The interpolative works of Henry Blois

Please go to the new 2019 updated website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/




This is an extract from a 2 volume work published in 2015 by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot called the Island of Avalon which shows that it was Henry Blois who was the real author of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain and the Inventor of the Prophecies of Merlin.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdt_img_top?ie=UTF8

Henry Blois’ interpolations and impersonations

There are several tracts composed by Henry Blois which fall under our investigation before Henry left in self-imposed exile to his old monastery at Clugny in 1155. There are additional later interpolations to certain manuscripts i.e. DA…. and others entirely composed from scratch. All the manuscripts are very different. The impersonation which concerns us for the moment includes the books supposedly written by Geoffrey of Monmouth. These, as we have covered, are Henry’s Primary Historia deposited at Bec which is followed by the First Variant version with an early set of prophecies resulting in the eventual production of the Vulgate HRB with fully updated prophecies. Henry writing as Gaufridus entitled his work De Gestis Britonum and he refers to it by this title rather than by what it goes under in the Vulgate version. Presently modern scholars assume little difference between those editions. They do not understand the evolving progression of the Historia in its three forms (or four if one includes the initial pseudo-history) and why the First Variant is less anti-Roman and contains more biblical references than the Vulgate version. Nor can they account for the modification of several speeches made by 'Geoffrey’s' characters.  Scholarship has not understood the progression and warping of the prophecies from an original libellous Merlin through to the inclusion of prophecies which spoke of events in the Anarchy which date to around 1149 and the further warping of those prophecies and the addition of new ones up until 1155.

Another impersonation by Henry Blois is evident in Caradoc of Llancarfan’s life of Gildas where Arthur is brought into association with Glastonbury and so is Gildas. The two other tracts which concern us are by William of Malmesbury.  There are small scale Glastonbury interpolations into William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum  (version b)which I will show complement the interpolations in DA.  The very influential interpolations are found in the first 34 chapters of DA. The interpolations into DA constitute two phases of interpolation at different times and for different purposes…. both by Henry Blois.  Henry Blois’ first agenda is simply in pursuit of metropolitan status for himself. Henry combines interpolations in DA with his other interpolations of William’s work which concern Glastonbury found in GR3 and were composed pre-1155. A second set of interpolations are seen in DA and involves the glorification of Henry’s own invention in HRB in the persona of the chivalric Arthur. Henry’s latter agenda also concerns Joseph of Arimathea.  The introduction of Joseph into Grail lore and his presence in Glastonbury lore was a consequence of Henry’s knowledge of two factors. Firstly, Henry knew Cornish tradition concerning Joseph of Arimathea.[1]  Secondly, Henry had seen the prophecy of Melkin which made mention of the future discovery of Joseph of Arimathea on Ineswitrin. Henry knew that Ineswitrin was in the old Dumnonia as the 601 charter plainly reveals. This was deduced on the fact that a Dumnonian King had donated an island with the same name in the 601 charter to the Old church at Glastonbury. Glastonbury was never part of Dumnonia. Henry believed what the prophecy foretold was true, but could not unlock its meaning. He had gone looking for the body thinking it really was at Montacute (guided by the same ‘carefully hidden’ information) and Henry had also thought the relics of Joseph of Arimathea might be on Looe Island as this had a Joseph tradition and it was in the old Dumnonia when Devon and Cornwall were one. We must remember he knew he was looking for an island because it was him who swapped the name of Ineswitrin on the Melkin prophecy for Avalon (Insula Avallonis).

Henry, as the man who composed his own history in the First Variant to align with Insular annals and Roman chronicles to an extent; then later throws caution to the wind in the Vulgate HRB with anti-Roman speeches and specifically portrays a storyline contrary to what the Roman annals had recorded. Henry had demeaned himself with his previous petitions to Rome and it’s popes in an attempt to gain metropolitan status.  He had once thought of setting up a Gregorian state with his brother as King. Ever since, he had been thwarted by his brother and subsequently lost his ‘Legation’, he had been struggling to establish his own powerbase. Henry understood that if the body of Joseph of Arimathea was found, Rome would no longer have the self-professed primacy and authority over the church in Britain.  This factor should be considered when (as I covered earlier), Henry Blois is the first person to define that the ‘New Jerusalem’ is in Britain. This, again, is intonated in the Prophecy of Melkin.[2]  It must have been Henry who made the addition to his VM, (a copy of which is no longer extant) but from which John of Glastonbury copied when quoting a verse from VM[3] which likened Glastonbury to the New Jerusalem through the implication that Glastonbury Tor is the holy hill. ‘This was the New Jerusalem, the faith’s refinement, a holy hill, celebrated as the ladder of Heaven. He scarcely pays the penalty of hell who lies buried here’.

My point is that Henry did believe the prophecy and the fact that the ‘Uncle’ of Jesus brought an object to Britain and the sepulchre was specified to be on an island. Once he had invented his Avalon in HRB, inspired indirectly by the prophecy from the ‘Ines’ or Island of ‘Witrin’ found in the original Prophecy…. Henry then converted both to be at Glastonbury. Henry’s second agenda entailed introducing Joseph to Glastonbury; just as he propagated Joseph material into continental Grail literature and orally implanted storyline elements at the court of Champagne. These elements were then confirmed and partially corroborated through his interpolations in DA.    

As we covered, Henry decided he would provide a noble pre-history for the Britons which ran contrary to what he knew from Roman annals. His pseudo-history, (originally destined for Matilda) was expanded to include the Arthuriad.  He set out to expand and romanticize the briefly mentioned Celtic Briton hero of Arthur found in the saints lives, the echo of which remained in popular culture in the form of an oral tradition of the ‘hope of the Britons’.  Henry, as Tatlock points out based much of Arthur's British campaigns against the Saxons on what hs own Grandfather William the Conqueror had done when he invaded Britain.

 Henry used as a template for the Life of Gildas the genuine life of St Cadoc, one of the saint’s lives mentioning Arthurus.  Henry also knew of the French rumours of a descendant heritage from Troy (after all, Henry’s father was the Count of Troyes). Henry also had read Nennius’ account and the brief reference in AC; and it is upon this flimsy foundation that the chivalric Arthur of HRB was constructed along with the bogus inter-relation of Ambrosius from the insular annals of Bede and Gildas. At the point in Nennius, where Vortigern features, the Arthuriad is introduced in HRB; just as Merlin and the prophecies are spliced later (at the same place) in HRB where the two serpents appear in Nennius’ account. However, only a singular Arthur is revealed in the Primary Historia with no mention of Merlin.  The prophecies are inserted along with Merlin into the same point in the narrative where originally the Arthur story was spliced in. What is incredible is that modern scholars are still taken in by Henry Blois’ device.

One would have to be silly not to understand that if ‘Geoffrey’ was in mid flow in the composition of his historia (in reality), when Alexander pressed him to translate the prophecies of Merlin, (and we know the composition of the prophecies are entirely a medieval construct)…. how is it that the prophecies so neatly align with the second half of Geoffrey’s history? Geoffrey sets us up in the Vulgate version by saying: I had not come so far as this place of my history, when by reason of the much talk that was made about Merlin, my contemporaries did on every side press me to make public an edition of his prophecies, and more especially Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, a man of the highest piety and wisdom. Nor was there none other, whether he were cleric or layman, that did retain so many knights or nobles in his household, whom his gentle holiness of life and bountiful kindliness did allure into his service. Wherefore, for that he it was whom I did most earnestly desire to please above all other, I did translate the prophecies and did send them unto him along with a letter unto this effect.

There are few other contemporaries that Henry Blois detested more than Alexander. Simply by backdating the ‘translation’ of the prophecies to appear to have been written under Alexander’s commission averts suspicion that some were more modern. The flattery is entirely a ploy. Henry hated and mistrusted Alexander…. so how could any one suspect him of authorship, especially when the commission is so adeptly retro dated by about 6 or seven years from 1155 when  Vulgate HRB was produced…. and knowing Alexander died in 1148. But, similar ploys are utilised in the colophon establishing contemporaneity of 'Geoffrey' with Caradoc and such ploys are found in the GS where Henry Blois implicates himself in attempting to bribe the keeper of Henry Ist treasure[4] at Winchester…. to avoid suspicion of authorship.  We can see the same obfuscatory device being used in that…. the last person who would be suspected of earnestly desiring to please Alexander i.e. Henry, would never be suspected of writing: The affection I bear unto thy nobility, Alexander, Prelate of Lincoln, hath compelled me to translate the Prophecies of Merlin out of the British into Latin before I had made an end of the History I had begun as concerning the acts of the British Kings; for my purpose was to have finished that first, and afterward to have published this present work, for fear lest, both labours hanging on my hands at once, my wit should scarce be sufficient for either.

It need not be explained that it would be truly fortuitous that Alexander’s commission transpired at the very point in the text at which we chronologically reach Vortigern. As I have maintained, Geoffrey had constructed his Historia to that point and adjoined (or more probably expanded) the Arthuriad after having been to Wales in 1136 and while taking care of troubles in Normandy in 1137. The resultant Primary Historia was deposited at Bec in 1138 and discovered in January 1139.  Merlin or his prophecies did not exist in the copy seen by Huntingdon at Bec because his précis would nothave omitted mention of them or Merlin.  We know that Henry Blois was at the siege of Bedford from the eyewitness descriptions in the GS. Merlin and the prophecies existed as a separate libellu Merlini.. The early prophecies are reflected in the Orderic interpolation (obviously without the ‘sixth in Ireland' prophecy just as Abbot Suger witnesses). These, however, are probably not all that were contained in the original set contained in the Libellus Merlini. The First Variant version (not dedicated) which dates from 1144 probably existed with the first set of prophecies which did not include the prophecies connected to the later part of the Anarchy and certainly not the ‘sixth in Ireland’ prophecy. What we can conclude from this is that the exemplar from which all the eight subsequent copies of the First Variant derive, have had the latest set of prophecies added which must post date 1155. There is no doubt that that the Exeter copy has had later additions at the beginning (1-3) and with the dedication to Alexander (109-110) which could not have been in any manuscript until after Alexander had died in 1148.  The Cardiff manuscript has the full prologue dedication to Gloucester so is most likely a correction. What we can be sure of is that; because Alexander is not mentioned in the Exeter, Trinity College, Harley or Panton First Variant manuscripts….they were written before Alexander died. However, Henry could have made any adjustment or added the updated prophecies to the First Variant at any stage post 1155.

In Huntingdon’s précis of the Primary Historia found at Bec there is no mention of Archflamens…. only the twenty eight bishops; and certainly no mention of Phagan and Deruvian. The reason for this is because as far as Henry Blois knows, when he is writing the Primary Historia in 1137 and at the time he deposits the book at Bec in 1138…. he is going to be Archbishop of Canterbury. Therefore, we can deduce the subsequent mention of Archbishops (archflamens) is bound up with his polemic of a third archbishopric. We can also deduce that if Phagan and Deruvian had been mentioned in the Primary Historia, Huntingdon would definitely have related to his friend Warin.... those who were supposedly responsible for proselytising Britain. Huntingdon, in the entourage of the newly appointed Archbishop Theobald, on a trip to pick up the pallium from Rome, was the first who commented on the Primary Historia which had been put there just six months before by Henry; either secretively, or donating it as having been written by one Galfridus Arthur. We can assume Robert of Torigni had already read it and commended its contents to Huntingdon. The banality of providing the author of the Primary Historia with a surname of the main protagonist of HRB is indicative that Henry Blois never expected he would employ the tract in a fraud of such huge scale later in life or spend time having to cover his own tracks as the author by inventing such a detailed proof of a persona in ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’. Hence, Henry’s later attempt to put flesh on Gaufridus’ bones as ‘Geoffrey’ and the more respectable and credible author, the bishop of Asaph.

Both Phagan and Deruvian and the three archflamens only become useful to the polemic of the storyline when the First Variant version was presented at Rome putting forward a case for metropolitan.  The First Variant showed that there had been three metropolitans at an earlier date. Phagan and Deruvian were obviously put forward in the Charter of St Patrick and their existence corroborated elsewhere in DA. Only when Henry is in pursuit of metropolitan status does he contrive St. Patrick’s charter in DA along with Phagan and Deruvian; and then insert their names into First Variant HRB along with the precedent of an ancient and third metropolitan in Caerleon/Menevia.[5]  So, no third metropolitan is an issue at the time of composition of the Primary Historia and therefore: archflamens do not appear as a topic (just 28 bishops[6]) in Huntingdon’s letter to Warin.

