taken on to England, where it was interred at Reading Abbey. Henry of Huntingdon, tells us a man named Ewan was paid a large reward to sever the King’s head with an axe. Therefore as the supposed prophecy states.... his soft tissue (brain included) was buried in Normandy and his mangled limbs (the body), was buried in England (thrust from his native shore) i.e. Normandy.
We are appraised that Henry Blois (through the voice of Merlin) is referring to his ancestors and what is common knowledge to his readership. He now turns to himself and his brother as he betrays his expectancy of future events: They that come after shall strive to outsoar the highest, but the favour of the newcomers shall be exalted. The Anarchy was unfinished at the time these were originally written. Henry expects great things as he will be in charge of spiritual affairs (Legate) of the church and his brother those of state. As a team of ‘newcomers’, he envisages a new system of Gregorian values or Cluniac vision; of both state and church existing together, perhaps without papal interference.
Henry Blois envisions his brother accepting piety even though it was through impiety his brother gained the crown and predicts that his brother will be clothed in the father i.e. will embrace the church. Piety shall do hurt unto him that doth possess through impiety until he shall have clad him in his father.
Henry Blois then refers to himself as his brother’s protector Wherefore, girdled about with the teeth of wolves, from Wolvesey[38] using possibly ‘the tooth of the wolf’ originally. The point Henry was making is that the prophecy alluded to himself by vaticinatory pun i.e. the Wolf from Wolvesey.
Henry Blois wrote the original Libellus Merlini c.1141-5 a copy of which he had given to his friend Abbot Suger. When Henry brought out the updated version of prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB, some of his future expectations written at that earlier time for the Libellus Merlini had not come to fruition in 1155. These were now squewed in the later Vulgate edition, but seemingly (appeared to all) to have remained consistent with the Libellus edition. We can speculate that in the interim period the First Variant had a set of the Libellus Merlini prophecies added which have since been substituted to the updated version from Vulgate.
The prophecy concerning the ‘Sixth’ was never even thought about in the numbering system of Kings when the original Libellus was handed to a few of Henry’s circle. The numbering system in the Libellus Merlini only went to 4. No original First Variant has survived.... all copies have the corrected and updated 1155 prophecies in all four copies. Yet it is obvious (except to modern scholars that First Variant Preceeded the Vulgate version. (see chapter on First Variant).
The next sentence is one of the most
important in the HRB and its inserted prophecies as it dates the prophecies not before 1st
march 1139. Briefly, as I shall discuss this later, so as not to be led into
digression, the first reference to the Primary
Historia is in 1139 at Bec, but the man crossing the mountains (the Alps) is
Henry Blois to receive his legateship from the ‘Helmeted man’ i.e. the Pope.
Henry refers to himself in fatuous vaticinatory language as the shadow of the
pope i.e. the Legate. From 1143 to 1963, the papal tiara was solemnly placed on
the pope's head during a papal coronation and resembled a helmet;[39]Wherefore, girdled about with the teeth of
wolves, shall he climb over the heights of the mountains and the shadow of him
that weareth a helmet.[40]
On 1 March 1139, during the reign of his brother Stephen, Henry obtained a commission as papal legate, which in effect gave him higher rank than Theobald of Bec and therefore rule over the English church.
On 1 March 1139, during the reign of his brother Stephen, Henry obtained a commission as papal legate, which in effect gave him higher rank than Theobald of Bec and therefore rule over the English church.
What I want to make plain to the reader, as
we have just covered this prophecy from the HRB, is to show Henry Blois’
artifice in anchoring one point, person, location, icon or episode to appear
consistent with what he had written many years before in the Libellus Merlini or first set of prophecies.
Here in the Vita Merlini it still talks in the same vein as if the sense had not
changed but with Stephen’s death in the past now the prophecy is squewed: The fourth in power will be harmed by his
clumsy piety until he puts on his father's clothes and so, girt with boar's
teeth, crosses the shadow of the Helmeted Man.
Any person who studied the prophecies in the
late twelfth century would cross reference this with the passage from the HRB
or the Libellus thinking the sense
had changed through interpretation of the oblique Latin and skimble skamble
nature of the way the prophecies were written. This essentially highlights the
erratic way in which Henry’s mind works and why little sense has been made by
comparison of the two sets of Merlin prophecies in the Vita and those in
Vulgate HRB.
Even if they had been compared and the icons changed, no commentator has taken into account that essentially three versions were written[41]. Most commentators have allowed the inaccuracies and inconsistencies and blatant addition because they have been duped into believing the prophecies were written by Merlin at one time long ago in the distant past.
Even if they had been compared and the icons changed, no commentator has taken into account that essentially three versions were written[41]. Most commentators have allowed the inaccuracies and inconsistencies and blatant addition because they have been duped into believing the prophecies were written by Merlin at one time long ago in the distant past.
Appendix 13
Four shall be anointed, seeking in turn the highest
things, and two shall succeed who shall so wear the diadem that they shall induce
the Gauls to make war on them.
Again the
likelihood that the sense of this prophecy has been squewed from the original in
the Libellus Merlini is high. The
four as we discussed already are William the Conqueror, William Rufus,
Henry Ist and King Stephen. They were anointed. Matilda is the fifth, but it is
never stated; it is only understood when the sixth is mentioned as Henry II,
the Empress Matilda’s son.
This is why Henry Blois cleverly posits in words of prophetic foresight into future events that two shall succeed. Matilda was nearly crowned but due to the manipulative Henry Blois starting a rumour, caused Matilda to flee from London just before she was crowned as both Malmesbury in HN and the author of GS attest. One not anointed, but both wearing the diadem i.e. fighting over the crown. When Robert of Gloucester and Matilda returned to establish Matilda’s claim to the throne, they brought with them mercenaries from the continent and it is these that caused havoc in the British countryside; these are the Gaul’s that make war. The reference to the Gauls also may be pretence to be in the character of Merlin looking on the Normans as Gauls or may refer to the Angevins in general.
This is why Henry Blois cleverly posits in words of prophetic foresight into future events that two shall succeed. Matilda was nearly crowned but due to the manipulative Henry Blois starting a rumour, caused Matilda to flee from London just before she was crowned as both Malmesbury in HN and the author of GS attest. One not anointed, but both wearing the diadem i.e. fighting over the crown. When Robert of Gloucester and Matilda returned to establish Matilda’s claim to the throne, they brought with them mercenaries from the continent and it is these that caused havoc in the British countryside; these are the Gaul’s that make war. The reference to the Gauls also may be pretence to be in the character of Merlin looking on the Normans as Gauls or may refer to the Angevins in general.
Appendix 14
The sixth shall overthrow the Irish and their
walls, and pious and prudent shall renew the people and the cities.
In September 1155, just before Henry Blois
secreted his transportable wealth with Peter the Venerable and asked him to
carriage it to Clugny, King Henry II held a council at Winchester. This was the
last appearance of Henry Blois before self imposed exile at Clugny. King Henry
enthusiastically considered invading Ireland and discussed this amongst the
bishops; one of which was Henry Blois.
As a generous brother, King Henry II was hoping to give Ireland to William his younger brother, making him King. The plans were abandoned when their mother, the Empress Matilda, objected. She did not consider Ireland worth conquering. Henry, instead, made William one of the richest men in England, granting him seven manors. The council at which the invasion of Ireland was discussed is corroborated in the Chronicle of Clugny[42] (as Peter the Venerble attended also) which supports Henry Blois’ knowledge of the proposed Irish invasion as a plan.
Henry Blois, writing the updated Vulgate version of prophecies, (especially about Ireland) which one must assume he supposed would be acted upon while he was abroad in Clugny…. instigated the prophecy so that Merlin would be found to be a real prophet when the invasion took place. At Winchester about the time of Michaelmas in 1155 Henry II holds a council with his nobles to discuss the conquest of Ireland which he seems to have desired to give his younger brother William on terms of homage.[43]
As a generous brother, King Henry II was hoping to give Ireland to William his younger brother, making him King. The plans were abandoned when their mother, the Empress Matilda, objected. She did not consider Ireland worth conquering. Henry, instead, made William one of the richest men in England, granting him seven manors. The council at which the invasion of Ireland was discussed is corroborated in the Chronicle of Clugny[42] (as Peter the Venerble attended also) which supports Henry Blois’ knowledge of the proposed Irish invasion as a plan.
Henry Blois, writing the updated Vulgate version of prophecies, (especially about Ireland) which one must assume he supposed would be acted upon while he was abroad in Clugny…. instigated the prophecy so that Merlin would be found to be a real prophet when the invasion took place. At Winchester about the time of Michaelmas in 1155 Henry II holds a council with his nobles to discuss the conquest of Ireland which he seems to have desired to give his younger brother William on terms of homage.[43]
It was this council at which the discussion took place about castles to be surrendered to himself. King Henry saw these castles which
had grown up throughout the land in the Anarchy as an obstacle to peace in the
realm. The only problem was that without them the powerbase of any baron or
bishop was potentially removed. Henry Blois had several and thus King Henry looked
on the powerful bishop as a threat. At this meeting it was requested that
bishop Henry hand them over to the King. Straight afterward Henry Blois left
the country secretly without license from the king, probably leaving the
country from a port in the very south of England because all the ports were watched.
One of the reasons for the Irish invasion was that in
1155, three years after the Synod of Kells, Adrian IV published the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, which was addressed to
Henry II.The
Laudabiliter was issued in 1155 whereby the English pope Adrian
IV gave King Henry the right to assume control over Ireland and apply the
Gregorian reforms. He urged Henry II to invade Ireland to bring its Celtic
Christian Church under Roman Catholic rule and to conduct a general reform of
governance and society in Ireland. In Irish records, they seem to have known
nothing of the plans of the prospect of an Angevin Norman invasion and many
commentators mistrust whether the Papal bull was genuine. With Henry Blois’
prediction found here in the Vita Merlini....
it would seem to substantiate that there was such a bull.
The Normans did in fact invade Ireland, beginning with a
small landing of Norman knights, but not until 1 May 1169 long after the Vita Merlini was written. A force of loosely associated Norman knights
landed near Bannow, County Wexford at the request of Diarmait Mac Murchada, the ousted King of Leinster, who sought
their help in regaining his Kingdom. It was not until the 18 October 1171,
however (two months after Henry Blois’ death) that Henry II landed a much
bigger army in Waterford to ensure his continuing control over the preceding
Norman force. In the process he took Dublin and had accepted the fealty of the
Irish Kings and bishops by 1172; thus creating the Lordship of Ireland, which
formed part of his Angevin Empire.
Henry Blois had to wait four years from the
time he wrote the prophecy in the Vita concerning the ‘Sixth and the Irish
invasion’ until a partial realization of Merlin’s prediction.... which became fact
with the small band of Norman Knight’s arriving in 1161. However, the
vaticinatory vision ‘and
pious and prudent shall renew the people and the
cities’, was
based upon what Henry Blois understood were going to be the implementations of Gregorian
reform within Ireland which were proposed at the Winchester council in 1155.
Appendix 15
Henry Blois is making an implication that
Thanet is near to the implied Island of Alaron or Avalon. He wishes his
audience to conflate the two stating ’Close to this island lies Thanet’. I
think considering Henry Blois’ objective throughout, which is to construe the
Island of Avalon as being located at Glastonbury, we should understand his
mind…. for this on the surface just seems an ill-informed statement ‘Near
to this island lies Thanet’.
Henry Blois knows perfectly well where Thanet is, so why would he state contrary to Isedore that Thanet is near Alaron. Henry Blois, as we have seen, is the master of conflation. His intention is clearly that; from Badon we are to assume Alaron as commensurate.
There are only three traditions or accounts concerning Joseph of Arimathea which are not from later Glastonbury propaganda. The first is that Melkin’s prophecy states that Joseph is buried on the Island of Avalon and gives accurate directions to his burial site, a remarkable achievement for a man that never existed (according to Modern scholars). The second is that Father Good makes the statement that Joseph is ‘carefully hidden in Montacute’. Thirdly, Joseph of Arimathea is held by Cornish tradition to be a tin merchant.
Henry Blois knows perfectly well where Thanet is, so why would he state contrary to Isedore that Thanet is near Alaron. Henry Blois, as we have seen, is the master of conflation. His intention is clearly that; from Badon we are to assume Alaron as commensurate.
There are only three traditions or accounts concerning Joseph of Arimathea which are not from later Glastonbury propaganda. The first is that Melkin’s prophecy states that Joseph is buried on the Island of Avalon and gives accurate directions to his burial site, a remarkable achievement for a man that never existed (according to Modern scholars). The second is that Father Good makes the statement that Joseph is ‘carefully hidden in Montacute’. Thirdly, Joseph of Arimathea is held by Cornish tradition to be a tin merchant.
Although we can
see that Henry Blois has taken a section from Isidore, the names of Isidore’s
first three Islands, Thanet, the Orkneys and Ultima Thule, come from a Journal
of a voyage made by Pytheas. The island
of Ictis as described by Diodorus from the lost works of Pytheas was an Island
to which tin was transported in large quantities by cart across a tidal sand
spit. By coincidence the island which Melkin’s directions lead to in his
prophecy concerning the Island of Avalon (originally Ineswitrin on the document), fits Diodorus’ description as that
which accords with Ictis. Another coincidence is this same island would also
seem to be that donated by a Devonian King to Glastonbury in 601AD called Ines
Witrin recorded in a charter by William of Malmesbury. Does it not seem
strange that Henry Blois (who we know is the inventor of the Mystical island of Avalon in HRB) invents Alaron as a name which links back to
Badon and Arthur and implies it is next to Thanet, given the Pytheas
connection.
Henry Blois writing as Geoffrey of Monmouth
had no idea where the Island of Ineswitrin is. Therefore, it became his design
to locate it at Glastonbury, both on account of it being Arthur’s last known
location and the fact that Joseph of Arimathea was buried there (since the
substitution of Ineswitrin for Avalon was made on the Melkin prophecy). Henry
is attempting to substantiate his own island invention and its position relative
to a known location?
It indicates he does not know the location of Ineswitrin, but, he knows the location is real, just as he knows the 601 charter is real. Henry Blois’ motive for writing the section on islands in VM is how he first associated Glasonbury with Avalon by calling it Insula Pomorum.
It is clear how he manipulates the original text to suit that goal. He leaps from Bladud and his association to Badon to Alaron and from there to Insula Pomorum where wounded Arthur was taken. Henry Blois is keen to have us believe Thanet is near Alaron. The reason why Henry should make the association of Thanet to Alaron; and the reason we should be suspicious of it being connected to Pytheas’ Island of Ictis, is due to what follows immediately after the mention of Thanet in the VM. Our ocean also divides the Orkneys from us. These are divided into thirty three islands by the sundering flood; twenty lack cultivation and the others are cultivated. Thule receives its name “furthest” from the sun, because of the solstice which the summer sun makes there, turning its rays and shining no further, and taking away the day, so that always throughout the long night the air is full of shadows, and making a bridge congealed by the benumbing cold, which prevents the passage of ships.
In Pytheas' book, the contents of which Diodorus relates (because Pytheas’ book is no longer extant), Pytheas was the first to mention the Orkneys, Thule, and pack ice. Certainly, Isidore sourced some of his information from Pytheas which came through Diodorus or some other previous commentator on Pytheas such as Timaeas. Isidore writes: Thanet is an island in the Ocean in the Gallic (i.e. English) channel, separated from Britannia by a narrow estuary, with fruitful fields and rich soil. It is named Thanet (Tanatos) from the death of serpents. Although the island itself is unacquainted with serpents, if soil from it is carried away and brought to any other nation, it kills snakes there. Ultima Thule (Thyle ultima) is an island of the Ocean in the north western region, beyond Britannia, taking its name from the sun, because there the sun makes its summer solstice, and there is no daylight beyond (ultra) this. Hence its sea is sluggish and frozen. The Orkneys (Orcades) are islands of the Ocean within Britannia, numbering thirty-three, of which twenty are uninhabited and thirteen colonized. Ireland (Scotia), also known as Hibernia, is an island next to Britannia, narrower in its expanse of land but more fertile in its site. It extends from southwest to north. Its near parts stretch towards Iberia (Hiberia) and the Cantabrian Ocean (i.e. the Bay of Biscay), whence it is called Hibernia; but it is called Scotia, because it has been colonized by tribes of the Scoti. There no snakes are found, birds are scarce, and there are no bees, so that if someone were to sprinkle dust or pebbles brought from there among beehives in some other place, the swarms would desert the honeycombs.
It indicates he does not know the location of Ineswitrin, but, he knows the location is real, just as he knows the 601 charter is real. Henry Blois’ motive for writing the section on islands in VM is how he first associated Glasonbury with Avalon by calling it Insula Pomorum.
It is clear how he manipulates the original text to suit that goal. He leaps from Bladud and his association to Badon to Alaron and from there to Insula Pomorum where wounded Arthur was taken. Henry Blois is keen to have us believe Thanet is near Alaron. The reason why Henry should make the association of Thanet to Alaron; and the reason we should be suspicious of it being connected to Pytheas’ Island of Ictis, is due to what follows immediately after the mention of Thanet in the VM. Our ocean also divides the Orkneys from us. These are divided into thirty three islands by the sundering flood; twenty lack cultivation and the others are cultivated. Thule receives its name “furthest” from the sun, because of the solstice which the summer sun makes there, turning its rays and shining no further, and taking away the day, so that always throughout the long night the air is full of shadows, and making a bridge congealed by the benumbing cold, which prevents the passage of ships.
In Pytheas' book, the contents of which Diodorus relates (because Pytheas’ book is no longer extant), Pytheas was the first to mention the Orkneys, Thule, and pack ice. Certainly, Isidore sourced some of his information from Pytheas which came through Diodorus or some other previous commentator on Pytheas such as Timaeas. Isidore writes: Thanet is an island in the Ocean in the Gallic (i.e. English) channel, separated from Britannia by a narrow estuary, with fruitful fields and rich soil. It is named Thanet (Tanatos) from the death of serpents. Although the island itself is unacquainted with serpents, if soil from it is carried away and brought to any other nation, it kills snakes there. Ultima Thule (Thyle ultima) is an island of the Ocean in the north western region, beyond Britannia, taking its name from the sun, because there the sun makes its summer solstice, and there is no daylight beyond (ultra) this. Hence its sea is sluggish and frozen. The Orkneys (Orcades) are islands of the Ocean within Britannia, numbering thirty-three, of which twenty are uninhabited and thirteen colonized. Ireland (Scotia), also known as Hibernia, is an island next to Britannia, narrower in its expanse of land but more fertile in its site. It extends from southwest to north. Its near parts stretch towards Iberia (Hiberia) and the Cantabrian Ocean (i.e. the Bay of Biscay), whence it is called Hibernia; but it is called Scotia, because it has been colonized by tribes of the Scoti. There no snakes are found, birds are scarce, and there are no bees, so that if someone were to sprinkle dust or pebbles brought from there among beehives in some other place, the swarms would desert the honeycombs.
It is, I believe
Thanet’s association with Ictis which has attracted Henry’s attention as Henry
thought it was an island from which tin was traded. Henry may have been aware
of the tradition of Joseph of Arimathea as a tin Merchant as he had taken
possession of Looe Island in 1144 in his hunt for the relics of Joseph of
Arimathea. The fact that Joseph of Arimathea was buried on an Island called
Ineswitrin in the original Melkin prophecy, is the reason Arthur ended up on
the mystical island of Avalon and is the reason for Henry’s seemingly random
tract on the various Islands recycled from Isidore.
Although Thanet is mentioned by Isidore of Seville, Henry Blois’personal injection is adiacet huic- it lies near here, near Alaron, which shows he is leading us to some other motive other than just a rework of Isidore. It is not as if Henry Blois does not know where Thanet is located geographically which is certainly not near Kaerbadon. It is for this reason he is keen on splicing in his hidden agenda which appears to beTaliesin sounding forth with Island mythology.
Henry’s main objective is to conflate his own invention of Avalon from HRB with Glastonbury and he achieves this by conflation with other island legends of the Fortunate isles. He changes Isidore's order, of islands reversing the positions of Thule and the Orkneys and he exposes his devise as he also reverses the order of the "Gorgades" and the Fortunate Isles. He has now renamed the Island where Arthur was taken in the HRB called the Island of Avalon and has led his audience to believe Insula Pomorum as the same.
