The following is extracted from a book called 'the Island of Avalon' by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot who shows Geoffrey of Monmouth ended his epic at the point that the real Caradoc started his Welsh history. However, Henry Blois impersonates the deceased Caradoc (regardless of what the colophon in HRB misleads one to think) and Henry Blois authors' the
Life of Gildas which places King Arthur at Glastonbury. So, it is the same Bishop of Winchester who is responsible for authoring the History of the Kings of Britain and commissioning the engraving on the Modena Archivolt which depicts the Kidnap of Guinevere.... the same episode as found in the
Life of Gildas.
Please go to the new 2018 updated website of the whole book at http://www.islandofavalon.com/
Caradoc of Llancarfan
Since the name Ineswitrin suddenly appears as
an afterthought in Caradoc’s Life of
Gildas, it is obviously bound up with substantiating the 601 charter (see the chapter on the 601 ad charter regarding Ineswitrin and its donation by a Devonian king to Glastonbury) and
the business of obtaining metropolitan status for Henry Blois. Life of Gildas is also connected to the countering of Osbern’s false
statement which states that St Dunstan was the first abbot of Glastonbury.
One would think it un-necessary of William of Malmesbury in his work to dismiss Caradoc’s work
concerning the kidnap of Guinevere episode, by referring to Arthur’s renown as
idle tales of the Britons. Especially, if Caradoc and William really were
contemporaneous at Glastonbury (as the colophon in the Vulgate HRB implies). Is it
strange that William of Malmesbury does not mention Caradoc…. if he really had
been a contemporary at Glastonbury and was writing a flatulent recast of his
own life of St Cadoc?
Caradoc was never
at Glastonbury and was certainly dead when Henry Blois came across his
chronicle and his Life of St Cadoc
while in Wales in 1136. Henry Blois based his own Life of Gildas on Caradoc’s genuine Life of St Cadoc and makes it
appear as if Caradoc has taken up the mantle of continuing ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB by
writing the Brut y Tywysogion. This supposed contemporaneity is in fact
carried out retro-actively by back dating the Vulgate version of HRB (from 1155) by implying that the dedicatees listed i.e. Robert of Gloucester, King Stephen and Waleran de Beaumont,
Count of Meulan d.1166) were alive at the time or presented with a Vulgate copy.
So, why is Caradoc
singled out so favourably in the Colophon?
The reason is that he is not in reality contemporaneous and we are being
led to believe he is. The subtle point of this is that we must remember the
colophon is being written c.1155-58 and Henry Blois ostensibly demonstrates
that the author of HRB (i.e. himself) could not be impersonating a dead Caradoc
who in effect produces corroborative evidence of Arthur at Glastonbury found in the Life of Gildas. We are led to believe Caradoc
is supposedly alive in 1143 when William of Malmesbury was still alive. Also,
we should remember Henry has no axe to grind with Caradoc…. he merely
impersonates him as author of Life of
Gildas. Contrarily, Henry Blois (as we have covered) has been slighted by
both Malmesbury and Huntingdon in their outputs and so with an air of
importance he dismisses their authority.
Of the
lives of Dunstan written prior to William of Malmesbury’s own VSD I and VSD II which include
material from author B’s edition of the life of Dunstan, Adelard’s, Osbern’s and
Eadmer’s and in William’s other saint’s lives, and in GP….. there is no mention
of Ineswitrin. An odd occurrence if it really were the old name for
Glastonbury.
The name featured no-where else in previous hagiographic accounts.
So, we can take it as a fact that Ineswitrin was not the old name for
Glastonbury (as discussed in the chapter on the 601charter). We can also accept it as a truth that Ineswitrin's name(as an Island in Devon) was lost in time
like the old language that William so detested.
More important and the very reason for this present investigation is the
question of what was deposited on the island of Ineswitrin in a bygone age. If
the bodies in the cave on Burgh Island are found to be the relics of Jesus and
Joseph, it will rock the foundation and destroy the Catholic Church.
If Caradoc’s brief little volume of the life of Gildas existed while both
William and Caradoc were supposedly contemporary at Glastonbury, William of
Malmesbury would have mentioned Ineswitrin (excepting the 601 charter) or
referred to Caradoc’s Life of Gildas….
but, William had left Glastonbury to attempt receiving some form of recompense
for his endeavours c.1134 by presenting his DA to Henry at Winchester.
All that
ostensibly exists (regarding what we are supposed to think was William’s view
of Gildas at Glastonbury) is the interpolation in GR3 (version B) and DA,
regarding Gildas’ stay at Glastonbury both of which have interpolations made by Henry Blois after William's death. This is a direct indication that the 601
charter and Caradoc’s Life of Gildas
are intricately linked and were utilised in the 1144 gambit for petitioning the pope for metropolitan status for Henry at Winchester and the whole of southern England….
where the 601 charter(as an extant document) was the main physical evidence in reality for the proof of antiquity for
the abbey at Glastonbury. It would only withstand scrutiny as long as it could
be shown that the name Ineswitrin applied to Glastonbury. The St Patrick
charter which has both Ineswitrin (and Avalon mentioned in the postscript in
DA), was employed latterly in 1149 and employs the further embellishments
stated in that charter. The postscript to the St Patrick Charter mentioning
Avalon found in the interpolated part of DA is part of Henry’s second (post 1158) agenda (which I discuss in the chapter on William's De Antiquitates).
It is through Caradoc’s Life of Gildas that Henry Blois convinces us that William of Malmesbury’s
601 charter concerning Ineswitrin was the previous name for Glastonbury and he
also re-iterates this same position as he employs the St Patrick charter in his
second attempt at gaining Metropolitan status in 1149.
William, (except in
Henry’s interpolations in DA and through Henry’s authorship of Life of Gildas), does not in any way
infer that Ineswitrin is synonymous with Glastonbury. William of Malmesbury is
merely including the 601 Charter in GR3 along with a few other up-dates which
we shall cover shortly. If Henry Blois had not written the final paragraph in
the Life of Gildas establishing Ineswitrin
as the old name for Glastonbury; the charter would be referring to an estate of
five cassates existing on an island
somewhere unknown (when in reality the Island is Burgh Island in Devon). It was more important to establish
Glastonbury as synonymous with the Ineswitrin mentioned in the 601 charter for
credibility’s sake…. as the physical evidence of the antiquated charter itself
was unchangeable.