We can never know the exact chronology of when St Patrick’s charter was written because in the GR3 (Glastonbury interpolations of Version B) Henry sets out an apostolic foundation at Glastonbury as grounds for metropolitan status in the early successful petition to the pope in 1144. The several attempts at gaining Metropolitan status are the reason for contradictory Glastonbury foundation material in DA. The Apostolic foundation followed by the Phagan and Deruvian foundation was again later contradicted as Henry introduced Joseph into lore post 1158 and thus, we have three separate foundation possibilities for Glastonbury.  It is therefore probable that Henry presented (the first time) his case to pope Lucius with his initial gambit of an apostolic foundation at Glastonbury interpolated into DA.  It is surely the reason for the GR3 (version B) Glastonbury interpolations.  Phagan and Deruvian’s names as envoys and citing the three archbishops which are included in the First Variant (not in Primary Historia) is a direct result of Henry Blois’ agenda in gaining metropolitan. First Variant was presented and was combined with corroborating evidence in DA. The First Variant probably contained a prophecy foretelling of the reinstatement of the third metropolitan also. There is a possibility that the initial form of the First Variant was presented to papal authorities without Merlin or prophecies included but these were then added to that evolving exemplar after 1144. Whether or not Merlin was a part of the (first) First Variant can only be conjectured. Certainly at some stage after 1139 Merlin and his prophecies were added to Primary Historia to become part of the evolving First Variant.

 Only after the metropolitan was denied by Pope Eugenius was the Patrick charter concocted. The only reason I posit this is that the GR3 apostolic foundation seems to illogically contradict the grounds for Lucius’ need to send missionaries. But, as it stands, Phagan and Deruvian are the ‘restorers’ of an existing Church and part of Henry’s original interpolation meant to convince the pope of Glastonbury’s early establishment which would confirm its Primacy over Canterbury. I will cover this in detail under the chapter on DA, because two other facts would indicate the St Patrick charter was not put forward to the pope as evidence. Firstly the ridiculous indulgences found therein and the fact that the pope could check records whether a grant was given. At least we know the charter of St Patrick was originally a Blois invention by use of his names Phagan and Deruvian inserted in HRB…. and the charter actually existed (in gold lettering).  The St Patrick charter may have been interpolated in its middle section at a later date after Henry’s death, because the mention of Wellias was included. Most commentators have thought his name relevant to the dispute of the Bishop of Wells’ authority over Glastonbury. Even that is uncertain…. as Wellias provides substance to the supposed antiquity of the charter in that it gives the eponym of a town nearby to Glastonbury. One thing we know about Henry in his impersonation of Geoffrey…. is his love of providing eponyms in HRB.

However, it is entirely possible that the St Patrick charter was only produced at Glastonbury and was never used as evidence, but this is slightly illogical as the charter was said to have been ‘copied’ in gold lettering so it would seem as if it existed (as a copy) but was most emphatically a composition of Henry’s.  Scott’s assessment that the keeping of two copies indicates a date of composition after the fire does not hold as definitive. Scott assumes the reasoning behind stating a copy was made, explains how it had turned up at Glastonbury abbey…. Presumably (in reality), we are supposed to believe the copy was found after William searched the chest of old charters. Logically, the St Patrick charter could not be posited as having come from the St Michael chapel on the tor from such an ancient date and therefore the need for a copy and its survival…. because it was written in Gold. One certainty is that it is Henry Blois who includes the St Patrick Charter in DA…. just as it is Henry that coalesces its postscript concerning Avalon when he does his final consolidation in DA…. after his introduction of Joseph lore at Glastonbury and his final consolidation of the various agendas which are witnessed in chapters 1&2 of DA. 

Henry had heard much about Arthur and read a vague tradition concerning him in saints’ lives and in Nennius while researching his initial pseudo-history for Matilda. Originally, for the recently conquered populace in Britain, Arthur was someone who was a warlord who Henry Blois transposes from Gildas and Bede’s[7] account of Ambrosius Aurelianus to a King of Briton. Even though many readers of ‘Geoffrey’ were descendant of the Saxons and Normans, Henry is careful to relate that his Arthur was against the Romans. This change from the First Variant (where there is little anti-Roman sentiment witnessed in the speeches) is opened up to vitriolic national pride in several speeches in the later Vulgate. It is not coincidental that this change of attitude is reflected to incorporate the Gauls as party to Arthur’s efforts against the Romans and could be a reflection of why Henry (when impersonating Wace by writing the Roman de Brut), finishes what he had already started (a French vernacular versified version) by completing his vernacular edition with the Vulgate version of speeches and anti Roman sentiment etc. This storyline would have been more inclusive toward the continental audience to which the work was aimed.

Henry’s original pseudo-history (destined for Matilda) would probably have been less detrimental to the Saxons as Matilda’s mother was one; and obviously references such as the German worm found in the prophecies were not even thought of at that stage. The original pseudo-history evolved to the Primary Historia. With the introduction of the prophecies however, the Saxons were looked upon with such scathing distain. Henry presents the Normans as the saviours of Britain in the early prophecies when King Stephen is alive. After his death in the recently updated set of prophecies in 1155 when he incites a rebellion against Henry II by the Celts, it is predicted the Normans will be replaced by the original inhabitants i.e. the Celts with their adopted son (Henry Blois) in charge. This becomes painfully obvious in the JC version, which I shall cover in chapter 30.

Henry aggrandises Arthur’s status and embellishes his acts and purposely conflates his persona with Gildas’ and Bede’s Ambrosius. This could only be achieved by someone who knew that there was little more information to be collated than that found in GR and who had the education, craft, wit, artistic temperament and opportunity to carry out an endeavour which innocently started as a romanticized history of Britain destined for the future Queen. Eventually it turned into a fraud, especially, by assuming the authorial pseudonym of Galfridus Artur. The creation of the persona of ‘Geoffrey’ and the background details to cover Henry’s tracks was probably due to Henry having written the updated prophecies c.1155. Certainly ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ is a subsequent appellation invented after Galfridus Artur. It seems a remarkable coincidence that ‘Geoffrey’ dies the same year that the most recent prophecies are proliferated which incite rebellion. No-one prior to 1155 mentions Geoffrey of Monmouth by that name. As we covered, the act of ‘Geoffrey’ signing all those charters in Oxford in 1153 transpired after Wallingford.

Alfred of Beverley writing in 1148-51 calls ‘Geoffrey’ ‘Brittanicus’ probably because of the ‘Brito’ reference and the fact that Henry appears to be taking the partisan view of a pro-Briton by recording such an illustrious history for the Britons. We could speculate that ‘Geoffrey’s’  supposed elevation to Bishop in 1152 and his death in 1155 were brought about and deemed timely, because the final Vulgate version was born with newly reworked prophecies…. with the incendiary calls for insurrection by the Celts against Henry II. Hence, when the finalised and updated version of the prophetia (i.e. inclusive of the sixth in Ireland) were spliced into the present Vulgate Historia ( which was in essence an evolved re-crafted Primary Historia and First Variant), the ‘bona fide’ and respectable, but untraceable Bishop of Asaph as author had already expired. In other words, post 1149 (Henry’s last attempt at metropolitan) the First Variant became less ‘highbrow’ and ‘churchy’ and more of a novel in the form of the Vulgate in which the fiction came to be a history which was pro-British along with pro-Celtic prophecies.   Henry disregarded the necessity to chime with previous histories and his attempt to parallel known chronologies and events in annals as he had tried to maintain in the First Variant.  He re-worked the religious tone and quotes and the speeches were re-crafted to a more fictional history where no consideration was taken to avoid offence to Roman sensitivity.  Furthermore, what innocently started as an innocuous endeavour as a pseudo-history c.1128-29, was first employed as evidence in gaining metropolitan and latterly used by a disempowered Henry Blois between the years of 1155-1158 as an attempt (through the Merlin Prophecies) to de-throne Henry II without any trace of such a design or culpability sticking to him.

 Henry was in an opportune position to make it appear as if the HRB was written by Gaufridus Artur (who had then become known as Geoffrey of Monmouth) who had subsequently become bishop of Asaph and was a party to the signing of the Winchester treaty. It was believed by most that the prophecies must have been translated by ‘Geoffrey’ as they were dedicated to Alexander before 1148, but both Alexander and the Bishop of Asaph were now dead.  The dedications in the HRB proved ostensibly that the book had been written long before 1148.  But, there were no dedications in the First Variant simply because the dedicatees were still alive, but importantly, Henry at this stage had only produced a few copies. It was only at the inclusion of the malicious prophecies that Henry really started to cover his tracks…. as the author was now already dead.

Henry’s cleverness at back dating was the main reason no suspicion ever fell upon him during his lifetime and because he made a very believable persona for Geoffrey. He had also substantiated in several ways the credibility of some of the History in HRB by corroborating it in other tracts. However, when we look at the Blois-Glastonbury interpolations in version B of GR3 we can see they pertain to a period straight after William’s death and coincide with the earliest corroborative interpolations in DA which posit an apostolic foundation. The cause of much of the confusion is that in two of the charters in the C version of GR3 there is even later interpolation after Henry’s death which adds even further leaf to the salad…. and this is why modern scholarship has apportioned all interpolations in DA after the fire, never considering the author of Arthuriana and interpolated Glastonburyana in DA were by the same man. To put things in historical perspective; there were no less than eight popes from the time Henry Blois was made Bishop of Winchester.

1)15 December 1124– 13 February 1130:   Honorius II

2) 14 February 1130– 24 September 1143: Innocent II (Anacletus[8])

3) 26 September 1143– 8 March 1144:       Celestine II

4) 12 March 1144– 15 February 1145:         Lucius II

5) 15 February 1145– 8 July 1153:              Eugene III

6) 8 July 1153– 3 December 1154:              Anastasius IV

7) 4 December 1154– 1 September 1159:    Adrian IV

8) 7 September 1159– 30 August 1181:       Alexander III

Henry held the post of Legate from 1139-43 granted by Innocent II. Before the news arrived in England of Innocent’s death, Henry was holding a legatine council in London in November but then set out immediately for Rome in the hope of renewing the legation. Archbishop Theobald had already set out having had enough of his suffragan bishop as legate and tried to obtain the Legation for himself. Pope Celestine had been educated amongst the inhabitants of Anjou and designed to strengthen their hands by the abasement of King Stephen; on which ground he was excited to a dislike of Henry Bishop of Winchester.[9]

 Henry was not given the legation and stayed at Clugny for a while probably annoyed at events and those of the Cistercians that conspired against him. However, Celestine lived just a short while and Lucius II was more amenable to Henry Blois. Henry of course wanted the legation but realised that it was only for the life of the pope and to be more secure in his powerbase, attempted to raise Winchester into a metropolitan See over Salisbury, Exeter, Wells, and Chichester, Hereford and Worcester and also creating a new bishopric for Hyde abbey. Now, to convince pope Lucius of Henry’s worthiness to be granted metropolitan status, certain proofs would be necessary and this is the main cause of Henry’s interpolative endeavour into William of Malmesbury’s GR and DA. I shall cover why and when certain interpolations were added to William’s work in the next chapters. However, GR3 (with interpolations) and DA (with apostolic foundation interpolations) were produced in a case put forward as a proof of antiquity. Further evidential support probably backed up by much which was written about Winchester and its early monastic roots (in HRB) and the fact there were three Archflamens etc. found in First Variant were duly provided as evidence of primacy.

Pope Lucius, as well as granting Henry his metropolitan over the western part of England, also conferred papal privileges at the same time on Glastonbury itself, obviously convinced of its great antiquity by the written evidences put forward by Henry of Western Britain’s right to primacy.[10]  So as John of Hexham relates: Bishop Henry found favour in his sight, and refuted the criminal charges of those whom the empress had sent against him, but nevertheless, he did not continue to hold the title and office of legate.[11]  Lucius II however, denied the legation to Theobald also, because of the endless enmity that existed between them. As I covered earlier, the enmity was initially caused by Henry’s brother Stephen having given the Archbishopric of Canterbury to Theobald of Bec in late 1138, after Henry had stood in as Archbishop since 1136 since William of Corbeil had died. The blame for this underhanded volte face by his brother and the pique it caused Henry could not be suppressed, as we saw in GS. The cause was the Beaumont twins, whispering in the ear of Stephen, guarding him against giving Henry too much power. Henry felt, after having installed his brother as King, that he deserved the highest position in the church.

