Foreword

This work covers three genres of study which are intricately related. The genres of study can broadly be described as firstly; the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth, his Merlin prophecies and his pseudo-history found in the ‘History of the Kings of Britain’ (HRB). The second area of study covers the events that transpired at Glastonbury which involve the disinterment of King Arthur and the appearance of Joseph of Arimathea in Glastonbury lore. Lastly, my exposé covers early Grail literature currently thought to have been composed by Robert de Boron or the muses of Chrétien de Troyes. These three areas of study make up a body of research which is generally referred to as ‘The Matter of Britain’.

There is a pervading commonality throughout this exposé which can ultimately be tested which will show one way or the other whether the points put forward herein are based in truth. To fully understand the contents of this investigation, firstly I have to show that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s HRB was composed by Henry Blois. The quickest way to show this is by investigating the prophecies of Merlin because the current understanding accepts that the Merlin prophecies and the HRB have a common author. 

Once ‘Geoffrey’ is understood to be the nom de plume of Henry Blois, it is a simple step to understanding that Glastonbury lore about King Arthur was the brainchild of the Abbot of Glastonbury who was the perpetrator of the Interpolations into William of Malmesbury’s  De Antiquitates Glastonie Ecclesie . Then, with that cumulative evidence, it becomes very easy to Identify Henry Blois as the originator of Grail literature where he even leaves the anagram of his name as vanity overcame him. This in turn brings together the anachronistic connection between Joseph of Arimathea and King Arthur at Glastonbury and Glastonbury’s Avalon being connected with the Grail.

The main three questions which embody this study of ‘The Matter of Britain’ are: Did King Arthur really exist or did ‘Geoffrey’ invent the ‘Chivalric King Arthur’? How did Joseph of Arimathea legend start at Glastonbury abbey? How did Grail literature reflect upon king Arthur and Joseph of Arimathea and why does this body of literature relate to an island called Avallon and Glastonbury Church?

No scholar has undertaken to find a definitive solution to the ‘Matter of Britain’, but by keeping our three genres of study unconnected, modern scholars have missed how indeed the roots of all three evolved primarily from one man. Norris J lacey thinks that an apathy exists among scholars of the Grail because they have become sceptical that the origins of the Grail can ever be discovered. I call it complacency and arrogance!! 
My aim in elucidating the mess created by modern scholarship is achieved in the main by uncovering fraudulent works authored and concocted by Henry Blois; the prime instigator of the rich tapestry of medieval Arthurian material. Some of these works include the impersonation of Geoffrey of Monmouth, Caradoc of Llancarfan, Wace and others that have had their works interpolated by Henry Blois such as William of Malmesbury.

I have no intention to distort the implications of what is reliably known. The problem is nothing is reliably known.  I try to steer away from ill-founded or undocumented assertions, but at the same time, many of the views in this exposé run contrary to accepted theories put forward by modern scholarship; many of which are shown to be founded on incorrect a priori, empirically built upon over the last 200 years. Without identifying ‘who’ Geoffrey of Monmouth really is, no solution to the ‘Matter of Britain’ can be found!!

The three genres which are the subject of our investigation span more material than that which is commonly accepted as a tolerable area of expertise in the realms of scholarship i.e. the large mass of research lie outside the scope of a doctoral thesis; thus, in the past much overlapping material has been ignored.  Empirical deductions and conclusions have become misleading and an overall solution to the three areas of study has evaded modern scholars. To the present era this seminal yet at times erratic work is the first understandable and workable solution to the riddle that became ‘The Matter of Britain’. Without linking all three genres of study, the seemingly disparate nature of their underlying commonality will not be discovered. It is my intention to uncover a lie1 which has far reaching ramifications when exposed.

1Cicero. The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth.

The common denominator in all three genres mentioned in this investigation i.e. Arthuriana, Glastonburyalia, and early Grail literature is Henry Blois.

Commentators interested in Arthuriana recognise the genius of Geoffrey of Monmouth. The authorial genius is in fact Henry Blois. Geoffrey of Monmouth is a nom de plume. Until this fact is understood by scholars such as Julia Crick, (our authority on ‘Geoffrey’) who, like others before her, attempt to create an impression of Geoffrey and understand his work; the reasons for the publication of HRB will remain hidden.

  It is also plain to see that Crick never contemplates Henry Blois as the author of the Life of Gildas or suspect his interpolations in William of Malmesbury’s DA; even after stating:

the ultimate explanation for the historical and hagiographical creations of William of Malmesbury and Caradog of Llancarfan probably lies in the reduced circumstances in which Henry Blois found the monastery(Glastonbury) in the 1120’s…

It will become apparent to the reader that the concept of the Island of Avalon is a product of Henry Blois. This island originally was an Island called Ineswitrin donated to Glastonbury in 601 AD and is an Island on which the remains of Joseph of Arimathea are buried to this day.  This can only be understood by ploughing through the quagmire of evidences left behind by Henry Blois.

My main intent is to expose the fraudulent authorship of several works back in the twelfth century which were concocted wholly or interpolated by Henry Blois, the Bishop of Winchester, Abbot of Glastonbury and brother of King Stephen. This work exposes the existence of an Island in Devon, today called Burgh Island and its connection to Joseph of Arimathea and a tin mining heritage existing into antiquity and this becomes evident in progression once the certain foundation is set which accepts that Henry Blois composed the History of the Kings of Britain.

Geoffrey of Monmouth Preface

Henry Blois was a genius who died in 1171. He had been brought up by his aristocratic mother until about the age of ten until he became an oblate cloistered at Clugny. He was able to absorb what interested him from a vast Library where he was schooled in the Monastery at Clugny in the county or region of Blois until he was in his twenties. He hailed from one of the richest and noblest families on the continent.

William the Conqueror was Henry Blois’ grandfather. Henry Blois composed The History of the Kings of Britain (HRB) in its original edition for his uncle Henry Ist but a later edition purporting to be written by Glfridus Artur was deposited at Bec by Henry in 1138. It was Henry Blois who firstly interpolated William of Malmesbury’s De Antiquitates (DA) and that manuscript establishes much of the myth surrounding the Glastonbury church, Avalon, King Arthur and Joseph of Arimathea.

I will also set out further on, how Henry Blois concocted the original Grail stories which connect Joseph of Arimathea and the Chivalric King Arthur to Glastonbury and thus by extension the Chivalric King Arthur of HRB to the isle of Avalon. It will become apparent also that Henry Blois composed the prophecies of Merlin.

If one breaks down the false premise from which previous commentators in the past have started, and one is not duped by the apparent fraud which corroborates material from the various genres of investigation; all these subjects interrelate through Henry Blois.

Henry Blois’ genius is in the fact that his greatest coup transpired after his death. This was the disinterment of the ‘Chivalric King Arthur’ at Glastonbury Abbey; Henry Blois while alive had previously manufactured the grave of King Arthur in his lifetime within the confines of the grave yard at Glastonbury Abbey, knowing one day it would be uncovered. It was Henry Blois who alerted those who eventually uncovered the supposed burial site of King Arthur by stipulating where King Arthur was supposedly buried by interpolating this fact into William of Malmesbury’s account of the ‘Antiquities of Glastonbury.’

As we progress through the evidence which puts Henry Blois at the centre of the Matter of Britain, it becomes evident that as a respected Bishop, he had to hide his association with the fraudulent tracts he had authored. Henry Blois’ main defence from discovery was respectability and power. He was King Stephen’s brother and the most powerful prelate in Britain during his Brother King Stephen’s reign. His position, his wealth, power and royal blood, enabled Henry Blois to create a persona to hide behind.

Henry Blois has affected European history by assuming the title of Geoffrey of Monmouth as the author of the ‘History of the Kings of Britain’, while later inventing the first origins of Grail lore. He has accomplished this latter feat under such pseudonyms as Master Blihis, Blaise, Bleheris, Bliho-Bleheris and Bledhericus. In effect Henry Blois’ output has more consequence to history than the writings of Cicero who, as we shall cover shortly, Henry Blois indeed greatly admired and wished to emulate in terms of his great written works.

Historians have had little to relate regarding the biography of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Any personal details are fabricated and based upon a false identity built specifically by Henry Blois to hide his authorship of HRB and the Vita Merlini (VM).

Our only view of the character of Henry Blois is arrived at through the words of contemporary chroniclers and by his known deeds. Once the evidence in these pages is revealed, it will be seen that there is far more to Henry Blois than is commonly understood.

It was not through malice that Henry Blois carried out what many may consider an outright fraud, but some of his actions were dictated by events. Originally, Henry Blois had no intention of creating what has now become known as The Matter of Britain. I will endeavour to lay bare the evolving sequence of events which complemented the formation of The Matter of Britain and the reason for his secretive authorship.

The pseudo-historical account which comprises the First Variant version and Vulgate version of HRB was not authored by the fictional Geoffrey of Monmouth, Bishop of Asaph. I will endeavour to show that Galfridus Artur2 never even existed, even though a trail (of false facts) has been left behind which seemingly provides evidence to the contrary. I will also uncover the reasoning behind the wholly concocted prophecies of Merlin which were latterly added to the  First Variant  and then the Vulgate HRB after the Primary Historia’s initial discovery at Bec.

‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’s’ pseudo-history has presented us with a colourful History of the Kings of Britain portraying a British heritage stemming from the sack of Troy. Henry Blois has also fabricated legends which go to the heart of the Christian religion in Britain. Much of the Glastonbury myth has been fabricated in William of Malmesbury’s De antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiæ (DA) in fact interpolated and partially added to by Henry Blois.

What has added to the complexity of what appears to have transpired at Glastonbury has its roots with Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph of Arimathea’s removal of the body of Jesus from the cross and what transpired afterward to both the body and to Joseph of Arimathea is what gospel writers seem most at odds with. Posterity is left with the disappearance of the body of Jesus and Joseph. It is this confusion which partly leads to the later Grail legends in which ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’s’ King Arthur and his knights seem to be anachronistically connected.

What transpired after the crucifixion are events which eventually lead to Grail legend. The Grail’s relation to Glastonbury is down to a little-known prophecy called the prophecy of Melkin discovered at Glastonbury. Our modern scholars, experts in this field of study, tell us the prophecy, first mentioned by John of Glastonbury, is a fake. This assumption is based upon the fact that there is no previous mention of the prophecy before the fourteenth century.

The scholars who profess this opinion confirm and readily admit that they have no understanding of the Prophecy nor do they understand that the prophecy existed in a book composed by Henry Blois under the assumed authorship of the famed Melkin titled ‘De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda’ from which JG obtained and recycled the excerpt which constitutes the Prophecy of Melkin. 

It is this prophecy and its relation to Glastonbury and Henry Blois which is at the heart of the origins of the Grail legends and our present investigation. This fact only becomes clear after extensive research and careful regard to the train of events presented in the investigation, which concludes that the prophecy of Melkin could not be faked. The Prophecy of Melkin for many reasons logically must have been viewed or uncovered by Henry Blois in his tenure as Abbot of Glastonbury. Turning a blind eye to this fact and wilfully denying this truth is the downfall of modern scholars conclusions and theories surrounding the Matter of Britain.

Augustine, who came to Britain in the year 597 was the first Archbishop of Canterbury and is considered the “Apostle to the English” and a founder of the English Church. Although no Joseph of Arimathea tradition appeared to exist before Henry Blois at Glastonbury; there can be no denial of the fact that there was a Celtic Briton church independent of Rome before the arrival of Augustine. The church of the Britons was originally established with a superior prestige than that of St. Peter prior to the third century and the establishment of this proposition is one outcome of this investigation.

2Gaufridus Arturus was the first appellation that Henry Blois gave the author of the book found at the abbey of Bec. Geoffrey of Monmouth was to become the author’s title at a later date post 1139.

Henry Blois was a serial interpolator, impersonator and author of many fraudulent works. Part of our inquiry involves a charter which grants an Island named ‘Ines Witrin’, donated by a Devonian King to Glastonbury in 601 AD, four years after the Roman church’s envoy Augustine sets foot on British soil. The charter indicates that Glastonbury was already a Christian institution at this early date and somewhat independent of Rome through the dark ages since the crumbling of the Roman Empire. It is the interpretation of this grant mentioned by William of Malmesbury in his Gesta Regum (GR) and DA which is at the heart of our investigation into the Matter of Britain.

Once I have established for the reader that several manuscripts were authored by Henry Blois, we will discover the reasons behind his authorship and anonymity. I will expose the ingenuity of his artifice in creating the persona of ‘Geoffrey’ and his impersonation and interpolation of other known authors after their deaths. These include Caradoc of Llancarfan, William of Malmesbury, Wace and Geffrei Gaimar amongst others.

Few have questioned the forgeries manufactured by what Lot3 calls the ‘officine de faux’ at Glastonbury. The exposing of certain facts within these pages should leave the reader in no doubt that both Vita Merlini and the HRB were written by the Bishop of Winchester, Henry Blois and definitively not by a fictitious Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Henry Blois at the height of his power was Legate to the pope and wielded a vast influence over Britain in the twelfth century. His self-written epitaph on the Meusan plates provides evidence of his regard for the authorship of books as being greater than all things material. Yet, it is the commonly accepted opinion of modern scholars that there is not one work authored by him. The only exception which has been left to posterity is his Libellus which relates to affairs concerning Glastonbury in its bland factual style.

Henry Blois’ most comprehensive biographer to date Michael R Davis has a good grasp on Henry Blois’ character, but has no idea of his authorial edifice which Henry Blois has left to posterity:

Apart from his surviving Libellus and what we can glean from his Acta, Henry remains historically mute to us and thus we are forced to judge Henry by his acts viewed through the lens of others.

Just how wrong can a biographer be? The glaring question which researchers have ignored and is virtually unique historically at this period for such a prominent grandee; is the fact that  virtually no correspondence at all remains. Just asking the question provokes the answer found within this work.  Yet his works do remain if only scholars would open their eyes!!  

Although Henry’s Libellus is a genuine account of Henry Blois’ achievements at Glastonbury, it also acts as a subtle devise meant to deflect any suspicion that his hand or authorship may be involved in other tracts of literature. The illustrious history of Glastonbury abbey lore was concocted for the most part by Henry Blois.  The Glastonbury legend is part of the foundation for the Matter of Britain. William of Malmesbury knew Henry Blois well and refers to him as a remarkable man; a man known for his literary skill.4

We shall also understand more of the stages of evolution in the composition and evolving construction of the HRB when we cover the events which occurred at the time the first edition Primary Historia was discovered at the abbey of Bec. We will then better understand the various contradictions of allegiance supposedly portrayed by a Welsh ‘Geoffrey’. It also becomes evident that the first edition of HRB, which I have termed the Primary Historia, related in précis (or synopsis), evidenced in Henry of Huntingdon’s letter to his friend Warin (EAW),5 differs in substantial story-line detail from the First Variant and from the Vulgate version of HRB. We will cover the reasons for the differences in progression.

3Ferdinand Lot. ‘Glastonbury et Avalon’, Romania 27 (1898), p. 537)
4Antiquities of Glastonbury William of Malmesbury Ch.83
5Epistola ad Warinum

Scholars have made presumptions concerning the dating of HRB based on the dedicatees’ life spans mentioned in the few extant editions. Modern scholars have assumed that the copy of the ‘History of the Kings of Britain’ read at Bec by Henry of Huntingdon and Robert of Torigni was substantially the same as the present Vulgate version which has the names of dedicatees attached to that version.

This investigation will elucidate upon the progression of the HRB which went through four stages of evolution which runs contrary to the present views held by modern scholars. We shall discover the reason behind the insertion of the Prophecies of Merlin into the Vulgate HRB. It will become plain why there was a lapse of years before ‘Geoffrey’s’ Vita Merlini was written and why there was the appearance of new prophecies concerning poignant events in the Anarchy (supposedly recounted by Merlin’s sister Ganieda) which relate to Henry Blois very directly. We will investigate why all works written by ‘Geoffrey’ that I propose in this work were written secretively by Henry Blois. I shall also cover why latterly Gaufridus Artur was given the title ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ and ultimately Bishop of Asaph.

Once I have established for the reader that several works including the anonymously authored Gesta Stephani, Caradoc’s life of Gildas, the interpolations into William of Malmesbury’s DA and GR3 and other works6 emanate from Henry Blois’ hand; we are then in a position to untangle what seemed to be an unsolvable puzzle concerning Glastonbury, its association with Avalon, King Arthur, Joseph of Arimathea and the Holy Grail.

Henry Blois has employed many subtle methods to create his ingenious edifice of fallacious history. The underlying reasons for Henry’s deception will become clear, but his genius and brilliance are evident in the works he authored and in the fact he remained undetected. The means he employed to remain anonymous as the instigator of these works are several and by no certainty are all his works discovered in this present research exposé, as some of his output has not survived to the modern era.

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s epic which brings the ‘chivalric’ King Arthur onto the western historical stage has no mention of Joseph of Arimathea or Glastonbury. Shortly after the book’s proliferation, the Island of Avalon (Insula Avallonis) the place where Arthur was taken after the battle of Camlann in ‘Geoffrey’s’ story book, becomes linked to Glastonbury. A fraudulent unearthing of the bones of King Arthur c.1189-91, found with a bogus ‘leaden cross’ dubiously stating that the burial site is synonymous with Avalon, have (since that time) ensured both Avalon and Glastonbury are identified as the same location.

Glastonbury’s association with Joseph of Arimathea is primarily through the interpolations inserted into DA along with the Insula Avallonis foretold in a prophecy by Melkin. There is also an allusion in Robert de Boron’s Joseph d’Arimathie to the Vaus d’ Avaron.

A fragment of Melkin’s work (i.e. the prophecy), was reproduced in John of Glastonbury’s Cronica sive antiquitates Glastoniensis ecclesie. Many scholars have followed Lagorio in thinking that Melkin’s prophecy is derived as a composite, based on material garnered from Robert de Boron’s Joseph d’ Arimathie which links Glastonbury by way of the Vaus d’Avaron.

6For instance: Wace’s Roman de Brut; Geoffrey Gaimar’s L’Estoire des Bretons which in truth was never even written as is explained further on.

It will become clear to the reader that Glastonbury’s association with the name Avalon was manufactured by Henry Blois’ muses, based on a town of the same name in the county of Blois. The last known location of ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’s’ concocted persona of a chivalric King Arthur in the FV and Vulgate HRB was the Island of Avalon where he was taken grievously wounded. This has been accepted as Insula Pomorum, put forward as an alternative description to Avalon by logical extension in the later composed VM.

Insula Pomorum’ synonymy with the island of Avalon as presented in HRB is confirmed in VM because the wounded Arthur is also taken to that mythical island by Barinthus in the county of Apples i.e. Somerset. As Watkin realises, this establishes Glastonbury as commensurate with Avalon as early as 1155.7

The general acceptance of Arthur’s disinterment at Glastonbury is thought to be a fraudulent staging of the event by Henry de Sully and unconnected to Henry Blois. In fact, the disinterment stems from a polemic and propagandist strategy which was originally fostered by Henry Blois before his death by interpolating William of Malmesbury’s DA and by manufacturing the grave of Arthur in Henry Blois’ lifetime.

This view runs contrary to modern scholarship’s opinion which understands that any mention of Arthur in DA has been interpolated post Arthur’s disinterment in 1189-91.8 I shall adequately show that it was Henry Blois who planted the supposed bones of Arthur and the lock of Guinevere’s hair and had the ‘Leaden cross’ fabricated with its inscription.

These artefacts were uncovered/discovered twenty years after Henry Blois’ death in a grave between the piramides in the Glastonbury cemetery, which had been prepared as a site by Henry Blois with the sole intention that it would be uncovered at a later date.  Its location was clearly pointed to in DA (interpolated by Henry Blois after William of Malmesbury’s death).

7Aelred Watkin. The Glastonbury Legends. P.17. If Avalon and the isle of apples are considered to be identical, and here again we are on the verge of identification of Avalon with Glastonbury.
Watkin misunderstands the principle. There is no transitional verge!
The isle of Avalon appears in the First Variant in 1144 (not mentioned in the earliest copy of HRB found at Bec, the synopsis of which is related in EAW). Willam of Malmesbury died in 1143 and William had never mentioned the island of Avalon or intoned that Glastonbury was synonymous with Ineswitrin in his Life of St Dunstan, but Glastonbury’s assimilation of synonymy with Avalon was interpolated into DA by Henry Blois. The island of Avalon became synonymous with Insula Pomorum only when Henry Blois wished to link to Glastonbury abbey,  his earlier mythical Island mentioned in the First Variant version of HRB (composed c.1144) as Arthur’s last resort, when he composed the VM in 1155.

 8John Scott, The early history of Glastonbury. P.34. Finally, we can be sure that all references to King Arthur must have been written after the purported discovery of his remains buried between the two pyramids in 1190-1. This is the modern scholars view based mainly on Lagorio’s erroneous standpoint; in that Arthuriana and Grail legend appeared at Glastonbury following the advent of continental Grail literature and a fortuitous convergence of factors. Scott’s view, that any mention of Arthur in DA prior to the unearthing of Arthur’s grave site, could not have been interpolated before the event, does not hold true.  Scott bases this belief on Lagorio’s analysis. There is ‘Caradoc’s’ association of Arthur to Glastonbury which stems from Henry Blois.
Henry II died on 6 July 1189. If the date for the unearthing is correct in 1190-91, we should ask: how do we account for the reference to King Arthur in association with Glastonbury in a charter written by Henry II granting concessions to Glastonbury while Henry II is still alive. Scholars need to recognise that King Arthur was connected to Glastonbury by Henry Blois’ propaganda interpolated into DA long before Arthur’s disinterment. Carta Henrici Regis Secundi Filii Matildis Imperatricis De Libertatibus Concessis Ecclesie Glaston. Volume 1, P 186. The Great Chartulary of Glastonbury. Dom Aelred Watkin…… Baldredo, Ina, inclito Arthuro, Cuddredo et multis aliis regibus Christianis….

I will also cover the confusion regarding Yniswitrin as being another previous appellation for Glastonbury. This stems from propaganda found in Henry Blois’ impersonation of Caradoc in Henry Blois’ concocted tract titled the Life of Gildas. The Life of Gildas’ mention of Ynis Witrin has direct repercussions on its relation to the 601 Charter concerning Glastonbury, mentioned by William of Malmesbury. The contrived connection of synonymy (i.e. that Glastonbury and Ynis Witrin were one and the same) was driven by Henry Blois’ attempt to gain metropolitan status for the whole of South West England which is elucidated further on. I shall also cover why the etymology concerning Ineswitrin is an additional last paragraph to a book already fraudulently and previously composed by Henry Blois who impersonated Caradoc of Llancarfan. The Life of Gildas’ first aim in composition was to associate King Arthur and Gildas with Glastonbury. It was written c.1139-40. Its additional last paragraph (added in 1144) was composed to contrive a synonymy between Glastonbury and Ineswitrin.

What I intend to show as the reader progresses, is that Glastonbury’s myth of the Grail stems from and can be traced back to icons derived from Melkin’s prophecy. Also, that Grail literature was initially instigated by Henry Blois on the continent in the guise of Master Blihis.

The Melkin prophecy portends the discovery of Joseph of Arimathea’s body in the future. It is this prophecy which speaks of the duo fassula which has associated the ‘cruets’ and Grail with Glastonbury. The duo fassula is said by Melkin to be buried along with Joseph of Arimathea in Insula Avallonis.

At the end of this investigation there is ample evidence provided to show that the Prophecy of Melkin existed at the time Henry Blois was Abbot of Glastonbury and that modern scholars’ imperious pronouncements on the Melkin prophecy are wholly deluded. I also show that the Melkin prophecy is a genuine encrypted document and that it acted as the inspirational template for the prime archetype of the Grail in the sang réal.

After the great fire at Glastonbury in 1184 there was a loss of many books, but the providential find of King Arthur’s remains later in 1189-91 has forevermore provided the erroneous association of Glastonbury with the fictitious Isle of Avalon and thereafter Joseph of Arimathea with the Grail at Glastonbury.

Analysis of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s HRB by Tatlock has shown that virtually every episode, place or person can be uncovered as having a source or a previous association. ‘Geoffrey’s’ inspiration and his natural gift of inventiveness in the narrative story-line and in the characters he unfolds in nearly every case, has a provenance and a purport to carry forward his pseudo-history. His work is based upon sources from which he has provided an echo of history. ‘Geoffrey’s’ attempt at providing a credible provenance for his HRB is insincere as he feigns to be translating the words of a previous writer from the British tongue into Latin or from a book ex Britannia.

Besides the episode which concerns King Lear,9 which might be one of the few tales of the HRB which is thought to be entirely of ‘Geoffrey’s’ own invention; there is an underlying framework which attempts to parallel events portrayed in older sources i.e. extant British annals.

Previous commentators on the existence of ‘Geoffrey’s’ ancient book seem undecided or unconvinced on the ancient book’s existence. Yet other researchers are convinced by the interpolation known as ‘Gaimar’s epilogue’. ‘Geoffrey’ avows the historical substance for his HRB comes from this ancient ex Britannia book procured from the Archdeacon of Oxford wherein it supposedly bears witness to an Island called Avalon. This is absolutely a misdirection invented by Henry Blois!

9The template for Henry Blois inspiration for the story of King Lear is certainly seen to be based upon Henry’s father’s experience, daughters being replaced by the sons of Stephen II Count of Blois and Count of Chartres. Henry’s father  was the son of Theobald III, count of Blois. He is numbered Stephen II after Stephen I, Count of Troyes. 

One aim of this present work is to uncover the provenance of the Island of Avalon. The Insula Avallonis cited in Melkin’s prophecy is a real location once known as Ineswitrin which has a complicated set of different names due to the meddling of propaganda put out by Henry Blois. The island is unconnected with King Arthur except through the authorship of HRB by Henry Blois.

The goal of clarifying the muddle will be achieved when the reader is fully appraised that Geoffrey of Monmouth did not exist and that he was a fabricated persona invented by Henry Blois, the bishop of Winchester and abbot of Glastonbury.

What appears from the outset is that ‘Geoffrey’s’ basis for writing the HRB is based upon the extensive work he had already done in producing the Psuedo-History for his Uncle in providing a history about the Britons: ‘and it now remains for me to tell how they came and from where and this will be made clear in the following’. Yet fantastically, when certain skeptics c.1155-7 are actively searching for ‘Geoffrey’ he relates in an abridged pre- amble to the Vulgate versions that he was provided with such a book by Walter Archdeacon of Oxford or so he claims!!

We shall cover the formation and development of the original Primary Historia found at Bec from an already created pseudo-history intended for Henry Blois’ Uncle Henry 1st and his daughter the Empress Matilda. To this original draft of HRB, episodes of the Chivalric Arthur were added in 1137-8. ‘Geoffrey’s’ inspirational muses weave scenarios evidently drawn or formatted on previous works of known classical writers.

Henry Blois, as the author of HRB, uses ancient insular British annals as well as contemporary historian’s work as source material to anchor his epic in what may be termed a ‘conflated fabulation of history’. People, along with places, events, and legend, are made to seem as a genuine historical account.

Henry Blois’ genius also capitalises on the sentiment of the insular and Breton populace and its bravado regarding an Arthur which Henry transposes his Norman values upon…. to become the ‘Chivalric King Arthur’. There has never been a trace of the ancient book which ‘Geoffrey’ refers to, or reference to whom may have authored it because it simply did not exist. Even the Gaimar epilogue which confirms the existence of such a book is part of Henry Blois’ deception as I will show in progression.

Henry, writing as Geoffrey of Monmouth in the Vulgate HRB, supposedly cautions three ‘contemporary’ historians, William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon and Caradoc of Llancarfan that his history is more complete by possession of the fictional source book. We shall cover Henry Blois’ impersonation of Caradoc of Llancarfan, and it will become clear that it was after Caradoc’s death that Henry composed the life of Gildas. We will see how the manuscript of the life of Gildas inter-relates to the engravings found on the Modena Archivolt; known to portray the ‘kidnap of Guinevere’.

Although Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae10 does not mention King Arthur, the bogus life of Gildas in effect establishes a relationship in antiquity between Arthur and Gildas through the ‘Kidnap’ episode concerning King Melvas at Glastonbury. We shall uncover that Henry Blois’ assertion that Caradoc is the contemporary of ‘Geoffrey’ in the colophon of the later Vulgate HRB which mentions the three historians is purposeful misdirection. This colophon was inserted into some manuscripts of HRB post 1157 after Huntingdon’s death.

It will be shown in this present work that the device which has caused confusion amongst scholars is the use of retro-dating employed by Henry Blois, specifically using the names of dedicatees and authors which (for the unsuspecting) logically date the work i.e. specifically the Vulgate version. Thus, many of the previous conclusions about the composition and dating of HRB will need to be reassessed.

‘Back dating’ is a ‘primary device’ employed by Henry Blois in secreting his authorship and providing a belief in Merlin’s prescience. It is used by Henry Blois on several occasions to distance himself from the authorship of several works by time and by association.

10Gildas relates frequently to biblical sources and looks on the Britons as descendants of the Israelites, but his works generally bemoan the state of the British nation through the invasions and internal division of the Britons.

 

Henry interpolates much of William of Malmesbury’s ‘Enquiry into the Antiquity of the Church of Glastonbury’ (DA) by composing most of the first 34 chapters of that book himself. After William’s death, we can also witness other interpolations into the C and B versions of William’s GR3. The tampering with these manuscripts is the root cause of much of the confusion which I hope to clear up satisfactorily.

Henry Blois also spends considerable effort to convince us that the patchwork compilation of the Historia Brittonum ascribed to Nennius (who may have been only a reviser, consolidator or an interpolator)11 is in fact the work of Gildas. The point of this is to convince posterity that Gildas makes reference concerning Arthur…. which we know Gildas did not!

The HRB in effect attempts to persuade us that Nennius’s account is written by Gildas because Nennius’ work is the only pre-twelfth century annal which evidences Arthur apart from a few cursory references in a few accounts mentioned in some tracts concerning the lives of saints12 and the Annales Cambriae. The life of St Cadoc upon which Henry concocted his Life of Gildas is the prime example.

The life of Gildas establishes a bogus association that Gildas is connected to Glastonbury and is partly the reason for Henry’s invention of the Life of Gildas. Gildas’ association with Glastonbury is only otherwise established by what Henry Blois has written in his interpolation of William of Malmesbury’s GR3 and expanded upon in chapter 7 of DA.

However, the Life of Gildas preceded the first interpolations into DA which were made in 1144. Secondary additions to DA which include the St Patrick charter were added c.1149. We shall also discover a tertiary set of additions interpolated into DA c.1160-1170 which incorporate what I have termed Henry Blois’ ‘second agenda’.

Researchers have attempted to ascertain ‘Geoffrey’s’ underlying reason for writing the HRB apart from that stated by ‘Geoffrey’. Scholars have been duped into believing that ‘Geoffrey’ was an aspiring cleric seeking patronage and wherewithal and who professes his reason for writing was that he could find no previous writer who had given an adequate account of British history.

The real reasons are multiple and set out at length further on. They include an account of how the composition of HRB evolved from an unfinished original ‘psuedohistory’ destined for the Empress Matilda pre-1134 which was then spliced together with additional material which became the epic concerning King Arthur written in 1137-8. This became what I have termed the Primary Historia. The Primary Historia is what Huntingdon witnessed at Bec which was then developed into the First Variant and then evolved through variant editions and abridgements to one of the most influential books ever written i.e. the Vulgate HRB. The present assessment among commentators is the assumption that the First Variant post dated the Vulgate version. This view is entirely erroneous.

11However, Grandsen’s Historical Writing in England p.6 does point out stylistic unity and comment upon the preface of Historia Brittonum which accuses the Britons of slothfully neglecting their past and concludes there is no earlier pre-cursor to the Historia from which it might be compiled.

12This mention of Arthur as a named persona in history rebuts the suggestion of Ashe and Padel in assuming that there is a mix up in tradition between Riotamus and Arthur. However, the suggestion that Riotamus’s military expedition to the Continent is the inspiration for the Continental campaign which ‘Geoffrey’ ascribes to Arthur is a very plausible explanation in how Henry Blois (impersonating Geoffrey) allowed himself to stray from what is reliably known in history with the conflation of Riotamus’s expedition. O.J. Padel correctly points out: But it is a long way from this to supposing that Riotamus was the actual prototype of the legendary Arthur. As already mentioned, Arthur was famed in Brittonic folklore and local legend before Geoffrey wrote, and was the inspiration for his figure.