Henry Blois conflates an older island legend of the Fortunate Isles with Glastonbury Tor. Also by splicing in the fact that Merlin’s madness also stems from apples he completes the illusory transposition of Avalon to Insula Pomorum. Taliesin supposedly saying he went with Barinthus to Insula Pomorum with King Arthur leaves no doubt that the Avalon of the HRB needed to be relocated at Glastonbury. Henry the master of conflation helps us on our way to Glastonbury with the names of the sisters Glitonea, Gliten, Giton.
Although Thanet is mentioned by Isidore of Seville, Henry Blois’personal injection is adiacet huic- it lies near here, near Alaron, which shows he is leading us to some other motive other than just a rework of Isidore. It is not as if Henry Blois does not know where Thanet is located geographically which is certainly not near Kaerbadon. It is for this reason he is keen on splicing in his hidden agenda which appears to beTaliesin sounding forth with Island mythology.
Henry’s main objective is to conflate his own invention of Avalon from HRB with Glastonbury and he achieves this by conflation with other island legends of the Fortunate isles. He changes Isidore's order, of islands reversing the positions of Thule and the Orkneys and he exposes his devise as he also reverses the order of the "Gorgades" and the Fortunate Isles. He has now renamed the Island where Arthur was taken in the HRB called the Island of Avalon and has led his audience to believe Insula Pomorum as the same.
Henry Blois conflates an older island legend of the Fortunate Isles with Glastonbury Tor. Also by splicing in the fact that Merlin’s madness also stems from apples he completes the illusory transposition of Avalon to Insula Pomorum. Taliesin supposedly saying he went with Barinthus to Insula Pomorum with King Arthur leaves no doubt that the Avalon of the HRB needed to be relocated at Glastonbury. Henry the master of conflation helps us on our way to Glastonbury with the names of the sisters Glitonea, Gliten, Giton.
Appendix 16
The Irish influence on the Vita Merlini
comes from the Bhuile Suibhne Geilt. The Madness of Suibhne is about a legendary King in
Ireland. It seems likely that Henry Blois used this source for narrative ideas.
There are several coincidences mutual to both the VM and The Madness of
Suibhne.
The madness of Merlin in the Vita Merlini is slightly confusing. It is not developed as one would expect as part of the narrative. It appears that Henry Blois started with the idea from the Irish source and forgot to develop it. Merlin’s madness comes across as incidental because (as I have noted), Henry’s primary aims in the Vita are to provide new prophecies for his audience to puzzle over and to re-educate his readers upon certain facts related in the HRB.
The madness of Merlin in the Vita Merlini is slightly confusing. It is not developed as one would expect as part of the narrative. It appears that Henry Blois started with the idea from the Irish source and forgot to develop it. Merlin’s madness comes across as incidental because (as I have noted), Henry’s primary aims in the Vita are to provide new prophecies for his audience to puzzle over and to re-educate his readers upon certain facts related in the HRB.
A coincidence with
the Irish story has Eorann, wife of Suibhne, taking a new mate in much the same
fashion as Guendoloena does in the Vita. In the same story we find Suibhne
speaking of his herd of stags and Merlin rides one in the VM. Also Suibhne has his madness softened in a
very similar way by Loingreachan who
played upon the harp and sang to him of his family, and finally persuaded him
to return home just as Merlin returns.
The story line below from the VM is too close to be coincidental: The messenger heard the prophet and broke off his lament with cadences on the cither he had brought with him that with it he might attract and soften the madman. Therefore making plaintive sounds with his fingers and striking the strings in order, he lay hidden behind him and sang in a low voice…. The messenger sang thus to his plaintive lyre, and with his music soothed the ears of the prophet that he might become more gentle and rejoice with the singer. Quickly the prophet arose and addressed the young man with pleasant words, and begged him to touch once more the strings with his fingers and to sing again his former song. The latter therefore set his fingers to the lyre and played over again the song that was asked for, and by his playing compelled the man, little by little, to put aside his madness, captivated by the sweetness of the lute. So Merlin became mindful of himself, and he recalled what he used to be, and he wondered at his madness and he hated it. His former mind returned and his sense came back to him, and, moved by affection, he groaned at the names of his sister and of his wife, since his mind was now restored to him, and he asked to be led to the court of King Rhydderch.
The story line below from the VM is too close to be coincidental: The messenger heard the prophet and broke off his lament with cadences on the cither he had brought with him that with it he might attract and soften the madman. Therefore making plaintive sounds with his fingers and striking the strings in order, he lay hidden behind him and sang in a low voice…. The messenger sang thus to his plaintive lyre, and with his music soothed the ears of the prophet that he might become more gentle and rejoice with the singer. Quickly the prophet arose and addressed the young man with pleasant words, and begged him to touch once more the strings with his fingers and to sing again his former song. The latter therefore set his fingers to the lyre and played over again the song that was asked for, and by his playing compelled the man, little by little, to put aside his madness, captivated by the sweetness of the lute. So Merlin became mindful of himself, and he recalled what he used to be, and he wondered at his madness and he hated it. His former mind returned and his sense came back to him, and, moved by affection, he groaned at the names of his sister and of his wife, since his mind was now restored to him, and he asked to be led to the court of King Rhydderch.
Appendix 17
The Fortunate
Isles, also called the Isles of the Blessed and
occasionally rendered as Isles of the Blest (μακάρων νῆσοι makárôn
nêsoi) is where heroes and other favoured mortals in Greek and Celtic
mythology were received by the gods. In Greek mythology, the islands were
reserved for those who had chosen to be reincarnated thrice, and managed to be
judged as especially pure enough to gain entrance to the Elysian Fields all
three times. They are mentioned in the Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Flavius
Philostratus and by Plutarch, who refers to the "fortunate isles"
several times in his writings where they are called the Isles of the Blessed.
Appendix 18
Many commentators on the HRB and the VM are
perplexed by ‘Geoffrey’s’ beneficial treatment of those from Brittany and by
his deprecation of the Welsh. The HRB links Brittany as the continental deposit
of the residue of the Britons from an early migration. Many have assumed that
Geoffrey’s positive attitude toward Brittany is derived from a Breton
association in Wales, because of the long standing assumption that Geoffrey was
Welsh. If he was, he would hardly have been so derogatory about them.
Henry Blois’ hatred of the Welsh is rather down to the rebellion of the Welsh against his brother Stephen, and his time spent in Wales in 1136. We can see how Henry, who thinks highly of the Britons before the Saxon invasion, has to rationalise how it is that the remaining population who did not flee (who he now sees as the Welsh) are so barbaric.
Henry’s view is that the pocket of people left in Britain from the once noble Britons are the Welsh. This is partly the reason he sets his Arthurian epic there. Henry is clear about his favoured Britons. But, they were no longer recognisable by their residue, the Welsh: as barbarism crept in, they were no longer called Britons but Welsh. [44]
The contemporary rebellious Welsh who Henry had been engaged with at Kidwelly[45] were not to be associated as part of the Celtic Christian Briton by which Geoffrey is so endeared: ‘But the Welsh, degenerating from the nobility of the Britons’.[46]
Orderic gives a good account of why Henry Blois would loath the Welsh. He was with his brother when they both thought it propitious to withdraw from a full frontal battle when Robert brought the Welsh hoards into England: Robert of Caen hospitably entertained under his own roof his sister Matilda after her arrival in England, and calling in the Welsh to his aid, atrocious villainies were perpetrated in all parts. They say that more than ten thousand of these barbarians spread themselves over England, and that having no reverence for religion, they did not even spare the consecrated places, but gave themselves up to pillage, and burning and bloodshed. It is impossible for me to describe in detail the great afflictions which the church of God suffered in the persons of her sons, who were daily butchered like sheep by the knives of the Welsh.
Since there is nothing in the British annals that would commend the Britons to ‘Geoffrey’ to form his attitude, I suggest it stems from Henry’s recognition of an independent Christian Culture (i.e. not Roman) which existed in Britain prior to the Saxon invasion, the very culture that Gildas bemoans. Evidence of this lost ancient Briton church Henry found at Glastonbury and became a part of his case for metropolitan of Southern England.
Henry Blois’ hatred of the Welsh is rather down to the rebellion of the Welsh against his brother Stephen, and his time spent in Wales in 1136. We can see how Henry, who thinks highly of the Britons before the Saxon invasion, has to rationalise how it is that the remaining population who did not flee (who he now sees as the Welsh) are so barbaric.
Henry’s view is that the pocket of people left in Britain from the once noble Britons are the Welsh. This is partly the reason he sets his Arthurian epic there. Henry is clear about his favoured Britons. But, they were no longer recognisable by their residue, the Welsh: as barbarism crept in, they were no longer called Britons but Welsh. [44]
The contemporary rebellious Welsh who Henry had been engaged with at Kidwelly[45] were not to be associated as part of the Celtic Christian Briton by which Geoffrey is so endeared: ‘But the Welsh, degenerating from the nobility of the Britons’.[46]
Orderic gives a good account of why Henry Blois would loath the Welsh. He was with his brother when they both thought it propitious to withdraw from a full frontal battle when Robert brought the Welsh hoards into England: Robert of Caen hospitably entertained under his own roof his sister Matilda after her arrival in England, and calling in the Welsh to his aid, atrocious villainies were perpetrated in all parts. They say that more than ten thousand of these barbarians spread themselves over England, and that having no reverence for religion, they did not even spare the consecrated places, but gave themselves up to pillage, and burning and bloodshed. It is impossible for me to describe in detail the great afflictions which the church of God suffered in the persons of her sons, who were daily butchered like sheep by the knives of the Welsh.
Since there is nothing in the British annals that would commend the Britons to ‘Geoffrey’ to form his attitude, I suggest it stems from Henry’s recognition of an independent Christian Culture (i.e. not Roman) which existed in Britain prior to the Saxon invasion, the very culture that Gildas bemoans. Evidence of this lost ancient Briton church Henry found at Glastonbury and became a part of his case for metropolitan of Southern England.
As can be seen throughout the HRB, Henry uses
a template or anchor in the form of location, situation or persona on which to
build his narrative and nearly every instance in his writing can be traced to
this method of composition.
It is not silly to suggest that it was Melkin himself upon whom ‘Geoffrey’ bases Merlin in the HRB.[47] Henry transposes Merlin to Rhydderch’s court purely as a backdrop for the Vita Merlini.... in part because of the explosive material that the southern Merlin divulged in the Vulgate HRB.
People might have been searching for the source of these seditious prophecies and Henry Blois tries to authenticate Merlin tying him to location and era and personas of the welsh Myrrdin[48] and Taliesin. Henry Blois was not ignorant of the history of pre-Saxon Briton as he left a copy of the life of the Caesar’s to Glastonbury as Adam of Damerham records.[49]
It is not silly to suggest that it was Melkin himself upon whom ‘Geoffrey’ bases Merlin in the HRB.[47] Henry transposes Merlin to Rhydderch’s court purely as a backdrop for the Vita Merlini.... in part because of the explosive material that the southern Merlin divulged in the Vulgate HRB.
People might have been searching for the source of these seditious prophecies and Henry Blois tries to authenticate Merlin tying him to location and era and personas of the welsh Myrrdin[48] and Taliesin. Henry Blois was not ignorant of the history of pre-Saxon Briton as he left a copy of the life of the Caesar’s to Glastonbury as Adam of Damerham records.[49]
The VM has little intrinsic structure. It can
be recognised as a composite, and relies mainly on Taliesin and narrative ideas
from Bhuile Suibhne and
Isidore. Henry’s invention of siting the main location of Arthur’s
grandiose court in Wales in the HRB is based on several factors i.e. his knowledge
of Wales and their oral tradition of Arthur; and the fact that there were
archaeological Roman remains at Caerleon.[50]
The pro-Breton stance in the HRB is evident,
but the reasons for it are revealed here in the Vita Merlini. Henry Blois affinity with Brittany and
Stephen’s claim to the throne are couched in terms of a right of the Ducal
house of Cornwall which Henry believed gave his brother (and he himself if
opportunity arose) legitimacy to the crown of Brutus.
Bertha of Blois was a Duchess consort of
Brittany and a countess consort of Maine who was married in 1018 to Alain III,
Duke of Brittany and in 1046 to Hugh IV, Count of Maine. She was the daughter
of Odo II, Count of Blois and Ermengarde of Auvergne. Conan II of Rennes (c. 1033-1066) was Duke of Brittany from 1040
to his death. Conan was the eldest child
and heir of Alan III, Duke of Brittany by his wife Bertha of Blois. He was the elder brother of Hawise, who
succeeded him as suo jure duchess. Conan II died leaving no issue so he
was succeeded by his sister Hawise, Duchess of Brittany who married Hoel, Count
of Cornouaille with offspring of Alan IV. Alan IV married Constance, Princess
of England and gave issue to Conan III. Conan III married an illegitimate
daughter of Henry Ist, whose daughter was Bertha of Brittany. She Married Alan
the Black giving rise to Conan IV. It is this Conan IV who Henry Blois fixates
upon as he incites rebellion as the inheritor of the ‘Crown of Brutus’ in VM;
the returning royal strain and the reason he is trying to incite the Bretons,
the Cornish, the Welsh and the Scottish to insurrection against Henry II. Conan
had inherited the title Earl of Richmond from his father Alan the Black and became
duke
of Brittany when his mother died in 1156. How Henry Blois could conceive of
such an uprising and the hope of spurring Conan into rebellion is because he
had been commanded by Henry II to surrender his castles in 1155.
Between 1155 and 1158 Henry Blois, the
Machiavellian plotter, is at Clungy having had his castles seized by Henry II
and fears for his life, should he return to England. Archbishop Theobald
wrote threatening letters saying he had better return.[51]
Henry, on the other hand was planning to stay on the pretense of the popes
instructions to re-organize Clugny, which had hit financial difficulties. But here is Henry Blois’ Machiavellian hand
at work provoking through his latest updated prophecies the precept…. (thought
being the father of deed): It is the will
of the most high Judge that the British shall be without their Kingdom for many
years and remain weak, until Conan in his chariot arrive from Brittany, and
that revered leader of the Welsh, Cadwalader. They will create an alliance, a
firm league of the Scots, the Welsh, the Cornish and the men of Brittany. Then
they will restore to the natives the crown that had been lost. The enemy will
be driven out and the time of Brutus will be back once more.
The
Prophecy was supposed to inspire the warring Celts to overthrow Henry II based
upon a conflation with Armes Prydein.
Henry’s plan failed, but this is the reason for the inspired return of Conan
which fortuitously is mirrored in the Armes
Prydein through Myrddin in the
book of Taliesin which relates to Cadwaladyr and Cynan (not Conan). It is upon this
conflation Henry incites the rebellion. The real difference (in the era of
1155-1157), Henry Blois includes the Scots and the Cornish as the Celts against ‘foreign’
invaders i.e. the Normans. The reader might think this fantastic that Henry
Blois would instigate a war against his own people (being Norman), but once we cover the
Merlin prophecies supposedly put out (translated) by John of Cornwall; the reader will
understand that Henry Blois has every intention of returning as the leader of
the fractious Celts over all England (once they have dethroned Henry II).... as he sees himself to be ‘an adopted son’ when the
rebellion is successful.
In
1158, Henry II was at Avranches and finally received the submission, of Conan
of Brittany as Robert of Torigni relates. Henry Blois’s attempt at creating sedition by the Celts had failed
and he returned to Winchester. ‘Conan in his chariot’ from Brittany, and that
‘revered’ leader of the Welsh, Cadwalader[52]
together were supposed to depose Henry II.
Supposedly Merlin the seer had predicted such a re-emergence of the
Celts driving out the ‘foreigners’ and re-installing the inheritors of Brutus.
Henry’s pro-Breton stance existed already in
the HRB and thus the prophecy, although appearing to support the return of a
utopian Britain, has less to do with Henry’s romantic Celtic vision (the hope
of the Britons) expressed in the Zeitgeist of the populace, but more of a hoped
for vengeance in the present.
Henry Blois returns to England slightly side-lined yet still involved politically to his death. For the last 13 years of Henry Blois’ life there is a mutual but guarded respect between Henry II and Henry Blois. Henry takes on the guise of the venerated bishop and statesman in the period between 1158 and his death. But, as we shall cover, he is (all the while) composing and propagating Grail literature…. and also in this period manufactured the grave of King Arthur and Guinevere at Glastonbury.
Henry Blois returns to England slightly side-lined yet still involved politically to his death. For the last 13 years of Henry Blois’ life there is a mutual but guarded respect between Henry II and Henry Blois. Henry takes on the guise of the venerated bishop and statesman in the period between 1158 and his death. But, as we shall cover, he is (all the while) composing and propagating Grail literature…. and also in this period manufactured the grave of King Arthur and Guinevere at Glastonbury.
Henry II attempted to obtain
control of the Duchy of Brittany which neighboured his own lands. King Henry had
claimed to be the overlord of Brittany on the basis that the Duchy had owed
loyalty to his Grandfather, King Henry Ist. A state of civil war had existed
amongst the barons in the region since Conan III died. Conan's uncle Hoel
continued to control the county of Nantes to the east until he was deposed in
1156 by Henry II’s brother, Geoffrey.
Conan resisted the King’s brother and Henry II responded by seizing Conan’s English Earldom of Richmond. This was the state of affairs at the time Henry Blois was writing the Vita Merlini. Events did not transpire as Henry Blois had hoped or even prophesied in the guise of Merlin. History relates that to put down the civil unrest in Brittany, Conan, in the end appealed to Henry II for aid. King Henry, in return, demanded the betrothal of Conan’s only daughter and heiress Constance, to Henry's son Geoffrey Plantagenet. So the prophecy had no hope of becoming true, but the Vita Merlini prophecies had been written in this era.
Conan resisted the King’s brother and Henry II responded by seizing Conan’s English Earldom of Richmond. This was the state of affairs at the time Henry Blois was writing the Vita Merlini. Events did not transpire as Henry Blois had hoped or even prophesied in the guise of Merlin. History relates that to put down the civil unrest in Brittany, Conan, in the end appealed to Henry II for aid. King Henry, in return, demanded the betrothal of Conan’s only daughter and heiress Constance, to Henry's son Geoffrey Plantagenet. So the prophecy had no hope of becoming true, but the Vita Merlini prophecies had been written in this era.
Appendix 19
Cadwalader.
Henry Blois is as
devious as always in appearing to be speaking as Merlin back in the sixth
century. He employs the device we have witnessed before of anchoring in time,
references to his own HRB, and also to known events in the British Annals.
Henry’s aim is to speak prophecy as if it were the confused misinterpreted
rambling of a mystic whilst leaving no doubt as to the person he is referring
to; yet causing confusion, because of the apparent anachronism. In the
confusion the Norman reader could take special notice of Cadwalader. In the HRB
we hear of Cadwallo: Now, a little later,
a son was born unto King Cadvan of the Queen his wife, and thereafter were the
two boys, whereof the one was called Cadwallo and the other Edwin. And when in
course of time their boyhood had grown into youth, their parents sent them unto
Solomon, King of the Armorican Britons…[53]
Also in the HRB: Discord having thus arisen betwixt them, and
the men of both having harried the lands of the other in a number of armed
forays, both at last met on the further side of Humber, and in the battle that
was fought Cadwallo lost many thousands of his men and was put to flight,
making his way in such haste as he might through Albany unto the island of
Hibernia. But Edwin, after he had won the victory, led his army through the
provinces of Britain, and burning the cities, did grievously torment the
citizens and husbandmen. But whilst that he was thus giving a loose unto his
cruelty, Cadwallo was ever endeavouring to return unto his country by ships,
but could never make shift to do so, for that unto whatsoever haven he steered
his course there was Edwin with his host to meet him and forbid his landing.
Now there was come unto him a certain right cunning wizard out of Spain, by
name Pellitus, who was learned in the flight of birds and the courses of the
stars, and did foretell unto him all disaster that might befall, and along of
him it was that Edwin had witting of Cadwallo's return so as thus he was able
to meet him, shatter his ships and drown their crews, and close every port
against him. Cadwallo, therefore, not knowing what to do, and well-nigh falling
into utter despair of ever returning, at last bethought him or going unto
Solomon, King of the Armorican Britons.[54]
Cadwallon ap Cadfan
which the HRB refers to as Cadwallo died in 634 AD and was the King of Gwynedd.