The 601 charter was to be handed to papal authorities in
evidence which was to help Henry acquire Metropolitan status for Winchester, (but by
consequence) the whole of south west England (including Glastonbury). It is the
charter itself which comprises a substantial part of Henry Blois’ case in Rome
and the first question would be concerning the 601 charter’s authenticity….
where is Ineswitrin? Since no-one knew of its location it is stated by Henry Blois (the author of the Life of Gildas) that the name was the previous name for the Island of Glastonbury.
I will deviate from Caradoc for the moment. We should ask.... if in any way, the Matter of Britain was accountable to a ‘fortuitous set of convergent factors’ (as Lagorio proposes)
they are these:
Firstly, that Henry Blois was much younger than Theobald and
Stephen (his brothers) and therefore was a Grandee in England through his
family connections after they had died for a considerable time (we should not forget it is the enigmatic Master Blihos (H.Blois anagram) who was responsible (through his nephew) for Grail literature arriving at the court of champagne.
Secondly Henry Blois'
appointment to Glastonbury and Winchester was only through these family
connections (i.e. grandson of William the conqueror).
Thirdly it was his comfort at court and his knowledge of how history
records only Kings and Queens which allowed him to commence the pseudo-history as a fabricated history (which
was in fact the precursor of the HRB version found at Bec i.e. the version of EAW which had had the Arthuriana added
onto it in 1137 while Henry Blois was in Normandy). It was Henry’s intricate knowledge of court affairs and the anarchy
which gave Merlin his insight (supposedly of future events) in the prophecies of Merlin and to know the intricate
details of his family’s forebears (see the chapter on the prophecies of Merlin and Ganieda found in the VM). Who else would take the liberty to invent
such a fraudulent edifice but Henry Blois aka 'Geoffrey of Monmouth'?
Lastly, the most fortuitous circumstance was that
Melkin’s prophecy existed at Glastonbury (regardless of what Carley and Lagorio wrongly conclude) where Henry Blois had started his
authorial career in pseudo-history and the prophecy acted as a template for his
propaganda concerning Joseph and the Grail. This of course was spread abroad on the continent under
the guise of Master Blehis and not by coincidence Blihos Bleheris who ‘knew the whole story’. It now becomes feasible in the time line to
account Blihos Bliheris, or Master Blehis as the provider of the information
for Chrétien…. which had hitherto been discounted by all modern scholars due to the colophon in the
Perlesvaus which refers to Arthur and Guinevere’s grave at Glastonbury/Avalon because Henry Blois actually manufactured the grave and had fabricated the 'Leaden Cross' which states Glastonbury is Avalon (by it having been found there)
However, once Henry had used Melkin’s
prophecy as inspiration conjuring up the name of the mythical island where
Arthur was last seen, it became part of a future agenda for Henry to convince
us that Avalon was Glastonbury and this was done in DA…. in Henry’s third
redaction of DA after 1158. It was also achieved (futuristically) by what was
maintained in the colophon to Perlesvaus and would be confirmed when Arthur was
disinterred and the leaden cross found (because it was Henry Blois who had manufactured
the gravesite). By that time, the translocation from his original standpoint (which made Ineswitrin equitable to Glastonbury) had already been subtly
worked toward in his second agenda which put Insula Pomorum and Avalon as the previous names for Glastonbury.
Evidence of this can be seen as early as 1155-58 in VM. The
island of apples would be at Glastonbury and so was the Isle de Voirre (as subtly explained in the Life of Gildas). Much of this confirmed in the first 34 chapters of DA. One can speculate that William’s original DA was a
monograph manuscript which had pages added to it which constitute the various interpolative additions. Certainly the first two chapters constitute Henry Blois' second agenda and were added last....as his Grail stories were put abroad on the continent.
Scott is basically correct in that the first
34 chapters of DA are not William’s work. It would not seem silly to speculate
that folios were adeptly forged which matched William’s text and style and
inserted at the beginning….which accounted for the era where William commences
his proof of antiquity at 601 AD at chapter 35 of DA.
Therefore, the body of William’s work has remained relatively untouched
in the latter half of DA.... except for a few additions from our consolidating
author who was concerned with Savaric’s influence over Glastonbury.
Scott’s
consolidating author however, did far less than Scott gives him credit for….
recording Henry’s death and the fire etc. This becomes apparent in that Henry’s
probable format (following William’s original) is still held in our current DA
where Henry’s last consolidating additions concerning Joseph are at the
beginning…. inserted into the monograph copy (and subsequent to his own
previous interpolations).
As I have covered already Gaimar’s epilogue and Wace’s Roman de Brut were written by Henry Blois. However, Wace says that
Arthur was mortally wounded, but the Briton’s believe him still living in Avalon
and destined to return from there. This development is Henry Blois’ alignment
with the ‘Briton Hope’ posited in EAW by Huntingdon’s précis of the Primary Historia (that version found at Bec) and a sentiment which
prevailed amongst the population with a Celtic heritage…. and latterly amongst
the integrated Saxons who had suffered similar defeat from the Normans.
The
‘Briton Hope’ was later developed by Henry to include an Island location called
Avalon from which Arthur would return. Realistically the hope of a return was
better accepted if the location where Arthur was taken (when wounded) was
unknown. The mystical quality of a return seems more believable if Arthur was
in some kind of otherworld… where he exists until the return.
Avalon was mentioned first in the First Variant. It was
not mentioned in the Primary Historia found
at Bec as it was not mentioned in EAW. We have discussed already the variation
in storyline and the unlikely omission by Huntingdon to mention Avalon in his
précis which constitutes EAW. If it had been originally mentioned as part of
the storyline in the Primary Historia,
Huntingdon would have commented on it while mentioning the hope of the
Britons/Bretons with which he concludes EAW.
The Primary
Historia, as we have seen, was developed into the First Variant. We can
deduce then the time at which the Island of Avalon became part of Henry’s
inspiration. It was between the discovery at Bec of the Primary Historia in 1139 and the arrival of the First Variant in
1144. First Variant HRB, as I have covered, was composed for a specifically
church audience to incidentally augment the historical proofs in the case for
Henry Blois’ metropolitan status with pope Lucius.