Virtually nothing is known of Geoffrey of Monmouth, but the little that is known has provided a base for scholarship to assume he was a real historical person. Beginning with such a false premise has led to a maze of misinformation concerning Glastonbury and events surrounding King Arthur’s disinterment which ordinarily would be viewed in a different light if ‘Geoffrey’ had been understood as a pen name for Henry Blois. It has also led to the misunderstanding of the inspiration behind the Grail legend material and its connection to Glastonbury and Avalon. As the reader will discover, the basis for the events regarding Joseph of Arimathea in Britain and the true substance of what became known as the Grail, in association with Joseph, are actually based on genuine historical events.

It is a strange circumstance considering the amount written about Geoffrey of Monmouth and his HRB that we have such flimsy biographical details. As far as I know only two commentators13 have questioned the reality of the persona of Galfridus Arthur. ‘Geoffrey’ is only grounded in historical reality by his supposed witness to a few charters and the dubious fact that he became Bishop of St. Asaph and once supposedly stood in front of Theobald of Bec to be ordained.

These fictitious details will be shown to have been concocted by Henry Blois with the intention of secreting Henry’s authorship of what eventually became a contentious book; especially once the updated prophecies of Merlin were added to it. At this time Galfridus Artur became known by his later appellation Geoffrey of Monmouth. Orderic’s reference to the Merlin prophecies and Robert of Torigni’s reference to the Bishop of Asaph also have augmented the belief by commentators that ‘Geoffrey’ existed. These references will be dealt with in the appropriate place in this exposé.

All other reference to Geoffrey is derived from comment about his work regarding the HRB or VM or from spurious personal details divulged by Henry Blois or from the Gwentian Brut. The Brut y Tywysogyon records Geoffrey’s death in 1154-5, but this annal serves as a continuation of Geoffrey’s HRB and is definitively mis-directional regarding details of Geoffrey’s life. The Brut y Tywysogion has survived as several Welsh translations of an original Latin version, which has not itself survived. However, we will see that the original version was a chronicle written by Caradoc of Llancarfan in Latin and Henry Blois interpolated it with propaganda about ‘Geoffrey’.

As we progress, we will understand that the original annal which Caradoc wrote before Henry Blois’ interpolations pre-date’s the HRB and is the main reason why Henry Blois ends his HRB at the point where Caradoc starts his history. The colophon in some versions of HRB mentioning Caradoc’s name is meant to misdirect; creating the sense that Caradoc is alive (along with Huntingdon and Malmesbury) and we are led to believe Caradoc is ‘Geoffrey’s’ contemporary who took up the mantle of bringing Geoffrey’s history up to date. I will show that this colophon was written after 1157.

13De Buck in Acta SS, LVII,94, and D.R. Thomas, Hist. Diocese of St Asaph Oswestry vol I, 33,214 regarding Geoffrey’s episcopate and biography.

Henry Blois who had many Welsh monks14 under his auspices has implanted material which substantiates his HRB in the Book of LLandaff. Many of the places like Fluvium Periron which no-one has definitively located, just happens to be given location in the Book of Llandaff. The subject of Periron is interesting concerning Henry Blois and will be discussed during an examination of why John of Cornwall’s edition of the Merlin prophesies locates Periron at Tintagel. Also, I will elucidate why the Merlin prophecies, although appearing to speak about similar subjects, vary in sense between the versions of JC, VM, and the Merlin prophecies found in Vulgate HRB.

Henry Blois himself publicised ‘Geoffrey’s’ death and it is recorded in the Brut y Tywysogion (1154). We can account for Robert of Torigni’s reference to the bishop of Asaph as having come from Henry Blois himself at a meeting in Mont St Michel in 1155. The Gwentian Brut adds several details about the later period of ‘Geoffrey’s’ life, from his being ordained as bishop onward. None of these details have any substance. It states that Geoffrey died in Llandaff and was buried there, but there is no grave site. Also, it names him a foster son of Uchtryd, archbishop of Llandaff and asserts that Geoffrey taught at, and served as archdeacon of St. Teilo in Llandaff. ‘Geoffrey’s’ death is certainly Henry Blois’ providentially timed invention as Henry II came to the throne as will become clear later.

Admittedly, other material could be accountable to the aggrandising of Llandaff by Welshmen at a later date due to ‘Geoffrey’s’ renown. His personal disclosures like ‘pudibindus Brito’ found in some texts are all part of the illusion invented by Henry Blois that ‘Geoffrey’ could not be Norman. There is simply no contemporary who provides a personal detail of a meeting with Geoffrey of Monmouth in the flesh; except that evidence discussed later which I will show has been provided and planted by Henry Blois…. most obviously as the bishop of Asaph on the Treaty of Winchester; (which itself was put together and the terms drawn up by Henry Blois), which brought the Anarchy to an end.

Before I can begin to untangle a spurious tradition at Glastonbury further on in the exposé, it is necessary firstly to leave the reader in no doubt that the man we think of as Geoffrey of Monmouth is in fact Henry Blois. After this proposition is established beyond doubt or speculation by analysing the HRB and the Vita Merlini, we can then move on to the methods employed and the reasoning’s behind such a deception by Henry Blois. The most difficult task for me is to convince the reader that Geoffrey of Monmouth is Henry Blois in the shortest and quickest way possible, because there is so much other material to cover after that is accepted, to come to a solution of the Matter of Britain.

My task is made harder by the fact that modern scholars insist that Geoffrey existed as a real living person and this a priori is so entrenched in commentator’s minds. Once HRB is understood as having been authored by Henry Blois, the evidence that Geoffrey never existed falls into place as certain other manuscripts authored by Henry Blois are discussed.

14The only reason Gerald of Wales was able to see Merlin prophecies in Welsh is because Henry Blois in one monastery had a Welsh monk transcribe Henry Blois own invented prophecies and then make sure as Gerald’s patron he obtained a copy.

I shall establish his deception through a brief analysis of the HRB Merlin prophecies and those found in Vita Merlini.

Once I have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prophecies of Merlin were concocted from the mind of Henry Blois, it is just a short step to proving common authorship of the faux-history making up the main body of HRB. I shall then proceed to analyse the Gesta Stephani so that the reader is in no doubt that both HRB and GS were written by Henry Blois.

The events of the Anarchy predicted by Merlin often clearly replicated as events recorded in GS. We can then move swiftly through the tangible material in HRB regarding the continental battle scene in Autun (in the region of Blois) etc…. understanding that Henry Blois is the author. The rest of the material authored by Henry Blois, will become obvious as the deception unfolds.

I will demonstrate the subtlety of his various devices and show how a different ploy in each tract written by Henry is used to prevent his authorship being discovered. Different methods of propagating his agenda enabled him to remain undiscovered. Henry Blois interpolates corroborations into other texts authored previously by other writers; to add credence to his fabricated history of the Britons.

After discussing the Merlin prophecies, VM and the GS, I will explain exactly how Henry went about creating Geoffrey’s persona and show that the Vulgate HRB and the ‘updated’ Merlin prophecies were not brought together until 1155. This has been achieved by Henry Blois grafting icons and personages (in VM especially) from Welsh prophetic material while looking backwards in time to recorded history and linking retrospectively to events recorded in insular annals of the Britons. In effect in places the prophetia act as a corroborative commentary to Henry Blois’ faux History. This is how Henry Blois affects the ‘skimble skamble’ nature of the murky seeings and mutterings of a Dark Age prognosticator called Merlin.

There are many evidences to consider concerning ‘Geoffrey’s’ work. Orderic’s testimony needs to be considered along with Henry of Huntingdon’s précis (EAW) of what I have termed the Primary Historia.  Also, we must look at Henry’s relationship with abbot Suger and also investigate John of Cornwall’s testimony regarding the prophecies of Merlin. Robert of Torigni’s testimony regarding the Bishop of Asaph will also be investigated. Also, Alfred of Beverley’s recycled account of Geoffrey’s work. All of this will be dealt with in the appropriate places in this exposé.

The supposed ‘Geoffrey’ had already completed his Primary Historia by the latter half of 1138, but we also will discover that Merlin prophecies existed in an incomplete emerging form c.1139-46 which I have termed the Libellus Merlini. It was the political intent behind these prophecies in 1155 that were Henry’s crafty agenda and their production was inspired by Cicero’s De Divinatione.

15Any reader wishing to follow the trail of the prophecies should read the chapter on John of Cornwall because this has the most certain evidence that Henry Blois wrote that Version. However, I have left that until last so that it explains the progression of the prophecies which the reader will appreciate after having covered much other material.

Henry Blois was a genius, but he was a treacherous and deceitful Machiavellian character with evolving views toward Rome and religion. He was also sagacious, persuasive and an eloquent orator with finely tuned diplomatic skills and political savvy. It is this image which is partly understood by historians.

I hope to expose to the reader another side of his complexity which is secreted in his subtle skill as an author. It should not be forgotten that Henry Blois was known as a scholar, a man who constantly wrote yet ostensibly left no writing of any worth as a legacy. Yet Henry Blois clearly thought his legacy would be greater than that of Cicero16 as he declares in his self-written epitaph inscribed on the Mosan plates/Meusan plaques.

In what way could Henry Blois be equatable to Cicero, a concept put forward by himself in the self composed epitaph on the Meusan plaques, if our modern scholars assessment of Henry Blois is correct?

Cicero’s influence on the Latin Language was so immense and yet scholars believe Henry Blois left to posterity no written material of any importance. It is said that “the influence of Cicero upon the history of European literature and ideas greatly exceeds that of any other prose writer in any language”. So, either Henry Blois is deluded or scholars need to make the connections between the evidences provided in this investigation.

Scholars need to better understand Henry Blois’ own assessment of his authorial output, because Henry’s achievements are greater than those of Cicero once his authorship is established of the various tracts investigated herein.   Scholars are still trying to make sense of ‘Geoffrey’s’ legacy. The difference  between Henry Blois and his admiration for Cicero is that Cicero spoke the truth and Henry Blois has left us a web of deceit and lies but still keeps us entertained. 

Who was the real Henry Blois?

A remarkable fact about Henry Blois is that relative to the power he held, so little is known of him. Characters such as Henry have usually left behind letters such as those of Gilbert Foliot;17 or historians have written biographies about them. Where Henry is concerned there is a dearth of personal anecdotes from which to compose a portrait of who he really was.18

However, from what is gleaned from various Medieval accounts, he was well educated, complex and courageous. He was vain and maintained a regal veneer ostensibly to those he wished to oppose and was also conscious of his pedigree. It is this pedigree which defines all the literary compositions in this investigation into the works of Henry Blois because they are all defined by an author that saw himself as an authority.

Hence, commentators on the HRB can’t really understand from where ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ gets his imperious ‘authority’ from…. as comes across so clearly in his writing. Nor do researchers into the author of the Gesta Stephani understand the haughty stamp of authority noticed in the author’s account. An anagram of Henry Blois’ name is in the “Elucidation” which is prefixed to the rhymed version of Percival le Gallois under the name of ‘Master Blihis’. Henry Blois prefaces the account of the Grail Quest by a solemn statement of authority concerning the gravity of the subject to be treated:

‘God moveth the High story of the Graal. And all they that hear it ought to understand it, and to forget all the wickednesses that they have in their hearts’. Even though Henry Blois tries to hide his authorship of many manuscripts discussed in the investigation, his imperious authority defined by his lineage is clear between the lines.

Henry Blois started out as an ardent believer in God having been brought up an oblate at Clugny and he recognised God’s omnipotent force. Unfortunately, many of his endeavours were clandestine, so he did not always advocate the truth which we can witness in the ease with which he is able to fabricate and lie.

Henry Blois was a prime example of the nobili ecclesiastici destined for a high position in the church, but these churchmen of the nobility were not always churchmen of their own volition in terms of conscience. One side of Henry Blois’ character surely believed, like his contemporaries, that all events transpired by divine consequence; his oratorical speeches recorded in HN by William of Malmesbury reflect this sentiment.  We can witness these thoughts with judgements pronounced about his brother in the Gesta Stephani. 

Henry was an industrious builder and employer and benevolent to most under his auspices. However, he was manipulative and a schemer and also a pragmatist. He was conscientious in some respects, compassionate, yet judgemental and wilful. Basically none of his contemporaries really knew of his multi faceted nature because he led a double life carrying out secretive designs and ‘agendas’ while appearing publicly as representing all that contemporaries were able to perceive of his character.

Henry Blois was a split persona and presented a fake persona for much of his life. He was never openly malicious, but his dark side was malign and he was essentially complex.  Most contemporaries were unaware of his complexity. The fact about Henry Blois which is most important to this exposé is that he was a fabricator of intricately worked tales and worst of all, he was a liar. There is not one commentator or biographer of Henry Blois who understands that at a very brief period in time while Henry Blois was in self imposed exile at Clugny from 1155 to 1158, that he harboured very malicious designs against King Henry II. He wished to dethrone Henry II through composing malicious prophecies purportedly composed by Merlin which encouraged the Celtic tribes to revolt against Norman domination so that he might become King in his place. The evidence for this is laid out very plainly in the prophecies of Merlin purportedly translated by John of Cornwall but which in reality were all composed by himself. This is explained in the section on John of Cornwall further on.

Had Henry Blois not lived, there would be no ‘chivalric’ King Arthur from the HRB nor Grail literature. But most importantly, without the discovery of the Melkin prophecy at Glastonbury during his tenure as Abbot, the location of Joseph of Arimathea’s burial site would be lost to the present era. Henry Blois was an able administrator and knew the value of cultivating a healthy pilgrim trade to both Glastonbury  Abbey and Winchester by the appropriation of saint’s relics. Henry collected them and fabricated them.  Henry understood how to utilise the gullibility and superstitions of the medieval mind. Henry translated the relics of the Anglo-Saxon saints of Birinus and Birstan, Haeddi and Aelfneah into the new Norman cathedral at Winchester.

Oddly enough, the ‘Holy Hole’ dug so that pilgrims could get close to St Swithun was foreseen as a prophecy by Merlin and was obviously intended as a work by Henry Blois when the late version of the prophecies were completed in 1155. The high-water table under the New Minster caused several relics to be moved at the time as related by prior Robert of Winchester. Adam of Damerham relates many of the gifts donated to Glastonbury by Henry and his ’gifts to God’ which Henry Blois himself refers to on his Meusan plates, were artful objects of value.

Henry loved art and precious objects…. and there is a blatant contradiction in several reports of his character. On the one hand his avarice is recorded and on the other his clear generosity in the donation of precious artefacts is demonstrated. Henry understood the power of religious objects, but it seems obvious he invented an erroneous provenance and bogus history for many of the relics he produced. The most outrageous was some of the blessed Mary’s milk and some of her hair enclosed in a lion made of crystal.19 The most ingenious, which we shall cover in the examination of Malmesbury’s DA, is his miraculous find of the Sapphire which became part of an altar he had had constructed.

17It is not by accident that no letters exist for Henry Blois as he would purposefully have disposed of all the evidence which might have betrayed his viewpoints which we now find in his work under pseudonyms. Ironically, Knowles p.289, while on the subject of Henry Blois’ lack of letters says that they are ‘the best mirror of a man’s character and mind and motives whether he be a Cicero or a Bernard’. The irony is that Henry left no letters and looked upon himself as superseding Cicero in craft (which in effect he has attained), albeit under secreted authorship.

18Two biographies on Henry exist. Lena Voss, Heinrich von Blois and Michael .R. Davis’ Henry of Blois.

19John of Glastonbury in his Cronica ch.9, when mentioning Mary’s milk also says a crystal cross which the Blessed Virgin brought to the Glorious King Arthur must also be derived from some propaganda put out by Henry Blois.

Henry Blois’ imagination and unabashed willingness to invent, (even often what might seem blasphemous anecdotes), is a large part of the subject matter of this present work. But it is how he gets away with these blatant lies and also reconciles them to an obvious conscience, which is the most interesting part of his character and personality. It is as if there is a young cloistered and devout monk paired in the same body with a vain and manipulative egomaniac. Henry of Huntingdon recognised this duality and referred to him as a ‘monster’.

The intriguing part of Henry’s character is how he was able to separate this duality of character in public life.

As a bishop, Henry Blois’ word would have been respected and taken as truthful as long as the lies contained in his secret authorial works were never equated with him. It is plainly seen in William of Malmesbury’s HN that Henry could hold an audience on a grand scale and used his oratorical skill. But some, like William of Malmesbury, as time went on, became wise to Henry’s guile. Naked men on dragons, as portrayed in the Merlin prophecies, clearly demonstrates there is no limitation to Henry’s muses.

However, there are instances of the crossover of these two personalities where impossible stories, i.e. lies, related by him, have been believed as credible because of his status…. and these stories are often portrayed as miraculous.20 Henry loved the miraculous to awe his readers or listeners yet hid behind the protection of respectability which the church afforded.

What little is known of Henry Blois is incidental and misunderstood and no clear picture of his complex character is understood until one can appreciate more about him from the works he left behind. Differences of opinion given in the few passages that mention his name by contemporary historians reflect the change of disposition he underwent from a scholarly youth; maturing and enduring the trials of conscience and temptations of power…. until the resignation of the loss of his power in 1158. From that point onward he fostered the image of a venerable churchman and statesman. Yet it was in this period he instigated the initial stories of the Grail.

Strangely, a point not mentioned by commentators, is Henry’s vanity which he had inherited from his father. His father at the siege of Antioch in a letter to Adela his wife had inflated his own importance.  In William of Malmesbury’s first edition of GR, Stephen Count of Blois is accused of fleeing secretly using lies to turn back new arrivals.21This was written in GR before William had met and been employed by Henry Blois at Glastonbury. William of Malmesbury was much older than Henry and it did not take him long to realise the temerity of the young Henry as shall become evident in the contention over Eadmer’s letter to the ‘youth’ of Glastonbury.

20One such example is where John of Hexam relates what he has heard: We have learnt from a truthful source that as people were hearing mass one day at Windsor, a light had shone into the interior of the church. In astonishment, some of the men went outside and looking up saw an unusual star shining in the sky. Returning to the church, they saw that the light from the stellar rays was beaming inside. One wonder was followed by another. Many saw that the cross on the altar was moving from right to left and left to right in a manner of people in distress. This happened three times. Then for almost half an hour the whole cross moved and was bathed in pouring sweat before resuming its former state….I have learnt that Bishop Henry of Winchester narrated this story.

21William of Malmesbury GR. Vol I P635. Mynors, Winterbottom, Thompson.

 

     When William of Malmesbury was employed by the monks of Glastonbury and he eventually presented the DA to Henry Blois c.1134, the dedicatory prologue of DA has only commendations for Henry. After the usurpation of the English crown by King Stephen and Henry’s part in this affair, the HN22 portrays William of Malmesbury’s change of opinion and feelings toward the Bishop of Winchester. William’s slight toward Henry’s father23 and the deference in which Henry held William (who thought of himself the successor and equal of the Saxon Bede) also explains why Henry has no qualms interpolating William of Malmesbury’s DA to support his ‘agendas’ after William’s death. Henry Blois’ primary and secondary agendas are elucidated later in this investigation in the chapters concerning William of Malmesbury’s GR and DA.

 

Henry Blois was of noble blood, the Grandson of William the Conqueror through his mother Adela of Normandy; ‘a powerful woman with a reputation for her worldly influence’.24 Adela’s mother was Matilda of Flanders. Henry Blois’ father was Stephen Henry, Count of Blois, Count of Chartres, and also accounted, Stephen II Count of Troyes.

 

Henry’s parents’ marriage was an arranged match by Adela’s father William the Conqueror. Henry had two elder brothers of note, Theobald and Stephen. William the eldest brother does not feature on the historical stage because of mental disabilities, but Henry also had sisters. His elder brother William had a son Henry de Sully, Abbot of Fécamp who plays a part later in this expose. The sons of Henry Blois’ sisters and brothers have a huge bearing on the propagation of HRB editions, specifically that seen by Alfred of Beverley, but also his brother Theobald’s sons and their wives had a huge influence on the proliferation of Grail literature.

 

William, Henry Blois elder brother was married to Agnes De Sully a lady at the court of Adela Blois, William and Henry Blois’ mother. William had threatened to kill Bishop Ivo of Chartres over a dispute. So, Adela of Blois made her second eldest son Theobald, ruler in William’s place. However, in 1140, Henry Blois nominated his nephew Henry de Sully to be Bishop of Salisbury, but the nomination was quashed by the pope. As compensation, Henry of Blois then named Henry de Sully the abbot of Fécamp Abbey in Normandy. Henry Blois afterward then nominated him to become Archbishop of York, but his election was again quashed by the pope. But this is in fact how the copy of HRB came to be widely read in Beverley i.e. by Henry de Sully’s presence there, having received the copy from his uncle Henry Blois, the author of HRB. This is the copy of HRB which was then later recycled by Alfred of Beverley. Anyway, the son of Henry de Sully or another nephew of Henry Blois stemming from the marriage of his elder brother William and Agnes de Sully was later involved with the unearthing of the manufactured grave at Glastonbury in 1189-91, twenty years After Henry Blois’ death.

 

Henry’s brother Theobald had sons who were married to Marie of France and her sister Alix. This relationship was used as a conduit in the propagation of Grail literature at the Court of Champagne. It is a stupidity to think that the person who wrote The Lais of Marie de France25is any other than Marie of Champagne, but we shall get to her later.

 

Henry was born in 1098/9 and brought up at the Abbey of Clugny in Burgundy probably from around the age of 10 years old. Here, he led a cloistered life and received an extremely good education and by all accounts was highly intelligent. He was widely read in both the Greek and Latin writers as becomes evident as the composer of HRB. He would have had access to a vast library from which his education prospered and would have studied the Trivium, of which ostensibly, he was an exemplary living product; a virtuous, knowledgeable, and eloquent person.

 

The study of grammar, rhetoric, logic, poetry, history, and ethics were the core liberal arts. Henry was schooled in theology and had interests in philosophy and the writers of the ancient world, many of whose writings must have existed in the Library at Clugny.

 

22William of Malmesbury’s Historia Novella current until 1143 when he died.

23Henry’s father died in the Crusade at Razes when Henry was about two years of age.

24William of Malmesbury GR. Vol I P505. Mynors, Winterbottom, Thompson.

25Marie of France is second chronologically to ‘Wace’ and then Robert de Boron; all who mention the ‘table roȕnd’ and Marie writing c.1165-70 is part of Henry Blois’ family circle. See chapter on Marie of France

From the source material garnered by Henry Blois in HRB, I think that Henry may have had a photographic memory to some extent. However, Glastonbury also had a vast library at the time the bulk of the ‘pseudo-history’ was being composed (this was the first composition of an historical book intended for his uncle Henry Ist.

Peter the Venerable the abbot at Clugny was Henry Blois’ mother’s good friend and he became much like a mentor to Henry. It can be seen by letters between Henry Blois and Peter that they fell out over differences.26  It would appear (but there is only circumstantial evidence) that this cooling of relations happened when the power of Legate went to Henry’s head. However, returning from Rome in 1149, after Henry Blois’ appeal to the pope to grant him metropolitan status for Western England, he lent Clugny abbey (in effect Peter) 1000 ounces of gold and 500 ounces to repair a Golden Cross…. and then later, while in self-imposed exile, bailed out again the abbey at Clugny.

From a noble family, Henry understood from reading the importance of History derived from chronicles of the ancient world, and the provenance it provides for races and nations. Henry is very conscious of his place in history and how posterity will perceive him…. as is evident in GS. He vainly wishes to be remembered well in posterity. Adam of Damerham says Henry made provision at Glastonbury that festivals might be observed with more alacrity and his own name (alive or dead) more gratefully remembered.

The Bibliotheca Cluniacencis relates that: this Henry, Bishop of Winchester, had formerly been a scholar and then a monk in this monastery of Cluny.

The Cluniac movement was the largest religious force in Europe second to the papacy before the Cluniac’s decline in power at the rise of the Cistercians. To Henry, the Cluniac reforms and views were a part of his way of life. He had regard for the autonomy of the Church against the material influences of the state and the corruption of simony. It is evident that Henry initially envisaged a partnership with his brother Stephen, governing England, church and state. However, as history tells, events evolved a different relationship between them after 1138 in the electing of Theobald of Bec as archbishop of Canterbury.

  The Cluniac reforms were a series of changes taking place in medieval monasticism which focused on restoring the traditional monastic life, encouraging art, education and caring for the poor. The driving force behind the reforms was an action against corruption within the church, particularly preventing simony and the acceptance of concubines. At the same time the Papacy wished to gain control of all clergy and wished to stop the investiture of bishops by secular rulers.

The attempt at reform was to reinforce the rule of St. Benedict which enabled each monastic institution to choose its own abbot. The feudal system of lords granting lands to religious institutions and providing protection had bred corruption and ultimately resulted in a negative secular influence over religious houses across Europe and Britain. The wealth of the church and monastic institutions grew, so too did their power through bequeathals; while hereditary barons became envious of the monasteries increasing power. This mistrust of ecclesistical power had extenuated to rulers like Henry Ist and King Stephen who, by delaying the appointment of bishops, at times reaped the reward from individual abbeys in the interim. Royalty would reward lucrative Sees and monastic holdings to their favoured advisors or relations to protect their own interests and political positions.

26The letters of Peter the Venerable, Giles Constable: Whereupon while I thought a mutual love which we had for one another was in a small space of time hurt, I was unable to disguise, so that not to cure the same, I would yield the antidotes of many words.

The reality of the Anarchy during Stephen’s reign was caused by Henry Blois’ organised usurpation of the Empress Matilda’s throne by Stephen. However, it was also a consequence of the baron’s allegiances who wished to counter the growing power of the clerics of these landed religious institutions and their aristocratic Bishops. If Henry Blois had not installed his brother Stephen on the throne, squabbles over allegiances and power would never have culminated in the Anarchy; the Civil war in England and Normandy between 1135 and 1153.

However, in contravention to Cluniac values, Henry Blois was elected to be abbot of Glastonbury by his Uncle King Henry Ist. It is not clear exactly if Henry came directly to Glastonbury from Clugny in 1126 or if he had spent time with his uncle in Normandy along with his brother Stephen as part of Henry Ist entourage. There are rumours that Henry Blois had spent time in Bermondsey as Abbot or had even been assigned to oversee the building of a Monastery at Montacute which had been planned by his uncle. Once Henry had been elected bishop of Winchester, he became a Knight Bishop and he supplied knights to his uncle from Glastonbury and from Winchester and built a network of castles.

His knowledge of fortification and siege warfare and his interest in architectural battlements is evident by his comments as author of GS. His interest also would have been established by reading classical literature on wars fought in the ancient world and through what he had learnt by experience.

In the ‘Red Book of the Exchequer’, 27it lists Henry of Blois as Prior of Montacute. Montacute at this era was a possession of Glastonbury. It may well be that plans for a new religious house were in place which were subsequently shelved, but this is conjecture. Henry’s connection with Montacute will be discussed later, regarding his authorship of De Inventione concerning Waltham and Montacute.  Father William Good stated that Joseph of Arimathea’s body was most “carefully hidden” on a hill near Montacute.  I will discuss this later as it pertains to knowledge encoded in Melkin’s Prophecy which most scholars have misguidedly determined as a thirteenth/early fourteenth century fabrication.

Abbot Seffrid’s elevation to Bishop of Chichester left Glastonbury vacant and led to Henry’s appointment to abbot of Glastonbury by his uncle Henry Ist.

I hope not to labour the reader with historical context, but it is necessary to understand more of Henry Blois’ background if we are to recognise him as the author of the HRB under the pseudonym of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

So, briefly, William Duke of Normandy (Henry’s grandfather) had invaded Britain and defeated Harold at Hastings in 1066 and was later crowned King at Westminster (the first of the Norman kings of Western England). William, subduing rebellion from relations in Normandy and the Capetian King Philip was injured after attacking the city of Mantes where his horse had stumbled.

William of Malmesbury gives a descriptive account of how a corpulent William the Conqueror had ruptured his intestines on the pommel of his saddle and then retired to Rouen with a ruptured gut.   After five weeks in agony, the King died. His body was then taken for burial to the abbey he had founded in Caen. The body had been squeezed into a coffin too small for him and with the obvious travel delay and the putrefying stomach gasses made worse by the rupture, the body had exploded during the funeral.

27H. Hal. The Red Book of the Exchequer, vol 2, 752. In a passage ‘ex libro Abbatis de Feversham’, it is stated that Henry was prior of Montacute previous to his appointment as Abbot of Glastonbury. It is at Montacute, a pertinent event transpired concerning that which Father William Good had to say about Joseph of Arimathea’s burial place. This event also becomes relevant when discussing Henry’s composition of De Inventione Sanctae Crucis Nostrae in Monte Acuto et De ductione ejusdem, apud Waltham, see William Stubbs 1861 JH & J Parker.

William the conqueror’s eldest son Robert Curthose inherited Normandy and his younger brother William Rufus became King of England. Their youngest brother Henry Beauclerc received five thousand pounds of silver and the three brothers were in constant contention. Robert was stirring rebellion against William Rufus in England and William retaliating by invading Normandy taking Bayeux and Caen. Robert Curthose, in the end, financed his army for the crusade by pawning Normandy to his brother. While Robert was on crusade, William Rufus was killed by a rogue arrow in a supposed hunting accident. The younger brother, Henry Beauclerc, did not delay in taking possession of the throne to become Henry Ist of England.

When Robert returned from the crusade eventually, the two brothers met at the Battle of Tinchebray where Henry Beauclerc’s knights won a decisive victory, capturing Robert and imprisoning him until Robert’s death in Cardiff Castle in 1134.

King Henry Ist had united Normandy and England, but Robert Curthose had a legitimate son, William Clito, whose claims to the dukedom of Normandy led to several rebellions which continued until 1128.  However, in 1120 after staying in Normandy for the summer and autumn, on November the 25th a dreadful catastrophe happened as many of the nobles were returning to England. King Henry Ist fleet lay in Barfleur Bay in the north of Normandy. The King had recently taken into his fleet a vessel known as the ‘White Ship’, into which many of the nobles, his heir apparent and his bastard son had boarded. Orderic Vitalis relates that abuses and drunken insults were shouted to the priests that had come to bless the voyage across the Channel from inebriated nobles. The port entrance is lined on both sides by lurking rocks and the ship foundered, drowning Prince William and many other English and Norman nobles.

King Henry’s only remaining legitimate heir to the throne was his daughter the Empress Matilda, by his wife Matilda of Scotland, the daughter of Malcolm III of Scotland. Matilda was the product of a political marriage uniting a conquered Anglo Saxon England with Scotland.  In 1125 the Empress Matilda’s husband Henry V the Holy Roman Emperor died which presented King Henry Ist with a solution for succession after losing his son (who would have been his natural heir)  in the ‘White Ship’ disaster.

Being driven by events, King Henry Ist married his daughter the Empress Matilda to Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou, in a union which he hoped would produce a male heir and continue the dynasty. King Henry was nervous about the barons accepting a woman as his heir after his death. He made them swear fealty to the Empress Matilda as the prospective heir on more than one occasion since the white ship disaster on 25 November 1120. These unfortunate set of circumstances would lead to the turmoil that was later termed by historians: ‘The Anarchy’. Matilda or Empress Maud, as she is otherwise known, had three sons by Geoffrey of Anjou, the eldest of whom eventually became King Henry II of England upon the death of King Stephen in 1154.

Upon the death of King Henry Ist on December 1st 1135, the throne was usurped by Matilda’s cousin, the said Stephen of Blois organised by the Machiavellian manoeuvrings of our Henry Blois, Bishop of Winchester. Given the pervading attitude to women on the throne, it may be that Henry Blois and Stephen had previously discussed such an action.  Stephen was certainly swift in his travel to England to claim the throne whilst Matilda was in Normandy.