Now, we must just deviate slightly, because, as I have maintained, Henry Blois wrote the Life of Gildas. We know that Henry is the one who commissioned the ‘Kidnap of Guinevere’ engraving on the Modena Archivolt…. and the Cathedral itself was finished by 1140 (according to the experts). William’s unadulterated DA had not proven such a success in providing adequate proof of Antiquity for Glastonbury except for the evidence provided by the 601 charter. So, an earlier date of antiquity could be more easily believed if a datable Gildas was known to be at Glastonbury and preceded Augustine’s arrival. The Life of Gildas also provided the added benefit of building more of an authenticated credible historicity for the chivalric King Arthur by the testimony of another author validating the existence of chivalric Arthur with wife. These illusions were easily fabricated by using the name of a now dead Caradoc. ‘Caradoc’s Life of Gildas was certainly written before 1144[12] because Henry’s interpolation into GR3 casually mentions Gildas at Glastonbury as if such a detail were inconsequential. We know the GR3 interpolations were realised to coincide with the apostolic foundation interpolations in DA in 1144.  Gildas at Glastonbury was expanded upon in DA, but let it be understood that Gildas was never at Glastonbury writing his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae.Gildas had already emigrated to Brittany where he founded a monastery known as St Gildas de Rhuys. The 9th century Rhuys Life of Gildas is generally accepted as being the more accurate as an account of Gildas’ life and Caradoc’s version should be looked upon as having no validity at all…. but is an invention of Henry’s.

The point of mentioning this is that if the date for the completion of the archivolt is correct, Henry must have drummed up his Melvas and Arthur concoction in which Gildas intervenes in the fictional episode at Glastonbury, prior to when he had the opportunity to interpolate William’s work after his death in 1143.  So, we can deduce that the fabricated Life of Gildas was concocted in response to Canterbury taunts in the abbey lacking antiquity. Life of Gildas was composed then as a rebuttal to ostensibly prove an ecclesiastical establishment at Glastonbury (with an abbot) in antiquity…. but opportunely bolstered the historical persona of the chivalric Arthur. However, logically, the Life of Gildas must pre date the 1144 interpolations of William’s work if the dates for the archivolt completion of 1140 are correct. Also one telling sign that the Life of Gildas was fabricated as one of the first of Henry’s forays into the dark art of forgery is the fact that the etymology of Ineswitrin can be easily recognised as an addition to the main Life of Gildas manuscript. The last paragraph which contains the bogus etymology is a later insertion, tagged on to a previously written Life of Gildas. The last paragraph only has one use…. and that is to substantiate the 601 charter. Because, in effect through the etymology, Ineswitrin becomes an estate on the island of Glastonbury; the charter donating a Devonian Island, appears to relate to the locality of Glastonbury. The same polemic concerning Ineswitrin at Glastonbury is obviously re-introduced later by Henry at the concoction of the charter of St Patrick just for the appearance of continuity. In other words in 1144, the 601 charter was hugely important in establishing the antiquity of Glastonbury, but only if it were understood that Ineswitrin was the old name for Glastonbury. However, it was not!

It appears therefore that the Life of Gildas was initially used to lend credibility to a Gildas story at Glastonbury and also having the added benefit of substantiating a fictional chivalric King Arthur.  The later insertion at the end of the Life of Gildas was employed to add credence to the 601 charter in the case for Henry’s metropolitan in 1144.  We can conclude then; initially the reasoning behind the composition of the Life of Gildas had nothing to do with a pursuit of metropolitan. At this early stage William of Malmesbury would have uncovered the 601 charter around 1130-4 and only later was the etymological corroboration employed in Life of Gildas to substantiate the 601 charter. So it appears that Life of Gildas was employed before William’s death and after William’s researches at Glastonbury were concluded. In my opinion Life of Gildas was written after William had moved away from Glastonbury between 1135-9.    

However, after William’s death, Henry had the time to interpolate William’s most recent version of GR. This is the version which contains the Glastonbury interpolations in version B of GR3 which modern scholars naively believe are William’s words. Henry also concocted an amazing array of evidence in DA showing the pre-existence of a church in Western England prior to St Augustine’s arrival. The arrival of Augustine in 597 AD is what Canterbury’s primacy was founded upon.

Since Pope Lucius II only held the post of pope just over a year from 1144-1145, it shows that there was ample time to concoct evidence in William’s GR3 and DA before a presentation in Rome. It required only a few insertions into GR and in all probability Henry had the only copy of DA to exist after William had presented it to him. Bishop Henry…set out for Rome, the year of his departure I cannot definitely place. But he obtained from the pope that the bishopric of Winchester should be created an archbishopric, the abbey of Hyde a bishopric and the bishop of Chichester should be subject to him. He did this on account of the incessant strife which continued between the bishop and the archbishop of Canterbury. For the legate wished to be considered greater than the archbishop and the archbishop greater than the legate.[13]

The continual struggle between Theobald and Henry went on for years each time the pope changed: before the completion of this year the archbishop of Canterbury having had ordinary jurisdiction over the bishop of Winchester and he exercising the power of his legation from Rome over the archbishop, these two persons clashed against each other; and the peace of the churches being disturbed, they repaired to the Roman pontiff, bringing a question grateful to the Roman ear, in proportion to its weight. One of them indeed gained the cause; but neither returned without exhausted purse.[14]

Ralph de Diceto relates that pope Lucius sent a pall to Henry bishop of Winchester to whom he had proposed to assign seven bishops.[15] Roger of Wendover puts the year at 1143, but this hardly seems time enough to re-arrange William of Malmesbury’s work in DA and GR to provide a convincing case for metropolitan: To this Henry, pope Lucius sent the pall, wishing to erect a new archbishopric at Winchester, and to place under him seven bishops.[16]

When Lucius died on February 25^th 1145, Eugenius III, a Cistercian and friend of Bernard of Clairvaux was against Henry’s struggle for metropolitan. Metropolitan status had been instituted officially but the investiture had not transpired before pope Lucius’s death and it was certainly not going to happen under Eugenius III. When Eugenius summoned all the bishops to a council in Rheims in March 1148 King Stephen had the pope’s envoys delivering the summons expelled from England.  It was also Pope Eugene III who presided over Canterbury's claim to primacy over the Welsh in Theobald's term of office. Eugene III decided in 1148 in Canterbury's favour against Henry’s friend Bernard who was after the same metropolitan status.  Bernard died in 1148 and this is why both Sees are mentioned in the prophecies updated version of 1155 because they had existed in the version which was present in the First Variant. However, King Stephen went to Canterbury and tried to prevent archbishop Theobald attending the council at Rheims. Gervaise rightly attributes this intervention to Henry Blois. Henry obviously got his way for a time, as Theobald was banished and a rapprochement took place between Henry and his brother Stephen. Theobald slipped out at night and crossed the channel to attend the council even though Stephen had the ports watched. Those that did not attend were suspended from office by Eugene III. Even though the other insular ecclesiastics were reinstated by Theobald the archbishop when he returned to England…. Henry Blois was singled out and could only be absolved by the pope. He therefore had to make another trip to Rome.  Henry Blois’ other brother, Count Theobald of Blois, was on friendly terms with the Cistercians and he negotiated that Henry would be able within a six month period to seek absolution from the pope for his meddling.

So, Henry arrived in front of the pope in 1149 and received absolution, but his plans to revive the already granted metropolitan were refused. Henry requested that he be freed from the jurisdiction of Canterbury obviously showing the evidence in support of his metropolitan with which he had convinced Lucius. On this second attempt in 1149 he may have thought it prudent to add more flesh to the claim by adding St. Patrick’s charter to DA. This is the most probable reason it seems to follow subsequently a previous apostolic polemic found posited in GR3 and fully embellished in DA i.e. this was the reason Phagan and Deruvian were employed in a second attempt.  The Patrick charter would of course coincide with author B’s tentative testimony of Patrick at Glastonbury. Henry would of course have Caradoc’s Life of Gildas testimony with the Ineswitrin etymology which substantiates the 601 charter. There would also be corroboration of Phagan and Deruvian from the First Variant HRB. If one adds this to both interpolated works of William of Malmesbury it must have made a compelling case.

However, Eugene III was not going to dilute Canterbury’s primacy or authority and Henry Blois was refused. Because of the personal envy between Henry and Theobald, Henry then asked for personal exemption from Theobald’s jurisdiction but this was also refused and it was obvious Eugene III was out to curb Henry’s power and ambitions spurred on by Bernard of Clairvaux.  John of Salisbury writes on Henry’s trip to Rome in 1149: After being publicly received back into favour, he began to intrigue with Guy of Summa, bishop of Ostia[17], Gregory of St Angelo[18] and other friends (as they afterward confessed) to secure a pallium for himself and become archbishop of western England.

 Just before this, (as I mentioned)…. because Archbishop Theobald had disobeyed King Stephen’s orders and attended the council of Rheims, he was ordered to leave the country upon his return…. and this was all driven by Henry Blois not obtaining his metropolitan and as John of Salisbury records for this period; Henry was believed to be instigating his brother the King against the church.[19]

Archbishop Theobald, through much wrangling and possible threats from the pope concerning the succession of King Stephen’s son Eustace, was allowed to return to England. However, Theobald was also granted the legation by Eugene III. It was during these turbulent times that the DA took on its first interpolations to comply with what I have called Henry’s ‘first agenda’.

To think the First Variant was not presented as a proof to papal authorities would be silly given that Henry had already written the Primary Historia and with a few changes…. it could act as historical evidence in his case for metropolitan. Glastonbury was not mentioned in HRB; Caradoc was a known historian, and William of Malmesbury work was well respected. Who would suspect Henry’s authorial input as the author/interpolator of these tracts?

 In many places, Henry refers to Winchester in HRB so that its antiquity is established. It was even founded at the same time as Canterbury should that be an objection in the contention over primacy: After him, reigned his son Hudibras nine-and-thirty years, who, after the civil dissensions, did restore concord among the people and founded Kaerlem, that is, Canterbury. He also founded Kaerguen, which is Winchester.[20] That Winchester had an ancient church was attested to by Henry’s bogus History: Constans, the eldest born, he made over to the church of Amphibalus in Winchester.[21] If Lucius II or Eugenius III had any doubts about whether the metropolitan should be granted, the most famous of British prophets had predicted such an occurrence: Hither, thou Cambria, and bringing Cornwall with thee at thy side, say unto Winchester: 'The earth shall swallow thee: transfer the see of the shepherd thither….[22]Examples of Henry’s polemic are many in both the prophetia and the narrative of HRB, but one should not forget he actually produced a very archaic 601 charter which proved the pre-existence of a religious institution prior to Augustine.

After all his attempts had been thwarted, post 1158 to re-establish his power in Britain, Henry hatched the plan to create a history that would challenge the primacy of Rome itself. One of the main tasks of this investigation is to answer the question; how did Henry Blois light upon the name of Joseph of Arimathea?  Joseph of Arimathea lore at Glastonbury did not materialise as the present scholastic community assumes.  Joseph lore at Glastonbury originated from the prophecy of Melkin.  But if the stupidity persists in denying the existence of the validity of the prophecy, the blind will continue to lead the blind. But, in Melkin’s prophecy is the twist of fate that until now has prevented anyone finding Ineswitrin, yet (through Henry Blois’ authorial inventions) has perpetuated the original reason for Joseph’s connection with the British Isles. Ineswitrin was not a known or identifiable location until Henry associated it with Glastonbury. So, Henry posing as Caradoc in his Life of Gildas had stated it is the ancient name for Glastonbury. However, Henry changed the truth of what the Melkin prophecy originally stated, purely in association with his second agenda, which concerns Avalon. So, what was in essence a real Island in Devon with the remains of Joseph buried within it, became a fictionally named Insulla Avallonis which was now commensurate with Glastonbury. The initial objective of composing the etymology in Life of Gildas was to add credence to the 601 charter.  However, what can also be seen is Henry’s cleverness in his interpolation of William[23] where he provides a proof and reasoning behind the etymological swap by having us believe that when the Saxons came they initially grabbed land that they were later to give back; and hence (we are led to understand) the reasoning that the five cassates were in fact Glastonbury’s originally. This in effect nullifies any enquiry into why no-one refers to Glastonbury by the name of Ineswitrin in any previous manuscript. In effect, Henry had trans-located Ineswitrin in Devon to be understood as synonymous with Glastonbury. As we covered earlier, not even Grimmer is duped by Henry Blois’ translocation of the Devonian island to Glastonbury.