He was the King of the Britons who invaded and conquered Northumbria, defeating
and killing its King, Edwin. His
conquest of Northumbria made him the last Briton to hold substantial territory
in eastern Britain. He is therefore held as national hero by the Britons and as
a tyrant by the Anglo-Saxons of Northumbria. Geoffrey in the HRB has Cadwallo
surviving until after the Battle of the Winwaed in 654 or 655. Geoffrey is
never one for dates, but adheres to just a general era, so as not to disagree with the British
annals. Henry Blois, as we have shown in
appendix 18, is really trying to cause an insurrection in England against Henry
II, through Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd
c.1096-1172. The prophecy is certainly aimed at the modern era not only by the
spelling of Cadwalader but the fact he is linked to Conan of Brittany in the same
era.[55]
Cadwaladr was the third son of
Gruffudd ap Cynan, King of Gwynedd, and younger brother of Owain Gwynedd.
Together with his brother Owain, Cadwaladr led three expeditions (1136–37)
against the English stronghold of Ceredigion to the south killing the lord of
Ceredigion, Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare. During the reign King Stephen, Owain
and Cadwaladr extended the boundaries of northern Wales almost to the city of
Chester. They captured five castles in the north of Ceredigion then later in
the year launched a second invasion, inflicting a heavy defeat on King
Stephen’s lord of Ceredigion, at the
Battle of Crug Mawr, just outside Cardigan.
In 1137 they captured Carmarthen. Cadwaladr later married Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare's daughter Alice (Adelize) de Clare. Gruffudd ap Cynan died in 1137 and was succeeded by Owain Gwynedd, Cadwaladr’s elder brother. Cadwaladr was given lands in northern Ceredigion by him. The forces of King Stephen of England had been besieging Lincoln Castle in 1141 but were themselves attacked by a relief force loyal to Empress Matilda and commanded by Robert, Earl of Gloucester, the Empress’ half-brother. Cadwaladr joined with Ranulph, Earl of Chester in the attack along with Robert of Gloucester’s forces. In fact a later prophecy in the Vita Merlini which (we shall cover shortly) shows Henry has added prophecies after the fact which did not occur in the updated set in Vulgate HRB: I see Lincoln walled in by savage soldiery and two men shut up in it, one of whom escapes to return with a savage tribe and their chief to the walls to conquer the cruel soldiers after capturing their leader, refers directly to the battle of Lincoln.
The GS author, Henry Blois, narrates the same events that Ranulph Earl of Chester staying at Lincoln castle had heard of King Stephen’s entry into Lincoln and escaped to raise the army of Robert of Gloucester and Cadwaladr: the Earl of Chester sent to Robert Earl of Gloucester, Miles also, and all who had armed themselves against the King, and likewise brought with him a dreadful and unendurable mass of Welsh.
In 1137 they captured Carmarthen. Cadwaladr later married Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare's daughter Alice (Adelize) de Clare. Gruffudd ap Cynan died in 1137 and was succeeded by Owain Gwynedd, Cadwaladr’s elder brother. Cadwaladr was given lands in northern Ceredigion by him. The forces of King Stephen of England had been besieging Lincoln Castle in 1141 but were themselves attacked by a relief force loyal to Empress Matilda and commanded by Robert, Earl of Gloucester, the Empress’ half-brother. Cadwaladr joined with Ranulph, Earl of Chester in the attack along with Robert of Gloucester’s forces. In fact a later prophecy in the Vita Merlini which (we shall cover shortly) shows Henry has added prophecies after the fact which did not occur in the updated set in Vulgate HRB: I see Lincoln walled in by savage soldiery and two men shut up in it, one of whom escapes to return with a savage tribe and their chief to the walls to conquer the cruel soldiers after capturing their leader, refers directly to the battle of Lincoln.
The GS author, Henry Blois, narrates the same events that Ranulph Earl of Chester staying at Lincoln castle had heard of King Stephen’s entry into Lincoln and escaped to raise the army of Robert of Gloucester and Cadwaladr: the Earl of Chester sent to Robert Earl of Gloucester, Miles also, and all who had armed themselves against the King, and likewise brought with him a dreadful and unendurable mass of Welsh.
Henry Blois, as we witnessed in the HRB,
despises the Welsh and calls them savages later in the VM. In the Gesta Stephani he holds the same opinion
of them, ‘dreadful’! Henry refers to
Cadwallader as ‘revered’. But in 1156 Henry Blois is in the guise of Merlin predicting a
revolt of the Celts against Norman rule i.e. Henry II. Looking back in time to
1141, Henry Blois’ brother, was captured at the battle of Lincoln and taken
prisoner to Earl Robert’s castle in Bristol. Cadwaladr was only probably at
Lincoln because of his marriage alliance to Alice de Clare, daughter of Richard
Fitz Gilbert de Clare.
In the intervening years, after the battle of
Lincoln, King Stephen died and Cadwaladr had a quarrel with his brother Owain
which led to his exile in England. Henry II invaded Gwynedd in 1157 right at
the time Henry Blois is trying to incite insurrection in the prophetic words of
Merlin. As we now know through history Henry Blois plan to aggravate sedition and revolt failed as a plan and did not come to fruition. Like
Conan in Brittany, Cadwaladr was appeased by Henry II; the terms of the peace
agreement between King Henry and Owain Gwynedd included the stipulation that
Cadwaladr should be given back his lands at Hess in Shropshire.
It is known that Henry II put stead in the
earlier prophecies of Merlin along with his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. Henry
Blois’ plain aim was to incite both Celtic leaders to take up the (mythical) crown of
Brutus by rebellion against King Henry II.
The Cornish and the Scots were only included for the aura of credibility of the prophecy; a supposed total rebirth of the Christian Celtic nation ridding itself of foreign rule.....seen by Merlin all those years ago!! Motivating the Celts to their (prophetic) destiny, Henry Blois coaxes them to join forces to obtain self-rule and the return of the crown of Brutus.
It just so happens that Henry II who is numbered the ‘sixth’ is replaced by the ‘adopted one’ who is seen as the ‘seventh’ in John of Cornwall’s set of Merlin prophecies also concocted by Henry Blois. The Celtic belief of Arthur’s return is interchangeable with the utopian ideal of the Briton state, a state which existed from Brutus to the Romans and then to Arthur in Henry Blois’ concocted faux-history found in HRB.
The Cornish and the Scots were only included for the aura of credibility of the prophecy; a supposed total rebirth of the Christian Celtic nation ridding itself of foreign rule.....seen by Merlin all those years ago!! Motivating the Celts to their (prophetic) destiny, Henry Blois coaxes them to join forces to obtain self-rule and the return of the crown of Brutus.
It just so happens that Henry II who is numbered the ‘sixth’ is replaced by the ‘adopted one’ who is seen as the ‘seventh’ in John of Cornwall’s set of Merlin prophecies also concocted by Henry Blois. The Celtic belief of Arthur’s return is interchangeable with the utopian ideal of the Briton state, a state which existed from Brutus to the Romans and then to Arthur in Henry Blois’ concocted faux-history found in HRB.
Appendix 20
The
interest in Arthuriana is well known
by the Plantagenet family and it is known that Henry II paid attention to the
Prophecies of Merlin. Eleanor of Aquitaine was interested in Arthuriana and her daughter Marie
of France,[56] Countess of Champagne, was patroness to Chrétien de Troyes. Henry Blois was the uncle of the Countess’s
husband. Henry Blois on occasion must have visited as he is the first
promulgator of the constituent parts of what was to become known as the ‘Matter of Britain’.
Both Chrétien and Robert, after hearing Henry Blois in the guise of Master Blihis (or having heard a reading from the grail book/s Henry Blois had written ) at the court of Henry Blois' two young nephews (sons of his brother Theobald) and their wives.... are responsible for further propagating the oral romances into literature. (This is discussed in the chapter on the Grail proliferation at the court of Champagne).
After Henry II came to the throne of the British Isles, Brittany and Aquitaine were in the same political area, ruled over by the Plantagenet family. Brittany was conscious of its links to the pre-Saxon Britons and the link of Arthur to Brittany pre-existed Geoffrey’s HRB, but much of the Breton lore was oral.
Both Chrétien and Robert, after hearing Henry Blois in the guise of Master Blihis (or having heard a reading from the grail book/s Henry Blois had written ) at the court of Henry Blois' two young nephews (sons of his brother Theobald) and their wives.... are responsible for further propagating the oral romances into literature. (This is discussed in the chapter on the Grail proliferation at the court of Champagne).
After Henry II came to the throne of the British Isles, Brittany and Aquitaine were in the same political area, ruled over by the Plantagenet family. Brittany was conscious of its links to the pre-Saxon Britons and the link of Arthur to Brittany pre-existed Geoffrey’s HRB, but much of the Breton lore was oral.
The
links between the Armorican peninsula named Brittany since the sixth century
emigration of some Britons (mostly from Dumnonia as a Dumonian king ruled)
provided a shared cultural heritage. The persistence, until the 13th century
and beyond, of a linguistic and cultural community between Brittany, Wales and
Cornwall were not ‘Geoffrey’s’ invention.
Saint Goeznovius was a Cornish-born Bishop of Léon in Brittany, who died c.675 and is venerated as a saint in the region around Brest and the Diocese of Léon. According to his Legenda he was born in Cornwall and became one of many of his countrymen who moved to the continent in the wake of the Anglo-Saxon incursions. The prologue to Saint Goueznou’s life, written in the 11th century bears testimony to the existence of a long standing cultural background: And so the Armorici islanders and the British, who use the same laws in brotherly love, treated themselves as a people of one country for a long time under the rule.
The Bretons of Brittany, (little Britain) and Britons on opposite sides of the Channel (later called Great Britain to distinguish the two) formed one people. The same consciousness of a common past is found. In the Book of Llandaff,[57] c.1135-1150, it relates that the Welsh prince Guidnerth, guilty of murdering his brother, was sent to Dol in Brittany by his archbishop to do penitence, because: He Guidnerth and the Britons and the archbishop of that land are of one tongue and of one national though the lands are spatially divided.
Saint Goeznovius was a Cornish-born Bishop of Léon in Brittany, who died c.675 and is venerated as a saint in the region around Brest and the Diocese of Léon. According to his Legenda he was born in Cornwall and became one of many of his countrymen who moved to the continent in the wake of the Anglo-Saxon incursions. The prologue to Saint Goueznou’s life, written in the 11th century bears testimony to the existence of a long standing cultural background: And so the Armorici islanders and the British, who use the same laws in brotherly love, treated themselves as a people of one country for a long time under the rule.
The Bretons of Brittany, (little Britain) and Britons on opposite sides of the Channel (later called Great Britain to distinguish the two) formed one people. The same consciousness of a common past is found. In the Book of Llandaff,[57] c.1135-1150, it relates that the Welsh prince Guidnerth, guilty of murdering his brother, was sent to Dol in Brittany by his archbishop to do penitence, because: He Guidnerth and the Britons and the archbishop of that land are of one tongue and of one national though the lands are spatially divided.
Although we can see the attestations to
cultural background, in the cartulary at the Abbey of Saint-Sauveur-Redon
there are several occurrences of the name Arthur to add to the fact his name was not unheard of in Brittany before Geoffrey's time. We hear of a lineage of
Arthuiu, Lord of Bain-de-Bretagne in
the ninth century.[58]
Lailoken also appears as Lalocan in the middle of the ninth century. [59]Saint
Judicael ap Hoel c.590–658 (of
Jewish descent) was the King of Domnonee and a Breton King in the mid-seventh
century.
According to Gregory of Tours, the Bretons were divided into various regna during the sixth century, of which, were named Domnonee and Cornouaille. According to Saint Judicael’s Life, his fellow, Taliesin sometimes stayed in the Abbey of Saint-Gildas-de-Rhuys in Brittany to study. It relates people asked Taliesin to explain King Judhael’s dream about his future son. Regarding Henry Blois and his involvement in rewriting history, we can see in the Vita Merlini, where Henry Blois’ has Merlin say: Bid Taliesin come. I have much I wish to discuss with him, since he has only recently returned from Brittany, where he has been enjoying the sweets of learning under the wise Gildas." (VM). All of this is tied up with Henry Blois’ impostering of Caradoc and Henry Blois' concoction and composition of the life of Gildas.
According to Gregory of Tours, the Bretons were divided into various regna during the sixth century, of which, were named Domnonee and Cornouaille. According to Saint Judicael’s Life, his fellow, Taliesin sometimes stayed in the Abbey of Saint-Gildas-de-Rhuys in Brittany to study. It relates people asked Taliesin to explain King Judhael’s dream about his future son. Regarding Henry Blois and his involvement in rewriting history, we can see in the Vita Merlini, where Henry Blois’ has Merlin say: Bid Taliesin come. I have much I wish to discuss with him, since he has only recently returned from Brittany, where he has been enjoying the sweets of learning under the wise Gildas." (VM). All of this is tied up with Henry Blois’ impostering of Caradoc and Henry Blois' concoction and composition of the life of Gildas.
Henry Blois sees himself as both from Norman
and Breton heritage and part of the heritage which started to merge after the
Vikings’ ravages of Normandy along with parts of Brittany at the beginning of
the 11th century in an era where we see a double alliance between
the ducal houses of Brittany and Normandy.
The traditional rivalry between Brittany and Normandy continued at the
close of the 11th century. The Breton-Norman war of 1064–1065 was the result of
William I of England's support of rebels in Brittany against Alan's
grandfather, Conan II.
However, the name of Arthur was in use on the continent as early as the middle of the 11th century and the name of Arthur is witnessed in Normandy. We find it in Fougères (‘Artur de Mansionili’), in the second half of the 11th century.[60] Also in 1087, in the course of William the Conqueror’s funeral at Caen, Ascelin, son of Arthur, claimed that William’s grave site was owned before by his father Arthur, and had been stolen from him by William to found the Trinity’s church of Caen.[61] Arthur, Ascelin’s father, appeared in records between 1056 and 1070 when he sold lands to Lanfranc.[62]
Another instance is the lord Artus of Champeaux visited the hermit William Firmat in the forest of Passais.[63] Many Bretons came to England with William the Conqueror’s army. Even before 1066, Normans and Bretons had already settled and been warmly welcomed there since the times of King Alfred the Great and his son Athelstan. This tradition of welcome even became a law under Edward the Confessor’s reign.[64]
However, the name of Arthur was in use on the continent as early as the middle of the 11th century and the name of Arthur is witnessed in Normandy. We find it in Fougères (‘Artur de Mansionili’), in the second half of the 11th century.[60] Also in 1087, in the course of William the Conqueror’s funeral at Caen, Ascelin, son of Arthur, claimed that William’s grave site was owned before by his father Arthur, and had been stolen from him by William to found the Trinity’s church of Caen.[61] Arthur, Ascelin’s father, appeared in records between 1056 and 1070 when he sold lands to Lanfranc.[62]
Another instance is the lord Artus of Champeaux visited the hermit William Firmat in the forest of Passais.[63] Many Bretons came to England with William the Conqueror’s army. Even before 1066, Normans and Bretons had already settled and been warmly welcomed there since the times of King Alfred the Great and his son Athelstan. This tradition of welcome even became a law under Edward the Confessor’s reign.[64]
The political relations between Henry Ist
(Beauclerc) and Alan Fergant were very strong. Alan came to Henry’s aid when the
latter was fighting against his brother Robert Courteheuse for the throne of
England. Alan Fergant’s natural son, Brian Fitz-Count, was fostered at Henry
Ist court. His foster brother was King Henry’s son, Robert of Gloucester, to whom
Normans and Bretons had close connections even if these relations were not
always harmonious. Bretons participated together in the first crusade under
Robert Courteheuse’s command, with Alan Fergant, Duke of Brittany.[65]
Appendix 21
I see the city of Oxford filled with helmeted men,
and the holy men and the holy bishops bound in fetters by the advice of the
Council. (See also Appendix 11 which relates to the same
even)t. Roger of Salisbury and Alexander of Lincoln were taken into custody on
June 24th 1139 while attending a council of King Stephen at
Oxford. Roger of Salisbury, Henry Ist chancellor, had acquired vast land
holdings and wealth while tending affairs of state during Henry Ist absence in
Normandy. He was said to be worldly rather than pious. He built castles at
Sherborne and Devizes and fortified Malmesbury Abbey. He had also taken
possession of the Royal Castle at Salisbury. His nephew Alexander of Lincoln to
whom Geoffrey of Monmouth dedicates the prophecies of Merlin in the HRB, had
also constructed a castle in Newark as well as having Sleaford Castle. Alexander was known for his
ostentatious and luxurious lifestyle also. Roger and
Alexander both supplied many knights for the King’s cause just as Henry Blois
did from both Winchester and Glastonbury.
In 1138 there were rumours that the Empress
and Robert of Gloucester were about to return England to seize the crown. Most
of the barons had previously sworn allegiance to Matilda on the instructions of
Henry Ist on the understanding that she was to inherit the crown on his death.
The Beaumont twins, supporters of King Stephen, had his ear and were able to
manipulate the king.
It is made clear in the Gesta Stephani that this situation riled Henry Blois as his relationship with his brother had become frosty on account of the Beaumont twins whisperings against him. The Beaumont’s spread rumours to the King regarding Roger of Salisbury, Alexander and bishop Nigel that they might switch fealty en masse to Matilda and this would present serious problems for King Stephen if the power base, which the family relatives held, sided with Matilda’s and Robert.
According to Henry Blois, (the author of the GS), these rumours appear to have been started by a group of nobles led by twin brothers, Waleran de Beaumont, the Count of Meulan, (to whom Geoffrey of Monmouth supposedly dedicates some versions of the HRB), and Robert de Beaumont, the Earl of Leicester. William of Malmesbury says that if only Stephen had not lent trusting ears to the whispers of the ill-disposed… counsellors who used to urge upon him that he should never lack money while the monasteries were full of treasure. The bishops, they said, forgetting they were churchmen, were mad with rage for castle building; no one should doubt that all this was being done for the King’s ruin…[66]
Stephen needed a pretext for demanding a surrender of the three bishop’s castles.
It is made clear in the Gesta Stephani that this situation riled Henry Blois as his relationship with his brother had become frosty on account of the Beaumont twins whisperings against him. The Beaumont’s spread rumours to the King regarding Roger of Salisbury, Alexander and bishop Nigel that they might switch fealty en masse to Matilda and this would present serious problems for King Stephen if the power base, which the family relatives held, sided with Matilda’s and Robert.
According to Henry Blois, (the author of the GS), these rumours appear to have been started by a group of nobles led by twin brothers, Waleran de Beaumont, the Count of Meulan, (to whom Geoffrey of Monmouth supposedly dedicates some versions of the HRB), and Robert de Beaumont, the Earl of Leicester. William of Malmesbury says that if only Stephen had not lent trusting ears to the whispers of the ill-disposed… counsellors who used to urge upon him that he should never lack money while the monasteries were full of treasure. The bishops, they said, forgetting they were churchmen, were mad with rage for castle building; no one should doubt that all this was being done for the King’s ruin…[66]
Stephen needed a pretext for demanding a surrender of the three bishop’s castles.
Stephen’s
political position would have been more secure had it not been for the speed
with which Stephen arrived in England after Henry Ist death and the
manipulations of the Bishop of Winchester who convinced William of Corbeil to
crown Stephen quickly. All the barons
who had sworn fealty to Matilda previously, knew that Hugh Bigod had told a lie
to get Stephen crowned. Bigod had said that before Henry Ist died, he had
released all the barons from the oath they had sworn to the Empress Matilda.
This gave rise to a situation where the barons in some cases did not know where
their loyalty lay. Few could accept a woman as their Queen anyway; and so with
expedience Stephen had been crowned.
Certainly Henry Blois as author of GS wants posterity to understand that expediency rather than manipulation led to Stephen being crowned. The rumours may have been untrue about Roger of Salisbury’s proposed change of affiliation to Matilda, but the Beaumont’s had planted a seed of doubt in Stephen’s mind. Because of Stephen’s insecurity and the fact that he did not wish to offend the Beaumont's, he conspired to call a council at which Roger and his nephews the bishops of Ely and Lincoln would attend. Here it was contrived that some accusation would arise and they would be arrested.
A preconceived controversy was arranged and a fight broke out between Bishop Roger's men and those of Alan, Count of Brittany over quarters. The argument was inflamed and swords were pulled and Alan's nephew was killed as well as one of Bishop Roger’s soldiers. When Alan was called before Stephen, he charged the Bishop with plotting against the King just as the Beaumont’s had arranged. Not given time to give answer to the accusation, Roger of Salisbury and Alexander of Lincoln were roughly arrested and tied in the King's presence. This all transpired at Oxford. I see the city of Oxford filled with helmeted men, and holy men and holy bishops bound on the decision of the Council.