Matilda had just realised she was pregnant again and after her previous near-death experience in childbirth, she was reluctant to travel immediately by sea to be crowned in England. She assumed her right of heritage was guaranteed, but there were already apparently rumours that nobles in France were planning to appoint Theobald of Blois to the throne, Henry Blois’ other elder brother. However, Stephen beat both Matilda and Theobald to take the crown and was crowned with the help of his younger brother Henry Blois within three weeks of King Henry Ist death.

Matilda was still at Argentan28 in Normandy, where she gave birth to her third son William on 22 July 1136, after Stephen Blois had been crowned King Stephen of England. There was little or no precedent for a woman to rule at the time, which made it more readily acceptable by the nobility to accept Stephen as the alternative heir.  Matilda was half-sister to the bastard born Robert, Duke of Gloucester, one of many of King Henry’s illegitimate offspring; who, reluctantly appeared and paid homage to King Stephen at court. He made a pretence of loyalty to the King for a short while, but eventually left for Normandy to join his sister Matilda.  When Matilda and the Duke of Gloucester returned to England in 1138, turmoil across Britain ensued as the barons sided by loyalty to Matilda and the Angevin cause or to King Stephen. King Stephen had paid vast amounts from the treasury at Winchester soon after his crowning to win the barons’ support and fealty…. and to keep them from defecting.

Before Henry Blois joined the monastery at Clugny, his father was away on Crusade and his mother was left to manage the family affairs and estates in the region of Blois in his absence. The Blois region of France was considerable29 incorporating Clugny, Blois, Chartres, Langres, Avallon, Autun, Troyes etc. a large swathe of Burgundy. Henry Blois having witnessed a strong and competent mother carry on the affairs of an absent crusading father would inure Henry more readily to the acceptance of a female rule which was posited by King Henry before his death.

Henry Blois was loyal to his uncle and the King conferred on him the bishopric of Winchester in 1129 seeing the ability of the young Henry and what he had achieved at Glastonbury. It may be speculated that Henry Blois had been in Normandy with his uncle in 1128 because he would seem to be the ‘someone’, (according to Henry of Huntingdon) who recounted the hereditary line of all the Kings of the Franks and their heritage from Troy to King Henry on one occasion in Normandy. I will discuss this later when I cover Henry of Huntingdon; but I would suggest the elevation to Bishop of Winchester in 1129 was based upon Henry Blois having a close relationship with his uncle and having been present with his brother Stephen while with King Henry Ist in Normandy.

King Henry was known to be fond of both Stephen and Henry Blois. Henry Blois as the King’s Nephew at Glastonbury was responsible for the provision of Knights for the King’s service.  It is with this fact in mind, we can understand Henry Blois’ wish to please his uncle and the prospective Queen Matilda as all the Barons were being prepared to accept the King’s will.

28Geoffrey of Anjou and Matilda had marched into southern Normandy and seized a number of key castles around Argentan that had formed Matilda’s disputed dowry and those had fought on the side of rebels in 1135.

29See Image 1

It is vital to understand the reasoning behind the initial stages of the construction of HRB because Henry Blois had envisaged writing a book on the History of the Kings (and Queens) of Britain and their heritage from Troy. This is how the germ of the idea and fomat of HRB30 originally came into being.

What I am suggesting is that Henry Blois commenced a history of the Britons as a way to seek favour to the future queen and his uncle the King; by providing an illustrious history for the Britons and specifically an historical underpinning in history for the acceptance of a new Queen by the Barons. A historical narrative creating a precedent supposedly of Queens which had preceded her, according to Henry Blois’ fabricated account of the history of the Britons. The entertaining pseudo-history intended for Matilda remained unfinished, unpublished and kept in Henry’s possession,  yet posited the Trojan custom of primogeniture demanding that dignitas hereditatus should go to the first born.

As we shall cover in progression, it is only after Henry’ Blois’ time in Wales in 1136 and the initial purpose of his intended book had become redundant, (in that his brother was now King); that Henry added to his initial creation i.e. the primordial faux history, originally intended for his cousin Matilda and Uncle. The original format was to expose that throughout British history there had been Queens; and Matilda was in effect no different by inheriting the throne after King Henry Ist as history supposedly recorded. Henry Blois wring as ‘Geoffrey’ is often misunderstood about his attitudes to feminism. Henry of Blois had a secretive love for a woman who was a nun as is evident in his Merlinian prophecies recounted in the alternative version supposedly translated by John Of Cornwall. However much of what I will term Femine negative angst in the portrayal of Guinevere is derived from his utter hate of the Empress Matilda when the Arthurian section of HRB was added to the initial psuedo-history (ironically composed to please her in its initial content).  Obviously, commentators such as Fiona Tolhurst, whose ‘Femenist-Historicist’ approach to Geoffrey’s work is often misdirected in her conclusions. Without the knowledge of the who composed the HRB and the reasons for its composition, it is essentially nonsense to discuss the feminine themes in Arthurian literature without understanding the influences of females close to Henry such as his mother or the Empress Matilda or how these influences were expanded upon by his Nephew’s wife Marie of France i.e. Marie of Champagne. 

During Henry Blois’ sojourn in Normandy in 1137-8 as King Stephen’s representative quelling Angevin incursions into Normandy, the inception of the  Arthuriad was, at this period, added to Henry Blois’ already composed  pseudo-history which had become redundant since King Stephen’s coronation. The initial psuedo-history  (without the Welsh-centric Arthuriad) had already been composed between 1129 and 1134-5, but had not reached its initial purpose of design in persuading the readership of British past queens, because King Henry Ist had died before it had been presented to him. After all this initial research work in the composition of the psuedo-history; Henry decided this historical endeavour in creating a history for the Britons was not going to be wasted. Three years later a reworked the Primary Historia is deposited at Bec.  The composition of the faux history had laid dormant a few years in the interim between 1135-37 until the (Wales-centric) Arthuriana was added in 1137-38; after King Stephen had gained the throne and Henry Blois had been to Wales in 1136 to help fight the Welsh rebellion. What may seem to scholars conflicting views from Geoffrey about the Welsh is due to the fact that Henry Blois as a Norman detested the Welsh yet as Geoffrey lauded their history as being the essence of the anti-Roman Arthuriad.

  Henry Blois was second in the power structure in England at the time of the appearance of the Primary Historia at the Abbey of Bec. In 1137 Henry Blois went to Normandy to deal with De Redvers and his enraged Cousin Matilda. In Henry Blois’ spare hours in Normandy in 1137 and the early part of 1138, Henry’s muses were at work expanding upon his already composed but redundant faux-history. In this period Henry Blois extended his initial polemically contrived pseudo-history and added the tale of the Chivalric Arthur (still not fully expanded to Vulgate proportions) to an already unfinished (temporarily shelved) pseudo-history which also aggrandised Gloucester the ducal house held by Henry Ist bastard i.e. Matilda’s half brother.

This updated volume became the edition I have termed the Primary Historia which was first discovered at Bec in January 1139…. of which we only have a précis in the form of EAW. It is for this reason there are so many seeming inconsistencies31 amongst many story-line variations, which scholars of HRB have been at odds to explain. Neil Wright’s analysis of the EAW published in his 1991 article assumes that Henry of Huntingdon played fast and loose fwith the abbreviation of the HRB rather than understanding that Huntingdon did not alter the story line. Huntingdon was merely abbreviating a different manuscript from what Wright assumes he was using as a template. This was the Primary Historia.

30As O. J Padel ponders: Another aspect is Geoffrey’s purpose in writing his work, and its overall structure: is it primarily about Arthur, although he occupies only the final portion of the work; or was it intended as an overall history of Britain, with Arthur merely its high point. Although a  King Arthur may have featured in the initial psuedo-history, certainly the expansion of his Norman values and his Chivalric nature welded to a Welsh backdrop are later developments in the Primary Historia which evolves toward an Avalon inclusive relationship in the Vulgate version of HRB.

31For Example, as I have mentioned, primogeniture posited as a Trojan custom. For inconsistency we should look at Mempricus and Malin, Marganus and Cunedagius, Ferreux and Porrex, which Tatlock puts down to thoughtless embellishment.  The pseudo-history was initially composed as a book to be presented to the future Queen or King Henry I to be read at court as entertainment so that Barons would accept Matilda more readily since her younger brother, William Adelin had died in the White Ship disaster of 1120. Thus, we have a string of fictitious Queens presented in HRB, but primogeniture was not a consistent theme for the plan of HRB and was only really an essential feature of the initial pseudo-history. The fictitious Queens were absorbed in the soup of transition from pseudo-history to Primary Historia.  Ultimately there was a change of use of the original pseudo-history as it became the Primary Historia.

 

We should view the inspiration for the beginnings of an embellished pseudo-history portraying an illustrious heritage from Troy as being composed in direct contrast with the sedentary GR of William of Malmesbury. William’s history bolstered the heritage of the Saxons but Henry had conceived of a way of ingratiating himself to the future queen and his uncle by writing a semi-historical book which went further back than any other insular historian had chronicled. By decorating it with illustrious queens and setting a precedent for an easier transition to a female on the throne, we now have a reason why ‘Geoffrey’ appears to introduce so many female rulers into his HRB.

Even though William of Malmesbury may have thought well of Henry Blois, (which is debatable), Henry was ambivalent toward the predominantly Saxon historian. But, by having close contact with William at Glastonbury in William’s research for the De Antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae, Henry Blois had realised that prior to Gildas’ era, there was an all but blank canvas for insular British history in the period where Roman annals had left off.32 If one felt inclined,33 one could invent an account of history freely without being tripped up corroboratively by other works…. but, Henry’s method of construction in HRB is a master-class in conflation. The one clear diversion of recorded history being Arthur’s battle with the Romans at Autun in the geographically well known County of Blois.

At the outset then, the initial composition of HRB was instigated as a ploy to impress and supply entertainment and curry favour with Henry Blois Daughter as future Queen and with his uncle Henry Ist. But, part of Henry’s artifice was to include in this book a precedent which showed that in Britain there had been many good and highly capable queens who had ruled in history prior to his Uncle’s daughter’s prospective reign. Henry Ist designated Matilda as heir in 1127 and the barons were made to swear fealty some more than once as King Henry aged. Until it is understood by modern scholars that the initial psuedo-history became part of the unedited version of the evolving HRB, several contradictory perspectives seem to emanate from an inconsistent Geoffrey.

The bulk of HRB (minus the Arthuriad) was the first intended purpose for the composition of what might be termed the ‘initial pseudo-historia’.  But, as Henry Blois is the author of HRB it should be understood why a Welsh ‘Geoffrey’ seemingly undertakes to help the English Kings in their effort to assert their independence of the Kings of France.  Dukes of Normandy had been Vassals to the French Kings.

Although the Saxons are not well portrayed in HRB, we must not mix up what was intended to be written and read out in the court of a queen and what was actually written after Henry’s brother became King and Matilda was no longer the intended goal of his authorial endeavour. The Saxons as a whole are seen as the enemy, but as we shall understand, the seeming resentment against the Normans (in the later updated Merlin prophecies) is against Henry II himself, because Henry Blois writes prophecies intended to cause sedition and rebellion by the Celts. How and why this occurs will also become apparent as we move to the evidence which shows categorically that ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ never existed.

32Gildas states that ‘I shall not follow the writings of my own country, which (if there ever were any of them) have been consumed in the fires of the enemy’.

33Henry, writing as Geoffrey, sets out in the dedication of HRB that no one had given a good account of insular history. So often while turning over in my own mind the many themes which might be subject-matter of a book, my thoughts would fall upon the plan of writing a history of the Kings of Britain, and in my musings thereupon it seemed to me a marvel that, beyond such mention as Gildas and Bede have made of them in their luminous tracts, I could find nothing concerning the kings that had dwelt in Britain before the Incarnation of Christ, or even concerning Arthur and the many others that succeed him after the Incarnation.

It should not be forgotten that this is a rationale given for Geoffrey having written the book as no dedications were attached to the Primary Historia at Bec. The point is that, it still reflects Henry’s own view for the initial construction of the pseudo-history for Matilda. Unfortunately this contradiction is unveiled when Henry Blois starts to get worried he might be discovered as author of HRB and subsequently advocates the HRB is only a ‘translation’ of a book ex-brittaniae.

 

Matilda was descended from West Saxon Kings through her Mother who was of Scottish Heritage… a mix of Gaels, Britons, Picts and AngloSaxons. So, a flattering glorious insular history was originally envisaged by Henry Blois at the outset of writing the initial psuedo-history to reflect the ready acceptance of female rulers in British History. William of Malmesbury had written GR partly to flatter King Henry’s Queen Matilda and her illustrious West Saxon heritage and latterly also dedicated a copy of his GR to the Empress Matilda confirming her rightful place as inheritor to the throne. Henry Blois had plans to out shine William’s GR by producing an historical book outdoing past and contemporary historians with interesting and entertaining content, fabricating what could never be verified. He is also found to be doing this to Henry of Huntingdon in several instances also which I shall cover later. 

The initial plan for the book’s testimony to female reigns throughout insular history was its partial purpose of invention and guarantee of success, while portraying the alluring and illustrious heritage of the British stretching back to Troy.  With the first-hand knowledge of Wales and its topography…. and Caerleon’s archaeological remains, gleaned on an excursion fighting the Welsh uprising in 1136; Henry was able to expand (with the Arthuriad) upon an already composed pseudo-history. We can speculate that this might have mentioned the Warlord Arthur as a fledgling Arthurian tale, given that the tales concerning Arthur to which Malmesbury briefly refers were current among the populace.  However, certainly the chivalric Arthurian epic found in the Primary-Historia was an addition after Henry Blois had been to Wales.34

The creation of a chivalric Briton based on the persona of the warlord Arthur, presented an interesting and entertaining read.   Arthur’s crown wearing and feast days where foreign dignitaries attend are largely based upon Henry Blois’ uncle’s costly feasts of splendid luxury at Whitsun, Christmas and Easter where foreign envoys could witness the brilliant company of Henry Ist regailed at court. It is certainly no Coincidence King Arthur held the same court at Caerleon at Whitsun also.

King Henry in William of Malmesbury’s words absorbed the honeyed sweet of books and would have been the first to appreciate the ‘initial pseudo-history’ if he had lived long enough.  King Henry had repeated from youth that a King unlettered is a Donkey crowned. There was certainly enough in HRB to please his scholarly uncle. What must be made clear to the reader about the evolution and transition of the Primary Historia discovered at Bec is that it still had further developments to go in evolving toward a finalised 1155 Vulgate Version . At the outset, the Primary Historia  was definitively an altogether different book than the Vulgate version which modern scholars mistakenly believe was the version found at Bec. As political situations in the life of Henry Blois changed, the book evolved, through the First Variant stage in 1144 through its evolved Variant form which included the prophecies within the text;  to completion as the Vulgate edition, (now made public) in 1155…. with its edition of updated prophecies.

34Unfortunately no chronicler makes a direct reference to Henry’s brief excursion into Wales and again unfortunately just as we are about to get a description of Wales from the author of GS i.e. Henry Blois, the folios are missing. However, we shall see that the author of GS is Henry Blois and also he was definitively at the defeat of the Welsh at Kidwelly and the death of Gwenlian.

 

The mention of many Queens in Briton is part of the reasoning behind much of the first part of the HRB; inventing a precedent for female rulers in the antiquity of the Britons. There is Guendoloena who had married Brutus’ son and she reigned 15 years. There was Cordeilla the daughter of Leir. Marcia succeeded her husband Guithelinus and there was the daughter of King Octavianus and lastly of course Helena. For obvious reasons Boudicca in Tacitus’s description of events could not be a part of Henry’s history bias, in that she was defeated AD 60 or 61, by the Roman governor Gaius Suetonius Paulinus.  Boudica led the Iceni as well as the Trinovantes and others in revolt and her daughters were raped. To think that ‘Geoffrey’ has not read Tacitus is unreal. ‘Geoffrey’ converts his Troia Nova into Trinovantum as an eponyn based on Tacitus.

Henry’s mother acted much like a queen in her own region of Blois.  It was however, Margan and Cunedag in HRB who objected that Britain should be subject to the rule of a woman and so the sentiment against the Empress Matilda was not new.  It was partly the reason that many of the Barons supported King Stephen as ‘patrimony’ not primogeniture was the norm.  Boadicea was hardly a reigning queen and even though Henry Blois writing as ‘Geoffrey’ cannot be seen to draw on Tacitus,35 it is likely that Henry will have read the account of Tacitus’s father in law in Britain in his youth while Henry was in the library at Clugny. Henry was not about aggrandising Roman achievements in Britain but was certainly conscious of what was in the Roman annals which recorded the invasions.

We can speculate that the ‘initial pseudo-history’ beginning with a heritage from Troy was started by Henry Blois at the time when William of Malmesbury was writing the history of Glastonbury Abbey; when William’s GR had been completed.

However, everything did not go according to plan, as fortune turned against the two intended recipients of the book. King Henry Ist died, and the Empress Matilda became Henry (and his brother Stephen’s) nemesis. Rather than let his authorial efforts go to waste, Henry finished his book adding the Arthuriana by inventing the Welsh court at the city of Legions.36  What must be understood and accepted by scholars is that there were no prophecies and there was no Merlin mentioned in the Primary Historia deposited at Bec in 1138 by Henry Blois. While King Stephen expended his efforts in the North of England, Henry was in Normandy composing the Primary Historia while suppressing the Empress Matilda’s forces in Normandy .

35There is not much in Tacitus which would concur with Henry’s set of events set out in HRB.

36In Huntingdon’s letter to Warin, (even though it is a précis of the Primary Historia), it seems odd that the very brief account covering the Arthuriad…. only supplies the skeletal outline of the expanded form found in the First Variant and the further expanded Vulgate HRB. We might expect a certain amount of expansion on Arthuriana in the period between the finalisation of the Primary Historia finished in 1138 and the appearance of the First Variant version published in 1144.  It is not a certainty that the whole chivalric court ideal as witnessed in an expanded form found in the Vulgate HRB, was initially part of the Primary Historia….the original Historia Brittonum  as Huntingdon referred to it.   Other story-line details vary from EAW to First Variant, but these additions cannot be explained by Henry’s polemically motivated insertions such as the three Archbishops etc in the later First Variant.

 

At this time in Normandy in early 1138, Henry Blois was expecting to become archbishop of Canterbury on his return to England. He may (later in life) have had a longer term vision of becoming Pope.37 Although the Primary Historia was intended in part to entertain its readers; the history presented for the most part was fabricated within a broad chronological outline of known insular history.

It was certainly not conducive for a bishop to be witnessed embellishing tales and passing them off as history. It was thus prudent not to attach his name to the manuscript. Henry Blois signed off the Primary Historia with the (unlikely) authorial name Galfridus Arturus as Henry of Huntingdon related in his letter to Warin.

The one thing I would caution the reader upon is that at no point has deception and fraud on such a grand scale been suspected by modern scholars…. and thus the position and persona presented by Henry Blois concerning Geoffrey of Monmouth has never been contested. What I will show is that the flimsy biographical details could easily have been (and were) planted by a manipulative Henry Blois intent on hiding his authorship. There can be no doubt that the author of the prophecies of Merlin is Henry Blois and we can easily deduce this from the material also found in the narrative of HRB; which also plainly indicates that Henry is the author of both.

However, we shall discuss the sequence of how Henry carried out his deception later when we analyse the events regarding the Merlin prophecies and when the prophecies themselves were attached to the HRB. For the moment we should realize that the Primary Historia has as its base a pseudo-history initially written for Matilda, which (when it was written), was in no way contrary to the acceptance of Matilda as a future heir. This became the Primary Historia and (most definitively) there were no Merlin prophecies attached to this version.

The fact that ‘Geoffrey’ tells us that he is merely translating verbatim a very ancient book from ‘old Briton’ into Latin, to render our present Vulgate HRB (and he was commissioned to translate the prophecies) can be dismissed immediately. I will show in progression; Archdeacon Walter was dead when the Vulgate HRB (as we know it today) was published; and so were all the other dedicatees mentioned in other Vulgate versions.

Henry Blois’ personal attributes as a scholar were nurtured while at Clugny. Clugny was second to Rome as a religious institution and at that time was favoured by the papacy. Since its inception in 910 by the Duke of Aquitaine, Clugny had given birth to hundreds of satellite houses across Europe and many in Britain. The Cluniac’s main regard was for its adherence to Gregorian reform and ritualised liturgy. An increasingly rich liturgy stimulated demand for altar vessels of gold, fine tapestries and fabrics, stained glass, and the art of choral music. However, it was the Cluniac’s strict adherence to the liturgy which spawned a more materialist necessity which was to bring critics like Anselm of Bec and the austere Bernard of Clairvaux to oppose them later.

37Speculum, VI 222

 

Abbe’ Bernard of Clairvaux38 despised Henry Blois and contention between the two was often appealed at Rome with the pope as arbitrator.  While Henry Blois was young at Clugny, the huge abbey was under construction and undoubtedly led to his interest in architecture39 which we can see evidenced in his later life. Henry’s interest in architecture was spurred on seeing the vaulted ceilings, radiating chapels and the statues of saints carved and painted that adorned the huge proportioned Romanesque church under construction. His inability to hide subconsciously his inner interests when he comments on architecture and fortifications in the Gesta Stephani is only one of his traits which betray his anonymity as the writer of that manuscript. Henry of Blois witnessed the Romanesque abbey church, the largest in Christendom being built, as he grew up at Cluny, even though it was not completed until the year after his election to the Bishopric of Winchester. One of the main patrons to the arts in the eleventh century was Henry Blois.

Abbot Hugh died at Cluny about the time that the young Henry entered the monastery and Hugh’s elected successor Pons of Melgueil was to become the downfall of what was a prestigious institution; and probably, through Henry’s intervention, there were several grants made to that house during King Stephen’s reign. Much later, after the death of his brother, Henry Blois bailed out the Abbey financially when he sojourned there in deep reflection while distancing himself from the carnage which had transpired in England throughout the Anarchy. Henry spent most of his early time at Clugny under Abbot Pons until such time as Peter the Venerable took over after Pons had left the institution in a dreadful state.

38It is not by accident that one of the 40 or so books donated by Henry Blois to Glastonbury noted by Adam of Damerham is by Bernard of Clairvaux (on loving God) and no doubt will have been used to confound Bernard in disputation.

39Henry could be said to be a connoisseur of Architecture. Nicholas Riall, posits that ‘Henry had a lifelong fascination for buildings and architectural innovation.  Quite probably the work undertaken at Glastonbury, St Cross, the hospital of St Mary at Winchester and Wolvesey Palace was influenced by what Henry saw of the development by Abbot Suger of the Monastic buildings at St Denis’. We should not forget the edifice at Clugny either.

 

Henry Blois at Glastonbury

King Henry Ist wife, Matilda of Scotland died on 1st May 1118. With the ensuing disaster on the ‘White Ship’, King Henry’s first attempt at leaving behind a legitimate heir was to marry Adelicia of Louvain in 1121, just after the unfortunate event. Adelicia of Louvain was in her late teens and Henry was fifty-three. This union left no heir and hence the call for the Empress Matilda to perpetuate the line once Matilda’s husband the Emperor had died. King Henry subsequently arranged a union between her and Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou. King Henry also arranged the marriage of his nephew Stephen, to Matilda of Bologne, who was of the Anglo-Saxon royal house…. her mother Mary being daughter of King Malcolm III of Scotland. King Henry Ist of England consolidated his position by strategic marriages of relations in an attempt at ensuring future harmony after his death, both in Normandy and in England.

It was Henry Blois who was directly responsible for persuading William of Corbeuil, the archbishop, through subtle reasoning, to crown his brother Stephen with such haste after Henry Ist had died. When William of Corbeuil, archbishop of Canterbury, hesitated to perform the coronation rite, Henry Blois offered himself as surety that his brother would preserve the liberty of the church, and so procured him the crown. It was Henry Blois who organised Stephen’s reception by a select group of clergy and his acceptance as the future King. The powerful Bishop of Salisbury aided in this endeavour as the foremost baron in the Kingdom.

Pregnancy had prevented Matilda making the journey to England to accept the crown. In three weeks from King Henry’s death, the crown was on King Stephen’s head. This certainly could not have been achieved without the manoeuvrings of the Bishop of Winchester. Henry Blois’ manipulation of events by persuasion is testified by contemporary chroniclers. It is also related in the form of an apologia in Henry’s retrospectively composed GS (after his brother had died). Henry had studied Quintillian, yet ran counter to his caution against a ‘practice of making an evil use of the blessings of eloquence’. This trait became more recognized by chroniclers and was definitely recognized by William of Malmesbury as is made clear in HN.

Henry Blois transformed from being an obedient servant under his uncle, to a power manipulator immediately upon his uncle’s death. The fact that Henry Blois was King Henry Ist nephew, the bishop of Winchester and had control over Glastonbury estates, gave him more power than any other bishop in manipulating the crown onto his brother’s head.

Henry Blois’ time at Glastonbury before becoming bishop had not been unproductive. He turned Glastonbury abbey into a rich and healthy establishment. It was (by his own account), a rundown monastery on his arrival. Glastonbury had witnessed its lands being appropriated by deceitful clerks and land grabbing lords before Henry’s arrival. This was Henry’s immediate concern as soon as he arrived at Glastonbury. Henry’s seeming innocence and trepidation at reviving a rundown institution may or may not be genuine as he expresses in his libellus: ‘the monks were lacking in the necessities of life and the church was devoid of many great possessions. I confess that upon seeing these things I was pained; deceived by promised hope, I was ashamed to such extent that my passionate mind created confusion within me, because I had a preference to be until now a poor man of Cluny, to be close to the poor, rather than in charge of anything and elected to such a burden’.

The only reason for doubting this as a genuine sentiment is that much of the reason for writing the GS (as we shall discover), is to present his own glossed version of what transpired in the Anarchy rather than leaving his reputation in the hands of chroniclers, who would not represent his own actions favourably to posterity. When Henry’s time came to receive the bishopric of Winchester, he did not relinquish his abbacy at Glastonbury which was an unusual occurrence. Maintaining the abbacy of Glastonbury was condoned by King Henry Ist, the pope, and the monks at Glastonbury, based upon what he had already achieved for them.40

Henry worked tirelessly to regain misappropriated land and to enrich Glastonbury abbey, long after he had taken on the Bishopric of Winchester. This can be witnessed in several charters regaining such lands as Syston, Uffculme and several others and through his building program at the abbey. Concerning Uffculme in Devon for example, he worked tirelessly for Glastonbury’s benefit even up to the Empress Matilda’s short dominance in 1141 where the Uffculme claim is finally concluded.

Even in Henry Blois’ libellus41 he admits that he nearly didn’t bother concerning himself with reclaiming Uffculme as Robert Fitz Walter Flandrensis (who possessed it at that time) had previously obtained it from someone else, yet it was previously known that it was ’under the jurisdiction of Glastonbury from old’.42 Henry did persevere because this Robert had sworn fealty to Stephen. Henry confronted him in front of the Curia to Robert’s shame, and regained the land for the abbey at Glastonbury. Strangely enough, one can see in the Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum,43 the charter 341 Glastonbury Abbey (1136, at Westminster) regarding the ‘Restoration of Uffculme which had been taken from the abbey by William …. more than  half the text of the charter (as a whole), bears a strong resemblance to charter 948 restoring the manor of Wargrave to Winchester. So, Henry might have been producing charters prolifically now his brother was King.

40Dom. David Knowles. The Monastic Order in England: “Strangely enough, no contemporary was found to blame explicitly his retention of Glastonbury during his 40 years of Episcopal life, but whatever excuses he may have found for himself from reasons of expediency, such a practice was un-canonical, contrary to all monastic principle, and a precedent for the worst abuses”.

41Translation from M.J. Franklin, English Episcopal Acta VIII, 205-211. See Appendix 1

42This interesting observation shows that the pre-Norman abbey had control over lands in Devon and has a bearing later in the investigation into the 601 charter of Ineswitrin donated by the King of Devon.

43Regesta Regum Anglo-Normanorum 1066-1154, Vol III Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Henry is sure of making any claim he wishes, now King Stephen is on the throne.  Uffculme was a fourteen hide manor in east Devon and may have been part of the Glastonbury holdings prior to the invasion. At the time of the conquest a widow called Eadgyth held a life estate in Glastonbury property. She remarried a certain Walter de Douai, a mercenary of William the Conqueror’s, and as a reward from William the Conqueror, he received sixteen manors in England and the land is registered under his name in the Domesday book and no claim had been made. When this same Walter was ill he came for refuge in the abbey infirmary saying he would restore the lands once belonging to Glastonbury. But as soon as he recovered from his illness, he reneged on the deal and record of the incident remained at Glastonbury. But until Henry arrived, the monks had still not filed a claim. Walter died before Henry Blois arrived, and Uffculme then passed to his son Robert of Bampton.

The rebellion of Robert Bampton is the fault of Henry Blois although this point of view is poignantly not conveyed in GS. At Easter court in 1136 Henry Blois had Stephen issue a charter restoring Uffculme to Glastonbury. This angered Robert Bampton as his father had held Uffculme since Domesday survey and Robert felt dispossessed. As we have mentioned, it was Henry Blois who wrote the account of his brother, (the anonymously authored Gesta Stephani), in which Henry describes this same Robert as ‘a knight not of the lowest birth or of small landed estate, but a winebibber and a gourmand and in peacetime devoted to gluttony and drunkenness’.

The Gesta Stephani goes on to say that he ‘changed his love of drunkenness for a spirit of rebellion’ and was summoned to Stephen’s court where he perjured himself. Potter and Davis,44 not knowing who the author of the GS was, remark that it is somewhat ludicrous to find the author of the GS linked with an unknown son of Robert of Bampton. They then go on to say that the only possible explanation is that the author had a special interest in the man. 

Attempting to remain anonymous as the author of GS, Henry Blois can’t help himself castigating someone who had rebelled against his brother and with whom Henry himself had had a serious contention.  Finally, Bampton was compelled to put his castle at the King’s disposal. Because Henry Blois wrote both the GS and his own Libellus, the sentiments match. In his account in the Libellus Henry says that it was ‘certainly a just provision and a very fitting sentence, that he who from desire of other men’s property had laid hands on what was not his, should by just decision of equity lose what was his own’.

Much later in the Anarchy, when Henry has no option but to side with the Empress against his brother; he again obtains a reaffirmation of the grant of Uffculme for Glastonbury through Matilda in a further updated charter. This was after Matilda’s assurance to Henry Blois to comply in giving him control over all matters of chief account in England, especially gifts of bishoprics and abbacies should be subject to his control.45

44Gesta Stephani. ed. K.R. Potter & R.H.C. Davis Clarendon 1976 p.29.

45William of Malmesbury. Historia Novella

The reaffirmation of the charter, which runs contrary to a Matilda ally (Bampton), may well have been a test of her respect and promise to him, but it shows two things: Henry’s dedication to Glastonbury, and more importantly, that he did change allegiance from his Brother to Matilda, even momentarily. This is a very pertinent point when we come to analyse the GS. It demonstrates that for a brief period, Henry thought it fortuitous to side with Matilda as the balance of power had swung her way and he increasingly perceived no way out of the inevitable train of events which was leading to her being crowned…. since his brother was imprisoned. It is a position strongly circumvented in the GS where Henry Blois portrays that the Bishop of Winchester was merely biding his time until the events turned. GS portrays that Henry had never any thought of swapping allegiance. Henry Blois in the GS is careful to point out for posterity that he only feigned a change of allegiance.

Anyway, this particular Uffculme charter refers to Matilda’s honourable reception into Winchester. Bernard of St David’s signs the charter and both he and Henry Blois had flanked the Empress Matilda as she entered Winchester.  This point also becomes relevant later (concerning Henry Blois as the writer of the HRB) when we look at both Bernard’s and Henry’s like-minded attempts to create separate metropolitans for both Winchester and St David’s.

The continuator of Caradoc’s Brut y Tywysogion seems to also portray Menevia having had some preferment in ecclesiastical terms as he refers to the death of Bernard in 1147: after extreme exertions, upon sea and land, towards procuring for the church of Menevia its ancient liberty. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s supposed uncle Uchtryd, bishop of Llandaff is said by the continuator of HRB…. the Gwentian Brut, to have died in the same year.