Now let us return to the subject of Caradoc. Henry Blois knew of Caradoc’s Brut y Tywysogion and
ends his HRB where Caradoc starts his.... in the era of Cadwallader
and Pope Sergius, who was Pope from 15 December 687 to his death in
701.
The impersonation of Caradoc of Lancarfan was chosen by
Henry Blois because (contrary to the current understanding of modern
scholarship) the body of Brut y Tywysogion was
written by Caradoc prior to the HRB. Let me make this perfectly clear: Caradoc
was dead long before the Life of Gildas
was written c.1140.
The Brut y Tywysogion
chronicle commences A.D. 680. It does not give the events under each year, but
under each decade as 690, 700, 710 etc.... and registers a series of occurrences
without comment until six or seven years prior to 1100. This section must
obviously have been taken from another source by Caradoc. Just prior to 1100
Caradoc takes over in his own narrative in an era from his own experience and memory.
About 1100 AD, the Brut y Tywysogion
commences the use of the phrase "Y vlwydyn rac wyneb," (the ensuing
year,) before each year, under which, events are recorded, until the next
decade, successively…. and the narrative is carried on in a uniform style to
the year 1120. So, to get to the explanation... the editors of the History and Antiquities of Saint
David's, referring to Nova Legenda
Angliae, fol. iv, as their authority, place the death of Caradog in 1124.
This may be explained logically in reality by the death of Caradoc at that
time. (We know ‘Geoffrey’s’ contemporaneity asput forward in the colophon is a sham).
Also, at
this period, again, a remarkable alteration is very perceptible; in that, the
narrative of the events in the Brut y Tywysogion of the twenty years included between 1100 and 1120
occupies a space double to that devoted to the history of the period which
elapsed between 1120 and 1164. So it is not silly to assume that this is the
period naturally expanded upon by Caradoc in his own time while writing. But,
there is also something else which might indicate that Caradoc actually died in
1129. (I am not convinced Caradoc was ever at Glastonbury and it makes little difference but we do know Henry became abbot in 1126 and may have known him).
After continuing the history recorded in the Brut y Tywysogion, we
come to a point where the manuscript records itself as having nothing to record
in 1130: Four years after that, that is
to say, one thousand one hundred and thirty was the year of Christ, when there
were four successive years without any story to be found, that could be
preserved in memory.
This in itself is already strange in that, a
chronicle written by someone supposedly alive says nothing happened.... quite
ridiculous for a chronicler to make such a statement. Except... if someone is
taking over a chronicle at a point four years later and with a different view
point. So, from 1130 to 1134 the world stands still in Wales.
Following this we
enter into a history about the struggles of the Welsh with Stephen and under
the year 1134: And the ensuing year,
Henry, son of William the Bastard, King of England and Wales, and of all the
island besides, died in Normandy, on the third day of the month of
December. And after him his nephew,
Stephen of Blois, took the crown of the Kingdom by force, and bravely brought all the South of
England under his sway.
Now, if the author/continuator who has picked up Caradoc’s Brut y Tywysogion refers
to Stephen as brave, this is strange from a Welsh point of view. There is
nothing to say that a Welsh speaking continuator continued the journal from
this point onward.
My suggestion is that Caradoc’s death coincided
with the period where there was nothing to report before the next author takes
up the continuation. I am suggesting that Caradoc died anytime between 1129 and
1140 and Henry Blois used his name to write the propagandist polemic called the
life of Gildas. This
initially was an innocuous work which put Gildas at Glastonbury with King
Arthur, but essentially was a work designed to add credence to the antiquity of
Glastonbury abbey.
Many commentators drawn into Henry Blois’ clever devise
of backdating the Vulgate edition of HRB, assume Caradoc took up the mantle passed to him by
‘Geoffrey’ after completion of HRB. It is made plain in the colophon that
Caradoc is supposedly ‘contemporary’ with ‘Geoffrey’. So, Henry imposters Caradoc’s
name.... simply because Caradoc had written Brut y Tywysogion. If Caradoc had not published Brut y Tywysogion,
there would be no point or grounds for impersonating him when producing the
polemic provided in Life of Gildas (except that he wrote the Life of St Cadoc which Henry Blois uses as a template for Life of Gildas.
There would be little point in carrying out the charade
in the colophon which portrays Caradoc as a continuator of HRB if ‘Geoffrey’ did
not already know there was a continuation from the date that Caradoc starts. That
is the whole point of ‘Geoffrey’ supposedly ‘supplying the materials’ for the continuation
so that it appears so. These are the finer points upon which the Henry Blois
fraud exists and scholars have naïvely taken at face value. If Crick really
considered the full implications… ‘Geoffrey’ must have written this before 1143
when Malmesbury actually died. Does she really think that Huntingdon, alive for another
ten years, does not respond to ‘Geoffrey’s’ dismissal…. and no-one takes in
hand to comment on ‘Geoffrey’s’ supposed source. Does she really believe
‘Geoffrey ‘supplied the materials’ for Caradoc to obediently continue
‘Geoffey’s’ work?
Is Caradoc really
supposed to have the book which informs him more perfectly than the other two
historians and enables his continuation?
The effect of the use of Caradoc’s name in the Colophon was twofold.
Firstly, a real chronicler with an already written work was made to appear to
have carried out 'Geoffrey’s' wishes and secondly this work also added credence
to the other bogus tract (the Life of Gildas)
in which Henry Blois impostures Caradoc’s name as the author.
Both Henry of Huntingdon,
William of Malmesbury and of course Caradoc were dead at the time this colophon
was written. The reason for inclusion of their names was to put Caradoc on an
equal footing.... being accounted as a comparative historian. This in effect
contributed more authority to the Life of
Gildas which Henry had himself produced to highlight the prominence of
Glastonbury. By seeming to have granted permission to a named continuator in
the person of Caradoc…. Henry also adds to ‘Geoffrey’s’ supposed authority as a
historian.