Certainly Henry Blois as author of GS wants posterity to understand that expediency rather than manipulation led to Stephen being crowned. The rumours may have been untrue about Roger of Salisbury’s proposed change of affiliation to Matilda, but the Beaumont’s had planted a seed of doubt in Stephen’s mind. Because of Stephen’s insecurity and the fact that he did not wish to offend the Beaumont's, he conspired to call a council at which Roger and his nephews the bishops of Ely and Lincoln would attend. Here it was contrived that some accusation would arise and they would be arrested.
A preconceived controversy was arranged and a fight broke out between Bishop Roger's men and those of Alan, Count of Brittany over quarters. The argument was inflamed and swords were pulled and Alan's nephew was killed as well as one of Bishop Roger’s soldiers. When Alan was called before Stephen, he charged the Bishop with plotting against the King just as the Beaumont’s had arranged. Not given time to give answer to the accusation, Roger of Salisbury and Alexander of Lincoln were roughly arrested and tied in the King's presence. This all transpired at Oxford. I see the city of Oxford filled with helmeted men, and holy men and holy bishops bound on the decision of the Council.
Nigel of Ely was
supposed to be arrested also, but he was quartered outside Oxford and was not
present at the fracas and managed to avoid the trap set by King Stephen. On
hearing the news he fled to Roger of Salisbury’s Castle at Devizes where he
refused to come out. Probably, Nigel fleeing to Devises gave the appearance of
guilt; and for Stephen, substantiated Alan's accusation in the first place. As
we have already elucidated in appendix 11, Stephen dragged Bishop Roger down to
Devizes with him, to lay siege to his own Castle and to evict Nigel of Ely.
William of Ypres, a knight of Stephen’s, threatened Nigel (who was within the castle), that should he not give himself up, Bishop Roger would be starved until he opened up and gave possession of the castle to the King. Nigel not caring for his uncle's importunity said he would not submit. Meanwhile, Bishop Roger, as we have covered already, was housed in a cowshed in the most awful conditions and separated from Bishop Alexander who was also housed in appalling conditions.
Bishop Roger, half starving to death (Malmesbury said it was a voluntary fast), begged the King that he could plead with his nephew at the castle gates to open up. Roger was brought in front of the Castle and asked why Nigel had fled to Roger’s Castle rather than his own.
Nigel did not come out, so Stephen dragged Nigel's nephew, Roger the pauper in front of the Castle with a noose placed around his neck and threatened to hang him. Roger le Poer, who was in fact Stephen’s chancellor was Roger of Salisbury's son. However, Roger the pauper's mother was actually in charge of defending her husband’s Castle and so quickly surrendered Nigel to Stephen. Stephen claimed all their castles and their treasures. The three bishops were then eventually allowed to return to their bishoprics, penniless and powerless.
William of Ypres, a knight of Stephen’s, threatened Nigel (who was within the castle), that should he not give himself up, Bishop Roger would be starved until he opened up and gave possession of the castle to the King. Nigel not caring for his uncle's importunity said he would not submit. Meanwhile, Bishop Roger, as we have covered already, was housed in a cowshed in the most awful conditions and separated from Bishop Alexander who was also housed in appalling conditions.
Bishop Roger, half starving to death (Malmesbury said it was a voluntary fast), begged the King that he could plead with his nephew at the castle gates to open up. Roger was brought in front of the Castle and asked why Nigel had fled to Roger’s Castle rather than his own.
Nigel did not come out, so Stephen dragged Nigel's nephew, Roger the pauper in front of the Castle with a noose placed around his neck and threatened to hang him. Roger le Poer, who was in fact Stephen’s chancellor was Roger of Salisbury's son. However, Roger the pauper's mother was actually in charge of defending her husband’s Castle and so quickly surrendered Nigel to Stephen. Stephen claimed all their castles and their treasures. The three bishops were then eventually allowed to return to their bishoprics, penniless and powerless.
This whole episode
affected Henry Blois greatly. As the present legate to the Pope, he decided to
do something about it. Henry Blois said that if the bishops had in anything
stepped aside from the path of justice, then it was not for the King to judge
them, but for cannon law.[67]
Stephen had not only previously affronted Henry in the election of Theobald of Bec as Archbishop (a position he had assumed would be his after overseeing the see for two years); but it was the affront to the church which went against Henry’s Gregorian values, that motivated him to bring his brother into line before abuse against the church went any further. Henry Blois therefore held an ecclesiastical council at Winchester to which Stephen was summoned to attend and in which Henry's speech is recorded in appendix 11.
Stephen had not only previously affronted Henry in the election of Theobald of Bec as Archbishop (a position he had assumed would be his after overseeing the see for two years); but it was the affront to the church which went against Henry’s Gregorian values, that motivated him to bring his brother into line before abuse against the church went any further. Henry Blois therefore held an ecclesiastical council at Winchester to which Stephen was summoned to attend and in which Henry's speech is recorded in appendix 11.
Henry's personal
ire is evident in the GS account, but even William of Malmesbury relates about
Henry Blois that: ‘neither fraternal
affection nor fear of danger could turn him aside from the path of truth. He
spent all his efforts in saying these things both in private and openly in the
King's presence, appealing to him to free and restore bishops, but on no
subject would the King listen to him, wherefore, thinking he would try what
force lay in the canon law he made his brother promptly to attend the council
which he was to hold at Winchester on August 29.[68]
While the Legate thus expressed himself
deliberately and at length, the King, who did not lack confidence in his own
case, sent earls to the council to enquire why he had been summoned. The legate
answered in brief that one who remembered his own obedience to the faith of
Christ should not complain if he had been summoned by Christ's ministers to
give satisfaction, when he knew himself guilty of an offence such as our times
had nowhere seen; for it belonged to pagan times to imprison bishops and
deprive them of their property.
Let them therefore tell his brother that if he thought it fit to acquiesce calmly in his advice he would by God's will give him advice to which neither the Church of Rome nor the court of the King of France, nor even Count Theobald the brother of them both, certainly a wise and religious man, could reasonably object, but which they ought to accept with favour.
In the present juncture the King would act prudently if he either gave an account of what he had done or submit to judgement according to the canon law. It was also his bounden duty to favour the church, whose welcoming arms, not the prowess of his knights had raised him to the throne. The earls went out with what he had said and returned not long afterwards with an answer. They were accompanied by Aubrey De Vere, a man practised in many kinds of cases. He gave the King's answer and did all harm he could to Bishop Roger's case (for Bishop Alexander, whom Roger supported was not there); yet he did it with restraint and without abusive language, though some of the earls standing by his side, often interrupted his speech by hurling insults at the Bishop.[69]
Let them therefore tell his brother that if he thought it fit to acquiesce calmly in his advice he would by God's will give him advice to which neither the Church of Rome nor the court of the King of France, nor even Count Theobald the brother of them both, certainly a wise and religious man, could reasonably object, but which they ought to accept with favour.
In the present juncture the King would act prudently if he either gave an account of what he had done or submit to judgement according to the canon law. It was also his bounden duty to favour the church, whose welcoming arms, not the prowess of his knights had raised him to the throne. The earls went out with what he had said and returned not long afterwards with an answer. They were accompanied by Aubrey De Vere, a man practised in many kinds of cases. He gave the King's answer and did all harm he could to Bishop Roger's case (for Bishop Alexander, whom Roger supported was not there); yet he did it with restraint and without abusive language, though some of the earls standing by his side, often interrupted his speech by hurling insults at the Bishop.[69]
The main
contention was that even if Bishop Roger were guilty of a crime it was the
church’s job to judge them and not for the King to deprive them of their
possessions; the same argument was to ensue between Thomas a Becket and Henry
II, which Henry Blois also had a secretive hand in, but we will cover this
later (and this was not at Oxford as the prophecy states).
Appendix 22
…and men shall admire the shepherd’s tower reared
on high, and he shall be forced to open it to no purpose and to his own injury. Or
translated slightly differently: and men
shall admire the shepherd’s high
battlements of his castle and he will be forced to unlock it without advantage
and to his own hurt.
This follows immediately the prophecy
concerning the arrest of the three bishops. It could just refer to the castle
at Devises which we know through Henry Blois (as author of GS)….that he is very
impressed with its construction. It could also be a prophetical allusion to
Winchester.
The Shepherd’s tower may be at Winchester and
this could be a reference to Henry himself being forced by Matilda to surrender
it. It seems the architectural reference is not to Bishop Henry’s castle or Wolvesey Palace at Winchester which had a fortified tower.... but to another tower
he had built in the place where the old Anglo Saxon royal palace once stood (in
the centre of the town).[70]
The old Anglo Saxon royal Palace was immediately North West of the cathedral.
Wolvesey Palace is in the south east corner of Winchester, not in the middle of the city. The royal palace which Matilda had occupied was built at the time of the Norman Conquest and was in the south west corner of the city and was not built by Henry, but could be the building with Tower to which he refers.
Henry had a passion for architecture and he engineered hundreds of projects, including villages and canals, abbeys and smaller churches throughout his life. His greatest project was at Glastonbury Abbey before the destructive fire of 1184 which destroyed his creation. He also designed and built additions to many palaces and large houses including the castle of Farnham and began the construction of the Hospital of St Cross at Winchester before he died.
In London he built Winchester Palace as a residence for the bishops of Winchester. He built the final additions to Winchester Cathedral and Wolvesey Castle within Winchester’s medieval walls including a tourist tunnel under the cathedral to make it easier for pilgrims to view relics. It might be suggested he had greater plans in mind when he wrote the prophecies of Merlin in the Libellus, where Merlin prophesy’s about Winchester: say unto Winchester: 'The earth shall swallow thee: transfer the see of the shepherd thither where ships do come to haven, and let the rest of the members follow the head.' He refers to himself as the hedgehog amongst other things as we have covered: The Hedgehog that is loaden with apples shall rebuild her….. He shall add thereunto a mighty palace, and wall it around with six hundred towers…. Within her shall the Hedgehog hide his apples and shall devise ways underground.
The last sentence referring to the tunnel under the Cathedral. It is unclear where Henry Blois wanted to establish his own Metropolitan…. either in London or Winchester. Henry Blois was a keen observer of architecture. Building fortifications and structure are frequently commented upon sub-consciously in the GS even though it betrays his authorship unknowingly.
Henry Blois even refers to it himself in the Gesta Stephani as the bishops castle, which he had built in very elegant style in the middle of the town and of his palace, which he had fortified strongly and impregnably just like a castle. Henry refers to this structure which appears to have disappeared in Winchester. It must have been irreparably damaged or burnt in the fire in the siege as he himself (as the author of the GS) distinguishes it from his own fortified palace.
It is used as one of his rationales at his speech at Winchester[71] when he was noting the state of affairs of which the bishops were culpable (and himself included) when he said: that they had built castles of great renown, raised up towers and buildings of great strength, and not put the King in possession of his Kingdom. Earlier in the VM, in another prophecy, Henry Blois makes the very same observation as those in his speech to the bishops, except this time it is through the mouth of Merlin: Bishops will then bear arms, will then follow the military life, will set up towers and walls on sacred ground and give to soldiers what should go to the poor.
Wolvesey Palace is in the south east corner of Winchester, not in the middle of the city. The royal palace which Matilda had occupied was built at the time of the Norman Conquest and was in the south west corner of the city and was not built by Henry, but could be the building with Tower to which he refers.
Henry had a passion for architecture and he engineered hundreds of projects, including villages and canals, abbeys and smaller churches throughout his life. His greatest project was at Glastonbury Abbey before the destructive fire of 1184 which destroyed his creation. He also designed and built additions to many palaces and large houses including the castle of Farnham and began the construction of the Hospital of St Cross at Winchester before he died.
In London he built Winchester Palace as a residence for the bishops of Winchester. He built the final additions to Winchester Cathedral and Wolvesey Castle within Winchester’s medieval walls including a tourist tunnel under the cathedral to make it easier for pilgrims to view relics. It might be suggested he had greater plans in mind when he wrote the prophecies of Merlin in the Libellus, where Merlin prophesy’s about Winchester: say unto Winchester: 'The earth shall swallow thee: transfer the see of the shepherd thither where ships do come to haven, and let the rest of the members follow the head.' He refers to himself as the hedgehog amongst other things as we have covered: The Hedgehog that is loaden with apples shall rebuild her….. He shall add thereunto a mighty palace, and wall it around with six hundred towers…. Within her shall the Hedgehog hide his apples and shall devise ways underground.
The last sentence referring to the tunnel under the Cathedral. It is unclear where Henry Blois wanted to establish his own Metropolitan…. either in London or Winchester. Henry Blois was a keen observer of architecture. Building fortifications and structure are frequently commented upon sub-consciously in the GS even though it betrays his authorship unknowingly.
Henry Blois even refers to it himself in the Gesta Stephani as the bishops castle, which he had built in very elegant style in the middle of the town and of his palace, which he had fortified strongly and impregnably just like a castle. Henry refers to this structure which appears to have disappeared in Winchester. It must have been irreparably damaged or burnt in the fire in the siege as he himself (as the author of the GS) distinguishes it from his own fortified palace.
It is used as one of his rationales at his speech at Winchester[71] when he was noting the state of affairs of which the bishops were culpable (and himself included) when he said: that they had built castles of great renown, raised up towers and buildings of great strength, and not put the King in possession of his Kingdom. Earlier in the VM, in another prophecy, Henry Blois makes the very same observation as those in his speech to the bishops, except this time it is through the mouth of Merlin: Bishops will then bear arms, will then follow the military life, will set up towers and walls on sacred ground and give to soldiers what should go to the poor.
Adam of Damerham writing about Glastonbury
says that Henry Blois was a wonderful
builder. He built a palatial residence, which was called a castle….
However, the prophetic excerpt above
specifically recalls events at what is commonly known as the Rout or siege of
Winchester in 1141, where Matilda’s forces had attempted to attack Henry Blois.
There could be no better example while on the subject of the rout of
Winchester, than hear it in the words of Henry Blois from the Gesta Stephani.
The GS is an apologist’s gloss as we have maintained before, especially where Henry plays down his involvement in the burning of Winchester.
It was he who had initially made the citizens of Winchester swear allegiance to the Empress Matilda as their ‘lady’, but when Henry had been affronted by Matilda in London, he had organised her demise by the Londoners who had chased her from the city, just before she was about to be crowned.
The citizens of Winchester suffered greatly for keeping their word to Matilda and their city was burnt. Henry even accuses them of perjury for having done so in not following Henry Blois’ change of allegiance back to his brother.
The ramifications of this in reality were huge after the Monks of Hyde complained to the pope about Henry…. but this account as so many in the GS tend to soften his manipulative involvement and deny his change of sides. It should be noted the third person, distanced prose of an author practised in deception.
The GS is an apologist’s gloss as we have maintained before, especially where Henry plays down his involvement in the burning of Winchester.
It was he who had initially made the citizens of Winchester swear allegiance to the Empress Matilda as their ‘lady’, but when Henry had been affronted by Matilda in London, he had organised her demise by the Londoners who had chased her from the city, just before she was about to be crowned.
The citizens of Winchester suffered greatly for keeping their word to Matilda and their city was burnt. Henry even accuses them of perjury for having done so in not following Henry Blois’ change of allegiance back to his brother.
The ramifications of this in reality were huge after the Monks of Hyde complained to the pope about Henry…. but this account as so many in the GS tend to soften his manipulative involvement and deny his change of sides. It should be noted the third person, distanced prose of an author practised in deception.
So
when they had thus been frightened away from London, all who favoured the King
and were in deep depression from his capture joyously congratulated each other,
as though they used in the light of a new dawn, and taking up arms with spirit
attacked the Countess' adherents on every side. The Queen was admitted into the
city by the Londoners and forgetting the weakness of her sex and the woman's
softness she bore herself with the valour of a man; everywhere by prayer or
price she won over invincible allies; the King’s lieges, wherever they were
scattered throughout England, she urged persistently to demand their Lord back
with her; and now she humbly besought the Bishop of Winchester, legate of all
England, to take pity on his imprisoned brother and exert himself for his
freedom, that uniting all his efforts with hers he might gain her a husband,
the people a King, the Kingdom a champion. And the Bishop moved both by the
woman's tearful supplications, which she pressed on him with great earnestness,
and by dutiful compassion for a brother of his own blood that he felt very
strongly, often turned over in his own
mind how he could rescue his brother from the ignominy of bondage and most
skilfully restored him to his Kingdom. But the Countess of Anjou, cunningly
anticipating his craft, arrived at Winchester with a highly equipped force to
catch the Bishop if she could; and when she, surrounded by a very large
retinue, had entered one gate before the citizens knew anything of her coming,
the Bishop mounted a swift horse, went out by another gate, and made off to his
castles at full speed. Then she, sending out a summons on every side, gathered
into a vast army the whole array of those who were bade her throughout England,
and gave orders for most rigourous investment both of the bishops castle, which
he had built in very elegant style in the middle of the town, and of his
palace, which he had fortified strongly and impregnably just like a castle. I
have thought it convenient to mention briefly the names and the importance of
those who collected their forces there and were present to help her in carrying
on the siege, in order that with this knowledge the reader may perceive that it
was not through the power of man, but rather the wondrous omnipotence of the
divine virtue, that so strong and numerous swarm of warriors was as suddenly
conquered and scattered, captured and annihilated as I shall show more fully in
what follows. King David of Scotland was there, he who, as has already been
said, had twice been chased in shameful flight from England and was, with
countless others, to be disgracefully chased from it a third time, not without
information to himself and very great danger to his men. Robert Earl of
Gloucester was there, Ranulph Earl of Chester, Baldwin Earl of Exeter, Reginald
son of King Henry, but a bastard, Earl of Cornwall, miles of Gloucester, whom
to the pleasure and satisfaction of all she then made Earl of Hereford, Roger
Earl of Warwick, William de Mohun, whom she then made Earl of Dorset, and a
certain count Boterel Brittany. Of barons who yet were in no wise inferior to
the earls in loyalty and deserts, valour and distinction, there were Brien,
whom I have mentioned earlier, John surnamed the Marshal, Roger de Oilli, Roger
de Nunant, William Fitz Alan, and likewise a good many others, to name whom
individually would be a long and wearisome task. All of them with a wonderful
concentration of large forces from every quarter devoted themselves alike to the siege of the bishop’s castle with
one mind and the same unflagging zeal.
The
Bishop, sending all over England for the barons who had paid the King, and also
hiring ordinary Knights at very great expense, devoted all his efforts to
harassing them outside the town. The Queen likewise, with a splendid body of
troops and an invincible band of Londoners, who had assembled to the number of
almost 1000, magnificently equipped with helmets and coats of mail, besieged
the inner reign of besiegers from outside with the greatest energy and spirit.
The King had also intimate councillors, very closely bound to him in personal
friendship, not men endowed with large estates but plain soldiers, of whom the
most eminent work Roger de Chesney and his brother William, men of war and
inferior to none in military merit or any good quality, who, when the King was
captured, yet kept their faith to him unbroken and always and everywhere
maintained a bitter struggle with his opponents. And when the Kings of other
supporters flocked to Winchester to overthrow his enemies they too, with the
body of knights and archers very ready for action, did them most effectual harm
on one side of the city. This was a remarkable siege, nothing like it was ever
heard of in our times. The whole of England, together with an extraordinary
number of foreigners, had assembled from every quarter and was there in arms,
and the roles of the combatants were reversed in so far as the inner besiegers of the bishops castle were
themselves very closely besieged on the outside by the King's forces never
without danger to men, never without the heaviest loss to both parties. To say
nothing of the Knights on one side or the other who were being taken in the
daily fighting all were drawn by different fates to meet different deaths, some
other misfortunes occurred; while the one side strove with skill and ingenuity
to gain the bishops castle the besieged
flung out firebrands and completely reduced to ashes the greater part of
the town, including two abbeys. Also, while the Kings forces, with pickets of
armed men posted everywhere, watched the by road round the town very carefully
to prevent any food being brought, a severe famine most egregiously tormented
all the inhabitants of the city. So it was arranged, and what seemed a wise
measure was taken by general agreement, that they should build a castle for a
garrison of 300 knights at the Abbey of Wherwell, 6 miles from Winchester, that
thereby the Kings forces might more easily be held in check and supplies
brought into the city in more adequate quantities. But the Kings forces
perceiving that this plan was devised for their hurt suddenly and unexpectedly
arrived at Wherwell in an irresistible host, and attacking them vigorously on
every side they captured and killed a great many, and at length compelled the
rest to give way and take refuge in the church, and when they used the church
for defence like a castle the other side through wind torches from every
quarter and made them leave the church, singed as they were and surrender at
discretion. It was indeed a dreadful and wretched site, how impiously and
savagely bodies of armed men were ranging about in the church, a house of
religion and prayer, especially as in one place mutual slaughter was going on,
in another prisoners were being dragged off with thongs, here the conflagration
was fearfully ravaging the roofs of the church and the houses, there cries and
shrieks rang piercingly out from the virgins dedicated to God who had left
their cloisters with reluctance under the stress of the fire.