The reasoning behind the claim of metropolitan by St David’s is based upon a reference in Asser and also in Rhygyvarch’s Life of St David,46 but certainly the HRB provides supporting evidence for any claim as long as the HRB is deemed credible. Yet the prophecies of Merlin miraculously foretell of St David’s re-instatement as a metropolitan. Bishop Bernard pursued this hope and requested metropolitan status many times to various popes. Henry Blois as the writer of the Merlin prophecies plants this envisioned event as having sprung from Merlin in the hope of spurring on what was predicted and thus fated.

46Rhygyvarch’s Life of St David. ‘and his monastery too is declared the metropolis of the whole country, so that whoever ruled it should be accounted archbishop’.

Henry also requests the same metropolitan from three popes regarding Winchester’s own metropolitan status. Something predicted was more likely to affect a desired action.  Essential to understanding the inclusion of the Merlin prophecies into the HRB is that Henry Blois was also a keen admirer of Cicero, as becomes evident as we progress. Quintus47 says: ‘what nation or what state disregards the prophecies of soothsayers, or of interpreters of prodigies’.

Henry Blois understands the impact of prophecies and uses them for political advantage48 while at the same time retro-fitting past historical events to seem as if they were accurate predictions of the future; which (at the time the Merlin prophecies were published) the reader of the prophecy can verify its accuracy. This course of action led the gullible to believe in those prophecies which were clear enough to understand and could be matched with past historical events.

Other prophecies of Merlin which were sometimes oblique in nature were interpreted with different meanings. Tatlock reckons that ‘Geoffrey’ got his idea of stopping halfway through the composition of HRB and inserting the Merlin prophecies from Virgil’s Aeneid, who also similarly employs a marvellous prophecy. However, Tatlock does not realize that the Primary Historia was already a composite work of Henry’s pseudo-history with the added Arthuriana subsequently spliced onto it in 1137.

Tatlock does not understand that the prophecies of Merlin were spliced into the HRB after the Primary Historia’s discovery at Bec, when the book evolved into what is known as the First Variant. Scholars have been led astray in the assumption that the dedicatees of HRB were alive at the time of publication of the Vulgate version.

Crick notes that the rubrics of the Robert-Waleran manuscripts demonstrate no coherence but neither any strong affinity with others bearing different dedications. No study of Rubrics is going to uncover Henry Blois’ methodology since scripts were turned out indiscriminately with different dedicatees because as I have made plain, the dedicatee was dead when named in HRB and future copyists have mixed up editions along with Henry interchanging editions in various scriptoriums.

Henry Blois’ reputation diminished with the advent of the Anarchy, after his management of affairs to ensure his brother’s crowning. When relating about previous bishops of Winchester which had passed away, Henry of Huntingdon in his letter to Walter comments: now there sits in their place Henry, (of Blois), nephew of King Henry, who will be a new kind of monster, composed part pure and part corrupt, I mean part monk and part knight.”

The Cistercian monk Bernard of Clairvaux who detested Henry called him the “Whore of Winchester”. Yet he was highly esteemed by such men as Archbishop Becket and John of Salisbury speaks well of his universal liberality towards the church, but these are views of Henry in his later guise as venerable churchman post 1158.

47Cicero, p223 Book I, On Divination

48‘For wishes fathering thought’s’ as Tatlock puts it, ‘we might look at the glorification given to the quasi-primatial see of Winchester’.  As an overall effect of having written HRB and as a direct result of the ‘hope of the Britons’ and the Merlin prophecies, Henry II son Geoffrey and count Conan IV’s daughter Constance gave their son the name Arturus. According to William of Newburgh, those who were said to have long awaited the Arthur of tradition cherished high hopes of an actual Arthur.

What can be established in Henry’s transition in character is that between 1129-1158, Henry Blois could be considered a power-hungry egotist who held power in his own right and vicariously through his brother and family heritage. From 1158 onward and his return to England, as time went by, Henry procured the image of a venerable old man, who, by his generous deeds to Becket and his family for example, and the high moral standpoint he took on religious issues, he became regarded as a trustworthy protector of the church. In his secret authorial works, there is a completely different character at work.

After finishing the VM Henry Blois posed as Wace to provide a vernacular Old Norman dialect version of the HRB in verse, adding more references and elaborations into the work such as the ‘round table’…. also mentioned in DA (although not in the T manuscript of DA) and in Chrétien’s Erec and Perceval and more importantly Robert de Boron’s work.

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s stated reason behind writing the HRB was finding no complete history of the Britons available. William of Malmesbury had travelled around Britain’s monasteries collecting material for his Gesta Regum (which he had finished by 1125) and his Gesta pontificum Anglorum before Henry had arrived at Glastonbury. William of Malmesbury will have discussed William’s sources or lack of them, and I believe this is partly what galvanised Henry Blois into composing the faux-history which evolved into Vulgate HRB.

Apart from Bede, Gildas, and the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, there was little to confute Henry’s interest in establishing a bogus heritage of the Britons from Troy. Nennius has this tradition also but as I shall cover later in progression that Henry Blois is directly responsible for promoting Nennius’ work as that authored by Gildas and may well have added the Trojan lore. As Newell suggests there are problems with Nennius once it is understood that it alone underpins the Arthur presented in HRB.

The Roman annals were scarce in Britain for obvious reasons.  While Henry Blois had been at Clugny, he had read Gregory of Tour’s History of the Franks and it would appear to have been a young Henry Blois while in Normandy in 1128 with his uncle, who had reiterated the Franks’ provenance from Troy. This point should be noted because it becomes highly relevant that Henry of Huntingdon records a certain ‘someone’ as having told the Franks history to King Henry Ist. The Franks history commencing with Antenor and yet ‘Geoffrey’s’ Brutus is supposedly great Grandson of Aeneas obviously lifted from Virgil’s Aeneid. The same ‘someone’ in 1128 recounting the history of the Franks to his Uncle then goes on to compose HRB.

In the preface of the Antiquities (DA)49 William of Malmesbury refers to Henry Blois as someone who ’deserves to be cherished and honoured in the deep embrace of Christ’ ……’ A remarkable man besides his splendid birth, for his literary skill, and for the friendliness of his address, and for his kind hearted liberality’.   This is in stark contrast to William of Newburgh’s assessment of Henry’s character, ‘He was a man of great power in the Kingdom, and was crafty and inordinately fond of money’. The difference of opinion just highlights the slide of Henry Blois’ reputation from the early days of King Henry Ist.

For a man that played such a pivotal role in state affairs, we have only a few inconsequential notes that were written by Henry to the pope; one in 1139 and the other in 1160 and a few other random letters along with his Libellus. Is it not strange that a man of such attested literary skill and who accounts the authorship of books higher than all material wealth and art, should only leave behind his simplistic Libellus? (See appendix 1)

The Libellus is a brief tract written by Henry Blois that undoes any attempt to associate his hand in any of the works that he produced. In any kind of authorship, one inevitably bears one’s heart on one’s sleeve and it is near impossible not to betray any prejudices or interests.  It is inevitable that one betrays opinion and personal preferences and makes statements which would leave Henry open to accusation at a later date…. if for instance HRB was suspected to have been authored by himself.

49William of Malmesbury. De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie.

Who could honestly look at the Libellus and the HRB together and suspect they were written by the same man?

Henry says he has: judged worthy to commit by pen anything which I have earnestly done at Glastonbury to future memory. Henry is conscious of his place in history and for this reason (in part) he writes the GS.

Henry was conscious of the fact that history records Kings, but he was adamant that he was going to be remembered well in history. As the King’s brother, this point is further established by the epitaph on the Mosan plates.50

Henry composed his Libellus not to witness his good deeds or confirm land ownership, but to misdirect any suspicious inquirer. The reader may think now this sounds a little like a conspiracy theory, but by the end of this exposé the true Henry Blois is exposed.  The Libellus also acts alongside the GS as a glossed character reference and apologia against his manipulation of affairs in the ‘Anarchy’, the civil war which contemporaries thought he was largely responsible for.

Henry’s Libellus also counteracts any suspicion of his hand in the interpolation of DA. The whole account in the Libellus is doubly devious as by this stage in his life when it was written, he had already composed HRB and written Perlesvaus and Robert de Boron’s work in verse.

The Libellus, however, comes across as a heartfelt document; not devoid of Henry’s genuine achievements at Glastonbury, but we must not be fooled by Henry’s secondary motive for writing it. He complains of being deceived by a promised hope and recalling the awful state in which he found Glastonbury on Sigfrid’s elevation to Bishop. He wondered how circumstances had transpired to leave him such a huge task and recalls his steadfast purpose was the result of faith which overcame doubt in his ability to find a solution.

King Henry Ist counsellor had been given custody of Glastonbury abbey when Sigfrid was elevated to Bishop of Chichester. In the short period before Henry Blois was elected, abbot Geoffrey Rufus took control of five churches belonging to the abbey. Henry used his influence as the King’s nephew to reinstate these against an influential courtier: conquered at last by the request of the King, I retained two, three I gave up to him. But, the three churches Henry had been constrained to leave with Geoffrey, reverted back to Glastonbury abbey upon Geoffrey’s death.

As history relates, Henry Blois was an able administrator and it was not until he had attained power upon being appointed bishop of Winchester that desire for greater power ensued. In 1138 when King Stephen snubbed Henry Blois’ wish to be archbishop of Canterbury, Innocent refused his consent, and Theobald was elected in December 1138. Henry was deeply annoyed at his brother. It is said that the pope’s refusal was due to the influence of Stephen and his queen being influenced by the Beaumont brothers, and that Henry’s later desertion of his brother’s cause was due to his anger at their interference. It is probable that Stephen was unwilling to see him acquire greater power. Soon after that betrayal Henry Blois obtained the papal legation instead. This in effect gave him as much power as the King himself, and certainly mote than the archbishop of Canterbury; but it inevitably led to the destruction of any pious purity and innocence which had been part of his youth at Clugny: I was able to not be rich and famous and be deemed rich and famous. Henry was at the centre of political life when his brother became King until he finds himself at Clugny in self-imposed exile in 1155.

50See chapter, Henry Blois and the Meusan plates.

The prophecies of Merlin from the HRB

Before we look at the VM, my object is to show the reader in the quickest possible way that Henry Blois, as well as writing the HRB, also wrote all the prophecies of Merlin. He uses the prophecies to corroborate his pseudo-history of HRB and to further his political ambitions. Henry Blois who composed the Prophecies of Merlin invented the charachter of Merlin from the Myrrdin of Celtic tradition and from the psuedo- Nennian charachter of Ambrosius in the Historia Brittonum. 

Our experts on the prophecies of Merlin i.e. Chambers, San Marte, Faral and Taylor never suspect Henry Blois as author and like modern scholars believe Geoffrey of Monmouth was a real person. The only elucidator of HRB with any insight, (the erudite Tatlock) has no suspicion also that the bishop of Winchester is author of the work but provides the most comprehensive incisive exegeis of the contents of HRB.

There are several reasons for the lack of knowledge about the author of HRB: the main is gullibility by scholars and a lack of ability to conceive of a fraud on the scale Henry Blois has accomplished. Having been taught to accept ‘Geoffrey’ as real, it becomes impossible to conceive otherwise. Scholars such as Tolhurst, Reeve, Crick and Wright are bewildered by the process of the transmission of HRB and its prophecies. They need to accept Henry Blois as author but alas this seems unlikely. At least if you know ‘who’ Geoffrey really is then the swamp of contradictions and silly rationalisations dries up pretty quickly along with their questions.

The early material which pertains to the Matter of Britain i.e. Glastonbury lore, King Arthur legend, and Grail literature is all a product of Henry Blois in its initial form. There would be no ‘Matter of Britain’ as it is generally perceived without Henry Blois’ input; but it is the dark secret which is veiled in Henry Blois’ invention which is the point of this exposé and which modern scholarship needs to comprehend.

It is Henry Blois’ fault that the body of Joseph of Arimathea has remained undiscovered until the present day, as he is mentioned often in Grail literature by Henry Blois the initial author.  It is the scholars today who prevent this knowledge being understood by modern students.

Henry’s ability to deceive by seemingly writing from the standpoint of a Briton in the Merlin prophecies and appearing to have insular sympathies while writing as Geoffrey has obscured Henry Blois’ identity along with his use of propaganda. Also, by having effectively backdated the Vulgate Historia so that his audience believes it was published in the time of the cited dedicatees is probably the main reason Henry Blois has remained undiscovered as the author of the constituent parts of HRB which comprise the foundation of the Matter of Britain.

With the addition of updated prophecies C.1155-7, it appears that Merlin did indeed predict things in the future. For this reason, many commentators believe there was a genuine set of prophecies by Merlin. A case in point would be the prophecy concerning the ‘Sixth in Ireland’ (an unknown possibility in 1134) at a time from which some scholars avow that Orderic’s account of Merlin is dated. This inability to understand ‘who’ wrote the prophecies is the crux of modern scholar’s ignorance about the provenance of HRB in all its editions and variants.

Also, there is the added confusion of Henry Blois writing as ‘Geoffrey’ who is posing as Merlin. In early Merlin prophecies i.e. before 1155, we are given the impression that our author was a Briton whose chief antipathy is against the Saxons and favours the Normans as vanquishers of the Saxons.

This viewpoint was true at the time the early prophecies in the Libellus Merlini were constructed, when Henry’s brother Stephen was alive as king of England. The initial Merlin prophecy gave the impression that Merlin, (an ancient Briton) acquiesced in the Norman eradication of the ‘German worm’. However, what has confused  scholars like Jean Blacker and Tatlock51 is where the prophecies predicted a restoration of the crown of Brutus for the united Celts; because this is a twisted version of what had been previously stated in a separate early edition of the prophecies known as the Libellus MerliniWe are told Breton, Cornish men, Scots, and Welsh men finally will restore the ‘Crown of Brutus’.

It is not by coincidence that of all the Merlinian prophecies (excepting those in the vague Götterdammerung), the unification of the Celts is one prophecy that is blatantly clear, but strangely enough does not come true.52 The forces do not unite, and Henry II is not overthrown by the Celts. This is simply because both Conan and Cadwallader, the two named in the updated prophecy, came to terms with Henry II.  Henry Blois’ plan of trying to create sedition through a Celt rebellion brought about by prophecy,did not materialise in reality.

It is the one prophecy which did not look backward to events concerning his Grandfather or Uncles’…. or the Anarchy; or events recorded in insular annals; or as a prophecy acting as a corroboration of his bogus pseudo-history presented in HRB. The reason for this is that it is the one and only time53 when Henry tried to use a prophecy to dictate events of political change in the short term.54

Most of Merlin’s other prophecies were a pretence looking forward to already transpired history. We cannot say this is the case in appendix 8 or concerning the ‘sixth in Ireland’ prophecy, because Henry Blois expected the invasion of Ireland to take place soon after the council held at Winchester where the conquest of Ireland was discussed in 1155 while Henry Blois was present. 

51J.S.P Tatlock, The legendary History of Britain. Strangely enough for someone as incisive as Tatlock, he makes the observation: Geoffrey is at pains to make the city of Winchester prominent and exalted; the prophecies reproach its perjured citizens and threaten its episcopal see with ruin.  It is astounding that Tatlock does not put together the fact that the citizens perjured themselves in the Anarchy being convinced by Henry Blois to accept the Empress Matilda as the next Heir.  Also, Tatlock missed the fact that it is only highlighted in ‘Geoffrey’s’ pseudo-history that Winchester was a monastic institution at the time Constans was alive.  Strangely enough the bishop of Winchester just after the First Variant was first published in 1144 was seeking a metropolitan for Winchester yet not at the time the Primary Historia was written; thus the Three Archbishops are found in First Variant. Yet we can never be sure when the Libellus Merlini or some updated prophecies was spliced into the First Variant.  We can only know the First Variant preceeded the Vulgate HRB. With this knowledge alone we can determine if prophecies in the Variant versions were added after 1155.

52There are other Merlin prophecies which I have covered in the Appendices which did not come to fruition, like the navigable channel to Winchester, but the canal project was started.

53Henry did however foretell of the reinstatement of two metropolitans when predicting as Merlin and we may assume these are St David’s and Winchester.

54There were other prophecies like the construction of the ‘holy hole’ at Winchester which were foreseen and came to fruition but other building projects like a canal from Winchester to Southampton which never materialised.

Until one understands Henry Blois’ attempt at sedition and a causation through prophecy of the Celtic rebellion, or studied the Merlin prophecies in the rendition supposedly given by John of Cornwall; it is very difficult to make out why ‘Geoffrey’ (who wrote all the Merlin prophecies) seemingly has a change of stance against Norman rule.

 Of course, Geoffrey writing as Merlin the ancient Briton, feigns empathy with the Britons originally in the Libellus Merlini but what confused scholars who understood Henry Blois was in fact ‘Geoffrey’ and that Henry Blois had composed the prophecies, is Geoffrey’s damming of the Neustrians as foreigners. 

Until one reads the JC version of the prophecies where Henry Blois sees himself as the seventh King, it is hard to understand that a Norman can be responsible for constructing the prophecies of Merlin. Henry Blois’ vanity and internal thought process obviously forgave his heritage with the rationalisation that He would be thought well of by the populace in Briton having been such a benefactor to the nation.

Genuinely, if the rebellion of the Bretons, Cornish , Welsh and Scotts had succeeded (which was Henry Blois’ intention in composing that prophecy) he thought he could persuade the leaders of the conquering Celts that he would be the best choice for the next King. (probably in his own mind though).  This rational also would have been on the assumption that all these Celtic factions would find no consensus, just as Gildas had bemoaned of the Britons fighting amongst themselves.

The first prophecy in HRB is fittingly about the church and Henry Blois’ aim is to run through history as presented in HRB. We are told: religious observance shall be done away and the churches shall stand in ruins. Also, fittingly, in the second prophecy in which we are told what the end result of the prophecies will be concerning the island of Britain.

Merlin foresees: At the last, those that are oppressed (the British) shall arise and resist the cruelty of them that come from without (foreigners).  It is the hope of Henry Blois that King Henry II would be unseated. This is Henry Blois’ ultimate aim at the time the Vulgate HRB prophecies were updated while Henry Blois resided at Clugny in 1156-58; to unseat Henry II by inciting insurrection of the Celts through prophecy.

Henry’s aspiration was to return from Clugny as an ‘adopted son’ to rule England. If this proposition seems far-fetched, the reader may turn to the prophecies of John of Cornwall elucidated in this investigation which show clearly this aim. However, it is better for the reader to understand Henry’s many interpolations and ‘agendas’ before moving onto the prophecies of JC and understand the make-up of the earlier Merlin prophecies first.

The Vulgate version of prophecies which follow, run through history as presented in HRB concerning the Saxon invasion.  Arthur, the Boar of Cornwall shall bring succour and shall trample their necks beneath his feet.  Henry Blois pretends as Merlin to predict as if looking forward from Merlin’s era and foresee events recorded in insular annals (particularly his own), but the aim is to corroborate fictional (unhistorical) events presented in Henry Blois’ own concocted pseudo-historical HRB. In the prophecy above, Henry Blois refers to King Arthur as the Boar of Cornwall as part of a corroborative exercise which confirms his account of events in HRB where King Arthur combats the Saxons and was concieved at Tintagel.

The islands of the ocean shall be subdued unto his (Arthur’s) power, and the forests of Gaul shall he possess. As we know from history, Rome was never subject to British rule, but as ‘Geoffrey’ posits, the Celts in the fourth century BC captured Rome under Brenno. It is a certain fact that King Arthur’s continental battle at Autun never took place as presented in HRB and Arthur never took possession of Gaul.  So, by  simple deduction from the prophecy above, the author of the prophecies is definitely the author of HRB…. as Merlin is supposedly looking forward from a period c.500-600 AD:55

 The house of Romulus shall dread the fierceness of his prowess and doubtful shall be his end. The house of Romulus is Henry Blois’ mystical term for Rome; as if a seer hears things in a different way and understands the truth in the same way as the fictional foundation myth of Diocles of Peparethus. Yet there are still scholars today who believe Merlin possessed prescience or the ability to prognosticate.

55Tatlock comments on his belief that the prophecies and Historia are written by the same person. He comments on the mutual allusions and the echoes all through. P.416

It was Henry Blois posing as Geoffrey who left Arthur’s fate undecided in HRB on the Island of Avalon which our author of the prophecies refers to as a ‘doubtful end’. However, as we shall cover later, it is Henry Blois who plants the bogus body of  King Arthur at Glastonbury.  Thereafter, Arthur’s end became less doubtful to the gullible. This fact becomes clear in the colophon to the Perlesvaus where Arthur and Guinevere are said to be in a Grave in Avalon which was composed by Henry Blois before King Arthur’s disinterment. Also Arthur’s doubtful end is terminated once Henry Blois fabricates the grave of King Arthur and then interpolates William of Mamesbury’s DA to point out the position of the Grave. As Gerald of Wales confirms and as DA and the Perlesvaus colophon had predicted, Arthur and Guinevere were exhumed from a grave between the Piramides at Glastonbury/Avalon

Arthur’s ‘renown’ amongst the population was recorded by William of Malmesbury in GR1 but as I discuss in the section on the GR, we can see the manuscript has been interpolated. Arthur’s real ‘fame’ is a product of his introduction into the Primary Historia, First Variant and the Vulgate version of HRB…. and ultimately HRB’s translation into french vernacular verse, supposedly having been composed by Wace. But the Roman de Brut could not have been composed by Wace as I will show in the section on Wace and that Wace only composed the Roman de Rou which covers the period of Henry Ist from the battle of Tinchebray.  Henry Blois self-perpetuates the ‘Chivalric’ Arthur through Wace and betond 1158 by being the person responsible for originally instigating the Grail stories at his nephew’s court in Champagne. The Chivalric Arthur’s fame is directly linked to Henry Blois and no other author.

So, as we continue on in this section of the prophesies we can plainly see that the prophecies self perpetuate the legend.

He shall be celebrated in the mouth of the peoples, and his deeds shall be as meat unto them that tell thereof.

Ironically, Henry Blois as the inventor of the Chivalric Arthur persona is the one telling of Arthur’s deeds Firstly through the HRB in the monastic system and through courtiers in a latin version and later on through Wace in the vernacular; yet he is predicting that troubadours would relate Arthur’s deeds; even though Henry is the one writing this particular prophecy and pretending to be Merlin.

Six of his successors shall follow his sceptre, but after them the German Worm will rise.

Arthur supposedly has six successors but coincidentally there are six ‘Leonine’ kings numbered in Henry Blois’ era, but we will get to this obfuscation and its reason shortly. In reality, after the Saxons arrive, chronologically the Danes arrive so this particulat prophecy is sqewed from a prophecy in the Libellus Merlini which had the Normans overturning the Saxons. Henry Blois tries to replicate as far as possible, known history from the insular annals of Gildas and Bede in HRB. However, the fiction of Gormundus,56 arrived at from the French Chanson de geste, Gormont et Isembart (doubtfully known by a Welsh Geoffrey), is a part of the fictional pseudo-history of HRB overcomes the chronological discepancies faced by Geoffrey trying to follow historical reality to place King Arthur in the age: The Wolf of the sea shall exalt him, unto whom the woods of Africa shall bear company.

Through the prophecies and the HRB’s (dual) mention of a totally fictional Gormundus and many other allusions57 in the prophecies, we can conclude the author of the prophecies is the same as HRB’s false historicity.

Again, shall religion be done away, and the Sees of the Primates shall be transmuted.

We know Henry Blois is concerned with the state of the church. Henry Blois’ main concern is his obsession with the primacy of Canterbury as it is through this primacy (determined by Rome) that he is subject to Theobald of Bec. This annoys him intensly as in his mind he should be subject to no-one being the Grandson of William the Conqueror and having helped his brother Srephen onto the throne. Originally, Henry Blois had been Archbishop of Canterbury in waiting, until he was spurned by his brother King Stephen and the position given to Theobald instead. This event is one of the main causes of the composition of the First Variant HRB after the loss of the ‘Legation’ by Henry Blois (and made easier by the death of William of Malmesbury) so Henry could pursue his metropolitan ambitions for Winchester.

The First Variant HRB is an expanded redaction of the Primary Historia intended to be presented at Rome as part of Henry Blois’ attempt to get Metropolitan status for the South West of England in 1144.

Henry’s concern with ‘archflamens’ in HRB and the establishment of two metropolitans mentioned in the prophecies are a result of his attempt to obtain metropolitan status for himself. His intention was to gain metropolitan status for southwest England. Henry’s reasoning for the wording of prophecies over time is complicated as he tried to cover his authorship of the Merlin prophecies later in his life when skeptics witnessed the updated prophecies and certainly date to after Henry II came to the throne.

56The Saxons, having had experience of his shiftiness, went unto Gormundus, King of the Africans, in Ireland, wherein, adventuring thither with a vast fleet, he had conquered the folk of the country. Thereupon, by the treachery of the Saxons, he sailed across with a hundred and sixty-six thousand Africans into Britain…HRB. XI, vii.

57For example: The entombment of Caduallo in the brazen statue placed over a London Gate. Also, the emigration and canonization of Cadualadrus.

Henry Blois squewed the updated Merlin prophecies so that London appeared as the new metropolitan site to detract from Winchester when suspicion fell on him as author of the prophecies.

In reality though, his attempt originally was aimed at Winchester, but this can only be understood completely once the prophecies are recognised as having been twisted in a later updated edition which is found in Vulgate HRB. Jean Blacker is suspicious of Geoffrey adding prophecies focusing on the Neustria prophecy. She does not realise that the Alexander dedication could only be post 1148 and that the updated prophecies were added to the First Variant Version after the First Variant had preceded the Vulgate. Researchers to forget that Henry travelled through monasteries in England and on the continent which were full of scribes who could add updated prophecies to older versions at Henry Blois’ behest and he could pay for them. This is how the HRB proliferated!!! 

Henry’s polemic which also concerns our investigation of the interpolations in DA, was to show that the Briton archbishopric of London was established long before Augustine’s arrival. The dignity of London shall adorn Dorobernia (Canterbury) and men shall resort unto the seventh shepherd of York in the realm of Armorica. Samson as ‘Archbishop’ of York58 is another of Henry’s conflations, but again proves the prophecies are too aligned with the pseudo-history of HRB to be written by any other than the inventor of the prophecies.

Henry Blois’ attestation is that before the Saxons came there were three Archbishoprics. This point is made plain in the narrative of HRB59 and again in the prophecies of VM. However, here: Menevia shall be robed in the pall of the City of Legions and a preacher of Ireland shall be stricken dumb on account of an infant in the womb. We shall cover the allusion to St Patrick and Henry’s interest in him when we cover the Charter of St Patrick in the section on DA.

If one understands that Henry Blois wrote an initial set of Merlin prophecies and then subsequently wrote another updated set and changed the sense of some of the previous which were in a separated Libellus version, (which were then spliced into the First Variant c.1149) and subsequently squewed again in the Vulgate HRB…. and then twisted slightly again (while other new additional prophecies were then added in the VM)…. it is safe to posit that several of the early prophecies must have been too obvious and were changed as suspicion fell on Henry as the inventor of the prophecies.

To fully explain the meaning of all the prophecies is impossible as many of them now have no meaning. The original prophecies have been squewed to cause confusion and to hide Henry’s authorship. Originally the prophecies published in the separate Libellus Merlini had material which was too easily linked and could be associated with Henry. His authorship needed to be hidden once he had included the prophecies about the Celtic rebellion when Henry II came to the throne.

To accept this will be difficult for modern scholars, because firstly, one has to accept Geoffrey is not real and that the Primary Historia version of HRB found at Bec was not the same as the Vulgate version. However, most important for any researcher to grasp is the fact that the prophecies in Orderic’s chronicle are an interpolation by Henry Blois.

58At that time two of the Metropolitan Sees, York, to wit, and the City of the Legions, were vacant without their shepherds. Wherefore, being minded to consult the common wish of his peoples, he gave York unto Samson…HRB VIII, xii.

Henry’s bogus establishment of a metropolitan in Carleon is based on Rhygyfarch’s Life of David.

59The three archbishops, to wit, he of Caerleon, Theon of London, and Thadioceus of York. HRB. XI, x. However, the archflamens were not mentioned in EAW, which, if they had been present in the Primary Historia, would have been an extraordinary omission on behalf of Henry of Huntingdon.

Primary Historia had no Merlin prophecies attached to it and did not mention Merlin, therefore there is no mention of Merlin or the prophecies in EAW. Once it is understood that the dedicatees have no relevance in dating the Vulgate HRB, one can then understand the Libellus Merlini existing separately and undergoing an update in the Vulgate. Even though the First Variant pre-exists the Vulgate, and originally may have included the prophecies (without dedication and Alexandrine preamble)….the First Variant’s prophecies have been ‘corrected’ with the updated 1155 version of the prophecies found in Vulgate HRB. This again is difficult to accept until it is understood that the extant copies of First Variant today derive from one exemplar in which the prophecies were updated to the more recent version of prophecies found in the Vulgate.

In other words, when the First Variant was first published, it had the same prophecies as the contents of the separate Libellus Merlini. So, until scholars accept that Vulgate was published in 1155 and the dedicatees names (as contemporaries) in effect back date the Vulgate (giving the impression that the later Vulgate version was that edition found at Bec); it is impossible to grasp how the prophecies were updated and their meaning twisted. This is not easy to accept because scholars have been duped by Henry Blois’ artful retro-dating of the Vulgate version which mentions dedicatees and also by the colophon naming contemporary historians; which apart from the discovery date by Huntingdon in 1139…… date the supposed early composition of Vulgate prior to William of Malmesbury death in 1143.

My main attempt in covering this topic is not to elucidate the prophecies but to show that they were written by Henry. Once the reader recognises the authorship of both HRB and the Merlin prophecies have a common author, we can then safely progress knowing HRB and the chivalric Arthur was a Henry Blois invention. Rather than attempt elucidation of each prophecy, it would be more practical to cover the obvious prophecies which show Henry as the author. So, we will progress from the beginning until Henry’s authorship becomes clear.

The German Worm will find no refuge in his caves for the vengeance of his treason that shall overtake him. 

Writing as the Briton Merlin, Henry makes out the Saxons will pay for the treachery carried out on the ‘night of the long knives’  drawn upon from Nennius’ Historia Brittonum. Ostensibly Merlin appears to cast his allegiance with the Britons as one would expect.

They will prosper for a short while and shall wax strong, but Neustria’s tithe shall do him a hurt.  A people clad in wood and tunics of iron shall come upon him and take vengeance upon him for his wickedness.

Merlin, initially in the Libellus Merlini, sees the Norman’s coming as saviours referring to the Saxons as foreigners. Oddly enough, if Merlin was a Briton, the Normans would just be replacing another lot of conquering foreigners. But as we know, Henry’s polemic for the early prophecies is motivated by a pro-Norman stance… as his brother King Stephen is still alive when they were first composed. Henry’s position changed as King Henry II comes to the throne along with Merlin’s. In the Libellus Merlini the Leonine numbering of Kings originally only went to four. So when we hear of the Sixth and the fifth not being anointed with the oil we know King Stephen is dead.

He shall restore their dwelling-places unto them that did inhabit them aforetime, and the ruin of the foreigner shall be made manifest.

The last thing the Normans did was alleviate the British populace. But again, Henry is a Norman and in the persona of Merlin calls the Saxons foreigner’s and not the Norman’s likewise. This is not a Welshman writing.

The seed of the White Dragon will disappear from our little gardens and the remnant of his generation shall be decimated. The yoke of unending bondage shall they bear their mother by wounding her with hoes and ploughs.

The Saxons will become peasants of the land tilling it in eternal slavery until the Saxon gene is eliminated. What once was their Mother land is now their bondage. This is an odd sentiment for a supposed (Anglo-Norman ‘Geoffrey’) Welshman to have in favour of the Normans. At this stage (when the early prophecies were published), there was no sentiment to reinstall the Britons or bring back the crown of Brutus. In the next prophecy we move onto Henry’s predecessors around whom the earlier prophecies in the Libellus concentrated.

Two dragons will succeed, one of which shall be slain by the darts of malice, while the other shall perish under the shadow of a name.