The fact that ‘Geoffrey’ calls Caradoc his contemporary
is purely a device which implies Caradoc is alive. The obvious intention of
this was to back date the Vulgate version of the HRB from 1155 by twenty years or
so.... to when William of Mamesbury was alive. Henry’s illusion gave the
appearance that, in the interim, the Brut y Tywysogion had
been written. We covered above, at the end of the
chronicle called Brut Tysilio
the following statement: I, Walter,
Archdeacon of Oxford, translated this Book from Welsh into Latin, and in my old
age I translated it a second time from Latin into Welsh…
Henry Blois’ ploy is more evident in trying to
provide a personal detail of contact between himself (Geoffrey) and Caradoc in
his ongoing promotion and is witnessed in the two copies, which are printed in
the Myvyrian Archaiology, vol. ii: The
princes who were afterwards successively over Wales, I committed to Caradog of
Llancarvan; he was, my contemporary, and to him I left materials for writing that book. From henceforward the Kings
of the English and their successors I committed to William of Malmesbury and
Henry of Huntington, to write about, but they were to leave the Welsh alone;
for they do not possess that Welsh book, which Walter, archdeacon of Oxford,
translated from Latin into Welsh; and he narrated truly and fully from the
history of the aforesaid Welshmen’.
In other words, we are led to believe
‘Geoffrey’ provides the materials to Caradoc. It is plain common sense that
once Henry Blois’ fraud is unveiled that there is no ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’.
No-one but Henry Blois would make such a statement, (i.e. no later continuator
or interpolator), as there is simply no advantage, except in showing that
Caradoc is alive. Therefore, Henry has not only backdated the HRB, but has us
unequivocally believe that Caradoc is the continuator as Geoffrey is supposedly
supplying the materials to carry out the composition.
We are left with a
ridiculous anachronism if scholarship’s views are adhered to. Especially, if we
consider the old book from which ‘Geoffrey’ was supposedly translating is
non-existent, and as we have just seen, was continued up until 1129 in the Brut y Tywysogion….
and much further by a continuator who adds anecdotal material found in HRB and
confirms Geoffrey’s existence. If Caradoc really was the continuator, how is the
Brut
so different in format from what we know he actually wrote? Why does the
difference in chronology start at a time when others attest Caradoc died at that time? We must
assume Caradoc dies c.1129.
‘Geoffrey’ really
does not do dates. ‘Geoffrey’ just distributes throughout his work
synchronicities with other contemporaneous events to give the appearance of
truth and the seeming appearance of sound chronology. The only reason that
Walter’s book is ever posited is because ‘people’, after 1155, were starting to
wonder who Galfridus Arthur or Geoffrey of Monmouth was…. and how he
was able to give such specific information, of which other ancient chroniclers
were unaware.
An authority was invented in the form of a fictitious book ex Brittanica to prevent accusation to
the author ‘Geoffrey’. What was
initially aimed at being an informative and interesting history in its initial form had caused a
stir, but now in 1155 with the malicious prophecies (which had recently come to
light), people were asking questions (since most pertained to the events in the Anarchy.
The accusation was that HRB was termed
fabulous or pseudo-historical. To counter this accusation and to avoid the
blame of inventing a book of lies and half truths (which essentially HRB is)…. Walter’s book
was the source, and any-one who lacked it and professed to be a historian, was
ill-informed without the book. Now we see why Gaimar’s epilogue becomes an
important part of Henry Blois’ empirical edifice of lies and misdirection. (see the chapter on Gamar's epilogue) The
simple fact is that Geoffrey brought his epic to a close at Calwallader because
there already was a Welsh history written from that date until 1129 (compiled by
Caradoc).
Now, if we accept
the First Variant was not widely circulated and there were even fewer copies of
the Primary Historia which preceded it....
it would be hugely advantageous if the author ‘Galfridus’ becomes deceased. At
this time, the much copied and propagated Vulgate (by its newly titled author
Geoffrey of Monmouth), who had become the respectable Bishop of Asaph retrospectively....
is widely disseminated while Henry Blois is at Clugny. So that the Historia appeared to have existed in its present Vulgate form (i.e.
with the updated prophecies).... since the time it was first discovered.... past
grandee’s such as Robert of Gloucester, King Stephen and bishop Alexander were
shown to have been readers and even patrons of the history. To secure its place
as a genuine history, Robert of Torigni was told in 1155 that it was written by
a (now dead) Geoffrey of Monmouth who had subsequently become a bishop of Asaph
(I presume on an encounter with Robert at Mont St Michel)…. as we must not
forget it was Robert who first alerted Huntingdon to the Primary Historia at Bec when he was a monk there. Henry Blois might
have passed comment: ‘Oh you know that history written by that author Galfridus Arturus, that you showed
Huntingdon back in 39…. well you know he became bishop of Asaph……’
No-one could make
a single enquiry to any person referred to in Vulgate HRB. There was no-one to
answer any questions…. and Caradoc, who was ‘Geoffrey’s’ appointed continuator,
is known to be dead also. Giraldus Cambrensis informs us that Caradoc was
buried in the north transept of St. David's Cathedral, near the altar of St.
Stephen. He was canonized by Innocent
III at the insistence of Gerald whom, incidentally, had Henry Blois as his patron.
The effect is to
give the appearance that in 1155, both Vulgate HRB and its updated prophecies
were extant 20 years ago. Also the Arthurian and Gildas connection with
Glastonbury posited in Life of Gildas
by Caradoc (Geoffrey’s continuator), should not be doubted and nor should
‘Geoffrey’s’ word concerning Walter’s book.
Walter, supposedly in his own
words, says he has translated the same. It is a clever illusion which could
only be carried out by one man, when we consider the manufactured history of
personas by Henry. However, Henry Blois’ stroke of genius is that through the
colophon in HRB, we are made to believe there is going to be a future
continuation set down in writing by Caradoc. Because such a chronological continuation
exists, it follows that scholars are led to believe Caradoc dutifully accepts
‘Geoffrey’s’ invitation….especially, as we are told it is ‘Geoffrey’ who is
supplying the materials.