Henry’s initial propaganda which converts Glastonbury as synonymous with Ineswitrin became a problem of consistency later for Henry, especially when he set about his second agenda; the establishing of Avalon to be synonymous with Glastonbury. Logically, if Avalon were the previous name of Glastonbury at the time of King Arthur, and St Patrick, how had it become Ineswitrin in the 601 era soon after it was supposedly called Avallon? Let there be no further misunderstanding by modern scholars; Henry Blois is the instigator behind locating a fictionally named Avalon at Glastonbury.  It is his change of agendas which has caused such confusion, his coalescing and consolidating evidences in DA which tie together contradictions…. not the work of a later consolidating editor.  If Gildas was at Glastonbury in the bogus Life of Gildas and Ineswitrin was established as Glastonbury therein in Henry Blois’ rendition (supposedly by Caradoc)…. the St Patrick charter as well as corroborating this fact converts it back to Avalon to fulfil the second agenda i.e. the St Patrick charter corroborates Henry’s previous insinuation by seamlessly making all three names appear to be in one location. This appears more unclear than it really is. Henry’s second agenda was to have HRB’s chivalric Arthur found at Avalon which would be made clear (confirmed for posterity) by the discovery of the leaden cross. However, as we have established, Henry had based his Avalon Island in HRB from the Island found in the prophecy of Melkin. The real problem arrives when Henry starts to integrate Joseph into Glastonbury lore in the first two chapters of DA, which were last to be added. It is this coalescing of different agendas in Henry’s lifetime which has confounded modern scholars in the assessment of interpolations in DA…. which they assume is dependent upon the emergence of Grail stories from the continent after Henry had died. The prophecy of Melkin is the key, but Henry did not want to be found holding it or associated with it, as much of his inspiration came from it.  If the link was discovered, it would lead back to him. However, since the prophecy itself was the root cause of inspiration to Henry’s muses in the evolving construction of the ‘Matter of Britain’ and Henry understood the prophecy was not a fake….  he was not going to destroy it, but placed the Melkin prophecy in some literature which has not come down to posterity. This is how it came to be recorded by John of Glastonbury. The one auspicious change in fortune is that it has now got Henry’s handprint on it with the change of name to his fictional Avalon. The invented name of Avalon had first appeared in his concoction of the First Variant HRB.

After the introduction of a Joseph foundation at Glastonbury in Henry’s second agenda, it was necessary to change the name on the prophecy from Ineswitrin to comply with Henry’s completely concocted Avalon, which as we know, was based on a town name in Burgundy. Hence, this is why we have a completely fictitious name on an absolutely accurate set of directions to Joseph’s tomb. The reasons why Henry did not include the Melkin prophecy in the DA are many but all have to do with the traceability to him and I will deal with this under the section on DA.

 It is safe to assume that the ‘Matter of Britain’ and specifically Joseph lore at Glastonbury did not happen as a fortuitous set of circumstances as certain scholars attest.  Also on Giraldus’s testimony it becomes evident the tomb of Arthur was planted by Henry Blois long before its discovery. The reader should be aware that St. Patrick’s charter predates any mention of Joseph as his name is not in the charter. Certainly the charter pre-dates the inclusion of Joseph into DA…. (It is not at all certain that the St Patrick charter was part of Henry’s evidence provided to papal authorities, however it seems likely).  We can posit therefore mention of Joseph would not have been in Henry’s earlier redaction of William’s DA which was presented to the pope. However since a passage in chap 21 of GR3 exists which is the same in chap 31 of DA where Arthur’s burial place is posited; it seems unlikely that Henry, while pursuing metropolitan status at Rome, had decided at that era, to plant a set of bones in a grave at Glastonbury. By the casual addition to the similar passage which states where Arthur is located in DA… it evidences that the planting of Arthur’s grave to be discovered in Avalon is all part of Henry’s second agenda. Yet, the initial interpolations had been composed anyway in GR3 and DA by Henry for the earlier agenda. Confirmation of this reverse in chronology is evidenced in that…. the two first chapters in DA which essentially consolidate all previous contradictions were inserted last and introduce Joseph into Glastonbury Lore.

It is plain from the St Patrick’s charter and Alfred of Beverley’s mention of Avalon that before 1150, Henry had come up with the name Avalon and we know it was in the First Variant which preceded Vulgate.[24] As we have discussed Huntingdon would have mentioned Avalon if it had been in the Primary Historia and is a definitive indicator of the two agendas of Henry separated over time. However, the Primary Historia was not the finished product of what is now commonly understood as the Vulgate HRB. The Vulgate edition stems from c.1155 (certainly the updated prophecies found within it cannot be earlier) and we can understand through what Alfred of Beverley relates that up until that date the Historia was in a state of transition. As we have said, the pseudo-history, (the pre-cursor to the Primary Historia) was started as a potential presentation to the future queen Matilda. William’s GR was similarly destined to her. The difference between GR and Primary Historia was one volume was interesting and a highly entertaining novel and portrayed a bogus precedent of past queens in Insular history…. the other was a serious conscientious account of History.  One indicator for the commencement of the pseudo-history is the inclusion of the traitor Anacletus.  Antigonus and his comrade Anacletus found in book one of HRB helps us to find a date not before 1130.[25]  The fact that Anacletus died in 1138 has little to do with the pseudo-history’s development into the Primary Historia; as we know in 1138 Henry was splicing his Welsh Arthuriad into an already completed pseudo-history which had been put on hold since Henry Ist death.

As I have maintained, William’s GR and his relation to Henry Blois were probably the germs for Henry’s planning and undertaking the endeavour of the pseudo-history. This then evolved into the Primary Historia.  Henry had written part of the book i.e. the pseudo-history before going to Normandy in 1137-8. It was in in 1137-8 Henry concocted or expanded the Arthurian epic and spliced this onto a Brutus history up to Vortigern. He ended his history to where Caradoc started his chronological history.  As we have mentioned the Welsh topography and geography displayed in HRB was derived from his visit in 1136.

As we have discussed previously, Henry had thought he was going to be metropolitan archbishop of Canterbury after William of Corbeil had died. Orderic Vitalis relates: Henry was elected as metropolitan. But since by canon law a bishop can only be translated from his own see to another church by the authority of the pope….  In order to get consent in 1137 for his translation from Winchester to Canterbury from pope Innocent, Henry set off to meet the pope at Pisa, but luckily for us, he was side-tracked into acting as vice-regent or envoy in Normandy for Stephen sorting out the rebellious Baldwin who was being supported by Matilda causing mayhem to supporters of Stephen. If it had not been for this twist of fate, I doubt we would have had a Primary Historia deposited at Bec.

Strangely, the pages are missing in the manuscript of GS which I am sure would have indicated that our anonymous author was in Normandy at the time.  In the GS, the next time Henry Blois is seen to have returned is at the siege of Bedford. This obviously can be established from the detailed eyewitness account provided in GS. Henry would not include his diary accounts of events in Normandy in a book about his brother as it would indicate he was the author. Anyway, because of this twist of fate and the Beaumont’s jealousy of Henry, Theobald was elected and the rest is history. We could speculate that the reason Stephen passed over Henry’s election as Archbishop is because of what transpired in Normandy. It is a possibility that Henry might have done some deal while in Normandy with Matilda. This is hinted at in various chronicles and Henry spends his time in GS dissuading us from this point of view. We know Henry was at Bedford anyway, so, what I am suggesting is that because Henry was delayed seeing the pope he got wind in the first half of 1138 that events were happening behind his back and returned to England to be present at the siege.[26] Just before his return to England Henry must have deposited the Primary Historia at Bec and coincidentally (or not), it was Theobald of Bec that was given his position as Archbishop. Henry could not believe his brother could have been so ungrateful and deceitful especially as he thought they were working as siblings in trust. Without Henry’s efforts, the crown would never have lighted upon Stephen’s head.

If Henry could show that ‘Western England’s’ first church was founded by Eleutherius’s preachers in 166 AD, and this had been researched by a credible historian, the value of Henry’s first agenda of a Phagan and Deruvian foundation and their names as an addition to the First Variant (when they had not been mentioned in Primary Historia in Huntingdon’s synopsis) is openly exposed. For clarity’s sake, it is worth noting that what I have termed Henry’s first agenda can be classified into two portions. It involves Henry’s obsession with obtaining metropolitan status for western England. The lines are slightly blurred in that the invention concerning Gildas and the abbot at Glastonbury at the kidnap may indeed have had nothing to do with his metropolitan agenda. The reason for Henry’s composition and impersonation of Caradoc of Llancarfan may have been incidentally to substantiate Arthurian lore but mainly to counter Osbern’s claim that Dunstan was the first Abbot. Caradoc’s concocted account makes plain through its polemic that there was an abbot in Gildas’ era. The other two parts to what I have termed Henry’s ‘first agenda’, specifically constitute the interpolations in GR3 and DA concerning an apostolic or disciplic foundation at Glastonbury. This took place in 1144 after William of Malmesbury’s death. However there is a second part of Henry’s ‘first agenda’ which took place in 1149 and most likely specifically includes the fabrication or addition to DA of the St Patrick charter.

What I have termed Henry’s ‘second agenda’ transpires post 1155 and apart from Henry’s efforts to cause rebellion as seen in the prophecies, the secondary agenda concerns itself mainly in the transposition, translocation, or conversion[27] of Henry Blois’ invention of a non-locational Avalon from HRB to locating it at Glastonbury. The ultimate fulfilment of this illusion is of course Arthur’s disinterment and the very reason for planting the leaden cross next to Arthur’s supposed bones and then pointing out the location between the pyramides in DA.  Also the ‘second agenda’ includes the propagation of Joseph lore at Glastonbury and Joseph’s role in the ‘Matter of Britain’ propagated through DA and corroborated in Grail literature, which was retold through Robert de Boron and Chrétien de Troyes directly from ‘Master Blihis’ who they had witnessed at the court of Champagne.

It could be that Henry in a very clever sleight of hand attempts to show that the GR was already finished before 1126 (which it was but not with Glastonbury additions) and before his own arrival at Glastonbury…. so he has William advocating an apostolic foundation and yet saying in GR3 he has no idea of the later missionary’s names. As we covered, this is an indication of a later introduction of their names in First Variant. Yet Henry’s polemical intention would be to create the appearance that through William’s having searched out all the old charters while researching and compiling the DA, he is now in a position to state the names of the missionaries having found the Patrick charter as appears to be the case in DA because they are named on it. In truth the facts may be that on Henry’s first attempt at gaining metropolitan status he presented the Primary Historia in which Phagan and Deruvian were not named. Maybe the First Variant version which includes their names was only used in Henry’s application case subsequently at Rome in 1149 in conjunction with the St Patrick charter and DA. (I shall cover this later).

The B version of GR3 is undoubtedly interpolated by Henry Blois and may only have been used in the first metropolitan case put forward which attempted to posit an apostolic foundation of Glastonbury. The insertion in GR3 tells us that the names of the missionaries sent by pope Eleutherius to King Lucius are lost in the mists of antiquity. But in the DA their names are given as Phagan and Deruvian, on the authority of the Charter of St Patrick and the First Variant. There is another indication that the GR3 interpolations were made before the invention of the St Patrick charter which applied to the later metropolitan attempt. The two sets of interpolations in DA and GR run together and for the most part concur; the GR obviously understated without the later invention of St Patrick’s charter says: 'and there he  (Patrick) became monk and abbot, and after some years paid the debt of nature'. Once GR3 was interpolated to coincide with the first disciplic or apostolic foundation fraud, it was not updated thereafter[28] in stark contrast to the DA which was updated on two further occasions while Henry was alive. We must consider that the consolidation of DA was carried out later and the possibility that the St Patrick charter (copy) may have been presented as a separate faked document in Rome and then only later to have been included in DA by Henry.