William Rufus, as Henry of Huntingdon relates in his history is hit by an arrow and as many contemporaries suspect, an arrow of ‘Malice’.  Walter Tirel shot him supposedly by accident in an hunting expedition in the new forest on 2nd August 1100. Is it not a strange circumstance that ‘Geoffrey’ calls it an arrow of Malice? i.e. shot with a motive of hatred or envy, meaning he was killed intentionally rather than it being an accident. Alanus states that nearly everyone understood it to be an accident. So, how is it that the author of the Merlin prophecy is more informed than the masses?

Duke Robert after his imprisonment perished under the ‘shadow of a name’ i.e. Duke Robert rather than King Robert.  It is not remarkable that prophecies deal with kings, but in consideration of the vast time gap from the sixth century to the time of Henry Blois…. it is not coincidental that our seer refers to the conquest of Henry’s grandfather and then his two uncles. Merlin has an adept ability to focus his seeing powers on the same era his reading audience can appreciate and recall the recent past.

These following prophecies we can assume are part of the original set of prophecies that Henry hands to his good friend Abbot Suger.  However, this does not necessarily exclude several other prophecies which were also part of his version which was the original libellus Merlini.  Suger includes all the following and comments on them before his death in 1151. This is before the advent of the updated Vulgate version of prophecies:

They shall be succeeded by The Lion of Justice, at whose roar the towers of Gaul and the dragons of the island shall tremble. In those days gold be extracted from the lily and the nettle, and silver shall flow from the hooves of them that low. They that go crisped and curled shall be clad in fleeces of many colours, and the garment without shall betoken that which is within. The feet of them that bark shall be cropped short. The wild deer shall have peace, but humanity shall suffer dole. The shape of commerce shall be cloven in twain; the half shall be round. The ravening of kites shall perish and the teeth of wolves be blunted. The Lion’s whelps shall be transformed into fishes of the sea, and his Eagle build her nest upon Mount Aravius.

I will briefly go through this section elucidating the meaning as we shall have to cover this material in greater length when discussing the interpolation into Orderic’s work

A lion of justice shall succeed, whose roar shall cause the towns of France, and the dragons of the island to tremble.60 In his days gold shall be extorted from the lily and the nettle, and silver shall be scattered abroad by the hoofs of lowing kine.

60Gildas called Maelgwn  insularis draco, a term which Henry transposed to Celtic leaders.

Henry Ist is denoted the ‘Lion of Justice’ in the prophecies (and whose rule stretched over what ‘Merlin’ terms Gaul) to be archaic….and the island dragons (as we know) are the Britons and Saxons. Abbot Suger explains the prophecy as follows, probably having been prompted by the man who delivered the prophecies into his hands: In his days was gold wrung by him out of the lily, that is, from the religious of good odour, and from the nettle, that is from the stinging seculars; his intent being that as he was a profit unto all, so also should all do service unto himself.

To my mind the lilly and the nettle are the highborn and lowborn who all pay tax to the Lion of Justice. Silver is distributed to the favourite Barons (those that low). As Merlin, Henry shows that his uncle ruled with an iron fist and everybody paid their due and was subject to his stern rule. However, it is probably best to defer to Abbot Suger’s elucidation.

Henry of Huntingdon relates that King Henry Ist predecessor William Rufus: ‘wrung thousands of gold and silver from his most powerful vassals, and harassed his subjects with the toil of building castles for himself’.61 King Henry Ist maintained and added to these coffers until King Stephen inherited a full treasury. King Stephen then distributed it amongst what Henry Blois refers to derogatorily as ‘lowing kine’ in the prophecy.

Henry Blois mentions the easy distribution of funds by Stephen to close advisers and Barons….as the author of GS specifies. Stephen in effect buys support and the coffers are soon depleted…. and Henry Blois is dissatisfied by the manipulation of his brother by the Barons. Stephen’s childish piety and sense of honour, and his blindness toward flatterers is ultimately the breakdown of communication between the two brothers which led to Theobald of Bec being elected as archbishop.

However, we may also have to defer to Abbot Suger’s elucidation: Silver flowed from the hooves of them that low when the strength of the castle safeguarded the plenty of the grange, and the plenty of the grange assured abundance of silver in the well-filled coffers’  Abbot Suger sees the meaning of the prophecy as wealth gained from good husbandry once castles were established to protect livestock.

The men with curled hair shall wear clothes of various textures and colours, and their exterior shall betoken their interior.

This ornate dress appeared in the court of Henry Ist and became a ridiculous show of outward vanity in King Stephen’s rule. A few commentators of the time remark upon the adoption of hair style and the vain attire of the barons at court. This specific prophecy refers to foppish or ‘dandyish’ hair styles and ‘peacockish’ dress of effeminate members of the laity. Doubtful it is that a sixth century Merlin or the Welsh cleric Geoffrey would pay much attention to dress code at court.

Henry Blois himself wore a scruffy beard and would have written this to highlight this new vanity at court to shame the very people as they listened to the prophecy. This trend had started in Henry I reign where bishop Serlo of Seez in a sermon at Carentan chastisted the King and his men for their vain apparel.

61Henry of Huntingdon 217

The feet of lurchers shall be cut off.

It is quite unrealistic to think that Merlin is seeing four or five hundred years into the future and bearing witness to the effects of Norman aristocratic sporting pursuits. It is more ridiculous that a Welsh Geoffrey62 would waste his time concocting prophecies predicting events which pertain to the Norman aristocracy’s sporting pastimes. Hunting dogs were maimed in the time of Henry Ist to prevent hunting on the King’s land; so the hunted game subsequently benefitted. King Henry’s cruel hunting and forest laws were such that all dogs within a given radius of royal preserves were forced to suffer amputation of one paw making them unfit for the chase.64 It is known that Henry Blois kept two Lurchers (or wolf-hounds) as pets, and this may be the motivation for mentioning this seemingly random edict of Henry Ist as a prophecy that all could verify came true .

The beasts of chase (or wild deer) shall enjoy peace.

Henry of Huntingdon again states in reference to William Rufus: If any one killed a stag or a wild boar, his eyes were put out, and no one presumed to complain. But beasts of ‘chace’ he cherished as if they were his children; so that to form the hunting ground of the New Forest he caused churches and villages to be destroyed, and, driving out the people, made it an habitation for deer.65

The Normans were keen on hunting as a sport which witnessed their prowess. As another prophecy relates, they left this pastime to besiege and attack each other as the Anarchy took hold. It is a madness to think that any of this, (regardless of the fact that all these are Henry Blois’ forebears to which the prophecies refer), have any bearing on a Welsh cleric in Oxford (since it is obvious the prophecies and HRB have a common author). Why would Merlin foresee the concerns of members of Henry Blois’ family and their sporting practices?

The shape (for trading) of commerce shall be cut in two; the half shall become round.

This is an allusion to the practice which prevailed of splitting the silver pennies into halves and quarters. The latter clause applies to the fact that these halves were called in…… and a coinage of “round” farthings issued instead. Florence of Worcester refers to these triangular pieces. King Henry’s statute, promulgated in 1108, commanded that the ‘abolus’ and the ‘denarius’ should be round. The introduction of the half and quarter was not instigated until much later, which has caused some commentators to think this prophecy a truly prophetic statement by Merlin. Now, if Merlin’s prophecies were written by ‘Geoffrey’…. what is Geoffrey doing concerning himself with affairs of state and the money supply, which would be under the auspices of the crown?

In Henry Blois’ era, dividing of coinage was a big issue as Henry of Huntingdon relates;66 King Henry ‘had almost all the moneyers throughout England castrated and their right hands cut off for secretly debasing the coinage’. At Christmas in 1124 Roger of Salisbury controller of  King Henry Ist affairs summoned all the coiners of England to Winchester, and had the coiners of base money punished. 

62Geoffrey of Monmouth is a complete fabrication and did not exist.

63Orderic Vitalis. Historiae ecclesiasticae 4:238

64Hammer, commentary 1935

65Henry of Huntingdon Historia Anglorum 217

66Historia Anglorum vii. 36.

Henry Blois was at the centre of government and this was a big issue and even Henry Blois had his own coins minted at York.67 It is he who would be concerned with this issue of the state, not the canon ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ at Oxford.

This practice of fractioning coins needed solution since Henry Ist reign and was still an issue in King Stephen’s reign, and one that King Stephen did not get around to solving in the Anarchy. However, Henry Blois is at the centre of this issue; especially concerning alms to the church as Legate. In the early prophecies, Henry Blois assumed it was safe for Merlin to use his ‘vaticinatory’ skill because a statute had been issued and it should already have been enacted at the mints, but the Anarchy prevented the statute being put into practice. The fact that Merlin foresees this issue should be enough to negate once and for all, that there is any truth whatsoever in the proposition that the prophecies were archaic.

The greediness of kites will end and the teeth of wolves be blunted.

In King Henry Ist era, he had complete control over the bishops’ greed (the kites) and curtailed the power of the barons (the wolves) so that all knew they were subject to the king and none aspired to rebellion.

The Lion’s cubs shall become fishes of the sea, and his Eagle shall build her nest upon Mount Aravius.

The lion’s whelps shall be transformed into sea-fishes. The allusion is to the drowning of Henry Ist sons on 25 November 1120. William Adelin, Henry Ist legitimate heir and Richard his bastard son both drowned.

The prophecy foretells, with suitable vaticinatory mystique, that those on the ‘white ship’ became fish food as the ship sunk off the rocks just outside Barfleur in Normandy.  King Stephen, long before being crowned, had fortunately decided at the last minute, not to embark with the other drunks. Henry Blois’ sister however, Lucia-Mahaut, and her husband Richard d’Avranches, 2nd Earl of Chester, both drowned along with many other young nobles.

In Orderic’s passage on the Merlin prophecies (which was unequivocally interpolated by Henry Blois into Orderic’s book XII), also leads into that interpolation by recounting the death of Duke Robert’s son. He also drowned on the White Ship. Duke Robert too had ‘amazingly’ seen his son’s death in a vision. Henry Blois has a craft for deception. I will show further on that Orderic’s treatment of the prophecies from Merlin can only have been interpolated into Orderic’s history by Henry Blois. What has confused scholars is that the interpolation of the Merlin prophecies into Orderic’s work reflects this clump of prophecies as early unadulterated prophecies, unlike the Merlin prophecies in the later edited prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB.

To any rational investigator this is an impossibility as Orderic mentions the sixth King i.e. King Henry II invasion of Ireland. This proves to the rational mind that the Clump of prophecies in Orderic’s work is an interpolation as I cover in detail in the section on Orderic Vitalis. Now one can see why the scholastic community has been so baffled. If one does not know who composed the prophecies and for what reason one accepts Henry Blois’ propaganda.

Henry Blois was at the centre of government, and had his own coins minted at York.67 It is he who would be concerned with this issue of the state, not the canon ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ at Oxford. This practice of fractioning coins needed solution since Henry Ist reign and was still an issue in Stephen’s reign, and one that King Stephen did not get around to solving in the Anarchy. However, Henry Blois is at the centre of this issue; especially concerning alms to the church as Legate. In the early prophecies, Henry Blois assumed it was safe for Merlin to use his ‘vaticinatory’ skill because a statute had been issued and it should already have been enacted at the mints, but the Anarchy prevented the statute being put into practice. The fact that Merlin foresees this issue should be enough to negate once and for all, that there is any truth whatsoever in the proposition that the prophecies were archaic.

The greediness of kites will end and the teeth of wolves be blunted.

In King Henry Ist era, he had complete control over the bishops’ greed (the kites) and curtailed the power of the barons (the wolves) so that all knew they were subject to the king and none aspired to rebellion.

The Lion’s cubs shall become fishes of the sea, and his Eagle shall build her nest upon Mount Aravius.

The lion’s whelps shall be transformed into sea-fishes. The allusion is to the drowning of Henry Ist sons on 25 November 1120. William Adelin, Henry Ist legitimate heir and Richard his bastard son both drowned. The prophecy foretells, with suitable vaticinatory mystique, those on the ‘white ship’ became fish food68 as the ship sunk off the rocks just outside Barfleur in Normandy.  King Stephen, long before being crowned, had fortunately decided at the last minute, not to embark with the other drunks. Henry Blois’ sister however, Lucia-Mahaut, and her husband Richard d’Avranches, 2nd Earl of Chester, both drowned along with many other young nobles. In Orderic’s passage on the Merlin prophecies (which was unequivocally interpolated by Henry Blois into Orderic’s book XII), also leads into that interpolation by recounting the death of Duke Robert’s son. He also drowned on the White Ship. Duke Robert too had ‘amazingly’ seen his son’s death in a vision. Henry Blois has a craft for deception. I will show further on that Orderic’s treatment of the prophecies from Merlin can only have been interpolated into Orderic’s history by Henry Blois but reflects this clump of prophecies as early unadulterared prophecies unlike the Merlin prophecies in the later edited prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB.

67The royal control over the minting of coins broke down, leading to coins being struck by local barons and bishops across the country c.1141.  A coin appears amongst a group of coins struck at York mint. c.1141 and has on the obverse the inscription HEN(RI)CUS EPS with S(TE)PHANUS REX on the reverse. Probably not a coin of Henry Murdac Archbishop of York 1151-53.

68See Note 7

Anyone who read this ‘White ship’ prophecy from ‘Geoffrey’s’ audience (i.e. those reading Merlin prophecies) would know the meaning; and to which princes (lion’s cubs) the prophecy pertained. The accuracy of Merlin and his focus on church affairs, affairs of state, metropolitan Sees, Winchester, Henry’s uncle, and Henry’s family tree (over a supposed period of five hundred years), as he ‘foresaw’ across time, is ridiculous for modern scholars to take seriously or that the prophecies are afforded any credibility.

  Merlin’s audience coincidentally understood and interpreted the recent events to which the prophecies referred.  This is especially fortuitous when one considers such a diverse number of other events and kings that came and went in the time span which supposedly had transpired since the Merlin prophecies came to be translated supposedly at Alexander’s request.69

Modern scholars should realise that the Merlin prophecies are totally bogus. The propensity of the prophecies to revolve around those related to Henry Blois far outweighs any credence that these are the fanciful inventions of a Welsh cleric from Oxford called Gaufridus Arthur. What is most astounding is that if Merlin could see to the Sixth King i.e. to 1153 when King Henry II came to the throne; and then onto 1155 where Henry Blois finds out King Henry II intention of invading Ireland; how could any scholar like Julia Crick (the self -appointed expert)70 think the dedication to Alexander was real when Alexander died in 1148.

Would the principle of backdating not occur to her as a possibility? That Merlin’s sister Ganieda in VM could see to the battle of Coleshill in 1157 is even more astounding when ‘Geoffrey’ died in 1154-55, yet Henry Blois lived until 1171. If one scholar had bothered to investigate the John of Cornwall prophecies of Merlin, it becomes so blindingly obvious that Henry Blois perceives himself as the next King after he tried to cause insurrection to unseat Henry II. But I am the one labelled as mad and my assessment of our three genres of study is considered incorrect. 

Funnily enough, it is R.S Loomis’s observation that makes me smile: Robert died in 1147 and Alexander in 1148 and thereafter a dedication to either would have no point.71  It is for this exact reason in logic that Henry Blois backdates through the dedicatees. But we should not forget R.S. Loomis was the foremost authority on King Arthur and HRB before the present set of hatch-lings of headless chickens were set loose to regurgitate what had been wrongly deduced by the previous generation. 

Although Robert of Gloucester probably never saw these prophecies, his son also died in the disaster. Huntingdon and Malmesbury both give account of the ‘White Ship’ disaster. There is a poem about the disaster that was either written by Henry Blois or more possibly inspired the prophecy.

Orderic states: I desire not to dwell on this mournful theme, and will only quote one short poem from a distinguished versifier: (See Note 6)

The next part of the prophecy is probably the most important to understand as Henry Blois does not use the number 5 in his numbering system but refers to the Empress Matilda in an oblique way. Several references to her arev clearly pointed out:

His eagle shall build her nest on the Aravian Mount.

69Modern scholar’s totally misdirected assumption is summed up by Michael Curley: in order to discount Alexander’s interest in the PM, one would have to regard as a blatant fabrication, Geoffrey’s claim that Alexander himself initiated the project. Such a claim was not likely to escape the bishop of Lincoln. The same can be said for his claim that Walter the archdeacon gave him a very ancient book. Not if they are dead Michael!!! 

70Julia Crick sits on the editorial boards of Arthurian literature, the very source of the dark utterances of fellow modern scholars.

71Arthurian literature in the middle ages. R.S. Loomis p.81

There has been much discussion about the ‘Montem Aravium’ by scholars. What is certain is that ‘Geoffrey’ never had Snowdon or Eryri in mind when ‘he’ first composed this prophecy as some deluded commentators have suggested. The only reason this was later implied was to intone that ‘Geoffrey’ had a welsh bias.

The Empress Matilda is the Eagle in ‘the third nesting’ prophecy where it applies to her third child William by her husband Geoffrey d’Anjou. The White Ship incident highlighted in the ‘lion’s cubs’ prophecy refers (in the same sentence) to the only legitimate heir which could now follow Henry Ist. The Lion’s whelps became fish food (see Note 7); Henry Ist is the ‘Lion of Justice’. So, it is not by accident that the concern of our mysterious author writing these prophecies is on the Eagle73 since Henry Blois is responsible for putting his brother Stephen on the Throne instead of her i.e. the Empress Matilda.

The ‘Aravis Range’ is located just before entering the Alps 90 miles south east of Clugny where Henry Blois grew up!!!. Henry Blois will have passed through the range of mountainous hills numerous times on his way to Rome as a Bishop and Legate, because they form part of the direct route from Clugny to Rome. Certainly, Henry Blois would have already made the journey across the range himself at the time when the prophecies were composed. Most certainly, a Welsh ‘Geoffrey’ or a cleric at Oxford would not know of this mountain range.

The solution to this reference lies in Henry’s (Geoffrey’s…. read Merlin’s) reference to crossing the Alps, and the Alps themselves being equitable (as a geographical divide) with Rome in the mind of our mystic seer named Merlin. In Henry Blois’ mind, figuratively, the Alps and Aravis range are synonymous with Rome and one would think he derived this assimilation having travelled frequently through this range.

The Merlin prophecy below referring to clerical marriage, (a big issue due to payment of concubinage), in Henry’s time as Legate, refers to Rome in the same way:74 They that wear the cowl shall be provoked unto marriage, and their outcry shall be heard in the mountains of the Alps.75

72In the later Vulgate version Henry Blois is keen to show his partiality to being Welsh to avoid discovery: since he slew the giant Ritho upon Mount Eryri, that had challenged him to fight with him. For this Ritho had fashioned him a furred cloak of the beards of the kings he had slain.  Of course, Henry Blois was known for his unkempt beard but in the earlier First Variant where no seditious Merlin prophecies existed because Henry Blois’ brother was still on the throne…. the fight was in the Alps: Dicebat autem se non invenisse alium tantae virtutis, postquam Rithonem gigantem in Aravio monte interfecit, qui ipsum ad proeliandum invitaverat.

73It is extraordinary that Curley in his analysis comments that the Eagle on Mount Aravia may refer to the Empress Matilda’s Marriage; If this identification is correct, the marriage would form a pair of family events along with the episode of the White Ship. Any political bias in this prophecy, if it indeed does refer to Matilda is difficult to perceive. The problem is that scholars tend to perceive nothing; especially of Henry Blois’ input and they do not consider why Merlin focuses on subjects closely allied to Henry Blois. A cleric in oxford would doubtfully know where the Aravian range is, let alone ‘code’ Matilda’s association with Rome or make comment on her third Child.

74It is not by accident that Wace has the same geographical understanding of the Alps as a natural barrier to Rome but instead of montem Aravium, Wace refers to it as ‘Mount Bernard pass’ also in the Alps. This is a clear freudian slip and is a clear indicator that the Brut was composed by the same author as the prophecies. ‘Geoffrey’ pretending to be Merlin earlier, makes plain to what his montem Aravium alludes in the prophecies; but when Henry Blois composes the Roman de Brut pretending to be Wace, he betrays that he is the author of both the Brut and the prophecies. This slip is probably because the reference was so obscure and no commentator or commentary on the prophecies had linked the ‘Bernard pass’ of Wace to Montem Aravian. Tatlock could not work out that it alluded to the crossing of the Alps and is code for Rome. The Empress Matilda married to the Emperor of Rome before he died and thus her title.

75HRB, VII, iii

The same reference to Rome as being equitable to the Alps is again used by Henry in the prophecies: and the report of that work shall pass beyond the Alps76i.e. the news will get to Rome.

The Aravis mounts are part of the French pre-Alps, a lower chain of mountain ranges west of the main chain of the Alps. When it is understood how the Alps and Aravian range equate to Rome (or the passage to it) in Henry’s mind, it is easy to see how Empress Matilda who was regina Romanorum is seen by Merlin to be making her nest on Mount Aravium.

While still a child, Matilda was married to Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor and was crowned queen of the Romans.77 This is the sequence of logic whereby Henry derives:  His (Henry Ist) eagle shall build her (Matilda) nest on the Aravian Mount (Rome). Again, I must point out that all the prophecies are highly relevant to Henry Blois, rather than a Welshman from the Welsh Marches.

I suggest that Henry’s first set of prophecies, which we know Abbot Suger possessed, (a good friend of Henry’s) , included this allusion to montem Aravium.   When Henry Blois finalised the updated Vulgate HRB prophecies, he tried to hide its obvious poignancy toward Matilda by having the giant Ritho fight Arthur for the mantle made of beards on mount Aravius i.e. for the purpose of deflection. This episode would have detracted at the later date from the association with Rome, whereby his own authorship might be suspected…. having passed through the region several times and because of the prophecy being pertinent to the Empress Matilda who he himself had virtually denied her the throne by manipulating events to install his brother Stephen.

However, there are comments from contemporary commentators on Henry’s beard (which was unruly and long) and thus again connects the ridiculous Ritho episode back to him. We should ask: how is it that Matilda and Henry Blois, who are connected by so many events, are a concern of a certain Merlin who seems to provide prophecies that an audience in the second quarter of the twelfth century would find highly relevant.

Is it really a coincidence that the prophecies  just happen to focus on Henry’s arch-enemy Matilda in reality during the Anarchy, and fortuitously get ‘translated’ by ‘Geoffrey’ in this same era? For a scholar to believe the Orderic dealing of the Merlin prophecies is not an interpolation when it is blatantly clear the author of the interpolation is trying to have us believe that the prophecies existed whil King Henry Ist was alive when refering to the sixth King is a ridiculous notion. More silly is the fact that Orderic died in 1142 and is the very reason behind Henry Blois’ Merlinian interpolation into his work.

Venedocia shall be red with a mother’s blood,

Venedocia, as Giraldus Cambrensis informs us, is the ancient name for the region of North Wales. This prophecy plainly alludes to the continual rebellion in the North of Wales from King Henry Ist time through the Anarchy up to Henry II reign. So, really, it is a prophecy of little consequence…. but is true for contemporary Anglo-Norman readers to recognise.

In essence it was the ensuing Welsh war which made Henry Blois choose Asaph as the place for a perfect cover to locate an already dead ‘Geoffrey’ as Bishop.  It is probably no coincidence that Asaph78 is the ‘recorder’ of events…. just as Henry has made ‘Geoffrey’. Yet no-one could have verified ‘Geoffrey’s’ existence until long after his supposed death when the Vulgate was ‘made public’.

By then, as we know, there is a trace of a bishopric whereas none was recorded when ‘Geoffrey’ was supposed to be alive. I shall cover this point in detail later.

76HRB, VII, iv

77Later in life, Matilda led Norman chroniclers to believe that she had been crowned by the pope himself.

78Isaiah 36:1

The house of Corineus will be slayed by six brethren.

Corineus was said to be a companion of Brutus, after which Cornwall takes its name. The six brethren put to death like the six sons of Erectheus, are (according to Alain de Lisle), the six sons of Fremun, who was viscount of Cornwall under Henry Ist. This may be the most likely solution to the prophecy. However, few of Henry’s audience grasped Henry’s Breton and Cornish affiliation which he bestowed on himself and his brother in the earlier prophecies to liken his brother as a returning Arthur.

John of Cornwall’s prophecies (which Henry wrote last), actually sheds a different light on the reference and shows Henry’s ability to ‘confuse’ in the flux of these prophecies: ‘In sex Francigenis unius sanguine matris, Triste rubens solium tot mortes tot mama passum’.

‘there with the six Frenchmen born of the blood of the same mother, the throne, sad and reddened was subjected to so many deaths, so many evils’.

In John of Cornwall’s edition of prophecies, which were Henry Blois’ latest rendition (even though dated before 1156), Henry is pretending to be a Cornishman as author…. and therein the Cornish (house of Corineus) are not being slayed by the six brothers (or six Cornish brothers are slayed) as in Geoffrey’s Version, but the brothers have become French.

We can also see ‘Venedocia’ has disappeared and the ‘throne’ is transposed with the same description. We can see by this example Henry Blois’ method of conflation and warping of the meaning of the original Merlin prophecies that were first put together to make the Libellus Merlini.  Henry Blois, posing as John of Cornwall in this context is referring to the six brothers all born of his mother Adela. It also refers to Stephen’s enthroning bringing chaos during the Anarchy. Posing as John of Cornwall, Henry pretends an explanation of this passage by way of the commentary which accompanies the JC edition (also written by Henry).

Henry had five elder brothers all legitimate through his disgraced father Stephen II, of which Henry was the youngest. The eldest was William, Count of Sully, the next in line was Theobald II, aka Thibaud IV Count of Champagne; and one brother Odo of Blois, aka Humbert who died young.  King Stephen of England, and Philip Bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne were Henry Blois’ other two brothers. These are the six brothers (including Henry) or Frenchmen to a Briton called Merlin.

John of Cornwall’s prophecies were concocted later than 1155 (even though scholarship is duped by the dedication).  So, we can see Henry’s ability, between the different versions, to adapt the meaning for his current propaganda agenda. Originally, the prophecy probably did pertain to the six sons of Fremun, viscount of Cornwall yet after 1155 the prophecy is referring to him as he hopes to return to England as the ‘adopted son’ mentioned so pointedly in the JC prophecies.

Henry’s vanity in recording details of his own presence is also understood by leaving behind the name Master Blehis, and Blihos-Bleheris (anagram H.Blois) in connection to Grail literature. Also, the white haired old man on the ‘snowy white horse’ who becomes ‘adopted’ in the John of Cornwall rendition, but we will get to that eventually when I elucidate the JC prophecies because Henry Blois had a majestic ‘white charger’ horse to carry him in battle armour.  Henry created the JC prophecies in the hope he might persuade others of his own suitability to succeed the throne after Henry II had been fortuitously unseated by the Celtic sedition.

However, let us continue on through these Vulgate HRB prophecies.

The island shall be bathed in the tears of night, and thence the people shall be incited to all sorts of villainies.

Henry Blois at the beginning of the GS portrays the state of affairs in England, where, after the reign of Henry Ist and the accession of King Stephen, a lawlessness pervaded throughout England. This was partly caused by the decimation of livestock through disease, but primarily through feudal fighting between the barons during the Anarchy. Henry Blois gives a vivid description of this in GS.

His progeny shall aspire to soar aloft,….

the fact that Matilda is the eagle and tries to soar aloft gives the impression from the prophecy that she tries to regain her position, but new men shall rise to favour and eminence. This speaks specifically of Henry Blois and his brother. At the time of writing of the original prophecies, the expectation was still that Henry’s plans for a church led state would come to fruition.

Wherefore, girdled about with the teeth of wolves, shall he climb over the heights of the mountains and the shadow of him that wears a helmet.

Here again, the heights of the mountains refer to the trip involved getting to Rome and thus the Alps become synonymous with Rome as I have just covered.

Here, we see that Henry Blois (when the prophecies were originally written), sees himself and his brother as a partnership. King Stephen, under the protection of his brother Henry, who was the Wolf from Wolvesey (girdled about);79 using possibly ‘the tooth of the wolf’ (singular) originally. The point Henry was making is that the prophecy alluded to himself by vaticinatory pun, the Wolf from Wolvesey. The Helmeted man is the Pope and Henry as Legate is the shadow of him that wears a helmet. Henry refers to himself in fatuous prophetic imagery as the shadow of the pope i.e. the Legate.

From 1143 to 1963, the papal tiara was solemnly placed on the pope’s head during a papal coronation and resembled a helmet.80 The conclusions we can draw from this are that the original Libellus Merlini prophecies were written after March 1139 when Henry became Legate probably c.1142-3, (not forgetting the Primary Historia was deposited at Bec in 1138 and there were no prophecies in this edition).

Albany shall be moved unto wrath, and calling unto them that are at her side shall busy her only in the shedding of blood.

  Albania is employed as the archaic term for Scotland so as to appear as if Merlin is speaking from the past. Henry Blois dislikes both the Welsh and Scots and this is evident through sentiments disclosed when writing as ‘Geoffrey’ and as the author of GS.

79Wolvesey Palace was the residence of Henry Blois. Bishop Æthelwold, Bishop of Winchester 963 – 84, was the one to build the first Bishop’s residence on the small island in the middle of the Itchen. This island was originally called Wulf’s Isle, a name that corrupted in time into Wolvesey.

80See Note 3 Papal Coronation

King David’s hostility to King Stephen can be understood as an effort to uphold the intended inheritance of Henry Ist, i.e. the succession of Matilda. King David joined the Empress Matilda when she arrived in England, and later knighted her son, the future Henry II.

As soon as King Stephen was crowned on 22 December 1135, King David decided to make war on Stephen. King David marched into northern England, and by the end of January 1136 he had taken several castles. A treaty was agreed whereby King David would retain Carlisle and David’s son Henry was granted the Earldom of Huntingdon.  However, the first Durham treaty quickly broke down after King David took insult at the treatment of his son Henry at King Stephen’s court. David prepared again to invade England in 1137.

Henry Blois makes it clear in the VM prophecies that he mistrusts the King of the Scots for his ability to break agreements. This point is painfully made clear by Henry Blois as author of the GS also.81

However, the Merlin prophecy above from HRB is a generalised sentiment held by Henry Blois about the fractious warring Scots. Since the early prophecies were not written until c.1141-43, one might assume the prophecy is a reference to the battle of Standard fought in August 1138. The ‘calling in of those who dwell by her side’ is recorded by Ailred of Rievaulx as the Galwegians from Galloway in South-West Scotland, the Cumbrians and Teviotdalesmen; the men of Lothian, the islanders and the men of Lorne in the South-West Highlands and Moravians, men from Moray in North-East Scotland.

A bridle-bit shall be set in her jaws that shall be forged in the heart of Armorica.

This prophecy above is difficult to understand. The obfuscation in this case is overdone.  I think it refers to Geoffrey V, who was the Count of Anjou, Touraine, and Maine in the ‘bosom of Brittany’. Perhaps it refers to the husband of Matilda tempering the rash and haughty Empress; especially considering the following:

He will cover the Eagle of the broken covenant (vows of the Barons) and the Eagle shall rejoice in her third nesting

The allusion is of a copulative nature which is expressed in the resultant third child. The reference is to Matilda as the ‘eagle’. The ‘broken covenant’ pertains to broken oaths of all the Barons who swore to her father Henry Ist that they would remain loyal to her after his death. The ‘third nesting’ is the birth of Matilda’s third child William, on 22 July 1136.82 This event is of vital importance to Henry Blois because of the opportune timing of the pregnancy of Matilda. It was and fateful reason Stephen was able to be crowned King. Matilda, assuming her crown to be secure, was unwilling to make the sea crossing pregnant because of ‘Pregnancy sickness’. Matilda had nearly died while giving birth to her second son. This was the cause of her unwillingness to travel to England at the crucial time allowing Stephen to be crowned in her place by the machinations and manipulations of Henry Blois.

There was not a high expectation for the Empress Matilda’s survival when she became pregnant for the third time after the earlier complications.   It is because of this pregnancy that Henry Blois was able to speed Stephen’s usurpation of the crown…. the grounds for which are set out in the apologia of the GS. The GS provides various rationalisations for the crowning of Stephen.

79Wolvesey Palace was the residence of Henry Blois. Bishop Æthelwold, Bishop of Winchester 963 – 84, was the one to build the first Bishop’s residence on the small island in the middle of the Itchen. This island was originally called Wulf’s Isle, a name that corrupted in time into Wolvesey.