But, as we saw above, it is written in the past tense:
he was,
my contemporary and to him I left
materials for writing that book. Time has apparently moved on. Whereas I hand over in the matter of writing unto
Karadoc of Lancarvan, my contemporary… which once was a future exercise of
continuation of a completed composition (i.e. HRB)…. is now openly exposed as
it transpired in reality. However, we are still made to believe that Caradoc is
the continuator, following on from HRB.
It is quite preposterous that Caradoc’s
chronicle could be considered a continuation from the same book ‘Geoffrey’
supposedly used. The Book of Hergest has a similar colophon, but Henry’s vague
description of ex Britannicus is now
understood as Walter’s book having originated from Brittany rather than in the tongue of the Britons: The Kings that were from that time forward
in Wales, I shall commit to Caradog of Llancarvan, my fellow student, to write
about; and the Kings of the English to William Malmesbury and Henry Huntington.
I shall desire them to be silent about the Kings of the Britons, since they do
not possess this Breton Book, which Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, translated
from Breton into Welsh, which is truly a collection of their histories, in
honour of the said princes.
Now, if the
Vulgate version resembled the copy found at Bec, what happened to Avalon,
Merlin, and Archflamens in the Bec copy? What was the point in producing the
First Variant version in a less expanded form than an already written Vulgate,
as is proposed by modern scholars? It is a madness to think HRB was
disseminated in its Vulgate form before 1139. Why has Alfred of Beverley not
mentioned Caradoc, Walter or any of the
dedicatees?
‘Amazed’ is Huntingdon at Galfridus Artur’s history, but as a historian (or even as one
possessed of common sense), the first thing Huntingdon would do is to locate
Walter’s Book itself, if it were
possible….and ask bishop Alexander (his patron) for the ‘Original’ of the Merlin prophecies. But,
as discussed, the Prophecies or the mention of Merlin were definitively not part
of the Primary Historia which Huntingdon
witnessed at Bec and wrote an account of to his friend Warin. The ‘good book’ as the
source of the later Vulgate HRB, had not yet been employed. If any of the dedicatees names had appeared
or Walter’s book had been mentioned in the Bec copy that Huntingdon saw, surely one
of them would be mentioned even in a synopsis. But no! Not even Merlin warrants
a mention by Huntingdon and he is mentioned many times in Vulgate and is
integral to the arrival of Stonehenge.
Yet Huntingdon, the first historian to
mention and to name Stonehenge (before ‘Geoffrey’) gives another account of
Stonehenge without Merlin being mentioned. And yet supposedly we are supposed to
accept the view point of modern scholars that EAW omits mention of Merlin because
of a proclivity of Huntingdon's.
This is the genius
of Henry Blois having backdated the Vulgate edition by including the names of those who had died giving the appearance of the book being published at an earlier date (Merlin's prophecies are very accurate) and the very reason why c.1170 we hear the first criticism of
‘Geoffrey’ from Newburgh and later from Gerald 30-40 years after the Vulgate’s
publication.
It is only in Henry II’s
era that the Vulgate HRB version starts to become popular and propagate. We
know that the chronology found in HRB is based upon confusion and conflation, but
Malmesbury and Huntingdon are told to leave well alone for they do not possess that Welsh book, which Walter, archdeacon of
Oxford, translated from Latin into Welsh; and he narrated truly and fully from
the history of the aforesaid Welshmen’.
But, how is it that if it is a
Welsh book from which 'Geoffrey' is supposedly translating (as he avers)…. do we
then have the same book translated back into Welsh by Walter? What would be the
point if it already existed in Welsh? Who is writing this false testimony and
for what reason?
We know Caradoc
of Llancarfan also wrote the second version of the Life of Saint Cadog in which Arthur also figures prominently and
which Henry employs as a template for his Life
of Gildas. Caradoc obviously wrote in Latin otherwise Henry
Blois would not have understood his history and decided to end his Primary Historia (that edition found at Bec) at that point; and we
know the Brut y Tywysogion has survived from an original Latin
version, which has not itself survived.
One could assume that Henry Blois had a
Welsh monk translate them both from Latin into Welsh (with additions).
Archdeacon Walter never had anything to do with or ever possessed any book from
Wales or Brittany, or translated any ancient book proposed as the source book
for HRB.
Archdeacon Walter’s sole claim to fame was that, like Ralf of
Monmouth, his name was affixed as a witness on the charters which already
existed at Oxford ( as I covered earlier) when Henry Blois attended a meeting there in (late 1153) or
1154 (13 of January) when Duke Henry met King Stephen. Shortly before, in late
1153, Gaufridus episcopus sancti Asaphi had
supposedly signed on the Winchester treaty.
The name Geoffrey of Monmouth had not been envisaged by Henry Blois before January
1154. The name Ralf of Monmouth,
'Geoffrey’s' supposed compatriot on the said charters, had not yet been
associated with Gaufridus. But now he became the reason for ‘Geoffrey’s provenance
from Monmouth. (purely because he was an original signatory to the unadulterated charters along with Walter to which Henry had added parfois that of Glafridus Artur, Gaufridus
electus sancti Asaphi and Gaufridus episcopus sancti Asaphi.
Do not forget Alfred of Beverley c.1150 does not refer to a
Geoffrey of Monmouth (not once) but to Britannicus. He avoids using the obvious
pseudonym of Gaufridus Artur.
What I think transpired is that Henry had the HRB translated into Welsh and
then had the history attached as if Caradoc had obeyed Geoffrey’s wish. All the Welsh
manuscripts have ‘Geoffrey’ as bishop of Llandaff, so it is not out of
character for Henry to confuse us further. It seems apt that the 'Peniarth Brut' gives the date of ‘Geoffrey’s’ death as 1154 as he
had signed the Treaty of Winchester just before Christmas in 1153…. along with
his puppeteer Henry Blois as the Bishop of Winchester.
It really makes no difference if ‘Geoffrey’ supposedly
died in 1155, but what this shows is that it was time to kill off Geoffrey of
Monmouth soon after his new appellation was envisaged and evidence of his
having actually lived could be verified by his scribble on the charters.
So, at
the very same time his new title of Geoffrey of Monmouth was being added to
Vulgate HRB, along with the other dedicatees, Henry consigns ‘Geoffrey’ to
death and lets Robert of Torigni know of
Geoffrey’s elevation to the Bishop of Asaph when he lands at Mont St
Michel.