Essentially, there is a contradiction between the Eleutherius missionaries coming to an already apostolically established church. It is difficult to see if one preceded the other or they were used to together. It seems to me, one is a reflection of the 1144 attempt and the other which included the addition of the Patrick charter pertains to Henry’s 1149 attempt with pope Eugenius. William of Malmesbury does not elsewhere in his historical works refer to the mission sent by Eleutherius at the request of King Lucius. Henry sourced their names (as they were originally the founders of Winchester) and attached a date to their bogus deeds i.e. A.D. 167 in DA at Glastonbury.  Phagan and Deruvian’s names were attached to the storyline of the request of King Lucius which came from Bede’s mistake in a misinterpretation of the Liber Pontificalis.

Essentially, Henry’s attempts to reinstate his legation had failed and he was annoyed at being subordinate to archbishop Theobald. A legation only survived the life of a pope before it was consigned to another or reappointed. Henry and Theobald sought to be Legate to counter each other’s power. Henry’s best strategy, since the popes at this period seemed to die in quick succession, was to obtain a metropolitan which was permanent and did not involve further supplication upon the death of each pope.  Henry, also, being a Cluniac had the Cistercians against him. But, pope Lucius liked Henry Blois and Bernard of Clairvaux’s ‘Whore of Winchester’ letter did not stop Henry Blois being granted the Metropolitan at last. Bishop Henry…set out for Rome, the year of his departure I cannot definitely place. But he obtained from the pope that the bishopric of Winchester should be created an archbishopric, the abbey of Hyde a bishopric and that the bishop of Chichester should be subject to him. He did this on account of the incessant strife which continued between the bishop and the arch bishop of Canterbury. For the legate wished to be considered greater that the Archbishop and the Archbishop greater than the legate.[29]

Through St Patrick’s charter and by their introduction into First Variant, Phagan and Deruvian became the founders of Glastonbury as recounted in DA. It is not by accident that Phagan and Deruvian are named in HRB…. nor is it by accident that the names of the preachers of Eleutherius are feigned to have been lost in time in GR3.[30] Does it not seem odd that our interpolator even has to mention that their names are lost and then produce them in DA? Therein is the adage ‘by hiding the truth is the hidden truth revealed’.  Yet, only the gullible would believe that, William who composed his VSD II after DA…. (this new information supposedly found out while researching DA),  reveals nothing of the illustrious foundation of Glastonbury in that composition. VSD II was completed after the main content of DA was already finished. It should be made clear to the reader that William was never aware that he was in the future to be the witness of an apostolic foundation or that there were named missionaries from Rome or even that he has found a charter of St Patrick. It is ludicrous to think so…. and once scholarship understands Henry Blois’ device of writing history retrospectively…. a greater insight will be achieved concerning GR3 and DA, HRB and the prophecies of Merlin.

There is no concern for the old church’s ‘rude’ construction of wattle, or its apostolic foundation found in VSD II. The only reference is not to apostolic or the Phagan and Deruvian foundation, but merely that the first foundation transpired before Dunstan which is the main thrust of the argument against Osbern’s accusation: It was an ancient place as I have said, going back well beyond his time; but though it owes its first foundation to earlier benefactors, it is indebted to Dunstan for its new pre-eminence.[31]

Henry keeps his threads of evidence and propaganda separated so they do not lead back to him.  This has caused much confusion in the scholastic community. Henry makes no mention of Joseph until his post 1158 second agenda. Joseph is grafted as part of Grail lore on the continent and into Glastonbury lore. Melkin is never associated with Joseph by Henry in his propaganda but Melvas is associated with Arthur and Arthur with Avalon and Avalon with Joseph and Joseph (in reality) with the prophecy of Melkin…. without the connection of Ineswitrin to Joseph (originally in the prophecy). So the veil of confusion blurs the association of the 601 charter of Ineswitrin with the genuine Island in Devon on which Joseph’s relics reside…. by Henry’s ingenious etymological farce found in Caradoc’s Life of Gildas which transposes Ineswitrin to Glastonbury

No commentator has suspected Henry Blois as the prolific interpolator of DA. Most scholars assume the DA interpolations were concocted after the fire, but none explain the various contradictory foundation myths. The clever construction of the Patrick charter is clearly evidenced in the backdating through Patrick which leads back to Phagan and Deruvian who appear and are apparently corroborated in the First Variant. What is evident in VM, written between 1155 and 1158 is that Henry had given up continuing his quest for metropolitan status as neither Merlin, Ganieda nor Taliesin in their predictions in VM mention the word metropolitan, yet it appears 11 times in First Variant and Vulgate.

Once Henry had given up on obtaining a metropolitan, his attitude to Rome was subsequently unveiled in the Vulgate version of HRB. Anti-Roman sentiment which was not present in the First Variant is now displayed as part of the invective in speeches.  We have Hoel’s speech as an example. This, for obvious reasons is not in the Variant version but it would seem that with Henry’s dealings with the Roman Church he no longer courted favour with the papacy and included such insults against Rome as: For if, in accordance with thine argument, thou art minded to go to Rome, I doubt not that the victory shall be ours, seeing that what we do justly demand of our enemies they did first begin to demand of us.Wherefore, since the Romans do desire to take from us that which is our own, beyond all doubt we shall take their own from them, so only we be allowed to meet them in the field. Behold, this is the battle most to be desired by all Britons. Behold the prophecies of the Sibyl that are witnessed by tokens true, that for the third time shall one of British race be born that shall obtain the empire of Rome.[32]

 We also witness another example in Auguselus’s speech: ….that we have done to me seems as nought so long as the Romans and the Germans remain unharmed, and we revenge not like men the slaughter they have formerly inflicted upon our fellow-countrymen. [33] One of the most interesting concoctions which Henry cleverly devises is found in the next piece below which will be well covered in the following chapters. He accords with the same story line as that found in DA.  Supposedly, the Christianity of the Britons flourished because of the mission of Pope Eleutherius…. mistakenly posited by Bede.  The original foundation myth of Glastonbury is fabricated on this with Phagan and Deruvian added for good measure along with the Disciplic foundation.  Latterly,  this became a Josephian foundation. Henry’s second agenda is cleverly built upon his first agenda of the apostolic/disciplic foundation for Glastonbury. Henry’s gambit is to show the Britons were not subject to Rome or Augustine (read Canterbury): Meanwhile Augustine was sent by the blessed Pope Gregory into Britain to preach the Word of God unto the English, who, blinded by heathen superstition, had wholly done away with Christianity in that part of the island which they held. Howbeit, in the part belonging to the Britons the Christianity still flourished which had been held there from the days of Pope Eleutherius and had never failed amongst them. But after Augustine came, he found in their province seven bishoprics[34]and an archbishopric provided with most godly prelates besides a number of abbacies wherein the Lord's flock held right order. Amongst others there was in the city of Bangor a certain most noble church wherein was said to be such a number of monks that when the monastery was divided into seven portions with a prior set over each, not one of them had less than three hundred monks, who did all live by the labour of their own hands. Their abbot was called Dinoot, and was in marvellous wise learned in the liberal arts. He, when Augustine did demand subjection from the British bishops, in order that they might undertake in common the task of preaching the Gospel unto the English people, made answer with divers arguments, that they owed no subjection unto him as of right, nor were they minded to bestow their preaching upon their enemies, seeing that they had an archbishop of their own, and that the nations of the Saxons did persist in withholding their own[35]

I will cover in progression that Wace’s Roman de Brut was started in translation to vernacular verse by Henry Blois using the template of First Variant. So, neither Wace’s version nor First variant version mentions the altars of Jove and Mercury when Brutus consults the oracle of Diana. This is simply because the First Variant is aimed at the Roman Christian audience of the Vatican. Also in the First Variant, there is a general toning down of sexuality. For example Membricus’s homosexuality is not mentioned and other religious details which would offend papal authorities such as souls being sent to ‘ad tartara’ are also omitted. The naked bodies in the scenes described in the prophecies is indicative of Henry’s homosexual bent.

Henry Blois tailored the First Variant copy using more Biblical allusions[36] and phraseology, omitting offensive material on Homosexuality and rape and even gory details, and generally presenting a copy which had less anti-Roman sentiment than the succeeding Vulgate version.[37] Instances of these attempts to tone down unpalatable details can be witnessed in the conversation between Bedwer, Arthur’s butler and Helen’s nurse and also in the omission of the fantastic story of Brian cutting off a slice of his thigh, roasting it and serving it to King Cadwallo in place of venison. These were additional fictional parts of the storyline to fascinate and were embellishments in the yet unfinished Vulgate version, not omissions! The alterations of many of the speeches and sections regarding personages in history is primarily due to the fact that Henry in 1144 is attempting to concord or parallel as closely as possible to known facts in annals.  At the same time he is also trying to skew history so that the fictitious semblance of his history is maintained so that his propaganda about the Britons is tenable. Such variances involve the transference of power from the Britons and so Gormandus is invented to bridge from known history to Henry’s fanciful portrayal of it. 

According to modern scholars, ‘Geoffrey’ in the First Variant version, curtails some of the speeches that have anti-Roman rhetoric found in Vulgate HRB…. such as we saw in Hoel’s speech. In the Variant version some of the speeches are thought to be slightly abbreviated or paraphrased, for example, the short speech of Membricius, or the plea of Conwenna; but these are examples of less embellishment (not yet fully expanded), not a case of a cut down First Variant…. as is assumed. Other speeches are omitted like that of Maurice, son of Caradoc, duke of Cornwall, to Maximianus, inviting him to come to Britain because Henry has not completely developed this historical transition as yet. Anything that blatantly runs contrary to Roman annals or might offend Roman sentiment is omitted rather than polemically expanded as in the later Vulgate version. In the Vulgate text Maurice, upon arriving at Rome, delivers an address to Maximianus in which he points out all the reasons why Maximianus should accept the crown of Britain.  In the Variant it is vastly unexpanded (rather than reduced). The lack of manuscript evidence for the First Variant indicates it was the precursor of the massively copied Vulgate.

In the Vulgate Historia, ‘Geoffrey’ implies that about 250 years have transpired between the death of Cadwallader and the exile of the Britons to Armorica which marks the end of British dominion. Henry makes out that definitive Anglo Saxon rule is in Athelstan’s reign from 924-39 which is at variance with the gist that British dominion ended around the seventh century. For obvious reasons Henry Blois in the First Variant has to keep Cadwallader at the Arthurian end of the Historia but he changes chronology between the end of British rule and beginning of the Saxon by having the tenth century Athelstan as a contemporary of Cadwallader. This whole re-think is from a Primary Historia framework which allows all sorts of anachronisms to a First Variant which was going to be scrutinised by Papal authorities as Henry Blois tries to bring the Bedan chronology of Anglo-Saxon dominion to synchronise with his case for the Early Christian church in Britain. It is plainly the reasoning behind such changes. However, as we shall discuss in the chapter on Henry Blois’ impersonation of Wace, we can see why Wace attempts to reconcile ‘Geoffrey’s’ Vulgate HRB with the First Variant by providing Aethelstan with the correct Genealogy. Also, we can see traces of ‘Wace’s’ chronology attempting to reconcile Henry’s first storyline of Stonehenge with Uther Pendragon found in the Primary Historia related by Huntingdon in EAW.

What may have been Henry’s initial storyline needs adjusting for purpose…. that of convincing the pope to award Henry the metropolitan.  It is for this reason the speech of Caradoc to King Octavius, advising him to appoint Maximianus his successor is omitted on these grounds also.^.The speech of archbishop Guithelinus metropolitan of London to his countrymen is omitted as the similarity to Henry Blois is too obvious. Guithelinus formed from Guitolinus in Nennius is the statesman and ‘Warrior Ecclesiastic’ like Henry himself and coincidentally a man of great eloquence.  Other addresses in First Variant such as that of Gorlois, duke of Cornwalland the speech of Auguselus, King of Albania are so different (unexpanded) both in form and content that they hardly resemble their counterparts in the fully developed Vulgate text.