80See Note 3 Papal Coronation

81I shall cover this point later when covering Henry Blois disatisfaction at his Brother Stephen letting King David of Scotland free for the ‘third’ time after the rout of Winchester.

82It is preposterous that some modern scholars still believe that the interpolation into Orderic concerning the Merlin prophecies predates 1135.

Why Merlin keeps focusing on events pertinent to Henry Blois must be obvious. But it also substantiates the fact that a living bonefide persona ‘Geoffrey’ is an illusion and Henry Blois is the author of the Merlin prophecies.

The rulers cubs shall awaken and forsaking the forests to hunt within the walls of cities.

This prophecy can doubtless be interpreted as ‘the Normans’ will leave the normal practice of hunting in the woods for the new practice of warring in cities which transpires throughout the Anarchy. This is confirmed in the next sentence where No small slaughter shall they make of them that withstand them.

I am at a loss to give any sure interpretation regarding the tongues of bulls shall they cut out.83

They shall load with chains the necks of them that roar, and the days of their grandsire shall they renew.

The prophecy seems to refer to Henry Blois and King Stephen returning back to the ‘Glory days’ of their Grandfather, William the Conqueror, when all were subject to him. Them that roar are the Norman lion’s cubs i.e. specifically Stephen.  The necks of the baronial lords are loaded with chains as chains are a symbolic representation of reward for acceptable and weighty service; often hung in medieval times with a pendant of the coat of Arms.  This prophecy would have been one of the original Libellus Merlini prophecies which establishes that Stephen and Henry are rightfully running the country as Grandchildren of William the Conqueror.

For the most part, what I have covered so far existed in the First set of Prophecies, which, I assume, existed as the Libellus Merlini. This circulated separately and was distributed nonchalantly to a select few like Abbot Suger. We might speculate that the Libellus was originally composed to foretell (as if it were fated from long ago) that Stephen would be king; i.e. King Stephen’s rule had been foreseen. Who could challenge what was fated? However, it is difficult to know exactly how Henry has squewed the prophecies in the various versions today.

Thenceforward from the first unto the fourth, from the fourth unto the third, from the third unto the second the thumb shall be rolled in oil. The sixth shall overthrow the walls of Hibernia and change the forests into a plain.

It is not by coincidence there is no ‘fifth’ in the kingship line mentioned; especially not Matilda, even though numerically she is the fifth. She would not be accounted as one of ‘the consecrated’ by oil. So, this passage from the updated Merlin prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB looks as if it has been updated from an original early prophecy which originally spoke of only four i.e. before Matilda and Henry II arrived and the Leonine line were added to with references to Matilda in various ways and of the Sixth being Henry II. I would think that this reflects a purposefull squewing and skimble Skambling of an existing prophecy which refered to the leonine numbering system which originally in the Libellus Merlini only reached four

This is supposition because we know Henry would hardly mention Matilda as the fifth anyway, but one might imagine that because the ‘consecration’ was an issue, it was written after the fact i.e. Matilda was not consecrated (crowned). Matilda was not consecrated with the ‘oil’ which anoints Kings and Queens (since the biblical period); the point is Henry II is the ‘Sixth’ which obviates the fact that the prophecy was written after he was crowned and the fifth which ordinarily would not have been numbered by a dark age seer is enumerated in Henry Blois numbering of his Grandfather’s cubs.

Jean Blacker and Michael Curley our two experts on the Prophetia along with Eckhardt are totally ignorant of the fact that Henry Blois sees himself as the seventh King in JC’S edition which I cover in full later.   Modern scholars impossibly rank Stephen as the Fifth  being misdirected by the JC commentary. King Stephen is the fourth, Matida the unmentionable fifth and Henry II as the sixth.

Let me make this plain, by understanding that the original prophecies only went to four when Stephen came to the throne. The prophecies were then updated to include the sixth when Henry II came to the throne.  In the JC version with Henry’s expectation of revolt by the British tribes, he looked forward to being the ‘seventh’ because he hoped to be a compromise king after Cadwallader and Conan had succeed in their rebellion which was being foretold would succeed as Henry Blois’ updated prophecies foresee the fall of Neustria.

The Empress Matilda was marked in the prophecies as the alliterative ‘fifth’ but she was certainly accounted as ‘not consecrated’ with the oil. But as a cub of King Henry II in the later version of the prophecies marked as the fifth along with all the other references Henry Blois provides for her.

Scholars should realise that the ‘sixth’ has to be king Henry II. Until these ‘scholars’ open their eyes to who wrote the prophecies and even the JC version and the reasoning behind the versions, they will keep asking ‘Who was the seventh king’. Of course the commentary in the JC version misdirects, that is partly why it was written!!!!

83The cutting out of bull’s tongues could have a papal implication concerning Stephen’s attempts at getting Eustace crowned, involved the ignoring of papal instruction. Herbert of Bosham seems to think it has its allusion to silencing the proud.  Concerning the tongues of bulls as an alternative interpretation: Nearly all the chroniclers alive at the time, relate that in Britain there was a cattle disease which decimated the cattle stocks just before Stephen’s reign. I suggest this may have been a disease called wooden tongue disease. The disease starts suddenly with the tongue becoming hard, swollen and painful. Affected animals drool saliva and cannot eat. Maybe some barbarous solution was to cut out their tongues.  Certainly, Henry Blois has something in mind; and as we have seen ‘lowing kine’ can be obsequious Barons, it is any one’s guess as to what the prophecy alludes to.

Matilda’s aborted crowning means she was never officially crowned. Certainly, the prophecy of the ‘sixth’ overthrowing the walls of Ireland, post-dates 1155. The mystical sounding vacuous first part of the prophecy above counting the four kings seems to me to be attempting to sound the same as the previous (original) prophecy (in counting from Stephen’s Grandfather) originally to only four and most probably would have been in the original libellus Merlini until the update which went to six.

  We know the prophecy has been subsequently updated. Whether or not the first sentence was in the original set of Prophecies or not is inconsequential…. as it is obvious the second sentence post-dates the council at Winchester in September 1155. If the first sentence was in the original Libellus, it would indicate that the numbering system of the first four was instigated at that time…. and Matilda was just referred to as the eagle and not numbered because King Stephen was still alive. Hence the ‘Sixth’ becomes apparent when the Vulgate prophecies are updated in 1155.

There is little advantage for us to trawl through all the prophecies as it is plain they were written by Henry Blois.  This is not the objective of this exposé. My objective is to show clearly that Henry Blois is an arch interpolator of other manuscripts and once this is established, we can then understand much more about the HRB and its connection to DA and the Prophecy of Melkin and how they relate to Grail literature through Henry Blois.

However, to avoid further misunderstanding by the scholastic community, it is worth briefly looking at the evolving process of the prophecies of Merlin over time, which has overlaid new material on what was originally published as a separate Libellus Merlini.  Henry Blois’ illusion was also, at the same time, attempting to make the prophecies seem consistent from the first earlier edition. This is what has confused commentators on the Merlin prophecies in the various redactions of the prophecies found in Vulgate HRB, VM and JC.

As far as I can understand what has transpired is that an original set of prophecies were written. These were then added to and contained allusions to the period in the Anarchy and the period preceding it. Henry thought that some prophecies were found too obvious i.e. they could lead back to Henry as the author. In 1155 a set was produced which squewed the originals and split them up so that the sense was harder to grasp from one prophecy to another and continuity was broken up.  However, in 1155 several prophecies were added to predict the fall of the Normans in Britain through the uprising of the combined Celtic nations.

These updated prophecies from 1155 were added to the exemplar of the original First Variant version and over-copied into variants when the Vulgate version of HRB and its updated Merlin prophecies was published. The body of the text of the Vulgate version of HRB varied in structure from First Variant because the Vulgate was no longer aimed at a papal audience. One version of HRB evolved toward the completed Vulgate copy through an edition which Alfred of Beverley copied from. This is why it is more similar to the Vulgate but not as expanded in 1147-51 when it was circulated around York.  Obviously the dedicatees and the colophon referring to the historians were added into the Vulgate HRB after all three were dead; essentially to backdate the whole Historia but more importantly its updated seditious prophecies. People were curious as to where the prophecies came from and who Galfridus Arthur was and where he was. 

Subsequent to the publishing of the Vulgate HRB, Henry decided to establish a more realistic Merlin who was seen to connect to events through historical figures such as Taliesin and Rhydderch in his new output called the Life of Merlin. Original prophecies were followed nearly verbatim in VM and some from the updated prophecies of HRB were included. Also, Merlin saw/spoke fresh prophecies that had not featured in the HRB. Most of these new visions were localised and gave the impression that Merlin saw into the future concerning Dumbarton, Carlisle, and Camartheon etc. where Merlin had been fictitiously newly installed in the VM. An opaque Merlin Ambrosius became a Merlin Sylvestris from a certain location and attached to a real historical King.  So, Henry does a little localising of his prophecies to appear that Merlin now pertains to the North.

I believe Henry contrived to locate Merlin geographically because sceptics asked how it was that there was no previous record of Merlin. The structure and beauty of Vita Merlini had little interest for Henry Blois, as it was specifically composed as a propaganda exercise. When the VM was coposed while Henry Blois was in Clugny,  ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ in 1157 had been supposedly dead three years.  A casual scenario for the composition of VM invented by Henry Blois was welded together based upon Irish and Welsh bardic material along with excerpts from Isidore of Seville’s etymologiae.

The one point which positively shows that Henry Blois is the inventor of the prophecies is that a large part of the Anarchy’s most important events are covered by Ganieda (Merlin’s sister). This was obviously done so that Merlin was not accused of updating the material as the recent events (which are so plainly alluded to by Ganieda) had transpired since Henry had first published his Libellus.

Just so we can finish with these prophecies in HRB, I will just cover a few random prophecies to itemise what I have just explained above. It is not by accident that Two cities shall he robe in two palls, where both his friend Bernard at St David’s and Henry himself are petitioning for metropolitans…. and virgin bounties shall he bestow upon virgins most probably refers to Henry’s setting up of a nunnery at Winchester. However, this next piece is purely to aggravate the Celts to unseat Henry II and Henry Blois refers to King Henry II as the Lynx and predicts the downfall of the Normans and refers to the strife amongst the foreigners…. which constituted the Anarchy.

…the Lynx that sees through all things and shall keep watch to bring about the downfall of his own race, for through him shall Neustria lose both islands and be despoiled of her ancient dignity. Then shall the men of the country be turned back into the island for that strife shall be kindled amongst the foreigners.

The Lynx is Henry II and Henry Blois is predicting the the new King is going to be the downfall of his race and the Normans will lose England and Ireland/Scotland.  Henry Blois’ actual plan was to get the Celts to rebel while King Henry was supposedly going to be in Ireland as he had heard at the council of Winchester in 1155. This never happened as Henry Blois had thought and understood from the meeting which he had attended in Winchester just before he fled to Clugny; where shortly afterward, he had composed these new seditious Merlin prophecies

As we shall see later, the ‘old man’ is Henry Blois himself who had a white horse and the Periron is the river Parrett on which he built a mill. An old man, moreover, snowy white, who sits upon a snow-white horse, shall turn aside the river of Pereiron and with a white staff shall measure out a mill thereon. Cadwallader shall call unto Conan and shall receive Albany to his fellowship.

As we shall cover in progression of this exposé, both Cadwallader and Conan are contemporary enemies of Henry II at the time of writing and the prophecy pertains to what Henry Blois is hoping will happen. see appendix 8

Then shall there be slaughter of the foreigners: then shall the rivers run blood: then shall gush forth the fountains of Armorica and shall be crowned with the diadem of Brutus. Cambria shall be filled with gladness and the oaks of Cornwall shall wax green. The island shall be called by the name of Brutus and the name given by foreigners shall be done away.

The allusion to Armorica is directly related to Conan duke of Brittany. Henry Blois even lets us know that Henry II after the Celts overthrow the King will be succeeded by  Henry Blois himself (all going to plan) in the JC prophecies.

In the following prophecy though, he alludes to himself as the ‘goat’ probably because of his silver beard and in reference to the Castle of Venus which is Winchester. His word will rule over the land and Henry’s intended prediction is that with himself on the throne, there will at last be peace in Britain.

He will be succeeded by the He-goat of the Castle of Venus having horns of gold and a beard of silver, and a cloud shall he breathe forth of his nostrils so dark as that the face of the island shall be wholly overshadowed. There shall be peace in his time,

The date of the next updated Merlin prophecy which refers to the two kings at Wallingford i.e. the future Henry II and King Stephen, where the bishops (those of the bishop’s pastoral staff)84 were Henry Blois and Theobald of Bec…. must naturally post-date 1153.

Two Kings shall encounter in nigh combat over the Lioness at the ford of the staff.

The two kings are Stephen and Henry II. The lioness’ rights are what the whole Anarchy has been fought over. Henry Plantagenet (Henry II) and King Stephen agree terms for ending the civil war. Under the terms of the Treaty of Westminster,85 Stephen is to remain King for the remainder of his life, but thereafter the throne passes to Duke Henry (Henry Plantagenet).

 

They that wear the cowl shall be provoked unto marriage, and their outcry shall be heard in the mountains of the Alps.

84The crosier is the symbol of the governing office of a bishop. A bishop or church head bears this staff as “shepherd of the flock of God”.

85The Treaty of Winchester was the agreement ending the Anarchy to which the infamous Bishop of Asaph put his name. The ‘Treaty of Winchester’ seems to be the addendum following in 1153, allowing Stephen to remain King of England for life but appears to be after the death of Eustace as it mainly makes provision for Eustace’s brother. These documents made clear that Stephen had adopted Henry Plantagenet as his heir.

As we have seen, Henry Blois posing as Merlin does not want to refer to Rome but pretends through the mists of time that Merlin sees the Alps as Rome (as I have covered) and literally therefore refers to the pope or Rome often in allegory as the Alps

 

The question of concubinage and the fact that several clergy were provoked into marriage was dealt with by Henry Blois as Legate and he referred many contentious decisions concerning concubinage to Rome. In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests. However, at the First Lateran Council of 1123 priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks were forbidden to have concubines, contract marriage, or even remain married…. and the Clergy were not happy about it. to think Merlin is again seeing the very things Henry Blois is concerned with is ridiculous. But what is more foul is the edict of the Catholic Church in Henry Blois’ era which has caused the abuse of innocent youth across the world by the Roman priesthood buggering small boys until the present era. The Bishop of Gloucester Peter Ball,  a predator of young boys grooming and abusing 18 teenagers is the product of the decisions of  the catholic church’s First Lateran Council of 1123. At least Henry Blois kept brothals!!!

 

However, Henry Blois probably attended the second Lateran Council since William of Malmesbury reckons (as far as he can remember) that Henry became Legate in March;86 Canon 6 decrees that: those who in the sub-diaconate and higher orders that have contracted marriage or have concubines, be deprived of their office and ecclesiastical benefice. Thus, the Merlin prophecy:‘provoking marriage of those that wear the cowl’.

 

Canon 7: commands that: no one attend the masses of those who are known to have wives or concubines. But that the law of continence and purity, so pleasing to God, may become more general among persons constituted in sacred orders, we decree that bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks, and professed clerics (conversi) who, transgressing the holy precept, have dared to contract marriage, shall be separated. For a union of this kind which has been contracted in violation of the ecclesiastical law, we do not regard as matrimony. Those who have been separated from each other, shall do penance commensurate with such excesses.

 

This Council thus declared clerical marriages not only illicit though valid before, but now invalid (“we do not regard as matrimony”). The marriages in question are those contracted by men who already are “bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed clerics”.

 

Now, how is it again that Merlin focuses on affairs of the church so pertinent to Henry Blois’ legation?

 

Three springs shall well forth in the city of Winchester, whereof the streams shall separate the island into three portions.

 

This could refer to the third Metropolitan originally as it now has Britain divided into three.

 

Also, Henry foresaw a navigable channel/canal down to Southampton from Winchester supplied by the two rivers and expected the engineering project to come to fruition. The Anarchy prevented the work taking place and Henry Blois’ name is linked with the start of such a work in reality as the prophecy when written had intended to fortell.

 

This prophecy, which was in the original Libellus Merlini (as it is predicted to happen in the then future) is followed up by skimble skamble devised to disguise the fact the project never came to fruition and Henry’s connection with it.  Tradition says it was the Bishop of Winchester that is said to have devised a grand plan for improving the trade both of Winchester and Alresford by the construction of a “navigation” on the river Alre87 and Itchen. Alresford Pond was started by Henry as the prophecy predicts and constructed in order to create a head of water for a canal. This canal is supposed to have run from Alresford Pond to Winchester. It is said to have been constructed on the orders of the Bishop of Winchester.

86The pope presiding the council began on 2 April and it seems to have ended before 17 April 1139

87In some texts it has Fons Annae and we know the camp of Venus (which will be renewed) is Winchester after Henry’s reconstruction and thus we can speculate that Henry had plans for the three springs appearing in Winchester, one of which was to be navigable to Hamo’s port which is Southampton.

That Henry Blois had already devised the production of the VM when he updated the Vulgate HRB Merlin prophecies is obviated by the inclusion of the forest of Colidonis to match with the new location of Merlin in VM.

The next prophecy is about Winchester written after the rout of Winchester where the citizens which Henry Blois had originally persuaded to accept the Empress Matilda as ‘their lady’ subsequently refused to swap allegiance back to Stephen when Henry Blois reverted his own allegiance back to his brother. On the orders of Henry Blois, Winchester was set ablaze. Henry combines his present agenda, (again concerned with unseating Henry II) and blames the woes of Winchester on their perjury…. yet he is fully aware of his instruction to burn Winchester.88

Come together Cambria, and bringing Cornwall with thee at thy side, say unto Winchester: ‘The earth shall swallow thee: transfer the see of the shepherd thither where ships do come to haven, and let the rest of the members follow the head.’ For the day is at hand wherein thy citizens shall perish for their crimes of perjury.

Henry Blois intonates in the prophecy that the destruction of Winchester was because of the townsfolk’s treachery in changing allegiance. Most readers were familiar with the scenario that Henry himself persuaded them at first to accept the Empress Matilda while his brother was in Jail. Henry wants Winchester upgraded to a metropolitan. Henry (latterly) squewes the purport away from Winchester to London in the updated prophecies.

Again, the citizens of Winchester are blamed for the fact that their city was burnt, Woe unto the perjured people, for by reason of them shall the renowned city fall into ruin.

We know that Henry is the Hedgehog with the pun on ‘Hericus’ instead of Henricus and we know he rebuilt the city of Winchester.

The Hedgehog that is laden with apples shall rebuild her.

What is happening here is that Henry has written earlier prophecies about his aspirations to rebuild after the fire. In this version he is updating the prophecies in the HRB in 1155; so, he is trying to make it appear that the updated version still matched the older one. Because the engineering works did not transpire, the whole sense of the prophecy is now associated with the Thames just to confuse the reader, but Henry had in fact boasted in an earlier prophecy that the report of his engineering endeavour at Winchester (having been foreseen by Merlin) would find renown at Rome.

What we do know for certain is that he did have a ‘mighty palace’ at Winchester and we may speculate that he intended to rebuild the city walls with six hundred towers. He shall add thereunto a mighty palace, and wall it around with six hundred towers. London shall behold it with envy and trebly increase her walls.

88William of Malmesbury states: but the people of Winchester gave her (Matilda) their unspoken loyalty, remembering the faith they had pledged to her when they were induced to do it, almost against their will by the Bishop (of Winchester). Meanwhile firebrands flung from the bishop’s tower upon the houses of the citizens, who, as I have said, were more zealous for the Empress’s success than the Bishop’s, caught and burnt an entire nunnery within the city and the monastery called Hyde without. That Henry is responsible for the burning of Winchester is confirmed by John of Worchester’s report: …the bishop is reported to have said to the earl of Northampton, ‘Behold earl, you have my orders, concentrate on razing the city to the ground.’ The rout of Winchester transpired straight after Henry had changed sides back to his brother, after the Empress had left London as we will cover shortly in the exposition of the GS.

The Thames river shall compass her round on every side, and the report of that work shall pass beyond the Alps.

As will become apparent in progression, the current copy of the prophecies comes from the updated Vulgate version of HRB which I will show was written in 1155. As I have suggested, it is likely that a river was previously un-named and the whole prophecy originally applied to Winchester. In the updated version where too much of the previous information seemed too highly pertinent to Henry Blois, he has added the Thames to take the focus from Winchester and himself.

It must not be forgotten that when Henry wrote the previous Libellus Merlini prophecies, he was the King’s brother and Merlin just happened to be focusing on events which ‘coincidentally’ revolved around Henry Blois. In the updated version however in 1155, he is inciting rebellion; so, there was a need for the utmost caution and obfuscation of any evidence that Henry was author of the prophecies. But, at the same time, the prophecies still had to resemble in content the previous set of prophecies. Even though William Newburgh writes 20 years after Henry’s death, Newburgh still knew that: a writer in our times has started up and invented the most ridiculous fictions….

Within her (Winchester Cathedral) shall the Hedgehog hide his apples and shall construct passageways under-ground.

The so-called ‘Holy Hole’ in the retro-choir at Winchester Cathedral which still exists today is a small doorway leading into a short passage which goes nowhere. Originally this was constructed by Henry Blois as a means of increasing alms derived from pilgrims, allowing them to go underground past the crypts of saints and relics.89 The high-water table under the New Minster caused several relics to be moved at the time as related by prior Robert of Winchester.  The prophecy may also refer to more practical constructions underground to alleviate the flooding of the crypts which still occurs today.

What seems to have transpired is that Henry is trying to deflect attention from himself. In earlier prophecies (in the libellus Merlini) some of the blatantly obvious prophecies that he has prognosticated could lead back to him as author. Unfortunately, no copy of these have been definitely identified at the present (as an early separate Libellus ), but it seems fair to say with his new updated prophecies which incite the Celts to rebellion, Henry Blois’ older prophecies which were less guarded, needed to be squewed so that no suspicion would lead to Henry now Henry II was on the throne.

Henry Blois tries to deflect any attention he may have focused on himself or Winchester by obfuscating. He predicts (as if he were Merlin) that these things will occur when two unlikely events transpire. Thus any sceptical person who may be suspicious of Henry’s authorship of the prophecies are immediately non-plussed because stones do not speak and neither has the English channel shrunk.

89The small ‘Holy Hole’ was originally a larger passage which enabled pilgrims to crawl from outside the Cathedral of Winchester directly beneath St. Swithun’s Shrine.  Bishop Henry also surrounded St. Swithun with the bones of various Saxon Kings and Bishops in lead coffers, which he had removed from their ‘lowly place’ of burial.

In that day shall stones speak, and the sea whereby men sail into Gaul shall become a narrow straight.

Henry Blois then follows this with more ridiculous propositions seemingly seen through a ‘glass darkly’, keeping his obfuscation less like an insertion but more as a train of connected events seen by Merlin.

Men will call from shore to shore, and the soil of the island shall be enlarged. The hidden things that are beneath the sea shall be revealed, and Gaul shall tremble in fear.

There seems little point to continue traipsing through the Merlin prophecies as I will have to cover several later in context. There is such obfuscation and squewing of previous prophecies which Henry is attempting to dissemble, that it seems too uncertain to attempt to find rational meaning in some once they have been altered/updated. The ‘dragon of Worcester’ is Waleran and the ‘dragon of Lincoln’ was Alexander and the ‘ass of wickedness was Theobald of Bec’, but it would be unlikely a sage from the sixth century would focus on those who Henry Blois disliked.

Henry Blois and the Vita Merlini

Tatlock90  has diligently shown how Geoffrey of Monmouth constructed the HRB by elucidating the provenance of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s source material. Tatlock  never understood that Henry Blois was the author of the  Merlin prophecies or the HRB but he tells us that it is impossible to believe that ‘Geoffrey’ wrote all the prophecies.  Nearly every argument put forward by him to show that some prophecies were written by a separate individual other than Geoffrey would bolster the case for Henry Blois as the author of VM, HRB and the Merlin prophecies.

Modern scholars have tirelessly inquired into the HRB but have not applied the same diligence to the prophecies. It is obvious to those who have studied the prophecies that they were composed by the same person who invented the historicity of HRB. It seems unlikely that any researcher will discover any primary source which indicates that Henry Blois was the author of HRB because he went to great lengths to conceal his identity as the composer . Therefore, the only way to uncover Henry Blois’ fraud is through a deep incisive investigation into all the versions of the prophecies of Merlin composed by Henry Blois in the VM, HRB and the John of Cornwall edition of the prophecies. Of course the John of Cornwall rendition of the prophecies which is discussed at length later in this work leaves no doubt that the author is Henry Blois.

It is doubtful anyone will fully understand all the prophecies of Merlin in HRB, but Tatlock is misguided where he says it is hard to believe the prophecies ever had any intelligible meaning for anyone.91  They were certainly written by Henry Blois in the HRB, just as VM was composed by Henry Blois.

In the VM it is clearly shown in this work that all of Merlin’s sisters prophecies clearly refer to events in the Anarchy and these events are clearly replicated in the Gesta Stephani. Therefore it is necessary to show the reader that the GS was composed by Henry Blois also which I cover in the next section. For the most part, the Merlin prophecies certainly had an intended goal and meaning originally for Henry Blois.

The problem with getting to the heart of the Matter of Britain is that the scholarly exegesis requires imagination of the reasoning and persona of Henry Blois, where he has set out purposely to hide his authorship of the manuscripts examined in this work. Sadly the hands which endeavour to elucidate the sources of the Matter of Britain lie with people who by the nature of their work have little imagination. Especially in their perception of the real character of Henry Blois.

For consistency, many of Merlin’s prophecies are repeated from the Vulgate edition of HRB into VM, but there are many additions to the VM prophecies. Once we understand all the prophecies of Merlin were written by Henry Blois, we can then see why many of the prophecies themselves (supposed to have come from a sixth century Merlin), substantiate parts of the pseudo-history comprising HRB, which, supposedly ‘Geoffrey’ wrote.  Yet, because the two works corroborate each other’s erroneous history, we can take it that HRB was written by Henry Blois also; with other substantive facts taken into account. The reason we may never fully understand every prophecy is that they have undergone editorial changes by Henry Blois in the final HRB Vulgate version published in 1155 which became the most prolific edition.

90If indeed one of the many hundreds of scholars over the past hundred and fifty years had indeed entertained the possibility of Henry’s authorship, we might be able to assign the title scholar to any one of them. However, the myopia which persists in the scholastic community is like a genetic disease passed down, where no-one can see the wood for the trees. This is more testament to Henry Blois’ brilliance than their lack of it.

91Tatlock. P.416

These were followed by new Merlin prophecies in the VM and other prophecies supposedly by Taliesin also incorporated into VM. Ganieda’s introduction into VM also helped substantiate Merlin’s vaticinatory reliability. I do not wish to bore the reader who does not need to know why and when VM was written and the quickest way to establish who wrote VM is to read Merlin’s sister’s prophecies; because all of them are itemised as events written in the Gesta Stephani also authored by Henry Blois which becomes apparent in the next part of the investigation.

As Henry Blois changed the sense to some prophecies and added to the original set (which we may suppose Abbot Suger had be given a copy by Henry Blois); it becomes difficult to divine the sense or purport on occasion or in certain cases, to whom the prophecy refers; yet at other times it is crystal clear that the prophecies speak of events which are wholly translatable to Henry’s world view and interests, especially being the author of the Primary Historia, the First Variant and Vulgate HRB.

In the VM some prophecies have purposefully been squewed by comparison to those in HRB when Henry Blois released his updated edition, in order to further hide Henry’s authorship.  Henry had previously been less guarded at the time when he initially published the Libellus Merlini. There seems to be a defining reason for writing the VM with several prophecies seemingly repeated from HRB.

Not only has Henry Blois squewed some prophecies from HRB when composing the VM  but he has added two more sets of prophecies which see clearly on other subjects not touched by Merlin i.e. through Taliesin and Ganieda (Merlin’s sister).   Henry even uses ‘icons’ from Taliesin’s original work so that it might appear that it is Taliesin himself who is contemporaneously in conversation with Henry Blois’ Merlin; as witnessed in the text of VM.

Henry’s reason for composing VM after having added the seditious prophecies and ‘made public’ the Vulgate version with updated prophecies are plain to see. He needs to place Merlin historically and the easiest way to do this is have him associated with others of a similar ilk i.e. Taliesin. He also needs to locate him in time and geographically. Those inquiring after ‘Geoffrey’ were suspicious of the updated seditious prophecies. So, VM confirms these seditious prophecies were one and the same with the updated set of prophecies found in HRB, but also were seemingly extant before ‘Geoffrey’ died….or so goes the logic of Henry Blois.

However, the whole of VM has a half-hearted approach in layout and purpose by comparison with the well-structured HRB. So, we should try to find out why Henry Blois went to the trouble of producing the seemingly uninspired VM.

Henry wishes to demonstrate or corroborate that the updated prophecies in HRB which differed from those known by contemporaries to have existed in the earlier libellus Merlini, were in fact written or understood to have existed (in another work) authored by the now dead ‘Geoffrey’.  This is the main reason that Henry Blois composed the VM. After 1155, those sceptical of the antiquity of Merlin’s prophecies were trying to discover who had added seditious and updated prophecies to the originals.92 This is why many of the prophecies in VM are changed in purport from the Vulgate HRB’s new updated set, (making some prophecies a lot less specific).

92This argument is also given credence by the fact that the colophon of HRB, which, in effect adds a confirmation that the dedicatees were alive at the time the prophecies were added…. is an addition to the Vulgate to counter the argument that the dedicatees were not found in the First Variant version and were added subsequently. The colophon pretends to appeal to William of Malmesbury as alive and in effect dates the Vulgate version to at least 1143 when Malmesbury died, but what is a fact… is that the First Variant was published in 1144  and pre-dated the Vulgate version of HRB.

In effect by writing VM, Henry not only locates Merlin in antiquity (not accomplished in HRB), but has him surrounded and interacting with sixth century contemporaries. But most importantly the seditious prophecy which encourages the Celts to unite to re-establish the crown of Brutus is found in VM as well…. which in reality puts VM’s composition in between 1155-1158.  Contemporaries were fed propaganda so to them ‘Geoffrey’ had supposedly died in 1154

Therefore, if ‘Geoffrey’ is now known to be dead, then those trying to find the person who added the most recent prophecy are non-plussed because the seditious prophecy concerning the Celts exists in another of ‘Geoffrey’s’ works…. which, since he died in 1154, could not (as the logic goes) have been added to de-throne Henry II. This same argument applies to the ‘Sixth’ in Ireland prophecy also.

Gerald of Wales relates that the VM Merlin is clearer and Gerald comments on the modern insertions he detects in the prophecies saying that ‘not all these prophecies are probable, nor all fabulous’, but Gerald says “King Henry II wants to read a copy”. So, the idea that the VM was instigated to counter the argument that someone was inciting sedition is not so silly; especially if Henry II wanted to check to see if the prophecies were the same as found in Vulgate HRB or the Libellus Merlini.

The Vita Merlini is written in classical Latin hexameters and considering what is achieved in converting prose source material from Isidore into this form of verse, it is a remarkable achievement. It has been paid little attention by commentators. Tatlock93 believes the VM was written in 1154. It is a certain fact that it was not written until after 1155 because of the reference to the 19 years of King Stephen’s reign and Ganieda’s reference to the battle of Coleshill in 1157 puts it even later if the interpretation of the prophecy is correct.

The VM begins with a dedication much like the HRB. Where VM is dedicated to Robert de Chesney, most HRB copies are dedicated to Robert of Gloucester. These two (along with Alexander) were detested by Henry Blois and therefore the act of dedication allays any suspicion that either work might have been composed by the Bishop of Winchester. Both works offer their dedicatees the humble offer of being corrected. In the Vita Merlini: I am preparing to sing the madness of the prophetic bard, and a humorous poem on Merlin; pray correct the song.

In the HRB Vulgate edition:

Robert, Duke of Gloucester, show favour in such wise that it may be so corrected by thy guidance and counsel as that it may be held to have sprung, not from the poor little fountain of Geoffrey of Monmouth, but rather from thine own deep sea of knowledge, and to savour of thy salt.