Then
Robert Earl of Gloucester and the other supporters of his party, on hearing
that the grievous calamity just mentioned had come to pass, despaired entirely
of continuing the siege, and bethought themselves of seeking safety in flight
as soon as they could. For it did not suit their welfare or advantage to stay
there any longer after the lamentable loss of their men, it's been clear that
the town had been burnt in a frightful conflagration by the bishops troops and
that the people were suffering very severely from the wasting hunger and lack
of food, and that the same dreadful calamity immediately threatened them sell
if they did not escape with all speed. So they assembled their baggage and were
emerging from the gates together (as a precaution for the withdrawal they were
in close column, all retreating as one body) when behold, the Kings Army in
numbers beyond expression surrounded them on every side, charge them heavily
and unflinchingly, scattered in different directions the whole opposing host,
and at length cut-off and captured, with almost all his force, the Earl of
Gloucester, who was commanding and supervising the rear-guard. Then it spread
out all over the surrounding country to attack those of less account, and not
only made prisoners any knights it caught but gained plunder of incalculable
value which was scattered everywhere for the taking. You could have seen
chargers finely shaped and goodly to look upon, here straying about after
throwing their riders, there fainting from weariness and at their last gasp;
sometimes shields and coats of mail and arms of every kind lying everywhere
strewn on the ground; sometimes tempting cloaks and vessels of precious metal,
with other valuables, flung in heaps, offering themselves to the finder on
every side.
What
am I to say about the Knights, nay, the greatest barons who cast away all the
emblems of their knighthood and going on foot, in sorry plight, gave false
names and denied that they were fugitives. Some fell into the hands of peasants
and were most terribly beaten; some concealed themselves in sordid hiding
places, pale and full of dread, and lurked there until they either had a chance
to escape all were found at last by their enemies and dragged out in shameful
and unseemly fashion. And what am I to say of the King of Scotland who was taken for a third time as the story goes,
but let go as always, on consideration of a bribe and in grief and weariness
could hardly get away to his own country with a few followers? What of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, with some bishops and others of the most
distinguished men in all England, who when their comrades were scattered and
horses and clothing captured from some and viley stolen from others could
scarcely escape the safe hiding places from this rout? The Countess of Anjou
herself, who was always superior to feminine softness and had a mind steeled
and unbroken in adversity, was the first to fly, going to Devizes with only
Brien and a few others to accompany her. But she and Brien gained by this a
title to boundless fame, since as their affection for each other had before
been unbroken, so even in adversity, great though the obstacle that danger
might be, they were in no wise divided. Then while this flight and rout were
taking different forms in different places, as has been explained, the
Londoners together with a very large part of the King's troops, sacked the city
of Winchester in a very terrible manner, and after they had broken open and
pillaged houses and stores, and likewise a number of churches, they went away
in great joy each to his home with many spoils and countless captives. Such was
the rout of Winchester, so terrible and wonderful in the eyes of all that even
the oldest man can hardly remember one like it in our age.
Then
when the Earl of Gloucester had just been taken prisoner and a short period of
time had elapsed an agreement was made and ratified between the partisans of
each side that the King and the Earl should be exchanged for each other and
they should return to the earlier position of the Civil War. These indeed were
harsh and ill-judged terms and bound to do harm to the entire country, but
because there could be no other pact of the and friendship between them for the
moment, since the two parties were hotly at variance while negotiations were going on, this arrangement was made at last
and gladly accepted by both sides. Then, when the King was restored a superb
and magnificent procession of barons went to meet him and accompanied him as an
escort, and tenderness, wondrously intermingled with joy, heightened the festal
celebrations of all, some shedding tears of compassion from friendship and
religious feeling, because of God is gracious mercy vouchsafed to him with
marvellous power, others breaking happily into cries of rejoicing and
exultation that he was restored to them unharmed.
How, we should ask, does the author know that
Henry often turned over in his own mind how he could rescue his
brother? It is on such statements that modern scholars have made such plodding assumptions that the author of GS was closely associated with Henry Blois. This is nothing more than persuasive apologia. It
is clear, even though Henry insists on referring to himself in the third
person….. that the author is a strategist, (which Henry certainly was), but the
author is an involved eye witness. He divulges such detail of their withdrawal
by stating that as a precaution for the
withdrawal they were in close column, all retreating as one body. (see the chapter on the GS).
Most informed barons blamed Henry for much of
what had transpired in the Anarchy, but both William of Malmesbury’s account
and Henry Blois' own GS account show that he was able to reinstate or oust a King as he
thought fit.
William of Malmesbury is not taken in by Henry and witnessed his manipulations since they first met at Glastonbury. Malmesbury states: that the legate himself tried to diminish by great efforts of eloquence his unpopularity for what he had done. He said he had received the Empress not of his own will but under compulsion, because, when his brother had just suffered disaster and all the earls had either been put to flight or were waiting in a doubtful frame of mind to see how things would turn out, she and her men had surrounded Winchester with the noise of arms; that she herself had persistently broken all her pledges relating to the freedom of the churches. Moreover, he said, he had been informed on reliable authority that she and her men had plotted not only against his position but against his life; however, God in his mercy had given affairs at different course from what she hoped, that he might avoid destruction himself and rescue his brother from bondage.
Henry was the power broker for both sides throughout the Anarchy and these events Henry recorded as if Merlin had seen them in the VM and were portrayed as prophecy as we can witness in appendix 23.
William of Malmesbury is not taken in by Henry and witnessed his manipulations since they first met at Glastonbury. Malmesbury states: that the legate himself tried to diminish by great efforts of eloquence his unpopularity for what he had done. He said he had received the Empress not of his own will but under compulsion, because, when his brother had just suffered disaster and all the earls had either been put to flight or were waiting in a doubtful frame of mind to see how things would turn out, she and her men had surrounded Winchester with the noise of arms; that she herself had persistently broken all her pledges relating to the freedom of the churches. Moreover, he said, he had been informed on reliable authority that she and her men had plotted not only against his position but against his life; however, God in his mercy had given affairs at different course from what she hoped, that he might avoid destruction himself and rescue his brother from bondage.
Henry was the power broker for both sides throughout the Anarchy and these events Henry recorded as if Merlin had seen them in the VM and were portrayed as prophecy as we can witness in appendix 23.
Appendix 23
I see Lincoln walled in by savage soldiery and
two men shut up in it, one of whom escapes to return with a savage tribe and
their chief to the walls to conquer the cruel soldiers after capturing their
leader.
Just how stupid are modern scholars such as Crick to believe Merlin's sister could make such a prediction and to believe a certain 'Geoffrey' translated it.... and even more stupid not to recognise that the piece in Orderic on Merlin's prophecies has to be an interpolation (especially when the interpolator is making such a point to induce the reader to believe these prophecies existed before Henry Ist had died ....as discussed in the chapter on Orderic Vitalis). How could a 'Geoffrey' know of the 'sixth invading Ireland' if it was discussed at the court in Winchester at Michaelmas in 1155 (and then write VM). The point is Henry II is the ‘Sixth’ which obviates the fact that the prophecy was written after he was crowned. Anyway, what we are supposed to believe by what is posited in VM is that Merlin confirms/corroborates much of the bogus history found in HRB as well as some of his prophecies.... and now his sister (in the same era) adds to Merlin's vaticinations!!!!!
Just how stupid are modern scholars such as Crick to believe Merlin's sister could make such a prediction and to believe a certain 'Geoffrey' translated it.... and even more stupid not to recognise that the piece in Orderic on Merlin's prophecies has to be an interpolation (especially when the interpolator is making such a point to induce the reader to believe these prophecies existed before Henry Ist had died ....as discussed in the chapter on Orderic Vitalis). How could a 'Geoffrey' know of the 'sixth invading Ireland' if it was discussed at the court in Winchester at Michaelmas in 1155 (and then write VM). The point is Henry II is the ‘Sixth’ which obviates the fact that the prophecy was written after he was crowned. Anyway, what we are supposed to believe by what is posited in VM is that Merlin confirms/corroborates much of the bogus history found in HRB as well as some of his prophecies.... and now his sister (in the same era) adds to Merlin's vaticinations!!!!!
The Prophecy above directly
relates the
Battle of Lincoln of 2 February 1141 in which Stephen blockaded William de
Roumare Earl of Lincoln and Randolf of Chester in Lincoln castle. Randolf of
Chester managing to escape and return with the Welsh under Robert of Gloucester
and capture Stephen. William of Malmesbury gives a good account of what
transpired:
King
Stephen had gone away in peace from Lincolnshire before Christmas and had
conferred distinctions on the Earl of Chester and his brother. That Earl had
married the Earl of Gloucester's daughter long since in King Henry's time.
Meanwhile the burgesses of Lincoln, wishing to lay the King under great
obligation informed him by messengers when he was staying at London that the two
brothers had settled unsuspiciously in the city’s Castle, that they could
easily be surrounded, and that they themselves would see to it that the King
got possession of the Castle with the greatest secrecy. He, unwilling to miss
any chance of increasing his power, hastened thither joyfully; so the brothers
were surrounded and besieged actually during the Christmas Festival.
This
seemed unfair to many because, as I have said he had left them before the
festival without any suspicion of ill will and had not, in the traditional way
renounced his friendship with them, what they call ‘defiance’. But the Earl of
Chester, though involved in critical danger, yet made good his escape from the
close siege of the Castle, by what device I do not determine, whether by the
collusion of some of the besiegers or because Valour, when caught in a snare,
is want to seek a plan in many ways and commonly to find it. Then, not
satisfied with his own freedom, anxious about the safety of his brother and
wife, whom he had left in the Castle, he turned his mind in every direction. It
seemed the wisest policy to beg aid from his father-in-law, though he had long
since offended him for various reasons, chiefly because he seemed faithful to
neither side. So he sent to him promising by the messengers a lasting fidelity
to the Empress if, from motives of pity rather than any deserts of his own, he
would rescue from wrong and those who were in danger and on the very brink of
captivity.
The
Earl of Gloucester was not hard to persuade since he could not bear the shame
of the thing; and at the same time, loathing delay because his noble country
for the sake of two persons, was being tormented by the plunder and slaughter
of civil war, he preferred if God should allow it, to hazard a final decision.
He also hoped for the divine approval in his enterprise because the King had
wronged his son-in-law who was in no wise at fault, was besieging his daughter
and had turned into a Castle the church of the blessed mother of God at
Lincoln. How greatly these things must have influenced the Prince’s mind! Would
it not be better to die and fall with glory rather than their so signal an
affront? So to avenge God and his sister and to free his relatives he took the
risk. The adherents of his party, most of them disinherited men inflamed to war
by grief for what they have lost and consciousness of valour, followed him
eagerly, though he cunningly concealed his purpose all the way from Gloucester
to Lincoln, keeping the whole army in uncertainty, except for a very few, by
taking an indirect route. The time of decision came on the very day of the
purification of most blessed Mary, by the river that flows between the two
armies, named Trent, which was then so much swollen by a heavy fall of rain as
well as water from its source that there was no possibility of fording it. Only
then did the Earl disclose his intention to his son-in-law, who had met him
with a strong body of troops, and the rest of his followers adding that he had
long since made up his mind that nothing should ever compel him to retreat; he
would die or be captured if he did not win the victory. Then, as all filled him
with good hope, he resolved to risk a battle at once, and strange to hear, swam
across the racing current of the River mentioned above with all his men. So
eager was the Earl to make an end of the troubles that he would sooner face the
final danger than have the Kingdom's misfortune prolonged; for the King on his
side had broken off the siege and offered battle with spirit, accompanied by a
great number of earls and no backward body of knights. The royalists first
attempted that prelude to the fight which is called jousting, for in this they
were accomplished, but when they saw that the ‘earlists’, if the expression may
be allowed, were fighting not with lances at a distance but with swords at
close quarters and, charging with their banners in the van, were breaking
through the King’s line, then all the earls to a man, sought safety in flight
(six of them had entered the battle on the King’s side), but a number of barons
of notable loyalty and courage thinking they should not abandon the King even
at this desperate moment, were taken prisoners. The King himself, though he did
not lack spirit in self-defence, was at length attacked on all sides by the
Earl of Gloucester's Knights and fell to the ground on being struck by a
stone….[72]
The Gesta Stephani has it that: the Count of Meulan and the famous William
of Ypres fled shamefully before coming to close quarters. So the Earl of
Gloucester took the King with him and that Gloucester brought him before his
sister the Countess of Anjou and then, by agreement between the two of them,
put him under guard in the tower of Bristol to be kept there until the last
breath of life, in this showing himself blind and entirely ignorant of the
secret purpose of God.
So, as we have already covered: the Earl of Chester, Robert Earl of
Gloucester, Miles also, and all who had armed themselves against the King, and
likewise brought with him a dreadful and unendurable mass of Welsh, all in
agreement, in complete harmony, together to overthrow the King.
Does the reader not think it strange that
Ganieda is so capable of seeing affairs pertinent to Henry Blois’ life? How is
it that Ganieda sees a person escaping and returning with the Welsh…. who we
know Henry Blois thinks are savages? I
see Lincoln walled in by savage soldiery and two men shut up in it, one of
whom escapes to return with a savage tribe and their chief to the walls to
conquer the cruel soldiers after capturing their leader.
It is impossible to think that this applies to any other instance than the capture of King Stephen, yet even though it is Ganieda providing the images in the prophecies.... it is still Geoffrey of Monmouth in VM supposedly writing.
It is quite clear that Henry Blois…. writing as ‘Geoffrey’, who supposedly has translated and inserted (by request) the Merlin prophecies in HRB…. is recounting more recent history as prophecy (readily recognised by his audience). It is worth also taking note of Orderic’s account of the battle of Lincoln and how he quite unequivocally states that Henry Blois changed allegiance to the Empress.
The only reason this should concern us is because, if it were so widely known…. how is it that our anonymous author of GS is so bent on having his audience think otherwise? This is purely because of vanity…. because Henry wished to go down well in History.
It is impossible to think that this applies to any other instance than the capture of King Stephen, yet even though it is Ganieda providing the images in the prophecies.... it is still Geoffrey of Monmouth in VM supposedly writing.
It is quite clear that Henry Blois…. writing as ‘Geoffrey’, who supposedly has translated and inserted (by request) the Merlin prophecies in HRB…. is recounting more recent history as prophecy (readily recognised by his audience). It is worth also taking note of Orderic’s account of the battle of Lincoln and how he quite unequivocally states that Henry Blois changed allegiance to the Empress.
The only reason this should concern us is because, if it were so widely known…. how is it that our anonymous author of GS is so bent on having his audience think otherwise? This is purely because of vanity…. because Henry wished to go down well in History.
ORDERIC:
In the year of our Lord 1141,
the fourth indiction, there were grievous troubles in England, and great
changes occurred, to the serious loss of many persons. Then it was that Ranulf,
earl of Chester, and his half-brother "William de Roumare, revolted
against King Stephen, and surprised the fortress which he had at Lincoln for
the defence of the city. Cautiously choosing a time when the garrison of the
tower were dispersed abroad and engaged in sports, they sent their wives before
them to the castle, under pretence of their taking some amusement.' While,
however, the two countesses stayed there talking and joking with the wife of
the knight whose duty it was to defend the tower, the earl of Chester came in,
without his armour or even his mantle, apparently to fetch back his wife,
attended by three soldiers, no one suspecting any fraud. Having thus gained an
entrance, they quickly laid hold of the bars and such weapons as were at hand,
and forcibly ejected the King's guard. They then let in Earl William and his
men-at-arms, as it had been planned before, and in this way the two brothers
got possession of the tower and the whole city.
Bishop Alexander and the
citizens sent intelligence of this occurrence to the King, who became greatly
enraged at it, and was much astonished that two of his dearest friends, on whom
he had lavished honours and dignities, should have acted so basely. In
consequence, after Christmas, he assembled an army, and marching directly to
Lincoln, took by a night surprise about seventeen men-at-arms who lay in the
town, the citizens giving him their help. The two earls had shut themselves up
in the castle, with their wives and most intimate friends; and finding the
place suddenly invested on all sides, became very anxious, not knowing what to
do. At last, Ranulf, who being the youngest was the most active and
venturesome, crept out by night with a few horsemen, and made for the county of
Chester, among his own vassals. He then announced his quarrel with the King to
Robert, earl of Gloucester, his father-in-law, and others his friends and
relations, and raising the Welsh, with the disinherited and many others, in
arms against the King, gathered forces in every quarter to enable him to bring
relief to the besieged. He also sought a special interview with Matilda,
countess of Anjou, and pledging his fealty to her, earnestly entreated her aid,
-which was most graciously granted. The
two earls, having assembled a vast body of men under arms, marched towards the
besieged place, and were prepared to give battle if any resistance was offered.
But the King slighted the reports which he daily received of the enemy's
advance, and could not be persuaded that they were capable of, or would venture
on, such an enterprise. Meanwhile, he constructed engines and prepared for the
assault of the besieged, who implored his mercy. At length, on Sexagesima Sunday,
while they were celebrating the feast of the Purification, the King in person
having ascertained that the enemy was near, he ordered together his great lords
and asked for their counsel under present circumstances. Some were of opinion
that he should leave a large body of troops with the loyal citizens to defend
the town, while he should march out with all honour and levy an army from every
part of England; with which he should return, when opportunity offered, and
reduce the castle by storm with royal severity. Others recommended him to show
due reverence to the feast of the Purification of St. Mary, mother of God, and
by an exchange of messages with a view to terms of peace defer the engagement;
that through this delay neither party might be utterly prostrated, and human
blood might not be shed to the sorrow of multitudes. However, the obstinate
prince disdained to listen to these prudent counsels, and thought it
dishonourable to defer the engagement for any considerations: he therefore,
gave orders for his troops to arm for battle. The armies met near the city, and
being drawn up in order on both sides, battle was joined. The King divided his
army into three bodies, and the same order was observed on the other side. The
front rank of the royal army was composed of Flemings and Bretons, under the
command of William d'Ypres and Alain de Dinan. Opposed to them were a wild band
of Welshmen, under their chiefs Meredith and Kaladrius. The King himself with
some of his men-at-arms, dismounted, and fought on foot with great resolution
for his life and Kingdom. In like manner, Ranulf, earl of Chester, with his
cavalry, also dismounted, and encouraged the bold infantry of Chester to the
work of slaughter. As for Robert, Earl of Gloucester, who bore the most distinguished
part in this expedition, he commanded that the men of Bath, and other
disinherited gentlemen, should have the honour of striking the first blow for
the recovery of their inheritances. At first, the battle was fought on both
sides with great desperation, and there was much effusion of human blood. The
best knights and men-at-arms were in the King's army; but the enemy outnumbered
them in infantry and the Welsh levies. It is certain that William d' Ypres with
his Flemings, and Alain with his Bretons, were the first to give way; thereby
emboldening the enemy, and spreading panic in the ranks of their confederates.
This engagement was disgracefully distinguished by the most scandalous
treachery: for some of the great lords, with a few of their retainers, accompanied
the King, while they sent the great body of their vassals to secure the victory
to his adversaries. Thus they deceived their lord, and may justly be considered
as perjured men and traitors. Count Waleran and his brother "William de
Warrenne, with Gilbert de Clare, and other knights of high renown, both Norman
and English, as soon as they saw the first rank routed, turned their backs and
fled in alarm for their own safety. On the other hand, Baldwin de Clare,
Richard Fitz-Urse and Gilbert de Lacy, stuck closely to the King during the
battle, and fought stoutly by his side till the day was lost.