Galfridus Arthur, the charter signer who became bishop in waiting and
then a signatory on the treaty of Winchester, alas had died before he received
his title of provenance from Monmouth; and he had died at the very period his
work was finally published in the Vulgate form when the seditious prophecies
were also published. (As I discussed earlier, we know this date from the court held at Winchester which Henry Blois attended shortly before he fled to the continent.... where the invasion of Ireland was discussed and see this mentioned in the updated prophecies of Merlin in the Vulgate version). We should not forget that Orderic's allusion to this same prophecy(the ‘sixth’ in Ireland) is in a section I have shown is so obviously interpolated.
The First Variant
had no contemporaneous names included and even if the Exeter version has Robert
of Gloucester as a dedicatee it could be a correction or even the very
first-First Variant version to receive a dedicatee (but only after his death in
1147). It would not have been dedicated to Robert if he were not already dead.
As I have maintained throughout, Caradoc is
impersonated as the author of the Life of
Gildas. He was however the author of the second Life of St Cadoc and it is obvious that Henry Blois has modelled
his entirely fictitious Life of Gildas
by basing it on Caradoc’s genuine Life of
St Cadoc. The Life of St Cadoc was originally written by Lifricus, son of
Bishop Herwald of Llandaff and himself Archdeacon of Glamorgan and Master of
St. Cadog of Llancarfan. Lifricus of Llancarfan (probably before 1086) had
written his concoction which overtly pertains to land rights. After the Norman
incursion, Llancarfan suffered greatly and land was being usurped by Norman
overlords. But Lifric concocted a precedent which he maintains must remain
inviolable: according to the agreement
which had been previously made with Maelgon and Arthur….
We can now see the reasons Caradoc was
employed as a persona through whom Henry propagates his web of lies. Firstly, Caradoc is dead. Secondly, he has
already written a saint’s life which includes anecdotes on Arthur the warlord. Thirdly,
because Caradoc has already written his part of Brut y
Tywysogion, he is recommended (by Henry Blois posing as Geoffrey) as the reliable witness to continue the
'History of the Kings of Britain' .... farcically appealing to him
as a continuator who is in possession of the fictitious source book.
In Caradoc of Llancarfan’s genuine account of
the Life of St. Cadoc we hear that St. Cadoc: ’In the days of Lent, Saint Cadoc was accustomed to reside in two
islands, Barren and Echni and on Palm
Sunday, he came to Nantcarvan, and there remained, performing Paschal service,
feeding daily one hundred clergymen… It happened that at another time the blessed Cadoc
on a certain day sailed with two of his disciples, namely Barruc and Gwalches
from the island of Echni, which is now called Holme, to another island named
Barry. When therefore he prosperously landed in the harbour, he asked his said
disciples for his Enchiridion, that is his manual book; and they confessed that
they, through forgetfulness, lost it in the aforesaid island. Which on hearing,
he immediately compelled them to go aboard a ship, and sail back to recover their book, and burning with anger, said,
"Go, not to return." Then his disciples, by the command of their
master, without delay quickly went aboard a boat, and by sailing, got to the
said island. Having obtained the aforesaid volume, they soon in their passage
returned to the middle of the sea, and were seen at a distance by the man of
God sitting on the top of a hill in Barry, when the boat unexpectedly
overturned, and they were drowned. The body of Barruc being cast by the tide on
the shore of Barry, was there found, and in that island buried, which from his
name is so called to the present time. But the body of the other, namely
Gwalches, was carried by the sea to the island of Echni, and was there buried.’
All of Caradoc’s Life
of Cadoc is in the same vein as many other hagiographic accounts and as we
can see St Cadoc in the account is only thirty miles distant from Glastonbury
just across the Severn. It is in theLife of
Cadoc however, where we first meet personalised information concerning
Arthur: three vigorous champions, Arthur
with his two knights, to wit, Cai and Bedwyr, were sitting on the top of the
aforesaid hill playing with dice. It
is certainly the account from which Henry Blois gets the names to have engraved
upon the Archivolt at Modena.
The sole purpose
of Henry impersonating Caracoc of Llancarfan and composing the Life of Gildas is to establish pertinent
facts relative to Glastonbury’s antiquity.
It establishes that in the time of Gildas there was already an abbot.
Osbern is instantly confuted.
St Gildas, because of his contrived connection to
Glastonbury, is supposedly buried there and this helps the coffers at the abbey;
especially, when confirmation of Gildas at Glastonbury is intonated in GR (version
B) and then firmly confirmed as buried there in DA…. as a grave was probably
appropriately manufactured. Henry Blois was clever enough to make it appear as
if the author of HRB was entirely different to the person who bears witness of
Arthur at Glastonbury (and supposedly what William of Malmesbury wrote concerning
Arthur in DA). Again, Henry’s skill at the choice of person upon which to make
the conflation is witnessed where Gildas is connected to St Cadoc in the Vita Cadoci, but in that tract there is
no connection between Gildas and Glastonbury.
Henry Blois, posing as a now dead Caradoc, would have us
believe about Gildas that: He crossed the
Gallic Sea and remained studying well in the cities of Gaul for seven years;
and at the end of the seventh year he returned, with a huge mass of volumes, to
greater Britain. Having heard of the renown of the illustrious stranger, great
numbers of scholars from all parts flocked to him. They heard him explaining
with the greatest acuteness the science of the seven rules of discipline.
Undoubtedly, one of these volumes, in Henry’s mind,
contained the history from Brutus, but we are stuck with the fact that Gildas
did not mention Brutus or Arthur in De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae.
If the reader remembers, Taliesin in VM is also returned to Merlin having been
with Gildas. All is totally contrived and really shows that the author of VM is
the same as he who connects Arthur to Gildas at Glastonbury!!