Let me state for the record categorically that no dedicatee ever received a copy of HRB or VM from Geoffrey of Monmouth. Modern scholars have derived their entire analysis of dating based on these late insertions of the dedicatees names into Vulgate HRB. Such dedications were neither present in the Primary Historia found at Bec nor the First Variant version constructed c.1144.

93Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Vita Merlini. J. S. P. Tatlock. Speculum Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1943), pp. 265-287

The First Variant HRB composed in 1144 by comparison with the latter Vulgate version obeyed a stricter adhesion to source material from known annals with direct quotes from Bede. Descriptions of gore from battles scenes were more tempered, along with other unpleasing details found in the later more developed version which might offend the pious such as rape. Proud and arrogant speeches of British pride were originally more toned down or excluded if they were even developed in composition at the time.  Prayer and God’s judgement abounded in the First Variant for the lot of Men much more so than witnessed in the Vulgate version and biblical references were splattered throughout along with classical quotations.

The First Variant was designed for one purpose; to endear papal approval of Henry Blois’ designs on Metropolitan for southern England. In other words, Henry had deposited his first edition Primary Historia at Bec in 1138 and then when he had lost the chance of becoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry tempered the edition of HRB toward a papal audience in pursuit of metropolitan status for Winchester along with his other proofs of antiquity. Proof of antiquity ranked ecclesiastical institutions as we can see was the purpose of Henry Blois’ commission of the DA.  The First Variant was a book employed as evidential support for Henry Blois’ agenda for gaining Metropolitan status for Winchester.

  All dedications were subsequent and added to the Vulgate HRB after the dedicatee’s deaths.94The First Variant had no dedications originally but now from recopying several dedications are included in some manuscripts of the First Variant HRB and even posses copies of the updated prophecies found in the Vulgate version.  The difference is that when the VM circulated Robert de Chesney was alive until 1166. Unfortunately, and by a huge coincidence ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ aka the ‘Bishop of Asaph’ had been consigned to death by Henry Blois. It is not certain if De Chesney even saw a copy because the VM was mainly circulated on the continent.

This anomaly in Henry Blois’ methodology may explain the lack of copies of VM which were propagated. It may even be the case that the dedication to Robert de Chesney was added by Henry after Robert de Chesney’s death just as he had done with all95 the dedicatees in the copies of Vulgate HRB.  Most commentators date the VM to 1154 as they assume Geoffrey died in 1154-5. The ploy of Henry Blois by appearing to ask ‘correction’ is so that the reader is duped into thinking that he is humbly appealing to a contemporary patron or dedicatee physically capable of ‘correcting’ his work while at the same time seemingly seeking to improve his circumstances as most poets bards and chroniclers did.

Henry Blois makes a pretence in both HRB and VM as if his dedicatees were patrons of his work; but in both cases, to propel his work into the public domain, this is a ploy. The ploy is just a smoke and mirrors routine whereby Henry Blois appears to be a cleric ‘Geoffrey’ trying to advance his position. Henry Blois is clever at this, where he gives the appearance (in the dedication of VM) of seeming to be dissatisfied with the acknowledgement he had received from Alexander (having supposedly toiled on translating the Merlin prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB) and hopes for better reward with Robert de Chesney. It is no wonder the scholars are duped!!!!

Henry in character as ‘Geoffrey’ the struggling cleric, makes out that his last patron in Lincoln (Alexander) did not recognise him by just reward ; especially since ‘Geoffrey’ had broken off midstream in composing HRB so that Alexander’s request might be carried out with haste. This propaganda the scholars have swallowed.

Writing the VM after 1155, Henry predates his work to c.1148-9 by the use of the word ‘just’ regarding his fictional relationship with his patron Robert de Chesney: whom you have just succeeded, promoted to an honour that you deserve…  The reason for doing this was to show by pretence the continued patronage of the bishops of Lincoln. Alexander did not commission the translation of the prophecies of Merlin simply because they are all made up by Henry Blois. The dedications found in Vulgate HRB were written after the death of the dedicatees and as I have stated, did not exist in the Primary Historia found at Bec (where no prophecies were even included in that first edition).

94There may be an original dedication to Robert of Gloucester in a First Variant version but this also would have post-dated 1147 and as I shall cover in progression was the 1149 edition of First Variant.

95This even applies to the Count of Meulan Waleran de Beaumont who also died in 1166.

No-one had ever met or seen Geoffrey of Monmouth and although Henry Blois had consigned him to death in 1154-5, it is clear that the tone and compositional content of VM was authored in Henry’s time at Clugny between 1155-58. Henry authored VM while in a state of depression at his sudden loss of power, status and wealth.

The word ‘just’ in the dedication implies Robert de Chesney is recently installed. Therefore, many commentators have assumed the Vita Merlini was written in 1148.  This point will be addressed when I cover the backdating of the HRB. For the moment the dedication has little bearing on our investigation. The false air of humility for the most part ensured for the contemporary reader that it ‘had been’ a commissioned work.

Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester, had no regard for Robert de Chesney. Henry had tried to secure the bishopric of Lincoln for one of his nephews but was thwarted by the pope and others. The pope agreed with the Lincoln chapter in their election and appointed Robert de Chesney as bishop. Chesney employed Foliot as a clerk at Lincoln. It is Gilbert Foliot’s letters which give some background to Chesney’s96 election, showing that King Stephen of England and his brother Henry of Blois, attempted to secure Lincoln for one of their relatives.

The candidates put forward by King Stephen and Henry Blois were Henry de Sully, abbot of Frécamp; Gervase, abbot of Westminster; and Hugh, abbot of St Benet of Hulme.  Henry de Sully was the son of William, Count of Chartres…. Stephen and Henry Blois’ eldest brother. William, as oldest of the 6 other Blois brothers, had not received his birthright as the eldest son to the comptal throne. He was considered too aggressive and mentally incompetent.97  However, another candidate put forward for the bishopric of Lincoln was Gervase, the illegitimate son of King Stephen and his mistress, Damette.  The third proposed candidate was Hugh, abbot of St Benet of Hulme. He was the illegitimate son of Stephen also.

Henry Blois in VM makes a pretence flattering Robert de Chesney calling him a leader and a teacher in the world… promoted to an honour that you deserve… and the clergy and the people all were seeking it for you. This is really a case of saying the opposite to how one feels i.e. contrary to Henry’s sentiments in reality. Henry Blois betrays himself as author with his constant reference to muses: were all to sing with my mouth and all the Muses were to accompany me, and betrays too much knowledge of the Muse’s provenance established in Greek literature later on in the Vita Merlini.

Henry Blois again refers to muses on his personal epitaph on the Meusan plates. It is as if Henry believes he is inspired by muses. Again, to Alexander in the dedication to the prophecies of Merlin in HRB: Howbeit, since it so pleased you that Geoffrey of Monmouth should sound his pipe in these vaticinations, eschew thou not to show favour unto his minstrelsies, and if so be that he carol out of time or tune do thou with the ferule of thine own muses.

96In about 1160 Chesney became embroiled in a dispute with St Albans Abbey in the diocese of Lincoln, over his right as bishop to supervise the abbey. The dispute was eventually settled when the abbey granted Chesney land in return for his relinquishing any right to oversee St Albans; a dispute Henry Blois was involved in.

97There was an incident where he threatened to kill Bishop Ivo of Chartres over a jurisdictional dispute and his mother Adela conferred the inheritance to Theobald II, the second eldest son.

Henry Blois in VM then launches into the body and purpose of the text of the Vita Merlini: Well then, after many years had passed under many Kings, Merlin the Briton was held famous in the world.  He was a King and prophet; to the proud people of the South Welsh he gave laws, and to the chieftains he prophesied the future.

Reassuring his reader, Henry picks up the same Merlin that the HRB had made famous. But in VM he now consciously attempts to locate him by the historical cross referencing of bardic Welsh literature of Myrrdin rather than the mythical un-defined and fabricated Merlin Ambrosius of HRB. (See Note 2). This is the first time we hear that Merlin is a King.

Merlin had come to the war with Peredur and so had Rhydderch, King of the Cumbrians.

  Merlin is found lamenting as the battle took place around him: O dubious lot of mankind! as blood flowed all around. Henry Blois assumes Cambri (Cymry), (now applied to the Welsh), was formerly used of the Britons just as he does in the HRB and has them making war on Gwenddoleu and routing the Scots.

Next in VM we find Merlin refusing food and filling the:

air with so many and so great complaints, new fury seized him and he departed secretly, and fled to the woods not wishing to be seen as he fled…

Henry Blois had departed secretly from England in 1155 and he (like Merlin) hides himself away at Clugny hidden like a wild animal, he remained buried in the woods, found by no one and forgetful of himself and of his kindred.  In the monastery at Clugny surrounded by the great hunting forest known to him from his youth, Henry reflects back on the years of his brother Stephen’s reign. Henry is depressed and reflects on how God has brought him from the most powerful man in Britain to be in self imposed exile leaving behind in England all that he was used to.

At Clugny in 1156 when Henry II is on the throne and King Henry II has recently confiscated six of Henry Blois’ castles and virtually made him powerless, Henry Blois is in somber mood and thinking how he is going to rid himself of the Empress’ son. Henry hated the Empress Matilda.  She had inflicted punishment on Henry Blois through the power of her son as the new King. In the treaty between Duke Henry and King Stephen made in 1153 at Westminster, Henry Blois had sworn that on the death of his brother Stephen he would hand over his castles at Winchester and Southampton.  King Henry made sure Henry Blois adhered to his previous pledge. 

The VM can be summed up in mood as a reflection upon Henry Blois’ part in the Anarchy causing a sense of depression and questioning if his present circumstance is due to God’s punishment. The Anarchy and Henry’s part in it, encountering constant violence has taken its toll and now he has come to centre himself in the forests surrounding the monastery at Clugny and evade the shallowness and excesses of the court life he had lived previously.

The ‘forest’ is Clugny. The quiet of the monastery is far from the life of the previous 19 years of political intrigue  in which he was central as a Machiavelian manipulator of events. Henry Blois is full of grief at the loss of his brother and his reduced circumstances, so,  like his subject Merlin, he is full of grief also. This is how we get to understand the ‘Madness of Merlin’.

Henry Blois fled across the channel without permission just as Merlin reflects in VM. Christ, God of heaven, what shall I do?  In what part of the world can I stay, since I see nothing here I can live on…. Here once there stood nineteen apple trees bearing apples every year; now they are not standing.  Who has taken them away from me? 

Who has taken them away from me is Henry Blois’ fearful looking for of judgement and he thinks that God is behind his downfall and even he feels a bit mad and this is the partial template for ‘Madness of Merlin’. Henry Blois would have read and understood Hebrews 10:27: only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

The 19 trees which are now not standing are the years that his brother was King, (fruitful years), but now his brother King Stephen is dead along with all the power . King Stephen reigned for 19 years from 1135-1154. There are so many facets to this investigation of our three genres of study, but  it is at this stage Henry introduces the apples that become a feature of Glastonbury lore; as they are part of his design in the translocation of ‘Avalon’, the island he had named in the HRB into the geographical identifiable location of Glastonbury.

Henry’s methodology in the creation of what became known as the ‘Matter of Britain’ is the creation of a ‘conflationary soup’ of detail where icons are subconsciously and hazily cross referenced. Through this confusion, allowance is given for the appearance of inaccuracy through the ages.  A connection of apples and the county of Somerset leave no doubt in the readers mind when reading the VM that the Avalon of HRB is synonymous with an Insula Pomorum simply by reasoning that Barinthus and his actions toward King Arthur delivering him to an island just as in HRB: Thither after the battle of Camlan we took the wounded Arthur, guided by Barinthus 

 Geoffrey’s reference to the battle of Camlann is made to accord with an entry in the 10th-century Annales Cambriae, recording the battle in the year 537 which mentions Mordred (Medraut). ‘The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) perished’.

Henry further opines in VM in the persona of Merlin and sees that it is the will of God that he has been brought low so quickly from such lofty office. Henry Blois cannot hide from the fact that many blame his interference and manipulation of events for much of the cause of the violence incurred on the population of Britain during the Anarchy:

Now I see them – now I do not!  Thus, the fates fight against me and for me, since they both permit and forbid me to see.  Now I lack the apples and everything else.  The trees stand without leaves, without fruit; I am afflicted by both circumstances since I cannot cover myself with the leaves or eat the fruit. 

Henry Blois at his monastery in Clugny with Peter the Venerable his mentor (who he refers to as a ‘Wolf in old age’), marvels that Clugny, the greatest of all religious houses is in financial trouble. Henry has to bail out the establishment and feed 400 monks out of his own personal wealth. Peter the Venerable had secreted and moved Henry’s movable wealth abroad to Clugny after Henry had attended the last council of King Henry II’s court held at Winchester in September 1155. It was at this council at Winchester the assembly had discussed invading Ireland. Also Henry Blois knew from this moment on through the confiscation of his castles that King Henry II was going to make sure that Henry Blois’ power-base was diminished.

Peter the Venerable in old age had found himself unable to turn around the decline at Clugny and Henry Blois relays this as if conversing with a wolf in the wood metaphorically in the verse of VM:

You, O wolf, dear companion, accustomed to roam with me through the secluded paths of the woods and meadows, now can scarcely get across fields; hard hunger has weakened both you and me.  You lived in these woods before I did and age has whitened your hairs first.  You have nothing to put into your mouth and do not know how to get anything, at which I marvel, since the wood abounds in so many goats and other wild beasts that you might catch.  Perhaps that detestable old age of yours has taken away your strength and prevented your following the chase.  Now, as the only thing left to you, you fill the air with howlings, and stretched out on the ground you extend your wasted limbs.”

As with some split personalities, Henry Blois was shy and suffered from bouts of depression and certainly this must have been the case in 1155. It is interesting to note that during Henry’s upbringing at Clugny the austere victuals that the monastic life of denial had inflicted on him he referes to here as having weakened him. The ‘gruel’ served in medieval monasteries was barely enough to nourish the body and this is why we witness in DA that when Henry goes to Glastonbury as Abbot, he makes sure all the monks are well fed.

As the VM reflects, Henry is in a state of depression and in places in the script one can perceive the sentiments are like an ‘ode’ to how Henry had strayed from his upbringing at Clugny in the pursuit of ‘Mammon’ and worldliness, to become a material bishop knight at the heart of violent times; the Anarchy, much of which he is responsible for. He reflects that all the monks are starving and yet are surrounded by food and marvels that Peter the Venerable has been so reduced by age that he can no longer hunt and now is reduced to prostrate wailings in prayer. 

The impetus for much of the updating of the Merlin prophecies which the reader will understand in progression is designed to unseat Henry II. Whereas in the first prophecies i.e. the libellus Merlini,  the Norman’s were seen as fellow kindred freeing the Britons from the Saxon worms, there is now a distinct change in that Merlin now foresees the downfall of the Neustrians; especially Henry II.

The one vital observation about the change of attitude in VM and HRB from previous positions in Libellus Merlini, where the evolving hope of the Britons was in the return of a saviour or national hero King Arthur; Merlin in his future outlook does not hold this position now. Merlin in the updated prophecies now foresees Conan and Cadwallader along with the Scots and Cornish overcoming Henry II in the updated Vulgate version of the prophecies as well as in the in VM where Merlin says: Normans depart and cease to bear weapons through our native realm with your cruel soldiery.

So, after the Winchester council, where it was plain to see King Henry II was going to make sure Henry Blois could no longer cause turmoil for him having caused mayhem for Henry Beauclerk’s mother the Empress Matilda; King Henry II in effect curtails Henry Blois’ power by demanding he hand over all his castles. So Henry Blois took flight to Clugny because without the castles and no longer the brother of the King he felt vulnerable and Peter the Venerable was charged with taking all his transferable wealth to Clugny while Henry travelled seperately down to Devon or Corwall and sailed over to Mont St Michel, avoiding King Henry’s watchmen at all the major ports as he was leaving without permission. 

It is not until the reader gets to read John of Cornwall’s prophetia at the end of this investigation that Henry’s true design is unveiled as will become apparent in progression. Briefly though, Henry Blois had to run because he refused to give up his castles but he was certainly not going to let this upstart new King remove his power. Instead Henry Blois was going to do his utmost to remove that King and self elect himself through prophecy. If the world of historians and Medieval scholars was connected then they would understand that Henry Blois wrote all the prophecies of Merlin and the updated version of those prophecies for a specific reason.

 Anyway, back to the Vita Merlini.  Henry Blois now in VM sets the scene of the madman Merlin being overheard by a traveller in the glades of the Calidonian98 forest:

 Now this traveller was met by a man from the court of Rhydderch, King of the Cumbrians, who was married to Ganieda and happy in his beautiful wife.  She was sister to Merlin and, grieving over the fate of her brother, she had sent her retainers to the woods and the distant fields to bring him back.

98Jocelyn’s life of Kentigern is Scottish in theme and also has a madman.

Merlin is found lamenting in a long naturist soliloquy. The traveller sent to bring him back to his sister then sings in the hope of soothing his madness by music on the cither about Guendoloena:

 O the dire groanings of mournful Guendoloena!  O the wretched tears of weeping Guendoloena!  I grieve for wretched dying Guendoloena!  There was not among the Welsh a woman more beautiful than she… for she does not know where the prince has gone, or whether he is alive or dead. 

While on the subject of Guendoloena as mentioned here in VM, is it not strange that supposedly ‘Geoffrey’ brings into the text somebody who Henry Blois witnessed killed at Kidwelly. This point is of vital importance in the proof that Henry Blois is in fact Geoffrey as clearly witnessed in the Gesta Stephani. Gwenllian or as Geoffrey calls her Guendoloena was the first wife of Gruffud ap Rhys, prince of Deheubarth and one of the leaders of the revolt against Norman rule in 1136, was said to have entered into combat along with her husband’s army which she had raised and is known to have been killed at Kidwelly. Henry Blois was at Kidwelly in 1136 as it was his castle!!! Her name was Gwenllian and it just so happens that ‘Geoffrey’ invented a Briton queen called Gwendoloena to lead the troops in an episode recounted in HRB. Gwenllian was a very beautiful women who alas was decapitated after being captured at the battle of Kidwelly.

 Anyway also,Ganieda weeps with her, and without consolation grieves for her lost brother…. so great is the grief that consumes them both.  Not otherwise did Sidonian Dido99 grieve when the ships had weighed anchor and Aeneas was in haste to depart; so most wretched Phyllis groaned and wept when Demophon did not come back at the appointed time; thus Briseis wept for the absent Achilles.100

Merlin’s madness is gradually assuaged by the music and he became mindful of himself, and he recalled what he used to be, and he wondered at his madness and he hated it. Henry hated his circumstances and reflects on what he had and who he was and who he used to be and now at Clugny brought so low. These are the internal wranglings of the mind of Henry Blois foisted on Merlin as a kind of Madness.

Merlin then asked to be led to the court of King Rhydderch.  Gaineda his sister was there at court and Merlin was reunited with his wife Guendoloena.

Henry Blois’ artifice throughout the Vita Merlini is to express his views using Merlin as a voice piece. He also does this in the same way through Ganieda and Taliesin.  Henry Blois includes in the VM what can be termed as ‘padding’ in the main body of the text. Amongst this padding, the real reasons for writing the Vita are revealed.

I have no wish to bore the reader by traipsing through the VM, but by doing so it lays the groundwork which shows Henry’s authorial subtlety i.e by witnessing the death of Gwenilian at Kidwelly she now becomes Guendoloena Merlin’s wife.

As the narration of the Vita continues, Merlin points out his sister’s affair to the King by correctly predicting the calamitous death of someone. His sister tries to hide her infidelity by ridiculing Merlin’s prediction in the hope of proving her innocence against the accusation of the affair.  Merlin goes back to the woods; he unselfishly frees his wife Guendoloena from their marriage bond, and then for some unknown reason decides to kill her suitor. Henry’s sources for the Vita Merlini are mixed as with HRB. But most in the VM are what can only be called narrative filler and are from Irish, Welsh, and Scottish sources along with constructs of his own experience just as he had constructed the HRB.

After these distractions Henry Blois again gets down to the real business behind his construction of the VM and remembers he is Merlin in the sixth century and he is now on:

the top of a lofty mountain the prophet was regarding the courses of the stars, speaking to himself out in the open air.  “What does this ray of Mars mean?  Does its fresh redness mean that one King is dead and that there shall be another?  So, I see it, for Constantine has died and his nephew Conan, through an evil fate and the murder of his uncle, has taken the crown and is King.

99Sidonian Dido here with solemn state, did Juno’s temple build. Virgil’s Aenid, book 1. 

100Henry Blois was familiar with the Heroides of Ovid. In reality it is silly to think a welsh cleric from Oxford had such a wealth of knowledge of the Greek and Roman classics and of Cicero. 

Henry reminds us of the Merlin from the HRB; and we are now in the reign of Aurelius Conan, which according to the HRB began about two years after the voyage of Arthur to Avalon and lasted for about two years putting us around 542.101 Henry Blois pays little account to dating, more an overall chronology as seen in the HRB.  The Battle of Arfderydd where Henry Blois has set the stage for Merlin at the beginning of the VM poem, was fought about 573-7. The problem is Henry’s two Merlins (Sylvestris and Ambrosius) live in two different centuries. Merlin from HRB in the fifth century where he is contemporary to Vortigern and Merlin from VM where he is said to go mad at the battle of Arfderydd now becomes a northern Merlin.

However, Henry’s aim is to anchor the Merlin of the HRB by morphing him into a more traceable Welsh Myrrdin by becoming what commentators term the Merlin Sylvestris.   This Merlin became more Welsh by association with Rhydderch and by contemporaneous association with Taliesin. This then allowed Henry to set his narrative in a known and traceable historical era even though anachronistically connected.

The narrative padding for a large part of the VM is only secondary to Henry Blois’ main purpose. Henry’s purpose is to manipulate events by his audience believing the prophecies of Merlin come true, both from the HRB and the VM.

Henry of Blois posing as Geoffrey of Monmouth just uses the backdrop of Merlin in the woods and the characters he involves, to set a stage ready for his polemic. The disjointed appearance of subject matter of the VM is caused by inconsequential situation and narrative which sets up his main speakers, Ganieda, Merlin and Taliesin, which all speak to Henry Blois’ agenda. By comparison to his character development of protagonists in HRB, Henry as author offers little in VM…. which renders the whole composition as rather flat. 

 Going further into the text of VM, we now find Merlin in the woods again in a house and his sister is supplying him food. Then wandering about the house Merlin would look at the stars while he prophesied (for example the following), which as past historical events he knew were going to come to pass as Bede and Gildas had recounted.

 “O madness of the Britons whom a plenitude, always excessive, of riches exalts more than is seemly. They do not wish to enjoy peace but are stirred up by the Fury’s goad.  They engage in civil wars and battles between relatives, and permit the church of the Lord to fall into ruin; the holy bishops they drive into remote lands.

This sentiment exactly is reiterated in the HRB by ‘Geoffrey’s’ historicity rather than through the supposed words of Merlin. Essentially, Henry is taking up the mood of Bede and Gildas bemoaning the downfall of the warring factions of the Britons while presenting himself as a Welsh author being partisan with the same values, but more so presenting Merlin in true character as a sympathetic Briton. Any contemporary reader would never guess the author was a Norman aristocrat.

The nephews of the Boar of Cornwall cast everything into confusion, and setting snares for each other engage in a mutual slaughter with their wicked swords.  They do not wish to wait to get possession of the Kingdom lawfully, but seize the crown.

101As we shall discuss further on in the Vera Historia Arthur supposedly reigned for 39 years and died in his fortieth year. HRB states that Arthur died in 542 and also says that Arthur acceded the throne at the age of 15. We can calculate therefore that according to Henry Blois (the writer of HRB and the Vera Historia) that Arthur must have been born in 486 acceded to the throne in 503 and died 39 years later in 542.

 Ironically, this could be a description of Henry Blois and his brother Stephen. However, this reference to the Boar of Cornwall, which his audience associates with Arthur, betrays Henry Blois’ real affiliations and motivations. It is possible that he sees himself and his brother as part of the heritage of ancient Britons from Brittany who emigrated during the 6th century when the Saxons encroached on Dumnonia. We start to understand why Henry Blois (as Geoffrey) has such a positive attitude toward Brittany102 throughout the HRB. Contrarily, we can understand why he holds the Welsh in such low regard as they revolted against his brother Stephen. Yet, commentators have been puzzled by this attitude believing ‘Geoffrey’ was Welsh and from Monmouth. Henry’s hate of the (contemporary) Welsh witnessed in HRB at times is plainly seen in GS and stems from his time in 1136 fighting the Welsh rebellion in Southern Wales.

The fourth103 from them shall be more cruel and more harsh still; him shall a wolf from the sea conquer in fight and shall drive defeated beyond the Severn through the realms of the barbarians.

Until one understands Henry Blois was changing the purport of previous prophecies, it is impossible to make head nor tail as Henry Blois changes icons from the original libellus Merlini. Originally the ‘Sea Wolf’ was the Danes. The description in this case of the sea wolf is in reference to the Robert of Gloucester’s and the Empress’ return to England. The prophecy specifically relates to the Empress Matilda’s brother, Robert of Gloucester, who accompanies her across the Channel to land near Arundel.  Robert of Gloucester had left Arundel immediately to rally forces from Bristol before King Stephen had arrived.

It was rumoured that Henry Blois had made a pact with Robert of Gloucester to install Matilda and oust his brother from the throne as is made plain by William of Malmesbury in HN. It was clear that, in the latter part of 1138, Henry Blois’ Brother was deliberately snubbing him for the election of Archbishop of Canterbury. But this is specifically skirted over (strangely enough) by the author of the GS. Henry Blois’ meeting with Robert of Gloucester is mentioned in cursory manner in GS simply because it was undeniable. Many afterwards knew the meeting had taken place.

However, as the reader will realise when I cover the Gesta Stephani, the gist of the GS always maintains that Henry had only ‘appeared’ to change allegiance and the author of GS portrays a position whereby Henry Blois constantly supported Stephen. The GS maintains the view…. what may have seemed a change of allegiance outwardly…. was in appearance only. The GS story-line maintains that events dictated a change of allegiance, as a more propitious course of action at that moment in time. Henry would have us believe in GS that he was always loyal to Stephen. This meeting of Robert of Gloucester and Henry suggests otherwise.

Since the episode where Bishop Roger of Salisbury was abused and more specifically church rights of Canon law were broken…. Henry Blois, who was already disappointed with his brother in other previous disputes, not so much plays both sides, but has had enough of the discord which prevailed throughout the country through his own actions having installed his brother on the throne. Henry Blois had definitively been thwarted by his brother and the Beaumonts and the Archbishopric had been bestowed on Theobald of Bec.

102See appendix 18

103The Fourth is in reference to the fourth in line from William the Conqueror. The Conqueror was the first  followed by William Rufus the second and then by King Henry I the third in the ‘leonine’ line of kings making King Stephen the fourth. In the updated prophecies of the Vulgate HRB and VM Matilda is only mentioned by reference, not by name and is the fifth making Henry II as the sixth.

However, through the machinations of Henry Blois, who had met Robert of Gloucester secretly, a full on battle was avoided for the present. Henry Blois met Robert on the road while Robert of Gloucester was intent with helping his sister at Arundel. Henry Blois dissuaded Robert from an attack on his brother’s forces which were presently besieging Matilda at Arundel. Henry Blois in his own words104 from the GS: as though he had not caught up with the Earl, came to the King with a large body of cavalry.

Henry had manipulated events so that his brother King Stephen would not have to besiege Arundel or witness a staged full on battle. Henry had cleverly come up with the plan of escorting Matilda to her brother’s castle in Bristol. In a way, Matilda’s and Robert’s plans were temporarily defused and they were then both in Bristol (by the Severn).

Now back to the following prophecy in the VM which is fairly complicated:  This latter shall besiege Cirencester with a blockade and with sparrows, and shall overthrow its walls to their very bases.

The obvious inference is that ‘the latter’ is the fourth just spoken of i.e. Stephen. basically, this whole mish mash through warping of the prophecies concerning Cirencester and the severn started in the Libellus Merlini where Merlin was repeating history backwards about the event of Cerdic besieging Cirencester and then all the Britons being pushed back beyond the Severn as witnessed in Gaimar’s Estoire des Engleis. This original reference then becomes warped in the updated prophecies.

At Cirencester in 1141 the Empress and Robert, Earl of Gloucester built a ‘motte and bailey’ castle near the Abbey church105 and in 1142 Stephen found it virtually undefended and attacked.  He captured the inhabitants and Castle with the rampart and stockade and burnt it to its foundation. According to William of Malmesbury,106 Stephen must have come looking for the Empress who had just escaped the besieged castle at Oxford, but she was thereafter at Wallingford. Stephen might have heard of the amassing of the Empress’s troops there, but they had recently moved off and thus the ‘motte and bailey’ castle was easy to capture and destroy.

Henry writing as ‘Geoffrey’ in VM has another objective in mind. He wishes to squew and confirm the words of Merlin found in HRB which appeared in Henry’s first edition Libellus Merlini (written while Stephen was alive). This reference to Cirencester was squewed in VM to conform (corroborate) with the Battle of Cirencester spoken of by Bede which was fought in 628.

‘Geoffrey’s’ original allusion to Cirencester is that Gormund made war upon Careticus, and after many battles betwixt them, drove him fleeing from city unto city until he forced him into Cirencester and did there beleaguer him. Both Gormundus the African and Isembardus the Frank, allied to the Saxons, carry out the siege. Gormundus the African is wholly an invention by ‘Geoffrey’ as he tries to concoct history along the lines of the Chansons de Geste and history found in the insular annals by employing fictional characters.

104The Gesta Stephani is part apologia for Henry Blois’ own tarnished reputation as a manipulator. It is also a sentimental memorial to his dead brother, and part genuine history. The details are too specific on occasion for GS not to have been written by Henry Blois himself even though it appears otherwise.  Henry Blois conceals himself by employing devices to deflect suspicion of his authorship.

105Walker, David. “Gloucestershire Castles,” in Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 1991, Vol. 109.

106William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, 523

The later ‘Wace’ versified version of HRB titled the Roman de Brut also composed by Henry Blois has tinder-carrying sparrows which also feature in Gaimar’s Estoire des Engleis. This idea is also found in Brut Tysilio which as we shall see later has had Henry Blois’ hand upon it also; seen clearly in the references to Walter and reference to Caradoc of Llancarfan two clear references to the colophon in HRB.

‘Wace’ adds that Cirencester was, subsequently after that event transpired, called Sparrow-chester. There appears to be no etymology that will explain Sparewenchestre except like so many other instances….. ‘Geoffrey’ loves his etymology and will create a story round it. Now so does it appear that Wace has the same attributes as Geoffrey. Could it be that Wace and Geoffrey  are one and the same person i.e.Henry Blois.  Gaimar107 gives a slightly longer account, making Cerdic (as below) the leader of the besieging force, but also we shall see from Gaimar’s epilogue when I cover this in progression, that Henry Blois has indisputably had his hand in this publication also but obviously through this passage we can see Geoffrey’s association with Gaimar and Thus that of Henry Blois.

The reference in VM is the fire that Henry saw at Cirencester with his brother. We know he was there as the detail of the episode is eyewitness clear in the GS and as I will cover, Henry Blois is indisputably the author of GS.

Tatlock has pursued the source of most of Geoffrey’s fabrications and it appears nearly every fabrication or embellished episode has a definable source of inspiration; but these events and the names seem to be taken from the Chanson de Geste, Gormont et Isembard and are ‘melanged’ with Guthrum’s occupation of Cirencester in the year 879, mentioned in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ASC). Coincidentally, Seginus Dux of the Allobroges, Henry’s family’s own territorial people around Blois appear in the Chanson which ante-dates ‘Geoffrey’s’ work and Henry probably associated the name with Sewinus archbishop of Sens…. again, in Blois lands.

Gaimar writes:

Before Cerdic could conquer

Much from the Britons.

Then was Cirencester besieged.

But by the negligence of the Britons

It was set on fire by sparrows,

Which carried fire and sulphur into the town.