As for King Stephen, mindful
of the brave deeds of his ancestors, he fought with great courage; and as long
as three of his soldiers stood by him, he never ceased dealing heavy blows with
his sword and a Norwegian battle-axe, with which some youth had supplied him.
At last, worn out with fatigue and deserted by all, he surrendered to Earl
Robert, his cousin; and being made prisoner, was by him soon afterwards
presented to the Countess Matilda. Thus, by a turn of the wheel of fortune,
King Stephen was hurled from his throne, and, alas! Incarcerated in the
important fortress of Bristol in anguish and misery. Baldwin de Clare and the
other brave young soldiers, who dismounted with the King and fought gallantly,
as I have just said, were made prisoners. The night before, while the people of
God were keeping the eve of the feast dedicated to the honour of the Virgin
Mother, and waited for matins, when a high mass was to be celebrated according
to the rites of the church, a great storm of hail and rain fell in the western
parts, that is, in France and Britain, and terrible claps of thunder were
heard, accompanied by vivid flashes of lightning. On the very day of the
battle, while the King was hearing mass before the engagement, and his mind was
agitated, if I mistake not, by anxious care and thought, the consecrated
wax-taper broke in his hand, and fell thrice to the ground in the presence of
many witnesses. This was remarked by some judicious persons to be a manifest
token of evil to come; and the fall of the prince on the same day clearly
explained the omen. The King's disaster filled with grief the clergy and monks
and the common people; because he was condescending and courteous to those who
were good and quiet, and, if his treacherous nobles had allowed it, he would
have put an end to their nefarious enterprises, and been a generous protector
and benevolent friend of the country. The townsmen of Lincoln who had taken the
King's side, as they were bound to do, he being also the lord of the place,
finding that the enemy had obtained a complete victory, abandoned their wives
and houses and all that they possessed, and fled to the neighbouring river,
intending to save themselves by becoming exiles.' Rushing in great crowds to
the boats, in their haste they so overcrowded them with their numbers, losing
all order and self-possession in the imminent fear of death, and those who came
latest jumping in upon those who were first, that the boats were upset in a
moment, and nearly all who were embarked (some say as many as five hundred of
the principal citizens) perished. William, a famous soldier and nephew of
Geoffrey, archbishop of Rouen, fell on the King's side. Of the others, as those
report who were present, not more than a hundred were slain. Count Ranulf and
his victorious comrades entered the city, and pillaged every quarter of it like
barbarians. As for the citizens who remained, they butchered like cattle all
whom they found and could lay hands on, putting them to death in various ways
without the slightest pity.
After this battle and the
capture of the King, a great division arose in England. Henry, bishop of
Winchester, immediately joined the party of the Angevins; and receiving the countess with respect in the royal city, entirely
deserted his brother, the King, and all who were on his side. Earl Waleran,
William de Warrenne, Simon, and several other lords adhered to the queen, and
pledged themselves to fight resolutely for the King and his heirs. Thus the
mischief spread on all sides, and England, which formerly overflowed with
wealth, was now miserably desolated, and abandoned to rapine, fire, and
slaughter.
We have the same events recorded in the Anglo-Saxon
chronicle if any reader still doubts that the prophecy relates to the battle of
Lincoln: After
this waxed a very great war betwixt the King and Randolph, Earl of Chester; not
because he did not give him all that he could ask him, as he did to all others;
but ever the more he gave them, the worse they were to him. The Earl held
Lincoln against the King, and took away from him all that he ought to have. And
the King went thither, and beset him and his brother William de Romare in the
castle. And the earl stole out, and went after Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and
brought him thither with a large army. And they fought strenuously on Candlemas
day against their lord, and took him; for his men forsook him and fled. And
they led him to Bristol, and there put him into prison in close quarters.
Appendix 24
The Boar of Brittany, protected by an aged oak,
takes away the moon, who brandished swords behind her back.
The Boar of Cornwall was originally Arthur
‘as the forests of Gaul shall he posses’. It was ' Geoffrey' who fabricated King Arthur's continental battle scene at Autun and Langres in the region of Blois as composed in HRB with such incisive knowledge of the topography. But, what is evident is that whoever composed the prophecies has the same mind as he who composed the fake history in HRB. King Arthur never possessed the forests of Gaul historically or even fought there !!! (see the chapter on Wace and the continental battle scene).
The Boar of Brittany may even be King Stephen and the 'aged oak' refers to Henry Blois after the prophecies have been squewed from the original version that must have existed in the Libellus Merlini.This was circulated seperately from HRB as abbot Suger's copy suggests.
When the Anarchy came to a head, Henry, again cast his lot with Stephen having briefly changed allegiance (although not admitted it in GS). Having been abused by the Empress Matilda and then begged by his brother’s wife Queen Matilda to aid his imprisoned brother, Henry at this stage sees himself as the ‘protector’ of Stephen.
When Matilda was about to be crowned, Henry was allied with her and learns that the Empress is disrespectful of him and most other lords now that she thinks the crown is a fait accompli. There is little more stultifying than a vain and arrogant Henry Blois traipsing around in the retinue of a vain and haughty Empress Matilda. But, Henry also finds out in the brief period where he swapped allegiance to her that she could not keep her word and was not to be trusted and had few feminine or redeeming qualities.
Ultimately the Empress Matilda is outmanoeuvred politically by Henry Blois and her eventual downfall is the failure to stop Henry at the rout of Winchester where her own half brother the duke of Gloucester was captured. ‘Taking away the moon’ alludes to the fact that Matilda’s power base was in effect removed by the guile and subtlety of Henry Blois’ manipulation of events. The sword behind her back is his allusion to her dishonesty; and may even refer to his own scheming which was the cause of her swift departure from London.
The artifice of Henry Blois in the Prophecies of Merlin is partly to confuse and partly to give the impression and sound like a prophet from the 6th century. It is also partly to employ the devise of using known information about historical events so as to appear as prophetic by giving the prophecies the aura of antiquity. Thereby when readers can understand prophecies which relate to recent events and prove to be accurate....one can write prophecies which will manipulate events.
William of Newburgh’s castigation of Geoffrey of Monmouth gives the impression that an original set of prophecies genuinely existed written by Merlin. They were not Merlin’s and did not exist in antiquity. Because of Henry’s later updated versions found in Vulgate HRB and VM…. later commentators such as Newburgh assumed that ‘Geoffrey’ had added and changed original verses written by Merlin. What Newburgh did not realise was that the original set of prophecies which were created separately from the Primary Historia i.e that version found at Bec in 1139 (which Newburgh implies has been manipulated/updated) were in fact written by Henry Blois also.
The Boar of Brittany may even be King Stephen and the 'aged oak' refers to Henry Blois after the prophecies have been squewed from the original version that must have existed in the Libellus Merlini.This was circulated seperately from HRB as abbot Suger's copy suggests.
When the Anarchy came to a head, Henry, again cast his lot with Stephen having briefly changed allegiance (although not admitted it in GS). Having been abused by the Empress Matilda and then begged by his brother’s wife Queen Matilda to aid his imprisoned brother, Henry at this stage sees himself as the ‘protector’ of Stephen.
When Matilda was about to be crowned, Henry was allied with her and learns that the Empress is disrespectful of him and most other lords now that she thinks the crown is a fait accompli. There is little more stultifying than a vain and arrogant Henry Blois traipsing around in the retinue of a vain and haughty Empress Matilda. But, Henry also finds out in the brief period where he swapped allegiance to her that she could not keep her word and was not to be trusted and had few feminine or redeeming qualities.
Ultimately the Empress Matilda is outmanoeuvred politically by Henry Blois and her eventual downfall is the failure to stop Henry at the rout of Winchester where her own half brother the duke of Gloucester was captured. ‘Taking away the moon’ alludes to the fact that Matilda’s power base was in effect removed by the guile and subtlety of Henry Blois’ manipulation of events. The sword behind her back is his allusion to her dishonesty; and may even refer to his own scheming which was the cause of her swift departure from London.
The artifice of Henry Blois in the Prophecies of Merlin is partly to confuse and partly to give the impression and sound like a prophet from the 6th century. It is also partly to employ the devise of using known information about historical events so as to appear as prophetic by giving the prophecies the aura of antiquity. Thereby when readers can understand prophecies which relate to recent events and prove to be accurate....one can write prophecies which will manipulate events.
William of Newburgh’s castigation of Geoffrey of Monmouth gives the impression that an original set of prophecies genuinely existed written by Merlin. They were not Merlin’s and did not exist in antiquity. Because of Henry’s later updated versions found in Vulgate HRB and VM…. later commentators such as Newburgh assumed that ‘Geoffrey’ had added and changed original verses written by Merlin. What Newburgh did not realise was that the original set of prophecies which were created separately from the Primary Historia i.e that version found at Bec in 1139 (which Newburgh implies has been manipulated/updated) were in fact written by Henry Blois also.
However, one of these original icons was the
‘boar’ and Henry’s basic use of it changes where individuals are applied
specifically to confuse and mix into the ‘soup’ of his later additions…. yet
using some earlier icons to seem consistent. To speculate, we might posit that
Henry’s understanding of the animal symbol is that of the hereditary line from
Arthur which transmuted to Brittany and from thence into Normandy, eventually
to be returned back into Britain as William the Conqueror, the first to return
the crown of Brutus in its original sense.
So it is possible that the boar of Brittany refers to his Brother
Stephen in this instance. Earlier in the Vita we understood that Stephen and
Henry were William the Conqueror’s Nephews, and William the Conqueror was then
the Boar of Cornwall.The nephews of the
Boar of Cornwall cast everything into confusion, and setting snares for
each other engage in a mutual slaughter with their wicked swords. They do
not wish to wait to get possession of the Kingdom lawfully, but seize the
crown. However, the prophecies have been squewed from the original Libellus to the updated HRB rendition
and then in to the VM edition, so that we cannot be certain sometimes to what
the icon refers. This may more properly have referred to Arthur and Morgan in
the original sense.
In this instance the ‘boar’ might be Stephen.
Stephen is the fourth as we found earlier, and he is crossing the Legate (the
shadow of the helmeted man who is the pope).This is Henry himself at a time
when he and his brother were at odds following the election of Theobald of Bec
as Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry in the VM prophecies refers to specific
events and thus at that time he uses the terminology ‘crossed’ because that was
the sentiment that he felt, crossed betrayed: A fourth shall be in authority whom awkward piety shall injure until he
shall be clothed in his father, so that girded with boar’s teeth he shall cross
the shadow of the helmeted man.
In the Prophecies of Merlin in the HRB the
boar seems to apply to Arthur.
For
the Boar of Cornwall shall bring succour and shall trample their necks beneath
his feet. The islands of the Ocean shall be subdued unto his power, and the
forests of Gaul shall he possess.
However, there is no end of Henry’s subtlety
when again in theProphecies of Merlin from the Vulgate HRB, he refers to
himself as the Boar of commerce regaining the misappropriated lands of
Glastonbury abbey: Then shall the Boar of
commerce arrive in the land, who shall recall the scattered flocks unto the
pastures they have lost. His breast shall be meat unto the hungry and his
tongue as drink unto them that thirst. This could as well be accounted as
an illusion the Roman church and its obvious materialism connected to
Augustine’s arrival.Lastly, the appellation of ‘boar’ goes back to Brutus an
appellation supposedly because he landed there initially but this may well have
been squewed: After him shall succeed the
Boar of Totnes, and with baleful tyranny shall he oppress the people.
Appendix 25
Others rise up and attack the fourth[73]
fiercely and savagely but not one of them prevails, for he stands firm and
moves his shield and fights back with his weapons and as victor straightway
defeats his enemy thrice. Twice he drives him across the frozen regions
of the north and a third (time) he (still) grants the mercy that he asks, so
that the stars flee through all portions of the fields.
While writing the
prophecies, at the end of the VM, Henry Blois gets very specific about some of the
incidents in the period known as the Anarchy and to constructs prophecies which can only relate to certain people. No account of the Anarchy would
be complete without hearing the account of the Scots and the part King David
played at the beginning of King Stephen's (as Empress Matilda’s uncle and ally during the troubles) and even to King David's part in the Rout of Winchester.
Unfortunately the copy of the Gesta Stephani is missing several pages and most importantly….one part is about the two defeats of the Scots which are referred to in the Vita Merlini prophecy (above) as the ‘Twice’. Fortunately Henry Blois refers to them later in the GS. It is only by this reference that we can be certain that this is what the above prophecy refers to as it had a great effect on Henry Blois
Unfortunately the copy of the Gesta Stephani is missing several pages and most importantly….one part is about the two defeats of the Scots which are referred to in the Vita Merlini prophecy (above) as the ‘Twice’. Fortunately Henry Blois refers to them later in the GS. It is only by this reference that we can be certain that this is what the above prophecy refers to as it had a great effect on Henry Blois
Henry Blois does
not like the Welsh and he does not like the Scots either. Both, he considers to
be savages and were the cause of much strife to his brother's reign. During the time his brother Stephen was imprisoned (after being captured at Lincoln), Henry Blois had spent time with David as he followed Matilda
around as part of her retinue. In the prophecy above from the Vita Merlini, the ‘others’ who rise up
and attack the fourth (Stephen) are the Scots, but the reference in particular is to King
David himself.
Stephen had defeated King David twice in the north and made a deal with King David…. but after the rout of Winchester, King David was caught a third time, at which, he begged to be set free and paid a bribe for his freedom.
This is part of the extract from the GS we saw in appendix 22 relating events in the aftermath of the Rout at Winchester: What am I to say about the Knights, nay, the greatest barons who cast away all the emblems of their knighthood and going on foot, in sorry plight, gave false names and denied that they were fugitives. Some fell into the hands of peasants and were most terribly beaten; some concealed themselves in sordid hiding places, pale and full of dread, and lurked there until they either had a chance to escape all were found at last by their enemies and dragged out in shameful and unseemly fashion. And what am I to say of the King of Scotland who was taken for a third time as the story goes, but let go as always, on consideration of a bribe and in grief and weariness could hardly get away to his own country with a few followers? What of the Archbishop of Canterbury, with some bishops and others of the most distinguished men in all England, who when their comrades were scattered and horses and clothing captured from some and viley stolen from others could scarcely escape the safe hiding places from this rout? The Countess of Anjou herself, who was always superior to feminine softness and had a mind steeled and unbroken in adversity, was the first to fly, going to Devizes with only Brien and a few others to accompany her.
It is not coincidence that the author of GS who opines that King David is set free a third time is the person writing the prophecy in the Vita Merlini. Again, in the section below from the account concerning the rout of Winchester, we hear that the other defeats (the two earlier) have already been covered by Henry in the section of folio’s missing from the GS manuscript:[74]…so strong and numerous swarm of warriors was as suddenly conquered and scattered, captured and annihilated as I shall show more fully in what follows. King David of Scotland was there, he who, as has already been said, had twice been chased in shameful flight from England and was, with countless others, to be disgracefully chased from it a third time, not without information to himself and very great danger to his men.
Stephen had defeated King David twice in the north and made a deal with King David…. but after the rout of Winchester, King David was caught a third time, at which, he begged to be set free and paid a bribe for his freedom.
This is part of the extract from the GS we saw in appendix 22 relating events in the aftermath of the Rout at Winchester: What am I to say about the Knights, nay, the greatest barons who cast away all the emblems of their knighthood and going on foot, in sorry plight, gave false names and denied that they were fugitives. Some fell into the hands of peasants and were most terribly beaten; some concealed themselves in sordid hiding places, pale and full of dread, and lurked there until they either had a chance to escape all were found at last by their enemies and dragged out in shameful and unseemly fashion. And what am I to say of the King of Scotland who was taken for a third time as the story goes, but let go as always, on consideration of a bribe and in grief and weariness could hardly get away to his own country with a few followers? What of the Archbishop of Canterbury, with some bishops and others of the most distinguished men in all England, who when their comrades were scattered and horses and clothing captured from some and viley stolen from others could scarcely escape the safe hiding places from this rout? The Countess of Anjou herself, who was always superior to feminine softness and had a mind steeled and unbroken in adversity, was the first to fly, going to Devizes with only Brien and a few others to accompany her.
It is not coincidence that the author of GS who opines that King David is set free a third time is the person writing the prophecy in the Vita Merlini. Again, in the section below from the account concerning the rout of Winchester, we hear that the other defeats (the two earlier) have already been covered by Henry in the section of folio’s missing from the GS manuscript:[74]…so strong and numerous swarm of warriors was as suddenly conquered and scattered, captured and annihilated as I shall show more fully in what follows. King David of Scotland was there, he who, as has already been said, had twice been chased in shameful flight from England and was, with countless others, to be disgracefully chased from it a third time, not without information to himself and very great danger to his men.
In explanation, it is worth covering the early
passage in the Gesta Stephani
concerning the Scots until the point at which it breaks off at the missing
folio’s: In Scotland, which borders on
England, with a river fixing the boundary between the two Kingdoms, there was a
King of gentle heart, is born of religious parents and equal to them in his
just way of living. Since he had in the presence of King Henry, together with
other magnets of Kingdom, or rather first of all of them, found himself with an
oath that on King Henry's death he would recognise no one as his successor
except his daughter or her heir, he was greatly vexed that Stephen had come to
take the tiller of the Kingdom of the English. But because it had been planned and carried out by the barons themselves without
consulting him, he wisely pondered the ultimate result and waited quietly[75]
for some time to see to what end the enterprise would come. And last King
Henry's daughter sent him a letter, stating that she had been denied her
father’s will and deprived of the Kingdom promised to her on oath, that the
laws had been made of no account, justice trampled underfoot, the fealty of the
barons of England and the compact to which they had sworn broken and utterly
disregarded, and therefore she humbly and mournfully besought him to aid her as
a relation, since she was abandoned, and assist her as one bound to her by
oath, since she was in distress. At this the King groaned deeply, and inflamed
by zeal for justice, both on account of the ties of kinship and because he owed
the woman the fealty he had promised, he determined to set the Kingdom of
England in confusion, that when rebellion had been raised up everywhere against
its King he might be compelled with God's help to leave to one more just than
himself what he had seized, as the King of Scots thought, unjustly. To spur him
on with frequent urging to create disorder the King had with him on the one
side the son of Robert of Bampton and his kinsman, who had been banished from
England, as has been said, and had
fled to him in the hope of recovering their Country, on the other Eustace Fitz
John, a great and influential friend of King Henry, and very many others, who
were cultivating strife either for their own profit or on account of defending
what they regarded as justice. So King David, for that was his name, sent out a
decree through Scotland and summoned all the arms, and giving them free license
he commanded them to commit against the English, without pity, the most Savage
and cruel deeds they could invent.
Scotland,
which is also called Albany, is a land hemmed in by marshy places, well
supplied with productive forests, milk,
and herds, encircled by safe harbours and rich islands, but it has inhabitants that are barbarous and
filthy, neither overcome by excess of cold nor enfeebled by severe hunger,
putting their trust in swiftness of foot and light equipment; in their own
country they care nothing for the awful moment of the bitterness of death,
among foreigners they surpass all in cruelty. From this people then and from the nearer parts of Scotland the
King collected a mass of rebels into an incredible army and leading towards
England, and after crossing the boundary between the two Kingdoms into the
region of Northumbria, which was wide and populous and filled with supplies of
all things needful, he there encamped. Then, organising squadrons and
battalions against all the land, which was large and rich………
The GS breaks off at this point for the loss of folio. It
is in this section that I believe we would have found the corroborative
evidence to match several of the following prophesies. As we have seen
throughout in elucidation of the VM, everything can be related directly back to information in
the Gesta Stephani, both written by
the same person. Geoffrey of Monmouth is Henry Blois and Henry Blois is author of the Gesta Stephani.
Since the relevant account of history is missing from the folio's in GS, I will briefly recap here to cover the known history which probably would have been covered in the missing pages. David was the brother-in-law of Henry Ist. David was probably an important figure at the English court and was the Kings protégé. At the death King Henry Ist, David supported the claims of King Henry's daughter (the Empress Matilda), and so came into conflict with King Stephen as the Gesta Stephani makes clear.
However, David's support for Matilda was used as a pretext for land-grabbing; but David made it look like a sincere quest for justice.... since he had been the first to take the oath in 1127 to uphold the succession of Matilda. When Stephen was crowned on 22 December 1135, David went to war against Stephen straight away.