 Since the aim of Henry Blois is to convince papal authorities of Western England’s long tradition of Christianity, he follows more closely the historical annals of Bede and introduces pertinent extracts based on Landolfus Sagax which help to substantiate his case and also follows Roman Annals more closely.  The only problem with trying to align with known history in the storyline of the First Variant is that it throws up some contradictions which are then ignored in Vulgate HRB as Henry no longer becomes a slave to corroboration, liberalising the storyline from historical sources.  Modern scholars are still bemused as to why the First Variant version follows closely known sources. Henry Blois is merely falling in with the annals so that the pseudo-history seems to parallel the histories and chronicles seeming less like a concoction, but a true historical account.   In the Vulgate text the opening lines of the fourth book read as follows: Interea contigit, ut in Romanis reperitur historiis, Iulium Caesarem, subiugata Gallia, ad litus Rutenorum venisse.  The text of the Variant Version reads: Interea contigit, ut in Romanis reperitur historiis, Iulium Caesarem, subiugata Gallia, in Britanniam transisse; sic enim scriptum est anno ab Urbe Condita sescentesimo nonagesimo tertio, ante vero Incarnationem Domini sexagesimo anno. Iulius Caesar, primus Romanorum, Britones bello pulsavit, in navibus onerariis et actuariis circiter octoginta advectus. The Variant Version adds the date of Caesar’s invasion of Britain and the number of his ships. The source is obviously Bede, Eccl. Hist. 1.2.

Henry is just reiterating known events to establish his historicity for HRB. The idea of a source book had not yet revealed itself to Henry Blois as the providential source of the HRB. Archdeacon Walter dies in 1151. We know therefore that if any Variant has a dedication to Robert Duke of Gloucester it must post date 1147. If any copy of HRB mentions Walter it must postdate 1151 or have corrections if written beforehand.  Hammer’s version has the dedication at the beginning and so must have had it added or been distributed later than 1151.

However, there is no Alexander dedication affixed to the updated set of prophecies now in the Cistercian fourteenth century copies.  As we have said, the most likely reasoning is that there was a basic early set of prophecies in the First Variant (not dedicated), which, as a block, was updated at a later date.  As we have covered, to have the ‘Sixth’ (which is Henry II), in Ireland can only occur after the council which Henry attended in 1155 at Michaelmas.

The tendency of the Variant to go back to older sources is purely so that Henry’s dubious Arthuriana splice and concocted history seems more plausible to those considering the merits of awarding the metropolitan status for Southern England based on this fabrication of history. This is clearly witnessed in the description of Britain; the composition of which ‘Geoffrey’ used passages from Bede, Gildas and Nennius which he had skilfully woven together with elegance and style. A comparison, however, between the description of Britain in the Vulgate text with that of the First Variant version shows that, except for a few phrases in the Vulgate text, the First Variant version is an almost literal transcript of passages from Bede.

Of the eight MSS of the First Variant…. they can all be put down to redactions stemming from Henry’s changing agenda’s. Of the five pure and three conflated First Variants when compared to the Vulgate; virtually the only part remaining constant are the prophecies. This backs up my summation which harks back to the late insertion of the updated prophecies in the exemplar of the First Variant to the time the updated prophecies were spliced into the Vulgate. But this throws up further complications (concerning the Durham cathedral chapter Library MS C.iv.27), (which will be discussed in the chapter on Wace), as the versified Merlin prophecies which accompany Wace (even though he says he has not bothered to translate them) can be seen to be a versified form emanating from Henry Blois of what was the separate libellus Merlini before it was updated. The allusions to Henry and his agendas are many regarding Metropolitan but there is no mention of the Sixth in Ireland in the versified Durham set.   

The First Variant has no dedications, (except one which is probably a later correction) and no reference to Walter.  Passages from Orosius and Landolfus Sagax dealing with the Roman period are nearly verbatim as papal authorities can verify (or would know) synchronicity. The Variant in many cases employs reported discourse rather than the more dramatic direct speech in the Vulgate HRB. This again, would provide more the air of a history than a good read. It also lends to the proposition that the Vulgate HRB was created more as an interesting historic novel for entertainment rather than the more formal First Variant which tried to pass itself off as historically accurate. It would be silly, given the fact that Henry composed the First Variant version specifically for his case of metropolitan (and given that we know the Vulgate was not fully completed until 1155), to assume that the First and hybrid Variants are anything other than a less developed and less expanded earlier version of the Vulgate. Hammer’s notion that the variants were not written by Henry (Geoffrey) is as blind as not understanding that the French vernacular version was started (by Henry before he later posed as Wace), based upon the First Variant storyline as a template, because it was a work in progress and therefore Henry finished off Roman de Brut with the later Vulgate version. It was 1156-7 when Henry completed Wace’s Roman de Brut. Henry had already completed the Vulgate, as the Roman de Brut parallels it in its second half. The First Variant is not an inferior recension of the Vulgate, it was composed for a different audience (in 1144) under different circumstances and earlier than the 1155 finalised Vulgate. It is illogical to think that ‘Geoffrey’ would remove his artistry rather than build upon it as the Historia evolved. The Vulgate is a reflection of a portrayal of the Primary Historia mixed with the First Variant slant, fully developed with no constraint in its language or attitude. As we covered already, Adrian IV published the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, which was issued in 1155 whereby the English pope Adrian IV gave King Henry II the right to assume control over Ireland and apply the Gregorian reforms, and therefore…. since we know Henry was at the meeting at Winchester, we can date the version of prophecies in the Vulgate to after that date. Henry had refined First Variant to Vulgate in the years 1149 (Alfred’s copy?) to 1155, when the updated prophecies were added. The updated version of the prophecies (as we have covered) also included the prophecies which incite rebellion against Henry II.

As long as we know to disregard Gaimar’s testimony found in the epilogue, which is another of Henry’s interpolative ploys…. one can confidently say that Walter never gave a fictitious ‘Geoffrey’ any old book in the British language or obtained it from Brittany. Walter was dead. Henry, it seems, was under pressure as the seditious Merlin  prophecies found in the updated HRB were published. Henry devised a plan to make it appear that ‘Geoffrey’ had worked with others of reputation like Walter, Robert of Gloucester and Alexander.  The last thing Henry Blois wants is a witness who is alive. Therefore, Walter is not mentioned at start of Chapter eleven or 177 in the First Variant because Henry has not conceived of Walter as a corroborative and collaborative witness, from whom the source book was obtained. No blame can be foisted upon the dead bishop of Asaph for having merely translated an old book or an archdeacon for supplying it. Unfortunately no-one has ever been able to verify what HRB pretends…. because by the time the First Variant has evolved to Vulgate HRB, there is no-one alive to whom a skeptic might enquire.[38] After 1155 when ‘Geoffrey had been consigned to death, those that did make enquiries assumed he had resided in Asaph.

Walter’s role is fabricated in the Vulgate: Geoffrey of Monmouth will not stay silent even about this, most noble earl, but according as he has found it in the British book mentioned before, and has heard from Walter of Oxford, a man familiar with many histories, he will tell in his own mean style of the battles which that renowned King upon his return to Britain after this victory did fight with his nephew.[39]

We know the First Variant was employed earlier than 1151 and thus we can conclude that because Walter’s name is absent from the First Variant text; he is alive and his fame as provider of the book is not yet bestowed upon him.  Henry only uses Walter as his stooge after he is dead. I must remind the reader that no-one ever met ‘Geoffrey’ and his work was not widely read until post 1155, except for the one copy provided by Henry’s nephew  (which found its way to Beverley) and since this existed c.1147 certainly ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ as a name had not yet been concocted. Admittedly Henry’s friend Abbot Suger had been passed some prophecies and Alfred had his copy from William of York, but to think any version was widely distributed before 1155 is inaccurate. Alfred merely names the author as Britannicus because he knows Galfridus Artur is a pseudonym and he is obviously pro- the Britons. The Geoffrey of Monmouth appellation only occurs in Vulgate. The modern concept of the proliferation of ‘Geoffrey’s’ work is simply misunderstood and is based entirely on the date parameters of when the dedicatees lived and the assumption that a Vulgate version appeared in 1139 at Bec.  Modern scholars also need to accept that Merlin is not a prophet. To maintain such a position is foolish given that most of the content of the prophecies revolves around looking backward to events close to Henry Blois and his family and the anarchy.

It is a madness to think that the chief aim of the First Variant is to abbreviate HRB. It appears less expanded because it is earlier and the frequent reminiscences of the Bible and classical texts, independent of the Vulgate…. indicate that it was tailored to an ecclesiastical audience, written with a more moralising tone. It is simply not feasible that the First Variant was written by someone other than ‘Geoffrey’. Considering that the Vulgate version was in progress of being written before 1155 we might conclude it evolved through the copy that Alfred possessed and as such had material that Alfred relates which is exclusive to Vulgate and also to First Variant. In other words Alfred’s copy was neither.  The original First variant (1143-44) was written 10 years before the final Vulgate Version and may explain some differences in style, but essentially, they were composed for two different audiences.

Hammer considered the Variant to be a reworking of the Vulgate for which Geoffrey of Monmouth was not responsible; but as soon as the motives for the Variant are established, there is no doubt as to who composed and was responsible for it.  If the frequency of incompatibility which exist in Huntingdon’s synopsis were expanded from the short précis that constitutes the letter to Warin…. it could not be thought possible that a Vulgate version was the same as that found at Bec. Huntingdon’s précis never mentions Avalon…. and Alfred, in his reworking of the passage concerning Caliburnus (where it is forged in the island of Avallon in HRB) omits mention of Avallon. It shows Henry has not yet evolved his plan for Avalon.

Caldwell said that the Variant looks like an early draft put together from original sources.  Caldwell misunderstands the First Variant was an evolving work toward Vulgate HRB. Of course, as I have already covered, modern scholars are misled by the dedications found in the Vulgate version which were purposefully used as a ploy to backdate the composition and therefore establish many of the prognostications Merlin had made concerning events in the twelfth century.
The First Variant version had been employed at one time for a specific purpose. The initial composition had been conceived to help Henry Blois' uncle (Henry Ist) to counter the trepidation of the Barons about the Empress Matilda becoming Queen after his death. The Historia started life as a composition  initially as a polemic of primogerniture to help bolster the Empress Matilda's inheritance of the crown. This initial pseudo-history became redundant when Stephen usurped the throne from her.  Also, as  I have explained earlier, rather than waste the contents of much research of the earlier unpublished composition, Henry Blois devised the more biblically biased First Variant as a witness to establish his agenda of becoming Archbishop of Southern England in 1144 with the proofs of Winchester's antiquity (as revealed in the text) alongside Henry Blois' first edition of an interpolated copy of William of Malmesbury's De Antiquitates. (see the chapter on DA)
 Caldwell argued that the absence from the Vulgate of some material found in the Variant and the inclusion in the Variant alone of some passages drawn directly from prior sources i.e. Bede and Landolfus Sagax could be explained if the Vulgate were regarded as a reworking of the Variant. In other words, the Vulgate was a deliberate revision. He was right, but he did not understand why historical personages are changed and chronological episodes re-aligned or the difference in moral tone from Variant to Vulgate.
The difficulty our experts have is that they do not understand that the Vulgate version was not published in 1138, but it was a first edition ‘Primary Historia’ which Huntingdon relates in précis form to Warin in EAW. This is evident from the many variations as I have already discussed.  It is silly to think that the First Variant represented a version of the Historia composed by an unknown author at some time before 'Geoffrey' i.e. Henry Blois, compiled the Vulgate as some scholars suggest. It is even more insane of Caldwell to proffer the theory that the ancient book given to 'Geoffrey' by Archdeacon Walter ever existed, or that someone other than 'Geoffrey wrote it...or that it was ever from a common source derived from some ancient British book which 'Geoffrey' had merely translated.
Modern Scholars have been duped by Henry Blois' thoroughness in the invention of the persona of 'Geoffrey' and Henry's guile in appearing to back date the Vulgate version by citing dedicatees which were dead when the Vulgate version was published after 1155.

Pierre Gallais, another commentator duped by Henry’s fraud, thought Caldwell's claim that the Variant version preceded the Roman de Brut, saw Caldwell’s position as a serious challenge to Wace's originality…. since it threatened to reduce the status of the poet to that of a compilateur or copyist. Pierre Gallais reckoned the Variant’s style signalled it could not have been written by Geoffrey himself…. but, trying to fit the jigsaw together, he rejected the proposition that an unknown author could produce such a version prior to the appearance of the Vulgate text. So, Gallais thought the Variant must have been composed after 1138. It is silly to think that a revision of the Historia by an author other than Geoffrey would have been made so soon after the publication of the Vulgate text. Especially, if we consider modern scholarship’s view that the Vulgate was the same edition as the Primary Historia and was first seen in 1139. Why would one think another author would replicate the Vulgate with minor differences giving a much reduced  First Variant version…. even if we genuinely believed ‘Geoffrey’ had existed as a real person?
Another confused commentator, Hans Erich Keller, thought that the First Variant was not written by Geoffrey but ante-dated the Vulgate. Keller thought that Gaimar referred to the Vulgate as le livier of Walter Espec and to the Variant version as the ‘good book of Oxford’ by Walter the Archdeacon. Therefore, Keller’s logic concluded that the source of the HRB was not as Geoffrey alleged i.e. an ancient Briton or Breton book in the possession of Walter Archdeacon of Oxford, but it was the Variant itself and composed before 1138. To complete the jigsaw of ignorance; Keller reckoned the Variant must have been written by Archdeacon Walter himself. Until it is understood that Henry Blois interpolated Gaimar, no correct conclusion will be found. The Gaimar epilogue is purposeful misdirection. (see the chapter on the interpolations into Gaimar's L'Estoire des Engles.