Gildas apparently crossed over to Ireland, but we are led to believe in the Life of St Gildas: St. Gildas was the contemporary of Arthur,
the King of the whole of Britain, whom he loved exceedingly, and whom he always
desired to obey’’. However the high spirited Arthur kills one of Gildas’
twenty three brothers: Gildas, historian
of the Britons, who was staying in Ireland directing studies and preaching in
the city of Armagh, heard that his brother had been slain by King Arthur……… meanwhile,
the most holy Gildas, the venerable historian, came to Britain, bringing with
him a very beautiful and sweet-sounding bell, which he vowed to offer as a gift
to the Bishop of the Roman Church. He spent the night as a guest honourably
entertained by the venerable abbot Cadocus, in Nant Carban. (Henry
Blois/Caradoc, Life of Gildas)
We have a different storyline on the bell that we first
heard from the genuine Caradoc of Llancarfan as Henry Blois conflates Caradoc’s Life of St Cadoc with the following
piffle. In the concocted storyline,
Gildas wants to give the bell to the pope but St Cadoc covets it: The latter pointed out the bell to him, and
after pointing to it, handled it; and after handling it wished to buy it at a
great price; but its possessor would not sell it. When King Arthur and the
chief bishops and abbots of all Britain heard of the arrival of Gildas the Wise,
large numbers from among the clergy and people gathered together to reconcile
Arthur for the above-mentioned murder. But Gildas, as he had done when he first
heard the news of his brother's death, was courteous to his enemy, kissed him
as he prayed for forgiveness, and with a most tender heart blessed him as the
other kissed in return. When this was done, King Arthur, in grief and tears,
accepted penance imposed by the bishops who were present, and led an amended
course, as far as he could, until the close of his life.
The main point of this whole preamble is to connect
Gildas and Cadoc by including the bell scenario and an incidental trip to Rome,
but now Arthur is firmly woven into the story thus far in connection with
Gildas.
At Rome, Gildas revealed to the pope that the most holy Cadoc, abbot of the church of Nancarvan, had wished
to buy the bell and the pope says he can have it. It is all really mindless
babble which is meant to seemingly coincide with Caradoc of Llancarfan’s
genuine account of St Cadoc.
So that the reader can witness Henry’s ingenuity, I have
included the whole of Henry Blois’ impersonated concoction of the Life of Gildas in appendix 33. As I have covered previously, the last
paragraph is an afterthought included to lead us to believe Ineswitrin was
synonymous with Glastonbury. This became necessary when the 601 charter (probably turned up by William of Malmesbury searching in the chest of papers in the scriptorium) itself
was provided as a proof to Canterbury of Glastonbury’s antiquity. The trick was
to make Ineswitrin commensurate with Glastonbury as I have already covered.
Perhaps the last etymological paragraph was added subsequently when the 601
charter was presented to papal authorities (as the same etymology appears in the
interpolated part of DA). The charter authenticated that Glastonbury was
already ancient at the time the charter was dated. In reality though, Burgh
Island in Devon was being donated to the already ‘old’ church at Glastonbury as is made plain in the charter itself (see the chapter on the 601 charter).
However, back to
Gildas: Being thereby exceedingly
distressed, he could not remain there any longer: he left the island, embarked
on board a small ship, and, in great grief, put in at Glastonia, at the time
when King Melvas was reigning in the summer country. He was received with much
welcome by the abbot of Glastonia, and taught the brethren and the scattered
people, sowing the precious seed of heavenly doctrine. It was there that he wrote the history of the Kings of Britain.
Glastonia, that is, the glassy city, which took its name from glass, is a city that had its name
originally in the British tongue. It was besieged by the tyrant Arthur with a
countless multitude on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, whom the aforesaid
wicked King had violated and carried off, and brought there for protection,
owing to the asylum afforded by the invulnerable position due to the
fortifications of thickets of reed, river, and marsh. The rebellious King had
searched for the queen throughout the course of one year, and at last heard
that she remained there. Thereupon he roused the armies of the whole of
Cornubia and Dibneria; war was prepared between the enemies.
When he saw this, the abbot of Glastonia, attended
by the clergy and Gildas the Wise, stepped in between the contending armies,
and in a peaceable manner advised his King, Melvas, to restore the ravished
lady. Accordingly, she who was to be restored, was restored in peace and good
will. When these things were done, the two Kings gave the abbot a gift of many
domains; and they came to visit the temple
of St. Mary and to pray, while the abbot confirmed the beloved brotherhood
in return for peace they enjoyed and the benefits which they conferred, and
were more abundantly about to confer. Then the Kings reconciled, promising
reverently to obey the most venerable abbot of Glastonia, and never violate the
most sacred place nor even the districts adjoining the chief's seat.
When he had
obtained permission from the abbot of Glastonia and his clergy and people, the
most devout Gildas desired to live a hermit's life upon the bank of a river
close to Glastonia, and he actually accomplished his object. He built a church
there in the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, in which he fasted and
prayed assiduously, clad in goat's hair, giving to all an irreproachable
example of a good religious life. Holy men used to visit him from distant parts
of Britain, and when advised, returned and cherished with delight the
encouragements and counsels they had heard from him.
He fell sick at last, and was weighed down with
illness. He summoned the abbot of Glastonia to him, and asked him, with great
piety, when the end of his life had come, to cause his body to be borne to the
abbey of Glastonia, which he loved exceedingly. When the abbot promised to
observe his requests, and was grieved at the requests he had heard, and shed
copious tears, St. Gildas, being now very ill, expired, while many were looking
at the angelic brightness around his fragrant body, and angels were attending
upon his soul. After the mournful words of commemoration were over, the very
light body was removed by the brethren into the abbey; and amid very loud
wailing and with the most befitting funeral rites, he was buried in the middle
of the pavement of St. Mary's church; and his soul rested, rests, and will
rest, in heavenly repose. Amen.
Glastonia was of old called Ynisgutrin, and is
still called so by the British inhabitants. Ynis in the British language is insula in Latin, and gutrin (made of glass). But after the
coming of the English and the expulsion of the Britons, that is, the Welsh, it
received a fresh name, Glastigberi, according to the formation of the first
name, that is English glass,
Latin vitrum, and beria a city; then Glastinberia, that
is, the City of Glass.
Caradoc of Nancarban's are the words; Who reads, may he correct; so wills the
author.