Even though the later allusion in the Vita Merlin a few lines down…. that it all started with the Welsh; this is in reference to the era starting with William the Conqueror. However, King David had marched into northern England just after Stephen was crowned and by the end of January he had occupied the castles of Carlisle, Wark, Alnwick, Norham and Newcastle. By February King David was at Durham, where Stephen met him. Rather than fight a pitched battle, a treaty was agreed and this is what Henry Blois refers to as the first treaty of the reference to ‘twice’ (because two treaties were broken by King David) as seen in the prophecy in the Vita.
Henry Blois was annoyed that his brother, whose forces could have overpowered King David but King Stephen, rather than fight, made a deal with King David. As Stephen was to learn, (and it would surely have been written in the missing pages of the Gesta Stephani, Henry Blois would have advised against such a deal)…. Stephen was to regret not removing David’s power first time that the deal or treaty was struck.
However, a treaty was agreed between the two of them. On Stephen's side…. he received back some castles recently taken by David but it was agreed King David would do no homage to Stephen. Instead, Stephen was to receive the homage of Henry, David’s son, for both Carlisle and the other English territories already taken.
Stephen also promised that if in the future he was to resurrect the defunct earldom of Northumberland, David’s son would be considered. However, the issue of Matilda's crowning was not part of the deal.... which indicates David was just using the whole affair as a land grab exercise using the affront to his niece as an excuse.
The first Durham treaty fell apart quickly after King David took umbrage at the treatment of his son Henry at Stephen's court. King David massed an army on Northumberland's border, to which the English responded by gathering an army at Newcastle. Once more, a pitched battle was avoided, and instead, a truce was agreed again. The treaty at Durham was broken for a second time when David demanded that Stephen hand over the whole of the old earldom of Northumberland.
Stephen's refusal after many comings and goings led to the Battle of Standard in January 1138. Henry Blois is not alone in his revulsion for the Scots as Richard of Hexham called it: "an execrable army, savager than any race of heathen yielding honour to neither God nor man" and that it "harried the whole province and slaughtered everywhere folk of either sex, of every age and condition, destroying, pillaging and burning the vills, churches and houses".
Since the relevant account of history is missing from the folio's in GS, I will briefly recap here to cover the known history which probably would have been covered in the missing pages. David was the brother-in-law of Henry Ist. David was probably an important figure at the English court and was the Kings protégé. At the death King Henry Ist, David supported the claims of King Henry's daughter (the Empress Matilda), and so came into conflict with King Stephen as the Gesta Stephani makes clear.
However, David's support for Matilda was used as a pretext for land-grabbing; but David made it look like a sincere quest for justice.... since he had been the first to take the oath in 1127 to uphold the succession of Matilda. When Stephen was crowned on 22 December 1135, David went to war against Stephen straight away.
Even though the later allusion in the Vita Merlin a few lines down…. that it all started with the Welsh; this is in reference to the era starting with William the Conqueror. However, King David had marched into northern England just after Stephen was crowned and by the end of January he had occupied the castles of Carlisle, Wark, Alnwick, Norham and Newcastle. By February King David was at Durham, where Stephen met him. Rather than fight a pitched battle, a treaty was agreed and this is what Henry Blois refers to as the first treaty of the reference to ‘twice’ (because two treaties were broken by King David) as seen in the prophecy in the Vita.
Henry Blois was annoyed that his brother, whose forces could have overpowered King David but King Stephen, rather than fight, made a deal with King David. As Stephen was to learn, (and it would surely have been written in the missing pages of the Gesta Stephani, Henry Blois would have advised against such a deal)…. Stephen was to regret not removing David’s power first time that the deal or treaty was struck.
However, a treaty was agreed between the two of them. On Stephen's side…. he received back some castles recently taken by David but it was agreed King David would do no homage to Stephen. Instead, Stephen was to receive the homage of Henry, David’s son, for both Carlisle and the other English territories already taken.
Stephen also promised that if in the future he was to resurrect the defunct earldom of Northumberland, David’s son would be considered. However, the issue of Matilda's crowning was not part of the deal.... which indicates David was just using the whole affair as a land grab exercise using the affront to his niece as an excuse.
The first Durham treaty fell apart quickly after King David took umbrage at the treatment of his son Henry at Stephen's court. King David massed an army on Northumberland's border, to which the English responded by gathering an army at Newcastle. Once more, a pitched battle was avoided, and instead, a truce was agreed again. The treaty at Durham was broken for a second time when David demanded that Stephen hand over the whole of the old earldom of Northumberland.
Stephen's refusal after many comings and goings led to the Battle of Standard in January 1138. Henry Blois is not alone in his revulsion for the Scots as Richard of Hexham called it: "an execrable army, savager than any race of heathen yielding honour to neither God nor man" and that it "harried the whole province and slaughtered everywhere folk of either sex, of every age and condition, destroying, pillaging and burning the vills, churches and houses".
King Stephen had in effect let King David off the
hook twice by making a deal or truce but both accords were broken by King David. King Stephen, however, was not at the battle
of Standard, so it is not until the ‘third time’ at Winchester that Stephen
(once released from imprisonment) lets King David off the hook with another deal for the 'third time'. Henry, writing under the nom de plume of
Geoffrey of Monmouth.... posing as Merlin’s sister Ganieda.... implies that the deal is brokered
with a ‘bribe’, but what Henry is most annoyed about is setting David free one
more time (thrice). Henry believes having
broken his word 'twice' why believe he will keep it a third time. Will you never
learn he implies…. and writes So the stars
flee throughout the field meaning the major players in the Anarchy continue to play out its course in the field of history or various battle fields.
Appendix 26
O what a shame it is that the stars should capture
the sun, under whom they sink down, compelled neither by force nor by
war!
The stars are the
magnates, barons and grandees, but the effect of referring to them as such
gives the impression of ancient prophetic powers predicting events determined
by the alignment of the stars and planets i.e. giving the impression Ganieda's prophecy is bound up in the
movement of heavenly bodies.
Ganieda, Merlin’s sister, the seer, supposedly uses the time honoured method of astrology. What the prophecy relates to is the capture of Stephen at Lincoln. The King is captured as we witnessed in appendix 23. All the barons sink down in the Anarchy, brought low by their shifting allegiances, none of them being compelled to make war or forced into the situation.
Henry Blois’s point of view is the King is crowned and that should be a fait accompli i.e. the Empress missed her opportunity and fate had determined Stephen as king . One point that is consistently made throughout the HRB and the Vita Merlini is that Britain would be much better off if it stopped fighting within its territories and society would be much improved if it advanced from feudalism. The same point is made on several occasions in the Gesta Stephani: meanwhile, when the English were conducting themselves in so disorderly and disastrous fashion and, loosening the restraints of justice, were freely indulging in every sort of impiety….
Ganieda, Merlin’s sister, the seer, supposedly uses the time honoured method of astrology. What the prophecy relates to is the capture of Stephen at Lincoln. The King is captured as we witnessed in appendix 23. All the barons sink down in the Anarchy, brought low by their shifting allegiances, none of them being compelled to make war or forced into the situation.
Henry Blois’s point of view is the King is crowned and that should be a fait accompli i.e. the Empress missed her opportunity and fate had determined Stephen as king . One point that is consistently made throughout the HRB and the Vita Merlini is that Britain would be much better off if it stopped fighting within its territories and society would be much improved if it advanced from feudalism. The same point is made on several occasions in the Gesta Stephani: meanwhile, when the English were conducting themselves in so disorderly and disastrous fashion and, loosening the restraints of justice, were freely indulging in every sort of impiety….
Appendix 27
I see two stars engaging in combat with wild beasts
beneath the hill of Urien where the people of Gwent and those of Deira met in
the reign of the great Coel.
This is a
difficult passage to grasp, especially to follow how and why Henry constructed
it. Henry Blois conflates so many issues (which is his intention). Firstly, it
is apparent from the earlier passage, Henry Blois, while at Clugny, hopes to
start an insurrection against Henry II by citing Conan of Brittany and
Cadwalladr from Wales[76]
as leaders of such a revolt. I think it becomes clear that he wishes his
audience to recognise in the prophetic words of Ganieda the battle of Coleshill
in July 1157.
We should note that all the previous
prophecies are relevant to the readership at the time of publication of the
Vita Merlini as relatively notable recently transpired events. However, to complicate
the salad of his composition of the prophecies…. Henry employs his usual craft
in prophecy construction. He cleverly links the prophecy back in time to the Battle of Argoed Llwyfain,
so let us deal with that aspect first. The Battle of Argoed Llwyfain, was fought between the forces
of the Kingdom of Rheged under the command of Urien and Owain mab Urien and the
forces of the Kingdom of Bernicia under Fflamddwyn
(Flamebearer). What little is known about the battle comes from the early Welsh
poem Gwaith Argoed Llwyfain by the poet and bard Taliesin.
Taliesin’s inclusion in the contemporaneous
scene with Ganieda as it is presented in the VM, is a part of Henry Blois’ subtlety in
making the prophecies appear to coincide historically as contemporaneity is
supported by Nennius.[77]Taliesin’s
Battle
of Argoed Llwyfain[78] is I think, from where Henry finds his
original reference to ‘Urian’ in the HRB prophecy: And when he shall let loose his cruelty upon them, flesh and bones
shall he devour them, yet shall be burned upon the top of Urian.[79]
A few lines later in the HRB we read: The
oaks of the forest shall come together and engage in conflict with the rocks of
the Gewissi, which also links it to this passage in the Vita. However,
Henry Blois is hoping his audience will recognise in this prophecy the battle
of Coleshill, and this is why Coel[80]
is introduced and the mention of the hill of Urien. This is how Henry’s
conflation works using Taliesin’s poem:
In
the morning on Saturday there was a great battle.
From
when the sun rose till when it set
Fflamddwyn
marched in four hosts
To
wage war against Goddeu and Rheged.
He
came from Argoed to Arfynydd:
They
were not suffered to remain for that one day.
Fflamddwyn of
great bluster exclaimed,
“would
they give hostages, are they ready?”
Him
answered Owain, eager for the fray,
“They
would not give hostages, they are not ready;
And
Cenau, son of Coel, would have suffered torture
Stoutly,
ere he would cede anyone hostage”.
Uryen,
lord of Yrechwydd, exclaimed
“If
it must be an encounter for kith and kin,
Let
us raise our lines above the mountain,
And
let us hold up our faces above the edge,
And
let us raise our spears above his men’s heads,
And
let us attack Fflamddwyn in his hosts,
And
let us kill both him and his company”.
And
before Llwyfein wood there was a copse;
Ravens
were red with the blood of men.
And
men who charged- the minstrel shall sing,
For
many a year the song of their victory.
This battle account from the sixth century
was fought in north Wales between the Britons of Goddeu and Rheged under Owein
and his son Uryen against the Angles of Bernicia and Deira under Theodoric the
Flame barer, son of Ida.
This is not as Geoffrey’s HRB has it, a
battle between the Gewissi and Deiri. The Hill of Uryen is only tentative
suggestion but does seem to be suggested in the reference in the HRB. This is
‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’s’ source in this instance as there is Uryen’s ancestor
Coel Godebog who, from the HRB, was King of the Britons’ The Great Coel.’[81]
Supposedly on one Saturday, Fflamddwyn
had surrounded the seat of power within Rheged and demanded that King Urien
submit and provide hostages. Urien's son owain and his friend Cenau
rejected this proposal. Urien then stirred his men and fighting began. In the
ensuing combat Fflamddwyn was slain, temporarily freeing Rheged of the Anglian
menace. Henry Blois puts Merlin in the battlefield in the beginning of the
Vita; if anyone was there at the battle it would have been Taliesin from whom
the poem and account derive. Anyway, old
bardic material achieves its goal by linking Taliesin a prophet poet, with
Merlin and his sister Ganieda (the one now giving this prophecy), causing a
conflation for ‘Geoffrey’s’ readers and confusion for researcher’s into the Vita Merlini; all seemingly reading
prophecies linked to a historical bard’s account of the same event.
We know Henry Blois in the VM has no interest
in creating more novel history; this he accomplished in the HRB. His main
interest now is to add credibility or weight to episodes in the HRB,
reasserting and manipulating, but most of all; to add new prophetic material: I see two stars engaging in
combat with wild beasts beneath the hill of Urien where the people of Gwent and
those of Deira met in the reign of the great Coel.
The two stars are in combat in wales (wild beasts)[82]
beneath the hill where Urien fought back in the days of Coel. I
believe this is how Henry Blois arrives at Ganieda’s prophecy about Coleshill
by linking Coel to the hill of Urien in the hope his audience links this to the
battle of Coleshill.
The Battle of Coleshill was a battle fought
in July 1157 between an army of 30,000 men led by Henry II and an army of 3000
men, led by the Welsh prince Owain Gwynedd. King Henry’s invasion of Gwynedd
was to halt the land grab of Owain Gwynedd into the lands of Powys which
Stephen in his reign failed to do. Henry II wanted to curb the Welsh rebellion
against Norman control and to expand his empire into northern Wales. He did
this with the support of the Prince of Powys Madog ap Maredudd and Owain's
brother Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd who had fallen out with his brother. This is the
same Cadwalladr Henry Blois is also trying to incite to rebellion against King Henry II
by predicting a comeback of the Britons/Celts as mentioned previously.
At all times Henry
Blois is conscious of several criteria that need to be adhered to in order that
his audience believe that these prophecies of Ganieda are contemporaneous with
those spoken by Merlin in antiquity as found in the HRB. Henry Blois is posing
as Geoffrey of Monmouth and also setting himself the task of anchoring his
whole Vita Merlini account historically in the 6th century or thereabouts.
His words need to appear as those of a 6th century seer; but that
seer needs to make accurate predictions that not only appear to transpire, but
can be recognised by his audience. At the same time he needs to appear as
Geoffrey of Monmouth who is merely translating prophecies that are not his but
Merlin’s, Taliesin’s or Ganieda’s. Henry
does imply that these events transpired where a battle took place previously;
beneath the hill of Urien in the days of Coel…. so, at the same time Ganieda is
seeing a different battle…. that of Coel’s hill.
This is
speculation, but if I am correct in this assertion, this is the only prophecy
of Ganieda’s that does not relate directly to Henry, his brother or the
Anarchy. However, it does concern Henry as to the outcome…. if King Henry II
had been killed. It would have made Henry Blois' return to England less hazardous as he
is nervous about King Henry’s reaction on his return to England. We know this by inference in letters sent by Theobald of Bec (the archbishop of Canterbury) to Henry Blois in Clugny demanding that Henry Blois return to England. Therefore this particular prophecy
will have been the most up to date historical event at the time of writing Ganieda's prophecies.
Not only does Henry Blois
anchor the prophecy to the HRB, but also to Nennius's account and Taliesin’s poem of the Battle
of Argoed Llwyfain. The
reason I think it is this episode in 1157 to which he hopes his reader will
believe the prophecy is about…. is because Henry Blois purposely tries to conflate
Coleshill with Taliesin’s historical
account of the Battle of Argoed
Llwyfain. If you remember it is this battle which in effect sets the scene for
Merlin in the beginning of the Vita Merlini and the aftermath of his madness.[83]
Providing
this specific prophecy is not a later interpolation by Henry Blois (nor the
allusion to Cadwalladr and Conan)….so this might be the method by which to
determine the dating of the completion of the Vita Merlini. The entire sequence fits if we accept Henry Blois wrote the
Vita Merlini while at Clugny. He has
used this last event as the closing prophetic truth of the VM. We know the
battle of Coleshill took place in July 1157 and Henry Blois was now under
serious pressure to return to his See at Winchester having been recalled to
England by King Henry through several requests, masked with threats by Theobald
Archbishop of Canterbury.[84]
It seems to me that this time
at Clugny was a period in which Henry Blois had hoped to return to England, but
judging by the letters in note 1 he was afraid to. It is clear in the Merlin
prophecies of John of Cornwall that Henry hoped for a rebellion to have occurred
to unseat Henry II while Henry Blois was at Cluny. He delayed his return as
long as he could until peace was finally made…. and there was no further hope
of the success of a Celtic rebellion by those Henry Blois had tried to incite to insurrection under
the pretence of Prophecy.
I do not wish to add to the confusion Henry
Blois has left for posterity in the various tracts he has interpolated or tracts he has written under an assumed name.... but there is a small chance he might be referring
to a similar incident that happened in his brother’s reign also said to have
happened at Coleshill. Owain Gwynedd had annexed territory as part of Gwynedd
in about 1150 during the Anarchy in Stephen’s reign. Owain Gwynedd then
repelled an attempt to regain it, by the joint forces of Ranulf, earl of
Chester and Madog ap Maredudd, prince of Powys. However, as all the other prophecies
of Ganieda seem highly relevant to Henry Blois…. it does not seem to be this
specific event the prophecy alludes to.
Appendix 28
O with what sweat the men drip and with what blood
the ground while wounds are being given to the foreigners!
This may or may
not be a rhetorical expansion on the previous battle of Coleshill episode; but
if not, it is an expression of the zietgeist that every Briton who was not from
Norman stock would have been empathic with. Throughout the HRB and Vita Merlini this feeling is expressed,
where the feeling is that the indigenous of Britain are constantly being invaded. For the most part it is
alluded to as by Divine judgement upon their sins that invaders have ruled over
them. Henry Blois makes sure that the author of the Vita Merlini (supposedly Geoffrey) voices the same attitudes
held by the indigenous Britons.... never losing sight that he is Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Geoffrey’s audience would have understood that it was a feeling commonly held
among most of the peasant class.
Appendix 29
One star collides with the other and falls into the
shadow, hiding its light from the renewed light.
This directly alludes to Stephen colliding
with Matilda until she falls into the alluded shadows when she returns back to
Normandy. The renewed light one might
assume is Stephen after his release. It could possibly relate to Henry II, but I doubt
Henry Blois would view King Henry’s reign as renewed light.
Matilda's forces defeated and captured King Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln in February 1141. He became a prisoner in her brother’s castle. Shortly afterward, when she arrived in London, the city was ready to welcome her and support her coronation. As the Gesta Stephani relates she used the title of Lady of the English and planned to assume the crown. However, she refused the request of the citizens of London to reduce their taxes. Because of her own arrogance and Henry Blois’ underhanded dealings and change of allegiance (due to Queen Matilda’s petitions to him to aid in the release of King Stephen)…. the Empress had to flee the city of London. Stephen was eventually freed and exchanged for Robert of Gloucester who was captured at the rout of Winchester in September of 1141 while facilitating his sister’s escape.
Matilda's forces defeated and captured King Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln in February 1141. He became a prisoner in her brother’s castle. Shortly afterward, when she arrived in London, the city was ready to welcome her and support her coronation. As the Gesta Stephani relates she used the title of Lady of the English and planned to assume the crown. However, she refused the request of the citizens of London to reduce their taxes. Because of her own arrogance and Henry Blois’ underhanded dealings and change of allegiance (due to Queen Matilda’s petitions to him to aid in the release of King Stephen)…. the Empress had to flee the city of London. Stephen was eventually freed and exchanged for Robert of Gloucester who was captured at the rout of Winchester in September of 1141 while facilitating his sister’s escape.
At the
death of Eustace, Stephen’s son, Henry Fitz Empress and Stephen ratified the
terms of a permanent peace. In the first Instance this was the treaty that our friend 'Geoffrey' had supposedly signed in the capacity of his elevated position of the Bishop of Asaph (retrospectively). Stephen announced the Treaty of Winchester in
Winchester Cathedral. he recognized Henry Plantagenet as his adopted son and
successor, in return for Henry doing homage to him. Stephen promised to listen
to Henry's advice, but retained all his royal powers. Stephen's remaining son,
William, would do homage to Henry and renounce his claim to the throne, in
exchange for promises of the security of his lands.
However, earlier in 1148, Matilda and Henry
Fitz Empress had returned to Normandy, following the death of Robert of Gloucester,
and the re-conquest of Normandy by Geoffrey of Anjou. Upon their arrival,
Geoffrey d'Anjou turned Normandy over to his son Henry Fitz Empress (the future King Henry II) and retired to
Anjou. Henry Plantagenet assumed the title Duke of Normandy, and Matilda became
Duchess of Normandy and retired to Rouen for her remaining years, where she
maintained her own court and presided over the government of the duchy for her
son who then ultimately became Henry II of England.