Let it be established once and for all, Walter never had a book and never had any association with the composition of the Historia and his name was never seen in the Vulgate until after his death (as is evident from Alfred of Beverley's recycling of the HRB).  As we shall see in the next section, Gaimar’s epilogue, upon which Keller attaches his reasoning is most certainly written by Henry Blois along with several other interpolations into Gaimar's L'Estoire des Engles. Leckie also thought the First Variant was a later recension compiled by an unknown redactor. Yet he recognised that the Roman de Brut could not have arisen independently.  He thought it must represent an attempt to modify the Variant. One of the reasons Henry Blois created Wace’s Roman de Brut in the first place was so that ‘Geoffrey’ remained ostensibly Welsh. The fact that ‘Wace’ found the prophecies incomprehensible may portend that Henry Blois completed Roman de Brut when there was no efficacy or further use of the prophetia. Therefore, I believe he published the Roman de Brut in 1158 when he returned to England after having met Wace at Caen. (this is discussed in the chapter on Wace and the Roman de Brut)

The conclusion is that the Wace’s Roman de Brut was started before the fully evolved Vulgate HRB and hence it follows the Vulgate version more closely at the end. We might propose that Henry found it too difficult to include the prophetia without exposing himself by translating them i.e. by versifying the prose.  Much of the skimble skamble and obfuscatory content of the Merlin prophecies would be too difficult to portray without exposing his obvious understanding of their content. There are many other alternative scenarios as to why Henry makes a point of omitting the prophecies when he impersonates Wace.  However, we will see that Roman de Brut was written later than is normally thought and therefore the prophecies have no further use as Henry completes the vernacular edition of Roman de Brut in 1158-59. (see the chapter on John of Cornwall's rendition of the Merlin prophecies).

However, to grasp the finer points on the reasoning behind why the prophetia were left out in Wace, it is necessary to understand that both Wace and Gaimar were impersonated and interpolated by Henry Blois, yet were both accomplished poets already.

---

[1]Looe Island was appropriated by Glastonbury in Henry Blois’ tenure before 1144 when it appeared in a list of the abbeys possessions, found in a confirmation of pope Lucius II.

[2]Per multum tempus ante diem Judioialem in iosaphat erunt aperta haec, & viventibus declarata.

[3] Leland saw the copy that John of Glastonbury probably quotes from: Vita Merlini Sylvestris carmine scriptore Galfredo Monemutensi. Carley says about the extra three lines: My suspicion is that they were added to Glastonbury’s copy of the VM in the mid-twelfth century, at approximately the same period as the interpolations about Avalon were made in DA.

[4] William de Pont de l’Arche.

[5] This becomes clearer in a later chapter in our investigation into the life of St David by Rhygyfarch where he ascribes the foundation of Glastonbury to St David.

[6] Presumably, ‘Geoffrey’ derives his 28 bishoprics from Gildas’ twenty eight cities.

[7]Bede reiterates Gildas' account of Ambrosius Aurelianus in his Ecclesiastical History, but in his Chronica Majora he dates Ambrosius' victory to the reign of the Emperor Zeno (474–491).

[8]In 1130, just after Henry Blois was elevated to the Bishopric of Winchester, Peter the venerable, Henry’s mentor and confidant was the most prominent to acknowledge Gregorio Papareschi (Innocent II) against Anacletus otherwise known as Cardinal Pietro Pierleone, thus averting a long-term schism in the Roman Church.

[9] John of Hexham .22

[10] Monasticum Anglicanum. I, 37

[11] John of Hexham 22-23

[12] According to the date of completion for Modena, one must assume Life of Gildas written 1139-40

[13] Annales Monastici, II, 53

[14] William of Newburgh. 415

[15] Radulti de Diceto 255

[16] Roger of Wendover

[17] On September 23, 1149 Eugenius III consecrated Guido de Summa Bishop of Ostia. He died in 1151.

[18] It would be interesting to know the relationship between Guy of Summa, bishop of Ostia and Gregory of St Angelo and Henry Blois; and especially, of what their ‘intrigue’ consisted. How were they originally to help Henry? Is it that Gregory of St Angelo was so named after the Mausoleum of Hadrian, usually known as Castel Sant' Angelo in Rome?  Hadrian's ashes were placed here in 138 AD along with his first adopted son, Lucius Aelius, who also died in 138 AD. Now it would not surprise me that Gregory of St Angelo’s involvement had to do with the planting of evidence in the mausoleum which had something to do with an apostolic foundation in Britain or at least Lucius being made to appear as the King Lucius in Bede. (A King Lucius biography in Britain is entirely concocted in HRB as we shall cover and has no historic truth). Gregory of St Angelo having anything to do with Henry Blois’ substantiation of King Lucius is of course speculation. Let us not forget that not only was Henry Blois set on being metropolitan bishop of Western England, he also would have had one eye on the position of pope and this may have been the intrigue.

[19]Historia Pontificalis,78

[20] HRB. II, ix

[21] HRB. V, viii

[22] HRB. VII, iv

[23] DA. Chap 35… although that estate (Ineswitrin) and many others were granted to Glastonbury in the time of the Britons, as is plain from the preceding, yet when the English drove out the Britons they, being pagans, seized the lands that had been granted to the churches before finally restoring the stolen lands….

[24] The First Variant is in fact a misnomer in that it is not a variant on what is presumed to be the Vulgate which scholarship assumes preceded it. The First Variant evolved from the Bec Primary Historia

[25]Anacletus II an Antipope who ruled from 1130 and died January 25, 1138. He became the Antipope in a schism against the contested, hasty election of Pope Innocent II. One can be sure that if Henry’s pursuit of Metropolitan was possible to be obtained, he would have gone to Anacletus as he had also been at the abbey of Cluny. It was not until William of Malmesbury had died in 1143 that the evidence provided in DA and GR could be concocted. In 1130, Pope Honorius II lay dying and the cardinals decided that they would entrust the election to a commission of eight men, led by papal chancellor Haimeric, who had his candidate hastily elected as Pope Innocent II. He was consecrated on February 14, the day after Honorius' death. On the same day, the other cardinals announced that Innocent had not been canonically elected and chose Anacletus.

[26]Bedford castle was controlled by Simon de Beauchamp, the son of Hugh de Beauchamp.Simon died in 1137, and King Stephen agreed that Simon's daughter should marry Hugh the Pauper.  The castle would be passed to Hugh, in exchange for Stephen giving Miles certain compensation and additional honours. Miles and Payn de Beauchamp, the children of Simon's brother, Robert de Beauchamp, refused to hand the castle over to Hugh saying that the castle was rightfully Miles'.  Even though Miles de Beauchamp declared himself in support of Stephen, in the contention with Matilda, the King decided to take Bedford Castle before marching north to deal with the invasion of David from Scotland. Stephen besieged the castle but Miles was prepared for a long siege. Stephen could not enter the castle so left a force to starve it into submission whilst he went north to tackle David’s Scottish invasion. Henry intervened to produce a negotiated settlement. Henry reached an agreement whereby after five weeks, the castle finally surrendered.  The occupants were allowed to leave, but the castle was handed over to Stephen. Miles and Henry had made an agreement, but in 1141 Miles retook the castle and because of this Henry as author of GS has little favourable to say of Miles.

[27] It is difficult to define what Henry actually accomplishes, because in effect, he is trans-locating Ineswitrin to be synonymous with Glastonbury and yet the name Avalon (which is fictitious), is itself based on Ineswitrin from the Melkin Prophecy; and Henry Blois is more concerned in his second agenda with converting the fictional Avalon to appear as synonymous with Glastonbury.

[28] Version C of GR has later interpolations made after Henry’s death.

[29]Annales Monastici, ii, 53. However, the writer has confused Innocent II with pope Lucius.

[30] The common opinion is that it was written by William and then a later interpolator supplied the names. Not so, as we shall cover later.

[31] William of Malmesbury, Life of Dunstan book ii 10.4

[32] HRB IX, xvii

[33] HRB  IX xviii

[34] It just so happens Henry attempted to raise Winchester into a metropolitan See over Salisbury, Exeter, Wells, and Chichester, Hereford and Worcester and also creating a new bishopric for Hyde abbey. Not by coincidence, Ralph de Diceto relates that pope Lucius sent a pall to Henry bishop of Winchester to whom he had proposed to assign seven bishops.

[35] HRB XI,xii

[36] To give a few examples of the variant version’s fondness for biblical phraseology: King Dumwallo fought so bravely that “terra . . . siluit in conspectu eius.”In speaking of Belinus, “nec cessavit gladius eius a mane usque ad vesperam Romanos caedere.” KingMorwinus meets the invading enemy “cum manu valida.” To the envoys of Cassibelaunus who plead with Androgeus to arrange peace for him with Caesar, Androgeus replies that he does not intend to repay him with “malum pro malo”and pleading Cassibelaunus’ cause with Caesar he implores him not to punish Cassibelaunus “iuxta sua scelera.”King Uther’s love for Igerna is compared to that of King David for Bathshebaand the army of Aurelius Ambrosius was so great “ut arenae maris comparari posset.”All these biblical allusions are absent in the vulgate text.

[37] It is not silly to speculate that the later Vulgate version, which has such blatant anti-Roman speeches in it, are a reflection of the time when Stephen had attempted to have his son Eustace crowned King and was denied by Rome. Henry himself as a Cluniac had little allegiance to Rome and the Vulgate version of HRB may reflect an attitude of British independence from Rome. In this case since Winchester was long established as a monastic house in antiquity by what was written in HRB, if Rome’s authority were excluded, Henry would have precedence over Canterbury.

[38] The only exception to this rule is Robert de Chesney as dedicatee of VM. However, since Henry outlived de Chesney (D.1166), the prologue in which the dedication is found could well have been added after his death.

[39] HRB, XI, I.

My initial aim, as stated in the preface, was to alert anyone interested that the bones of Joseph of Arimathea were on Burgh Island. Others have come to the same conclusion.  The relics have not been unearthed simply because our scholars have advised the owner of Burgh Island that the prophecy of Melkin is a fake and the geometry displayed therein has no substance. It is a question of competency versus credentials. One does not have to be an authority to realise that all the geometry in Melkin’s prophecy is exact and this could not happen by chance. The reason no scholar has counteracted what Yale and Goldsworthy have pointed out is simply because there is no way to counteract the truth without looking silly especially in Carley and Crick’s case. There are also glaring questions which I cannot myself answer and these are mainly to do with the alignments of the Michael line and how both Montacute and Burgh Island also had St Michael churches on them at one time. We can understand it is perfectly possible for Melkin to measure the 104 nautical mile line but how is it that that line passes through Montacute? It is these types of questions which have made the decryption of Melkin’s prophecy seem to be highly incredible.

So, let us recap on how we got here and how the scholastic community missed what common sense  (for the most part) lights upon. If we start with the prophecies and conclude Henry Blois has written them, which I feel I have exposed in this exposé…. we know Henry Blois must have written HRB…. because it is painfully obvious the author of the prophecies is the author of the HRB and VM and the JC version. Once we understand that it is Henry Blois, we can then conclude that an array of misinformation has been proffered regarding Geoffrey of Monmouth. We can now also clearer understand the circumstances under which HRB was composed…. and the misinformation was meant to mislead to mask Henry’s authorship. We then should ask, what other material has been tampered with?.... and we find that Caradoc’s life of Gildas puts a chivalric Arthur at Glastonbury. Because it is stated that on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, (in life of Gildas) that Arthur is brought into association with Glastonbury, we can deduce Henry Blois is the instigator because Guinevere is Henry’s invention in HRB. So then, we understand how the Modena archivolt has an engraving of an episode from that book and we know Henry Blois must have passed by Modena on several occasions. We can conclude therefore, that the trips over the snowy mountains, the Alps, and Aravian range (mentioned in the prophecies) are all constructs of a person having made the trip to Rome. We can also understand that Wace’s allusion to the ‘Bernard’ pass is from the same mind along with other expansions which parallel the author’s thinking in HRB which indicate both are one and the same author.