In the so called dialogue of Arthur and Gwenhwyfar
discussed by Evan Jones and Mary Williams it cannot be established who in fact
say’s what. The fact that Melwas may be in Devon or Arthur is there in Devon in
disguise, as some believe the poem alludes to…. or Gwenhwyfar has seen one or
the other in Devon; it makes no difference:
Gwenhyfar
I
have seen a man of moderate size
At Arthur's long table in Devon
Dealing out wine to his friends
Melwas
Gwenhwyvar of facetious speech
It is woman's nature to banter:
There it is thou didst me see.
The fact that it has Melvas, Arthur, Guinevere, and Devon
in this dialogue is indicative that it is a Blois invention. More importantly,
Melvas says he is Melwas from Ineswitrin (not Avalon), so, it does not take
much imagination to deduce who the author is and why Devon is mentioned. (It is
because of its link to Ineswitrin on the 601 charter).
We know that the kidnap
episode is an invention in which Melvas and Arthur are at Glastonbury; and we
know the fabricator of the Life of Gildas
which mentions this story is Henry Blois. The one person who is entirely
culpable of changing the Devonian island of Ineswitrin into a location at
Glastonbury is Henry Blois as we discussed earlier when scrutinising what William
had written about the 601 charter. Therefore, even if the sense has now been
misunderstood, the original dialogue was undoubtedly composed by Henry and the
long table obviously preceded the advent of the round table.
We now have Arthur at Glastonbury and the St. Mary
dedication of the old church extended to the time of Gildas and Arthur. We are
deluded into thinking the ‘virginem adorandam’ of the Melkin prophecy or the
Chapel of ‘our lady’ in Perlesvaus (the
Isle of Avalon, to a chapel of Our Lady), is synonymous with the ’Old
church’, now referred to as the oratory in an attempt to mirror the words in
the Melkin prophecy. Both coincidentally appear to refer to the same place i.e.
Glastonbury.
In the last paragraph of
Life of Gildas (we are led to
believe) is the explanation of how Ineswitrin becomes synonymous Glastonbury.
Ineswitrin is the Devonian Island being misconstrued as Glastonbury by Henry to
establish antiquity for the abbey from the Charter.
The 601 charter refers to an island in Devon named after its connection
with tin (as we covered earlier). This in reality links to Joseph of Arimathea;
to which island Melkin’s geometry locates…. and which Melkin says Jesus
(Abbadare) and Joseph are buried upon. Abbadare is the mysterious Grail…. and
its connection to Joseph is derived from the prophecy of Melkin.
Through the Monk of Ruys’ account of the Life of Gildas, plausibility is set up
for the confusion of Gildas’ island being connected to Glastonbury. Neither
Caradoc’s account of St. Cadoc, nor the Monk from Ruys’ Life of Gildas, mention Glastonbury or put either of the saints
there. After concocting the life of
Gildas, Henry, (always taking liberties with the truth) thinks: why not have
Gildas buried at Glastonbury as well? It is not so much an officine de faux but un homme de mensonges.
Henry was in Wales in 1136. He must have obtained a copy
of
Caradoc’s Latin versions of the Vita
Cadoci and the ‘Chronicle of the Princes’ or Brut y Tywysogion. The
topography learnt on that trip and the inspiration gleaned from the Vita
Cadoci about Arthur was put to good use while Henry was acting as vice
regent for his brother Stephen in Normandy in the entire year of 1137 and the
first half of 1138. Of Course this is how the Primary Historia was found
at Bec the following year.
We witnessed in GS that Stephen chases Baldwin to the Isle of Wight and
afterward, Baldwin is exiled and crosses to Normandy. William of Corbeil dies
on 21st of November 1136 and Henry Blois becomes Archbishop of
Canterbury in waiting. (Henry had spent sometime in 1136 in Wales and I believe was at the siege of Kidwelly). Orderic informs
us that in Advent of 1136 Henry Blois went to Normandy and was content to stay
there while he sent envoys to search out pope Innocent at Pisa. We know also
from Gervaise that Henry: was elected
metropolitan. But since by cannon law a bishop can only be translated from his
own see to another church by the authority of the pope...
Henry
gets involved with events in Normandy and Stephen then joins Henry in Normandy from mid-March until the
28th of November 1137. Stephen departed from his brother in Normandy
and Henry still thought that when he returned to England he would be Archbishop
of Canterbury.
It was while Henry was still in Normandy and after Stephen had
returned to England that the backstabbing Beaumont twins counselled Stephen to
curb Henry’s increasing power. Sometime between December 1137 and the start of
the siege of Bedford, Henry returned to England. Waleran of Meulan, the lay
patron of Bec was attempting to put his own man in the second most powerful
position in England. Waleran and his twin brother Robert, Earl of Leicester,
were Henry's chief rivals for Stephen's favour. Henry looked on them as
unreliable toady flatterers. Both were
disliked by Henry Blois intensely.
Theobald of Bec, probably not by
coincidence, travelled to England in 1138 to supervise the monastery of Bec’s
lands in England; a trip which took place shortly before his selection as the
new Archbishop of Canterbury in 1138.
So, just before Christmas in 1136 (after having been in Wales at
Kidwelly) Henry crossed the channel and stayed all of 1137 in Normandy on his
brother’s behalf to quell the Angevin strife in Normandy stirred up by Baldwin
and the Empress Matilda. It is in Normandy during this period that the Arthurian legend
is spliced onto an already constructed faux-Historia
which had originally been written for Henry’s uncle and his daughter Matilda
(but subsequently had become redundant as Henry had put his brother on the throne).
It is not silly to speculate that Henry stays at Bec
abbey in the first half of 1138 where he deposits his Primary Historia under the newly invented nom de plume of ‘Galfridus Artur’. At this stay at Bec, we might
speculate that Henry Blois relates to Theobald (still abbot of Bec at that
time) what plans he has in store for the English Church once he becomes
Archbishop. As I have mentioned before, it was Henry’s intention to set up a
state based on Gregorian values with himself head of the church. It seems just
too coincidental that Theobald becomes Henry’s replacement and that Theobald
did not have something to do with Henry being snubbed by King Stephen for that position.
The question is: did Theobald scupper Henry’s plans by relating to Stephen
(through Waleran) some confidence or other which Henry had discussed with
Theobald in relation to Henry’s future plans? If this is the case, it might
explain the coincidence that Theobald was duly rewarded with the Archbishopric.