Appendix 30
Alas what dire famine shall come, so that the north
shall inflame her vitals and empty them of the strength of her people.It begins
with the Welsh and goes through the chief parts of the Kingdom, and forces the
wretched people to cross the water. The calves accustomed to live on the milk
of the Scottish cows that are dying from the pestilence shall flee.
Henry Blois, I think, is referring to the
north as both northern Wales and Scotland. As we have discussed previously, a
portion of the Gesta Stephani is
missing about the wars in Scotland. I feel sure the missing folios would have
corroborated his assertion of the depletion of inhabitants through constant
feuding leading to famine. At the place in the Gesta Stephani where Henry Blois is about to describe the effect of the
wars in Scotland, we are missing his account: Then, organising squadrons and battalions against all the land which
was large and rich… [missing folios].
However, if the description of Scotland and
the Scots takes the same format as that when Henry Blois describes the Welsh in
the GS, I feel confident that if the pages were extant, it would also describe
similar circumstances of famine. After starting the Welsh account, in the same
fashion as that which he describes Scotland…. full of abundance etc…. he then
launches into why the Welsh also are in famine: Therefore, when the Welsh were troubling the land in this fashion, it
seemed to the King (Stephen) that he was striving in vain, in vain pouring out
his last treasure to reduce them to peace; and so, advised by more judicious
council (probably Henry Blois), he preferred to endure their insolent rebellion
for a time, in order that, with fighting at a standstill and disagreement
setting them all at variance, they might either suffer a famine or turn on each
other and be exterminated by mutual slaughter. And indeed we have seen this
happen in a short while. For being continually occupied in slaughter and
plunder they left the whole land so untouched by the plough and so empty of men
that no hope at all of the future livelihood remained, but worn out with plague
and hunger, after the death of the animals which followed on the plundering of
them, they themselves shared the same fate, since the air became pestilential
from the rotting bodies. These things, happened in Wales at different times, I
have brought together and dealt with briefly that I might not have to stray
from the calls of my narrative whenever some conspicuous event required more
adequate treatment in its proper place.
Unless Henry Blois has changed tack, the next
line seems to be part of a whole lamentation of the destruction of people and
landscape to the north…. as the next lines in VM also refer to the pestilence
of dying cattle in Scotland: The calves accustomed to live
on the milk of the Scottish cows that are dying from the pestilence shall flee.
It begins with the Welsh and goes through the chief
parts of the Kingdom, and forces the wretched people to cross the water. What
has often confused commentators on the HRB and its Merlin prophecies, is how could a man supposedly from
Wales, have such low opinion of the Welsh?
Henry’s conception, I believe is that the Welsh are the residue of the Britons…. which he presented as utopian Arthurian society. This prophecy may pretend to refer to the early migration of the Britons across the channel to Brittany.
It may also have another meaning as Orderic relates that: In the same week, a like good fortune smiled on King Stephen in another part of the Kingdom. For the earl of Albemarle and Roger de Mowbray had an engagement with the King of Scotland,' and having put to the sword a multitude of the Scots, avenged the cruel slaughter which these people had made of the English without any respect for the Christian religion. The Scots, it appears, fearing the sword which threatened them, fled towards the water, and rushing into the river Tweed where there was no ford, in their attempt to escape death, met it by drowning.
Henry’s conception, I believe is that the Welsh are the residue of the Britons…. which he presented as utopian Arthurian society. This prophecy may pretend to refer to the early migration of the Britons across the channel to Brittany.
It may also have another meaning as Orderic relates that: In the same week, a like good fortune smiled on King Stephen in another part of the Kingdom. For the earl of Albemarle and Roger de Mowbray had an engagement with the King of Scotland,' and having put to the sword a multitude of the Scots, avenged the cruel slaughter which these people had made of the English without any respect for the Christian religion. The Scots, it appears, fearing the sword which threatened them, fled towards the water, and rushing into the river Tweed where there was no ford, in their attempt to escape death, met it by drowning.
Appendix 31
He conquered the people of the Gauls after killing
Frollo to whom the Roman power had given the care of that country; the Romans,
too, who were seeking to make war on his country, he fought against and
conquered, and killed the Procurator Hiberius Lucius who was then a colleague
of Legnis the general, and who by the command of the Senate had come to bring
the territories of the Gauls under their power.
It would be ludicrous,
as most commentators assume, when referring to Geoffrey of Monmouth, that Henry
Blois writing as ‘Geoffrey’ has not read Tacitus’ account of Agricola, Tacitus’
father in law. The De vita et moribus
Iulii Agricolae concerns the Roman conquest of Britain. Henry Blois is the master of deception and
has certainly read Suetonius’ the Lives
of the Twelve Caesars. Adam of Damerham attests that Henry Blois left the
book to Glastonbury abbey amongst the other books.
Henry Blois is steeped in learning and probably the best informed on Roman and Gallic history. Posing as Master Gregorius,[85]one might even accuse him of infatuation with things Roman. (see the chapter on Master Gregorius).
Many of the sentiments conveyed in the HRB and VM are too coincidental for them not to have been written by the same hand as the Gesta Stephani. Henry Blois rarely invents without basis or a tie to something historical in the construction of both the HRB and Vita. His continental escapade of Arthur is the most difficult to anchor historically because the events are of his own invention.
Henry Blois is steeped in learning and probably the best informed on Roman and Gallic history. Posing as Master Gregorius,[85]one might even accuse him of infatuation with things Roman. (see the chapter on Master Gregorius).
Many of the sentiments conveyed in the HRB and VM are too coincidental for them not to have been written by the same hand as the Gesta Stephani. Henry Blois rarely invents without basis or a tie to something historical in the construction of both the HRB and Vita. His continental escapade of Arthur is the most difficult to anchor historically because the events are of his own invention.
Henry Blois has a
problem when it comes to Arthur in Gaul. Arthur on the continent may have some
substance in Breton sources[86]
but his appearance against a Roman army at Langres and Autun is complete
fiction. The landscape in which he set his battle scene, is 35 miles distant
from Cluny. This is why Arthur is put on the continent by Geoffrey in that
location. The whole continental battle scene and lead up to it is a difficult concept to deliver without a good
knowledge of the region and its peoples.
Being well informed of genuine Roman history, without any credible anchor to historical events, 'Geoffrey' employs his usual discord…. deriving names out of tentative connections. Henry Blois’ aim in the Vita Merlini in the passage above is to make a quick transit into the Arthurian continental episode and onto Mordred, just as a reassertion of the HRB’s historicity. Even Henry would know Tacitus and the Lives of the Caesars presents a very different picture of History than Henry Blois concocts in the HRB; especially since there are other sources available of events in Gaul. Henry’s main gambit in this passage is to introduce more confusion into the Gallic episode by introducing Frollo instead of Flollo, while at the same time linking back to his fictional character Lucius Hiberius and that of Leo who is now Legnis.
Being well informed of genuine Roman history, without any credible anchor to historical events, 'Geoffrey' employs his usual discord…. deriving names out of tentative connections. Henry Blois’ aim in the Vita Merlini in the passage above is to make a quick transit into the Arthurian continental episode and onto Mordred, just as a reassertion of the HRB’s historicity. Even Henry would know Tacitus and the Lives of the Caesars presents a very different picture of History than Henry Blois concocts in the HRB; especially since there are other sources available of events in Gaul. Henry’s main gambit in this passage is to introduce more confusion into the Gallic episode by introducing Frollo instead of Flollo, while at the same time linking back to his fictional character Lucius Hiberius and that of Leo who is now Legnis.
Let us deal with Frollo first. Henry Blois’ mode of
construction in both Vita Merlini and HRB employs what should be termed a
‘conflationary anchor’. Any one investigating his literary inventions will usually find a
discernible attachment or basis.... and it is for this reason 'Geoffrey' has left a
trail of doubt in all his material and modern medieval scholars have been drawn into half believing much of 'Geoffrey's' propaganda and false history.
'Geoffrey' gambit is usually maintained by employing historical proximity to the storyline which provides enough credibility for the reader to accept that which is being proposed.
Frollo or Flollo is purposely confused with Rollo because 'Geoffrey' has provided a name in Gaul which aids to anchor in location an entirely spurious episode. Gregory of Tours’ history ends in the latter half of the fifth century without mention of continental Arthur; but Henry Blois needs a name that he can link to his spurious continental campaign of Arthur. Even though anachronistic, Rollo is nevertheless a grandee in Gaul.
Rollo is a Latin translation from the Old Norse name Hrólfr. Rollo (c.846–931). He was numbered Robert I and was a Norse nobleman of Danish or Norwegian descent who was the first ruler of the Viking principality which became known as Normandy. His descendants were the Dukes of Normandy. Rollo is the great-great-great-grandfather of William the Conqueror. This is probably as far back as Henry Blois could trace his ancestry and thus invents Frollo and Flollo just to add flavour of historical inaccuracy or scribal error. His seemingly misconstrued name acts as a confirmatory tie to a name in the region. Frollo hitherto had no existence in Gaul prior to the HRB, especially in the 6th century. Henry understands who he is basing Frollo or Flollo on, because two sentences before the following extract he states that Arthur had brought into submission and had dominion over both Norway and Denmark.
'Geoffrey' gambit is usually maintained by employing historical proximity to the storyline which provides enough credibility for the reader to accept that which is being proposed.
Frollo or Flollo is purposely confused with Rollo because 'Geoffrey' has provided a name in Gaul which aids to anchor in location an entirely spurious episode. Gregory of Tours’ history ends in the latter half of the fifth century without mention of continental Arthur; but Henry Blois needs a name that he can link to his spurious continental campaign of Arthur. Even though anachronistic, Rollo is nevertheless a grandee in Gaul.
Rollo is a Latin translation from the Old Norse name Hrólfr. Rollo (c.846–931). He was numbered Robert I and was a Norse nobleman of Danish or Norwegian descent who was the first ruler of the Viking principality which became known as Normandy. His descendants were the Dukes of Normandy. Rollo is the great-great-great-grandfather of William the Conqueror. This is probably as far back as Henry Blois could trace his ancestry and thus invents Frollo and Flollo just to add flavour of historical inaccuracy or scribal error. His seemingly misconstrued name acts as a confirmatory tie to a name in the region. Frollo hitherto had no existence in Gaul prior to the HRB, especially in the 6th century. Henry understands who he is basing Frollo or Flollo on, because two sentences before the following extract he states that Arthur had brought into submission and had dominion over both Norway and Denmark.
The province of Gaul at that
time had been committed to the charge of Flollo, Tribune of Rome, who ruled it
under the Emperor Leo.[87] Henry does not care that the Vita Merlini is set around
Rhydderch Hael c.580–614; Rollo,
Flollo or Frollo becomes part of the soup which now ties in to the fictitious
names of Lucius Hiberius and Legnis or Leo in Gaul. Legnis, the General
referred to as a colleague of Lucius Hiberius in the Vita Merlini (as above) might be a
mis-reading for the genitive Leonis
since the HRB already makes Leo a colleague of Lucius, but it is probably
purposeful confusion on the part of Henry Blois as he also changes Flollo to
Frollo in VM.
So soon therefore, as the
infamy of the aforesaid crime did reach his ears, he (Arthur) forthwith
deferred the expedition he had enterprised against Leo, the King of the Romans,
and sending Hoel, Duke of the Armoricans, with the Gaulish army to restore
peace in those parts, he straightway hastened back to Britain with none save
the island Kings and their armies. Now, that most detestable traitor Mordred…..[88]
The Emperor Leo, as a colleague of Lucius Hiberius in the
Vita Merlini, is merely Geoffrey’s ploy to anchor back to his spurious episode in Gaul
in the HRB. A credible re-affirmation now in the Vita through the words of
Merlin himself…. recounting Geoffrey’s dubious account in the HRB set 35 miles
from Clugny with Langres not that much further away.
Lucius Hiberius meanwhile,
taking these disasters sorely to heart, was mightily perplexed and distressed
to make resolve whether it were better for him to hazard a general engagement
with Arthur, or to throw himself into Autun and there await assistance from the
Emperor Leo. In the end he took counsel of his fears, and on the night
following, marched his armies into Langres on his way to Autun.[89]
Loomis, Parry, Griscom, Zimmer, Tatlock, etc,
all argue a hypothesis which assumes Geoffrey of Monmouth existed and some are
much bemused that a man from the Welsh Marches has good topographical
information in the region of Burgundy. It would be reasonable to assert that Henry
Blois would have travelled to both Autun and Langres on several occasions, and
it would be an ideal theatre for Arthur’s campaign in an area, steeped in Roman
ruins on lands controlled by Cluniacs in the region of Blois. Henry based the
utopian Caerleon as Arthur’s court mainly for archaeological reasons and also
Nennius mention of Urbs Legionum being synonymous with Caerleon.
[1] It becomes
clear that Robert de Boron derived his work from Henry Blois. In Boron's work the point
is made that Merlin appears at different times in history to explain the many
anachronisms throw up by ‘Geoffrey’s’ work.
[2] Lloyd,
history of Wales. I:230
[3] Gesta
Stephani- Henry Blois
[4] See chapter
on Henry Blois and Magister Gregorius, De mirabilibus urbis Romae
[5] HRB XI, i
[7] Henry Blois in his interpolations into Malmesbury's DA names Padam and Teilo; both names
lifted from Rhygyvarch’s work to
accord with the fictions presented in DA about St David.
[8] The point
being that Augustine had not even arrived in Britain yet.
[9] Nennius ’City
of Legions’ is synonymous with Caerleon in Geoffrey's work.
[12] Gesta Stephani: Matilda was publicly welcomed into Winchester. She took up residence in
the Castle and Bishop Henry handed over to her the keys to the Treasury and the
Royal Crown. He then arranged a large meeting of the citizens of Winchester in
the Market Place so they could salute her as "their Lady ". From
here, the party entered the cathedral with great pomp. Matilda led the
procession with Henry of Blois to her right and the Bishop of St. David’s to
her left. Relatives of the Bishops of Salisbury, Ely and Lincoln were also
present and Henry sent for Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury who arrived a few
days later.
[13] HRB XI, iii
[14] We know Henry Blois
compared himself to Cicero. Cicero has Quintus say: ‘what nation or what state disregards the prophecies of soothsayers, or
of interpreters of prodigies’. When the first set of prophecies were
written at the beginning of King Stephen's reign, Henry was engaged in his own pursuit of
Metropolitan status. If bishop Bernard were granted Metropolitan.... more so would
Winchester be deserving.... based on the false testimony written in HRB of
Winchester’s early religious house where Constans abided.
[15] Giraldus
Cambrensis, De Menevensi Ecclesia Dialogus.
[16] Henry Blois does also
refer to Matilda obliquely in other updated prophecies such as when the two
armies met at Wallingford: Two Kings shall encounter in nigh
combat over the Lioness at the ford of the staff.
[17]David
FitzGerald followed Bernard after his death.
[18]The dignity of
London shall adorn Dorobernia (Canterbury)
[20]HRB IX, xii
[21]It is ridiculous to consider Legates
at the era in time as indicated. By the time Henry finalised the Vulgate HRB, Henry
had been Legate for a 3 year period.
[22] The Legendary
history of Britain J.S.P. Tatlock p. 70
[23] The Legendary
history of Britain J.S.P. Tatlock p. 36
[24] The Legendary
history of Britain J.S.P. Tatlock p. 37
[27] This is
plainly his plan as can been witnessed in John of Cornwall’s rendition of the Merlin prophecies.
[28] Gesta Stephani,
27
[32] See appendix
22
[35] Historia Novella,
William of Malmesbury.
[36]Henry of Huntingdon, VIII. Meanwhile, the remains of King Henry
unburied in Normandy; for he died on the 1st of December, 1135. His corpse was carried to Rouen, where his
bowels, with his brain and eyes, were deposited. The body being slashed by
knives, and copiously sprinkled with salt was sown up in ox hides to prevent
the ill effluvia, which so tainted the air as to be pestilential to the
bystanders.
[37] HRB VII, iii
[38] Wolvesey
Palace is the residence of Henry Blois. Bishop Æthelwold, Bishop of Winchester
963 - 84, was the one to build the first Bishop's residence on the small island
in the middle of the Itchen. This island was originally called Wulf's Isle, a
name that corrupted in time into Wolvesey.
[39] See Note 3,
Papal Coronation
[40] HRB VII, iii
[41] The fourth
version is that of John of Cornwall, written also by Henry Blois.
[43] Robert of
Torigni.
[45] That Henry
spent time in Wales is not an assumption, but is attested to by many facts which
coincide during the course of this exposé.
[46] HRB XII, xix
[47] ‘Geoffrey’s’
Merlin Ambrosius might also be based on Melvas or Melkin, the King who donated
Ineswitrin to Glastonbury. The VM’s Merlin is based on Myrddin Wyllt, Myrddin Emrys, who became Merlinus
Caledonensis, or Merlin
Sylvestris by association with such people as Rhydderch.
[48] O.J. Padel’s
analysis wrongly questions that VM is written in response to Gaimar rather than
Henry Blois’ efforts trying to substantiate the persona of Merlin in VM as an historical
figure, conflating him with Myrrdin: Could
Geoffrey’s decision to write another account of Merlin, following the existing
Welsh legend much more closely, have been an indirect result of this claim by
Geoffrey Gaimar? Gaimar’s epilogue was merely composed (by Henry Blois) to substantiate
that‘Geoffrey’ is not lying about his source. (see the chapter on Gaimar's epilogue)
[49] Adam of Damerham
witnesses that Henry Blois donated books to Glastonbury abbey, Lives of the Caesars, History of the
Britons, History of the English, and History of the Franks amongst many
others including St Isidores Etymologies.
[50] Galfridus
Arthur did not become a Welsh Geoffrey of Monmouth until the Vulgate HRB was
published.
[51] See note 1
[52] See appendix
19
[55] See appendix
18
[56] See appendix
36
[57]The text of the Book of Llan Dâv reproduced from the Gwysaneg
Manuscript. Edition by Gwenogoryn Evans and John Rhys.
Aberysthwyth: National Library of Wales, 1893[1979], p. 181.
[60]Gallais, Pierre, 1967. “Bleheri,
la cour de Poitiers et la diffusion des récits arthuriens sur le continent.”, Actes
du 7ème congrès national de la littérature
comparée, Poitiers,
1965, Paris : Didier, 47-79
François Guizot. Paris: Brière, 1825-27, VII,
p. 218.
[63]See Raison, Chanoine Louis, René Niderst, 1948. Le mouvement érémitique dans l’Ouest, fin
11ème siècle, début 12ème siècle.
[64]“Brytones vero armorici, cum venerint in regno isto, suspici
debent et in regno protegi sicut probi cives. De
corpore
regni hujus exierunt quondam, de sanguine Brytonum regni hujus. “ Mentioned by
Joseph Loth,
1883. L’émigration
bretonne du 5ème au 7ème siècle de notre ère.
[65] Much of this
appendix supplied by Patrice Marquand. Cultural connections between Brittany and Aquitaine
in the Middle Ages (10th-13th centuries): ‘The Matter of Britain’ and the ‘Chansons de Geste.’
[66]Historia
Novella, William of Malmesbury.
[67]Historia
Novella, William of Malmesbury.
[68] HN. p 28
[69] HN. p 31
[70] See appendix
10
[71] See appendix
10
[72] HN P.49
[73] William the
Conqueror was accounted the first, William
II, was the third son of William the conqueror of England, called
William Rufus. He was the second. The third was Henry 1st and the fourth was
King Stephen.
[74] See Chapter:
Henry Blois and the Gesta Stephani.
[75]Henry of Huntingdon
relates the irruption of the Scots into Northumbria, in the first month of
Stephen's usurpation, and the two occurrences at Durham.
[76] See appendix
19
[77]The
first written reference to Taliesin is found in Nennius' Historia Brittonum:
§62. ...At that time, Talhaiarn Tataguen
was famed for poetry, and Neirin, and Taliesin and Bluchbard, and Cian, who is
called Guenith Guaut, were all famous at the same time in British poetry. The
great King, Mailcun, (Melkin) reigned among the Britons, or in the Life of
St Cadoc In those days, a certain King,
of the name of Maelgon, reigned
over all Britain.
[81] HRB V, vi
[82] Gesta
Stephani, 7, ‘but it breeds men of an animal type’
[83] Joscelin's Life
of Kentigern has a prose account of a madman cured
by drinking water from a healing spring, just like the VM.
[84] See note 1
[85] See chapter
on Henry Blois and Master Gregorius
[86] See appendix
20
[87] HRB IX, xi