 So, if we follow the Glastonbury connection, because Henry was Abbot there…. we find Malmesbury’s book (DA) which convinces us that Avalon is Glastonbury. The book was not only dedicated to Henry Blois, but the name Avalon was indeed invented by Henry Blois…. the author of HRB. Then, we must understand that the Melkin prophecy, which we know is accurate to within yards, has the name Avalon on it and yet we now know Henry has transposed that name from a Burgundian town and implanted it in HRB and replaced the name of Ineswitrin on the Melkin Prophecy. Therefore, if the prophecy’s directions are accurate and the name of the island which it locates is deemed invented, we should ask: which island name did the prophecy originally have on it? Then we find that an Island mentioned by William of Malmesbury is donated to Glastonbury in 601 AD and one can assume that Island is located in Devon as it was donated by its King. If the data which constructs the line (when decoded from the prophecy), locates an island in Devon called Burgh Island, we can assume that the chances are that it could be Ineswitrin. When we then look at the etymology of Ineswitrin, we find that it means possibly ‘white tin Island’. We should also ask, (if we understand that Ineswitrin is in Devon)….who might it be, and in what tract, are we misdirected to believe that Ineswitrin is synonymous with Glastonbury? We find it is in Caradoc’s life of Gildas and the book of DA which was dedicated to Henry Blois. We also find out that Caradoc died c.1130.  We find also that an episode from Caradoc’s book is found on the Modena archivolt before 1140 just a year after the discovery of Primary Historia at Bec. So, if we look to the author of HRB and life of Gildas we find he is a bishop making regular trips passing Modena with ample wherewithal and enough clout to have commissioned the engraving which relates to the kidnap episode at Glastonbury.

Joining the dots out of pure common sense, we find that Diodorus describes an Island which traded in tin on the south west peninsula and his description of an Island matches Burgh Island. We have confirmation that Burgh Island is the Island of Ictis to which Pytheas referred, because tin Ingots of the same date are found two miles away with an account from Strabo which explains how the Ingots came to be found at the head of the Erm estuary. The confirmation that Burgh Island is Ictis is deduced simply because a Phoenician ship wrecked itself in order to preserve the ‘secrecy of Ictis’. Once Ictis is established as a tin trading Island in Devon we remember that Joseph of Arimathea by Dumnonian/Cornish tradition was a tin merchant. Once we establish that Burgh Island (Ictis) and Joseph have a connection through the tin trade, we also remember that Melkin’s prophecy directs us to the same Island purporting to contain his sepulchre…. with an amazing display of geometric precision. Once we establish why this Island has a connection to Joseph through two different sources i.e. tin trade and Melkin Prophecy; we then ask how is it that Avalon and Joseph are linked and we find that the author of the book HRB who first mentions Avalon is the abbot of Glastonbury, the same place where a prophecy is found which links Avalon to Joseph. Glastonbury is also linked to Joseph very early on by Perlesvaus and Robert de Boron’s allusion to vaus Avaron. If we follow this trail, we can see there is no natural connection between King Arthur and Joseph (except they are both linked to Glastonbury and Avalon) and we should then ask; in what material do we find this connection to them both? We see it in DA as both are connected to Glastonbury. We can also grasp that the Grail literature which anachronistically joins Arthur to Joseph emanates from the Blois region and its provenance can be connected to close family relations of the Abbot of Glastonbury in Champagne, who are known as the patron of Chrétien. This literature speaks of the Grail which is a vessel which contains the Lord’s blood and it is connected to Joseph and Arthur in continental literature, but also in a tract called the Perlesvaus. This tract relates to the Old church at Glastonbury and its lead roof. It mentions in the colophon that Guinevere and Arthur are buried at Glastonbury…. but more importantly, it speaks of the vessel which is also related to the mysterious ‘duo fassula’ in the prophecy of Melkin at Glastonbury. We then find that features of the prophecy relate to the composition of the HRB in that the Island of Avalon which has been substituted by name in the only extant example of the Prophecy of Melkin is named as the mysterious island where Arthur is last seen. This island, as we all know, turns out to be Glastonbury, established for the naïve by the existence of a bogus ‘leaden cross’. The cross reiterates spuriously (redundantly naming) where it is…. in Avalon; not forgetting, Avalon is Henry’s own invention.

Not only does the Melkin prophecy portend the finding of Joseph’s relics in Avalon, but we are led to believe (by it being named as the last place Arthur is seen), that King Arthur (if we are naïve) was also buried and found in Avalon. We see that the Grail object is modelled on the duo fassula (if we have our eyes open).Also the search for the relics of Joseph, (the whole point of the prophecy of Melkin) suggests that the prophecy is encoded and involves the locating of an island; followed by a search for the tomb itself.  Both the enigmatic duo fassula is mirrored in Grail literature and the search for the same object in la quête du GraalorChrétien de Troyes Perceval orle Conte du Graal. Here it is presented as a quest for the same enigmatic object that is said by the prophecy to be in the tomb along with Joseph’s relics. Because Henry Blois is employing the prophecy as an inspirational template, he too invents a totally fatuous semblance of a hidden meaning (mirroring the decryption of the prophecy) in which the gullible search for meaning in the Grail procession.[1] This vast array of linked material, which, by association is known as the Matter of Britain (as we have covered by repetition and I hope not tedium), and looking from every perspective throughout these pages…. has two factors which are inextricably linked: Glastonbury and Henry Blois. The one extraordinary piece of this entire puzzle is wrapped up in the book of DA which coalesces what would seemingly be disparate associations and we know this book was dedicated to and interpolated by Henry Blois.  We know it could only be him who transformed his own invented name of Avalon to be commensurate with the physical Glastonbury because Gerald says the location of Arthur’s body was previously known and was written in Glastonbury annals.

 If we ignore the ignorant decrees of the experts…. it could only be Henry Blois (who has the copy of DA) who lets everyone know the location, because whoever planted the body knew where he had located it between the pyramids. It is for this reason Arthur and Guinevere are said to be buried in Avalon, in Perlesvaus (a tract written before the disinterment of Arthur). It could only have been Henry Blois who knew that Avalon was situated at Glastonbury in the interim years (where it becomes widely accepted) between his death and Arthur’s disinterment. Therefore, it has to be Henry Blois who had the leaden cross constructed (which ludicrously states in which location it is, when it is discovered) and who pointed out where to find the grave. It does not take a huge amount of imagination to understand that his inspiration for manufacturing Arthur’s grave to be found in the future is based on the prospect of finding Joseph in the future…. spelled out in the Melkin Prophecy. It was originally this prophecy which spoke of an Island named ‘White tin Island’ (which we know exists in Devon because of the 601 charter)…. that Joseph’s relics are said to exist there (and the reason for them being there is because Joseph was a tin merchant). Therefore, to those who use common sense, the prophecy of Melkin is not a fake, but was extant in the era of Henry Blois.

What has prevented these events coming to light is simply the arrogance of the scholars. They have made some money on the gravy train regurgitating the same drivel from generation to generation postulating untenable positions employing a method peculiar to the modern medievalist scholars much like a pick and mix. Some scholars have positively made a cottage industry of inviting all and sundry to contribute papers which they compile into books which agree with their views. I do not pretend accuracy in every statement, far from it; but I have put forward an explanation because I have understood that no scholar wants the gravy train to stop. Without an explanation provided to the scholars, common sense cannot prevail.Scholars will continue to hide behind an impenetrable wall of learning, which, up until now, has had to be accepted because they are supposedly the experts.

 There are three critical premises upon which modern scholarship’s erroneous edifice is built and when these a prioris are not accepted (founded upon an unclear chronology of events), a clearer picture emerges.

Firstly, if one does not insist that a mention of Arthur’s name in DA could only transpire by interpolation after the exhumation of his bones, the answer to several questions become more discernible because several solutions become tenable…. which, by erroneous chronology had been previously denied. For instance: Why is Gerald saying there is previous knowledge of the location; why dig in that spot etc. If we accept that the location was pointed out in which Arthur was buried with his wife, in between the pyramids…. we have to accept it is highly probable it was Henry Blois (once we have allowed this possibility). There is no rational reason why the interpolation in DA mentioning the location of Arthur’s grave could not have been in DA before his disinterment. The reason we should allow this possibility is there is no other information surrounding the dig given in DA. If the mention of Arthur’s gravesite had been a later interpolation (after the disinterment) some circumstances would have been related and certainly the cross would have been mentioned. Henry Blois provided the only information he could before the event (while remaining incognito). The entire account would not have been left in the hands of Gerald to relate. Once this position is understood….it opens a multitude of positions concerning not only chronology of the events but also who did what and who wrote what when.

Secondly, if there is no intransigence and insistence that Avalon was not previously know as Glastonbury before the leaden cross was discovered, this then allows that in the interim between Henry Blois death and the disinterment…. an understanding of Avalon as Glastonbury at least was known at the abbey because it was written in DA. It then becomes possible to explain how it is that the forerunner of Perlesvaus, said to be in Latin and written at Avalon, which tells of Arthur and Guinevere’s burial at Glastonbury, could have existed prior to the disinterment. This, therefore, enables us also to implicate Henry Blois as the original inventor of Grail material which ties the Grail, Avalon, Arthur and Joseph all to Glastonbury. But, more importantly to Master Blehis…. said by Gerald to have lived ‘shortly before our time.’[2] But this position confutes entirely Logario’s synopsis of events and allows that Joseph in Perlesvaus could pre-exist Arthur’s exhumation and of course to be present in chapters one and two of DA in 1171.

Thirdly, the most despicable act of negligence and intransigence by modern scholarship is the insistence that Melkin’s prophecy is a fake. On this subject in particular there are only haughty pronouncements of hot air. The denial of the geometry found in the prophecy of Melkin could only be maintained by someone with a good reason to reject it; and it is not the geometry which lacks veracity.  It is simply not possible to possess so many distinctions after ones name, and not understand that the geometry locates Burgh Island; and also to be cognisant of the fact that an island in Devon was donated to Glastonbury. The real crux to finding the solution to the Matter of Britain is that any investigator has to realise that there has been single-minded fraud at Glastonbury and this same mind has proliferated Grail lore and Arthuriana to the continent. The general consensus of scholarship which promotes a view that many different monks over time each added his own interpolation into DA and miraculously lore just evolved by a fortuitous convergence of factors is shown to be incorrect and fatuous.

This exposé may have seemed like a rant against scholarship and expertise and it is plain to see I excel in neither. My attribute is that I am not a scholar and as I said at the beginning…. what I have said is verifiable in that Joseph of Arimathea is on Burgh Island along with his son and DNA tests will show that. Now, the reader may enquire how it is that I know Joseph’s relics exist there. There are two ways of answering this and neither would you find credible apart from the explanation found in these pages. My credibility lies in the fact that hopefully the reader has been able to follow my explanation of how the Matter of Britain transpired. The proof is in the pie. But unless one presents the facts so that scholars can have it explained to them; Joseph and Jesus’ relics will never see the light of day and the Roman religion will continue to perpetuate the lie.

The Reverend F. U. Lot. 

---

[1] The Grail procession is a fatuous invention with seemingly mystical relevance, which in fact uses two other icons, the Menorah and the lance mentionedin the Gospel of John 19:34, One of the soldiers, however, made a thrust at His (Jesus) side with a lance, and immediately blood and water flowed out.Henry recognises the duo fassula as a religious object but has no idea what it is except from the allusion to two vessels in the prophecy. Howeve, at the battle of Ascalon where Henry’s father was kille, Raymond of Aguilers carried the relic of the Holy Lance that had been discovered recently at Antioch.

[2] The passage in which Gerald of Wales refers to Bledhericus, famosus ille fabulator who tempora nostra paulo praevenit, was written c. 1194.  So, Gerald has no idea the man who he refers to who had died 20 years previously, was in fact his patron in his youth.