And set light to many houses.

And the besiegers who were outside

Made an assault with great courage.

Then was this city conquered. (Gaimar)

In VM we find more detail concerning Robert of Gloucester: He shall seek the Gauls in his ship, but shall die beneath the weapon of a King.

Robert went to France to get aid from Matilda’s husband, Geoffrey IV of Anjou, and returned to England with the Empress’ very young son Henry, (later to be King Henry II).  Robert of Gloucester died at Bristol Castle, where he had previously imprisoned King Stephen. Gervase of Canterbury places Robert of Gloucester’s death in 1146 and this date is corroborated by the Annals of Winchester. The Annals of Margan Abbey, has October 31, 1147, and the date John of Hexham gives is 1148. However, Henry Blois seems to understand more about Robert of Gloucester’s death than historians portray. No chronicler attests how Robert died, but we shall see further evidence here in the VM that Henry assumes his audience is apprised of the same information he has…. and hence Henry’s allusion to the ‘weapon of a King’.

107Historie des Engles, 11. 855

Once we understand Geoffrey of Monmouth’s, (Henry of Blois’) ploy of mixing his own recent prophecies, updating them, and sometimes changing the sense from the previous prophecies originally put out in the form of the Libellus Merlini and weaving his inventions around these first set of prophecies and then squewing them more than the Vulgate version in VM prophecies which echo; Merlin appears to relate to certain topics consistently. Certain icons reappear over the three sets.

We can then understand in the later Vulgate HRB and VM prophecies that the sense has been changed.  Commentators on the VM (like San-Marte)108 naïvely believed the prophecies portend events further than 1158. Some try to unlock the meaning of the prophecies believing they are consistent and actually did predict events from the sixth century. This is plain nonsense! Henry Blois in his construction of the prophecies uses the artifice of splicing what is known history and interlacing it with his own knowledge of recent events which are also couched as prophecy from that same ancient era when Merlin is supposed to have prophesied.

Henry, on occasion refers back to his own fabricated false history in the HRB which establishes further both Merlin’s prophetic powers and HRB’s historicity as credible for those that are gullible. Henry confirms known historical events which add to the aura of prescience and here in VM makes the effort to attach Merlin’s prophecies to Welsh and northern bardic tradition.  Once the authorship of the VM is established and once this mechanism is perceived, it is easier to pick out which mode of deception Henry is using. Academics like Jean Blacker have no idea what is going on in the prophecies or who wrote them or for what reason but just mindlessly state: A translation of the verse prophecies of Merlin that Wace chose not to include in his translation of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae because “he did not understand them.” Let me tell you Jean Geoffrey did not write them nor did wace translate them, Henry Blois did!!!!!!!!!!

The reason for the mix of anachronistic events in the prophecies constructed by Henry Blois is to seem more like biblical prophecies which have no strict chronology but ‘see’ through time, present and future indiscriminately. Part of Henry’s devise here is to give the air of antiquity; as if Merlin’s Prophecies were all foreseen back in the dark ages.

Much of the archaic content which Henry employs can be understood by his audience historically as seemingly accurate; especially when considered in conjunction with the false history as presented in HRB. These are events which already have passed, but which Merlin supposedly predicted correctly and have verifiably come to fruition, or can be understood historically. The overall effect of a mystical prophet foretelling of events that his audience can directly relate to (some of which is set on a contemporaneous stage of recent history), is testament to Henry’s illusory brilliance.

Rhydderch shall die, after whom long discord shall hold the Scots and the Cumbrians for a long time until Cumbria shall be granted to his growing tusk. The Welsh shall attack the men of Gwent, and afterwards those of Cornwall and no law shall restrain them. Wales shall rejoice in the shedding of blood; O people always hateful to God, why do you rejoice in bloodshed?109  Wales shall compel brothers to fight and to condemn their own relatives to a wicked death.  The troops of the Scots shall often cross the Humber and, putting aside all sentiment, shall kill those who oppose them.

Henry’s complaint against the Southern Welsh, the Northern Welsh, the Scottish and the Cornish is that they always fought amongst themselves. In various places in the HRB and Vita Merlini, Henry (as Geoffrey) bemoans this tribal hate as the main cause for the depletion of the Briton’s power before the Saxons and Danes arrived as witnessed by Bede. Henry sees these old Britons, (more properly the Celts), clearly as relatives with the Bretons because of the exodus of the remenant after the Saxons invaded.

108San Marte, Die Sagen von Merlin, Halle1853

109Henry, from his own experience at Kidwelly in Wales looks on the Welsh as savages as is clearly expressed in GS and thus accounts for the contradictions of  ‘Geoffrey’s’ attitude in HRB. Originally the pseudo-history written by Henry was destined for Matilda and his Uncle. It was intended to be presented as a history where the Welsh were rough warriors. This then became hard to compliment the idea of a Chivalric (highly civilised) Arthur from Wales when the Arthuriad was added to the already composed psuedo-history; hence the contradictions remaining after the sections were joined. 

What has confused most commentators with ‘Geoffrey’s’ seemingly contradictory stance (regarding the Welsh especially), is that Henry personally hates the Welsh of his present day, but understands that they constitute part of what he sees as a ‘once ancient independent Christian culture’ prior to the Saxon invasion and prior to Augustine’s arrival which he has glorified through the ‘Chivalric’ King Arthur and his Norman values. A hugely important point is that Henry Blois as a Norman is fully cognisant of the early establishment of Christianity in Britain, being concerned with this issue from his earliest days at Glastonbury, as we shall get to when covering DA.

As I have implied already, Henry Blois tries to manipulate events against Henry II by rousing sentiments of these old Britons as a collective, through his prophecies. This takes place after his self-imposed exile between 1155- 1157. However, the above prophecy is pure skimble-skamble based on what Henry knows of British history from ASC, Bede and Gildas.

Not with impunity, however, for the leader shall be killed; he shall have the name of a horse110 and because of that fact shall be fierce.  His heir shall be expelled and shall depart from our territories.  Scots, sheathe your swords which you bare too readily; your strength shall be unequal to that of our fierce people.

Henry was no fan of the Scots either and especially King David as we shall clearly witness when I cover the GS. Anyway, not wishing to bore the reader, it is worth looking at these prophecies as some are more modern than the latest version of prophecies which constitute those already updated found in Vulgate HRB. 

The city of Dumbarton111 shall be destroyed and no King shall repair it for an age until the Scot shall be subdued in war.

Carlisle, spoiled of its shepherd, shall lie vacant until the sceptre of the Lion shall restore its pastoral staff. 

These two prophecies not in the Libellus Merlini or Vulgate HRB are inserted in VM just so that Merlin’s association appears to come from the north.

Carlisle was destroyed by the Northmen and restored by William Rufus.  In 1133 Henry Ist, the “Lion of Justice” of the Prophecies, re-established its bishopric.  Æthelwulf (1133-1155), an Englishman, who Henry Ist had established at Carlisle in 1102 died in 1156.

It was a recent event at the time of writing of the VM and Henry either knew the Bishop personally or had news of his death by a traveller en route to Rome. It is most likely the sense of ‘the spoiling of its shepherd,’112 but Carlisle has its relevance because Henry is portraying that Merlin is predicting about things in the north as Henry has now located Merlin there in VM.

Especially, this would have relevance to Henry’s audience of VM as this now is the most recent event to have come to fruition by Merlin the seer; especially as these prophecies supposedly hail all the way back into antiquity. Our Merlin has a remarkable focus on events just prior to and including the Anarchy and to the time when Henry is writing (the year after the nineteen years of his brother’s reign). 

Segontium and its towers and mighty palaces shall lament in ruins until the Welsh return to their former domains. 

110See Appendix 1.5

111See Appendix 2

112I do not think this has any relevance to Henry II being knighted at Carlisle.

The ruins of the old Roman station of Segontium are on the hill above the modern city of Carnarvon. It was situated on higher ground to the east giving a good view of the Menai Straits. There was a ‘motte and bailey’ castle in the area in Henry’s day, but it is doubtful Henry made it this far north in 1136 to have knowledge of the location personally. However, having read the Roman annals, Henry Blois would know Segontium was founded by Agricola in 77 or 78 AD after he had conquered the Ordovices in North Wales. The reason for naming Segontium is it implies Merlin knew the place by that name; thus, giving the illusion of antiquity for the VM prophecies. More importantly, Merlin is again seen to be prophesying about things further north than the Merlin Ambrosius of Vulgate HRB.

‘Geoffrey’ ever faithful to his illusion of the prophecies coming from a Brythonic Merlin, proposes a location with Roman ruins so his audience would be fooled into thinking the prophecies so old that even the old name was current when the prophecies were told.  The Earl of Chester, Hugh d’Avranches, gained Norman control of north Wales in 1088 by building three castles; one at Caernarfon. The Welsh recaptured Gwynedd in 1115, and Caernarfon Castle came into the possession of the Welsh princes and so Merlin is acquitted again with the powers of accurate prophecy.

Porchester113 shall see its broken walls in its harbour until a rich man with the tooth of a wolf shall restore it. 

The city of Richborough shall lie spread out on the shore of its harbour and a man from Flanders shall re-establish it with his crested ship.114

The fifth from him shall rebuild the walls of St David’s and shall bring back to her the pall lost for many years.115

The prophecy here changes in time as Henry Blois harks directly back to the narrative of HRB confirming material derived from the British annals (from which the HRB was partially constructed) and concerning the emigration to Brittany at the advent of the Saxon encroachment. 

The City of the Legions shall fall into thy bosom, O Severn (Sabrina), and shall lose her citizens for a long time, and these the Bear in the Lamb shall restore to her when he shall come.116

 Saxon Kings shall expel the citizens and shall hold cities, country, and houses for a long time.  From among them thrice three dragons shall wear the crown.  Two hundred monks shall perish in Leicester117 and the Saxon shall drive out her ruler and leave vacant her walls.  He who first among the Angles shall wear the diadem of Brutus118  shall repair the city laid waste by slaughter.  A fierce people shall forbid the sacrament of confirmation throughout the country, and in the house of God shall place images of the gods. 

113See appendix 3

114See appendix 4

115See appendix 5

116See appendix 6

117See appendix 7

118See appendix 8

This last section of VM prophecies is set out to appear to conform to known events on the Saxon arrival and the eradication of the British church. ‘Rome’, in the next prophecy, refers to Augustine of Canterbury who became Archbishop. Henry Blois however, by stating he is bringing God ‘back’ establishes the fact that Augustine was not the founder of the Church of the Britons and this fact would not be lost on Papal authorities regarding Henry’s application for metropolitan for Winchester. Therefore, Henry’s intended polemic is that primacy should not be held by Canterbury when both Winchester (by the accounts in HRB) and Glastonbury by the accounts in GR3 and DA (and Caradoc) clearly were established before Canterbury (even though fictionally by Henry’s interpolations).

Afterward Rome shall bring God back through the medium of a monk and a holy priest shall sprinkle the buildings with water and shall restore them again and shall place shepherds in them.  Thereafter many of them shall obey the commands of the divine law and shall enjoy heaven by right.  An impious people full of poison shall violate that settlement and shall violently mix together right and wrong.119  They shall sell their sons and their kinsmen into the furthest countries beyond the sea and shall incur the wrath of the Thunderer.120  O wretched crime! that man whom the founder of the world created with liberty, deeming him worthy of heaven, should be sold like an cow and be dragged away with a rope. You miserable man, you who turned traitor to your master when first you came to the throne; you shall yield to God.121  The Danes shall come upon [you] with their fleet and after subduing the people shall reign for a short time and shall then be defeated and retire.  Two shall rule over them whom the serpent forgetful of his treaty shall strike with the sting in his tail instead of with the garland of his sceptre.122

This section of the prophecies would seem to be Merlin referring to historical events in the Saxon and Dane era which Henry Blois’ audience would naturally accept as historic events, especially the Danes coming in ships. It is however, dispersed with allusions to recent events which the audience can also recognise. We see here Henry Blois’ mechanism of employing prophecy so it appears as genuine like biblical prophecy operates i.e. the prophet sees across time and picks out events from different eras as they appear to him. 

In the next section, Henry refers to Neustrians123 as if he has no connection with them and to inappropriate behaviour of the Bishops in his time. 

119The Danes and the Dane law

 120Perhaps Geoffrey’s reference to the Viking Thunder God Thor, yet in two cases in HRB it seems to refer to God.

121See appendix 11

122This refers to Matilda and Stephen ruling at the same time. He also was forgetful of his oath to the church and Henry himself. Instead of being able to rule with ‘garlanded sceptre’, Stephen is stung as if from a serpent’s tail. Henry Blois makes plain in the Gesta Stephani it is God’s judgement against Stephen for wrongs against the church.

123See appendix 32

 Then the Normans, sailing over the water in their wooden ships, bearing their faces in front and in back, shall fiercely attack the Angles with their iron tunics and their fierce swords, and shall destroy them and possess the field.124 They shall subjugate many realms to themselves and shall rule foreign peoples for a time until the fury, flying all about, shall scatter her poison over them.125  Then peace and faith and all virtue shall depart, and on all sides throughout the country the citizens shall engage in battles.126  Man shall betray man and no one shall be found a friend.127  The husband, despising his wife, shall draw near to harlots, and the wife, despising her husband, shall marry whom she desires.128  There shall be no honour kept for the church and the order shall perish.  Then shall bishops bear arms, and armed camps shall be built.  Men shall build towers and walls in holy ground, and they shall give to the soldiers what should belong to the needy.  Carried away by riches they shall run along on the path of worldly things and shall take from God what the holy bishop shall forbid.129  Three shall wear the diadem after whom shall be the favour of the newcomers.  A fourth shall be in authority whom awkward piety shall injure until he shall be clothed in his father, so that girded with boar’s teeth he shall cross the shadow of the helmeted man.130 Four shall be anointed, seeking in turn the highest things, and two shall succeed who shall so wear the diadem that they shall induce the Gauls to make war on them.131  The sixth shall overthrow the Irish and their walls, and pious and prudent shall renew the people and the cities.132 

When he has made these predictions, Henry Blois, as far as he can into the present, reminds his reader that they are from the same source as those prophecies of Merlin found in the HRB and the libellus Merlini. However, not only has Henry Blois updated prophecies in the Vulgate HRB, but now he has come up with new prophecies. Some which are designed to have us believe that Merlin is connected to the north of England and others which have insights into the anarchy which were not in the original updated prophecies found in Vulgate HRB.

124The faces front and back refer to figureheads fore and aft of the Norman ships, but the allusion is to the Norman Conquest and more specifically the battle of Hastings.

125The Norman subjection of Wales and Scotland and the subsequent power feuds of continentals.

126This directly relates to the Anarchy.

127To convey the mistrust that prevailed throughout the country during the Anarchy is the aim of the prophecy.  This could be a personal reference to Henry’s own snubs from Stephen and the changes of allegiance, ‘no one keeping their word’.

128See appendix 9

129See appendix 10

130See appendix 12

131See appendix 13

132See appendix 14

All these things I formerly predicted more at length to Vortigern in explaining to him the mystic war of the two dragons when we sat on the banks of the drained pool.

We should not think that the composer of VM is any different from the author of HRB and most commentators assume ‘Geoffrey’ is the author of VM.  There are those commentators though, who still think VM was written by another author other than ‘Geoffrey’.

The foremost device which locates Avalon at Glastonbury is found in VM as Henry Blois now informs us it is called Insula Pomorum. It is unfounded to believe that the prophecies were written by any other than Henry Blois. We just have to understand that ‘Geoffrey’ is Henry Blois but for most scholars interested in ‘Geoffrey’ it is too incomprehensible to unlearn what they have been taught and to accept ‘Geoffrey’ never actually lived.

Henry Blois convinces his audience these prophecies were made while sat next to Vortigern. His gambit of remixing some of the prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB and the Libellus Merlini are so that the prophecies of Merlin in the Vulgate HRB and those found in the VM are convincingly contemporaneous i.e. they are consistent and came from Merlin…. who ‘Geoffrey’ had originally founded upon Nennius’ boy Ambrosius.133 Suspicion about ‘Geoffrey’ must have been much more acute as the updated Vulgate prophecies were published in 1155 and seen to have additions which were not in the Libellus Merlini. The VM was finished c.1157-8 but what is important is that through Insulam Pomorum Glastonbury is connected to Avalon at this early date. But I think Henry Blois had not yet manufactured King Arthur’s grave at Glastonbury because he only returned to England in 1158.

William of Newburgh angrily protests against the prophecies and the historicity of HRB. William of Newburgh who wrote around 1190 had problems with ‘Geoffrey’… challenging the authenticity of the Arthurian legends. ‘Geoffrey’s’ pseudo-history did not concur with Gildas or Roman annals. William of Newburgh wrote: It is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons.

One wonders if Newburgh thought the descent from Brutus and Troy was any more real by expressing: from Vortigern onwards

William of Newburgh also says: only a person ignorant of ancient history would have any doubt how shamelessly and impudently he lies in almost everything.

William of Newburgh comments again: But in our own days, instead of this practice, a writer has emerged who, in order to expiate the faults of these Britons, weaves the most ridiculous figments of imagination around them, extolling them with the most impudent vanity above the virtues of the Macedonians and the Romans. This man is called Geoffrey, and his other name is Arthur, because he has taken up the fables about Arthur from the old, British figments, has added to them himself, and has cloaked them with the honourable name of history by presenting them with the ornaments of the Latin tongue….

Since these events agree with the historical truth set forth by the Venerable Bede, all the things which that man took care to write about Arthur and either his predecessors after Vortigern or his successors, can be seen to have been partly concocted by himself and partly by others, either because of a frenzied passion for lying or in order to please the Britons, most of whom are known to be so primitive that they are said still to be awaiting the return of Arthur, and will not suffer themselves to hear that he is dead….

For how could the old historians, to whom it was a matter of great concern that nothing worthy of memory should be omitted from what was written, who indeed are known to have committed to memory quite unimportant things, how could they have passed over in silence so incomparable a man, whose deeds were notable above all others? How, I ask, could they have suppressed with silence Arthur and his acts, this king of the Britons who was nobler than Alexander the Great…..

With even greater daring he has published the fallacious prophecies of a certain Merlin, to which he has in any event added many things himself, and has translated them into Latin, [thus offering them] as if they were authentic prophecies, resting on immutable truth….134

133See Appendix 35.

134William Newburgh Historia regum Anglicarum.

We can see it is mainly the Arthuriad that Newburg has a problem with. What is worthy of note is that Newburgh’s accusation to Geoffrey as being almost sacrilegious in debasing Latin the language up to that point of recording historical truth. Another important fact even writing 20 years after Henry Blois’ death is that Newburgh refers to Geoffrey Arthur giving the reason: This man is called Geoffrey, and his other name is Arthur, because he has taken up the fables about Arthur from the old, British figments. I believe the reason for this is that Newburgh has investigated Geoffrey of Monmouth and found no contemporary who had met him and then referred back to the HRB’s origins wherein was that surname and he accuses Geoffrey of taking that name because of his ‘concocted’ protagonist. 

There was suspicion on the prophecies also. Abbot Suger had commented on several prophecies before 1150 and the impression of early provenance provided by the interpolation of Merlin prophecies into Orderic’s work has given modern scholars the illusion of early transmission of those prophecies found in Vulgate HRB. If the prophecies were been branded as written recently and branded a fake how easy it would be for the ‘king of backdating’ to aquire the only copy of Orderic’s history and insert  what appears to be Orderic’s own recycling of the Merlin prophecies and make it appear as if the Prophecies were current in Henry Ist lifetime and by doing so making them mighty in prescience!!!

The illusion of a continuous unadulterated set of prophecies is also aided by the back dating of Vulgate HRB through its dedications, but there is less evidence of suspicion on the prophecies themselves (recorded) than that of the dubious historicity of the main body of HRB. The publication of John of Cornwall’s set of Merlin prophecies by Henry Blois greatly aids the illusion that the prophecies were originally of Brythonic origin.

William Newburgh’s comments about historians like Bede: who indeed are known to have committed to memory quite unimportant things, how could they have passed over in silence so incomparable a man, whose deeds were notable above all others?…  should be enough to point out that not everyone was gullible. We should be very wary of Nennius’ testimony because we can see blatantly that Henry Blois actively promotes Nennius as Gildas’ work…. but I shall cover this shortly.

Henry reveals too much contemporary information in the VM prophecies. His vanity got the better of him specifically alluding to himself in the prophecies. However, because commentators believe ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ died in 1155, nowadays researchers believe it to be the main  reason behind the Vita having had so much less exposure. The real reason for its apparent lack of readership is because of its lack of historicity but simply it did not get copied as much in the monastic system i.e. it was not considered important enough to be copied as extensively as ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB.135

The veracity of Merlin’s prophecies is often given credence by scholars asking: How could any prediction of the ‘sixth Leonine King’ invading Ireland be a fraud, since the invasion was not accomplished until 1171? It is coincidental that this is the year of Henry Blois’ death. It has been this particular prediction which alludes to an event after ‘Geoffrey’s’ supposed death, which has for the most part provided the aura of prescience and substantiated Merlin’s credibility as a prophet and the belief that there was a corpus of original prophecies from a sixth century sage. 

There are no Merlin prophecies which were not created Henry Blois!!! For the less gullible commentator, Henry’s knowledge of the Winchester court discussion at Michaelmas in 1155 about invading Ireland, subtracts from any predictive ability ascribed to Merlin. Robert of Torigni says in his chronicle (who met Henry Blois on Mont St Michel after Henry left England without permission in 1155): At Winchester about the time of Michaelmas in 1155 Henry II holds a council with his nobles to discuss the conquest of Ireland which he seems to have desired to give his younger brother William on terms of homage

Merlin’s predictive ability has especially been given credence by the insertion/interpolation of the passage concerning some Merlin prophecies into Orderic which also refers to the ‘sixth’ invading Ireland. Some commentators date the interpolated chapter on Merlin’s prophecies in Orderic to 1136 or thereabout. Given the nature of the prophecies it is not only preposterous but naive to think that the ‘sixth King’ i.e. Henry II, could be predicted to invade Ireland from this early date.136

135It seems fairly certain that the initial distribution and copying was carried out by Henry Blois as he travelled.

136The passage in Orderic which establishes credibility for the existence of the prophecies for ‘scholars’ by its appropriate insertion and clever reference to ‘time’ is quite obviously an interpolation and will be covered shortly.  Julia Crick appears to be duped into believing the existence of a body of prophecies by stating Orderic Vitalis, first known reader of Geoffrey’s Merlinian prophecies, understood their function immediately. In the same analysis she states: the Prophecies of Merlin, the core of Geoffrey’s own Historia, was arguably Geoffrey’s own creation. How then is it possible to predict the Sixth leonine king invading Ireland if it is Geoffrey’s work and yet supposedly written prior to Henry I death (or even Orderic’s) unless ‘Geoffrey’ is an actual prophet. The evident solution is that it is an interpolation by Henry Blois into Orderic’s chronicle, as Henry Blois is the inventor of both Merlin and Geoffrey. Henry Blois dupes posterity by inserting an entire section concerning the Merlin prophecies which were originally in the early Libellus Merlini with the added prophecy (the sixth in Ireland) qualifying their existence in the time of Henry I by stating (in the Orderic interpolation): up to the times of Henry I and Gruffudd, who still,” uncertain of their lot, await the future events” that are ordained for them. I realise that to become a scholar one must spend a lot of time in dusty libraries and not much on the street. But one does not even have to be ‘street wise’ to recognise the obvious guile and intended insinuation in Henry’s interpolation.  The interpolation in Orderic must have taken place post 1155. It needs to be understood that after Henry Blois had added the seditious prophecies to the Vulgate HRB critics and King Henry had noticed that these seditious prophecies were newly invented and had not been in the Libellus Merlini set. Henry, by obtaining a copy of Orderic’s work and inserting a few folios, now makes it appear that the seditious prophecies had been in the public domain since 1142 when Orderic died or prior to that date by what is implied in the interpolation about Henry Ist still being alive.

At this point in VM, it is as if Henry Blois has just remembered why he is writing the Vita and suddenly ends these prophecies from Merlin and returns to the narrative storyline of the mad Merlin. Henry closes this prophetic section by introducing Gildas and names Taliesin and records Taliesin’s recent instruction under Gildas, which immediately provides contemporaneity for Merlin with Gildas and Taliesin. Don’t forget that the fist time Arthur and Gildas were put in the same time was by the supposed Caradoc in the Life of Gildas and the author of that manuscript was the abbot of Glastonbury. Now one can see the broad spectrum of Henry Blois ediface of the Matter of Britain.  Henry Blois’ hand is in the manipulation of Glastonbury material in GR3 and DA and his composition of the life of Gildas.

But you, dear sister, go home to see the King dying and bid Taliesin come, as I wish to talk over many things with him; for he has recently come from the land of Brittany where he learned sweet philosophy of Gildas the Wise.”137

Ganieda returned home and found that Taliesin had returned and the prince was dead and the servants were sad.  She fell down lamenting among her friends.

We now hear in the Vita Merlini Ganieda speaking about the death of the King. With only slight variation, it is as if Henry Blois were doing the same internal lamenting for his brother and using Ganieda as mouthpiece. It is couched as a poetical and thoughtful tribute to her husband Rhydderch. As I have made plain earlier, Henry Blois has lost his power, his castles and his brother. 

Henry Blois continues on until, (still speaking through Ganieda), he laments leaving all his nephews which he had fought so hard to elevate into positions of power in England and laments leaving his walls of Winchester and clothes himself in the monk’s mantle as he is, in his present state at Clugny.

Therefore, I leave you, ye nobles, ye lofty walls, household gods, sweet sons, and all the things of the world.  In company with my brother I shall dwell in the woods and shall worship God with a joyful heart, clothed in a black mantle.”

137The Life of Gildas by the Monk of Rhuys (not Caradoc) tells that after Gildas settled in Brittany people began to flock to him to entrust their sons for their instruction to his superintendence and teaching.

Henry Blois is setting up his next astonishing piece in the VM, by bringing Taliesin and Merlin together with the most cursory introduction: Meanwhile Taliesin had come to see Merlin the prophet who had sent for him to find out what wind or rain storm was coming up, for both together were drawing near and the clouds were thickening.  He drew the following illustrations under the guidance of Minerva138 his associate.

Henry Blois uses his scholarly knowledge of previous writers through the ‘voice piece’ of Taliesin to propagate the propaganda for his new vision concerning Glastonbury and its transformation into being coomensurate with Insula Avallonis of the HRB . He has based much of the setting of the VM on records from the Book of Taliesin who is also contemporaneous with Rydderch, so they provide the anchor of contemporaneity with Merlin. Henry in the Vita Merlini has also extracted ideas from Irish139 and Scottish sources.

Some of the information in Taliesin’s speech in VM has been traced back to men such as Pliny, Solinus, Martianus Capella, Pomponius Mela and Rabanus Maurus.  Henry Blois posing as Geoffrey of Monmouth through extracts taken from Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae,140 now speaks as if in the words of Taliesin. However, he starts this long nature episode by reverting to Aristotle: Out of nothing the Creator of the world produced four [elements]141

Henry then follows on with a lengthy piece on origins and discussions on various topics concerning stars, dragons and fish etc. Just as Isidore of Seville covers a variety of naturist topics; so does ‘Geoffrey’. Isidore also leads into his discourse on Islands much the same way as Geoffrey of Monmouth does starting with Britain: Of these [islands] Britain is said to be the foremost and best, producing in its fruitfulness every single thing. 

He then proceeds by describing the various British blessings found in the country culminating with the pleasing baths found in the city of Bath. Henry’s aim is to refer back to the HRB before launching into his next piece which names Bladud from the HRB.

In the HRB, Bladud is the founder of Bath. We can actually witness Henry’s mind at work here. He is enabling himself to establish as fact in the Vita, the connection between Bladud and Badon and as we know the earliest mention of the Battle of Badon is in Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae where Ambrosius Aurelianus organised a British resistance.

But, as we know, Geoffrey does his best to conflate Ambrosius with Arthur (or even Merlin) and Nennius has Badon as the place of King Arthur’s last battle. But, Geoffrey’s Camlann is also brought into the salad of confusion from the Annales Cambriae where Arthur and Mordred fell (AC mentions Medraut, but it does not specify that he and Arthur fought on opposite sides)  So,  Henry Blois situates Mordred in Cornwall purely because Henry knows the topography142 and of the river Camel.143

138Minerva was the Roman goddess of wisdom and sponsor of arts, trade, and defence also mentioned in the prologue of John of Cornwall’s prophecies

139See Appendix 16

140Adam of Damerham witnesses that Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae sive Origines was donated to Glastonbury abbey by Henry Blois and content from this volume has evidently been used in the fabrication if the Vita Merlini. 

141Aristotle Metaphysics.

142It becomes plain that Henry knows Cornwall, but this only becomes evident when we cover John of Cornwall’s prophecies.

143From the Annales Cambriae, Camblanus becomes Geoffrey’s Camlann. However, more probably Colchester was called Camulodunum and Henry changed the location having visited Cornwall and Tintagel. Henry Blois knows the river Camel is four miles distant from Tintagel and on it stands Camelford. Henry Blois has conveniently used conflation for his own end and located the battle in Cornwall and thus we find Mordred there.

Henry Blois’ intention in VM is to conflate Badon (where Arthur’s battle took place) with Avalon. As the reader will understand shortly, the purport behind Henry’s very clever design is to set up Arthur’s last known location, the Island of Avalon of HRB fame as being synonymous with Glastonbury.  So, let us see in this next extract from the HRB, why Bladud’s name is important to Henry and why this contrivance is essential to his overall plan for the future of Glastonbury.

Next succeeded Bladud his son, in whose hands the Kingdom remained for twenty years. He builded the city of Kaerbadon, that is now called Bath, and fashioned hot baths therein, meet for the needs of men, the which he placed under the guardianship of the deity Minerva, in whose temple he set fires that could not be quenched, that never turned into ashes, but as they began to fail became as it were round balls of stone.144

Returning back to the VM we can now see where he is guiding his contemporary audience and every reader of the HRB and the Vita Merlini since 1157.

Besides all these it has fountains healthful because of their hot waters which nourish the sick and provide pleasing baths, which quickly send people away cured with their sickness driven out.  So Bladud established them when he held the sceptre of the Kingdom and he gave them the name of his consort Alaron.145 

Immediately he has named this ‘Alaron’146 which he has now established as being the same as where we find Bladud, (who we know was the founder of Badon, where Arthur’s battle took place); after one line on the healing powers found in this Alaron he does his trickiest bit of sophistry and conflation, he calls the same place an Island and to confuse us further he says it is near Thanet.147

We should not forget that on King Arthur’s instruction to the The Duke of Cornwall he chased all the Saxons from Britain after they had fled to the Isle of Thanet.

Our ocean also divides the Orkneys from us.  These are divided into thirty-three islands by the sundering flood; twenty lack cultivation and the others are cultivated.  Thule receives its name “furthest” from the sun, because of the solstice which the summer sun makes there, turning its rays and shining no further, and taking away the day, so that always throughout the long night the air is full of shadows, and making a bridge congealed by the benumbing cold, which prevents the passage of ships.

144HRB II, x

145The account of Bladud is found in the HRB, II, x. 

146Geoffrey’s purposeful confusion of Avalon, the Vaus d’Avaron, used by Robert de Boron (3123, 3221) and the ‘grant valee’ in the Perlesvaus’ description of Avalon, obviously represent the same locality.

147See Appendix 15

I have shown in appendix 15 why Henry Blois has a peculiar concern regarding the island of Thanet because his interest in it is derived from Pytheas’ account through Diodorus or other ancient chroniclers who comment of Pytheas’ travels as one of the earliest of the Greek accounts of the discovery of Britain.

Even though the special status afforded by Thanet as being near to Henry’s primary purpose (a conflation with Avalon), Isidore of Seville also talks of the same list of Islands and many others beside in the Mediterranean. Isidore provides the basis of material for ‘Geoffrey’s Islands reshuffle in the VM. The ensuing Island material is derived from Isidore’s XIV.vi, De insulis (“concerning islands”) but it becomes apparent why there is a change in order from Isidore’s to Geoffrey’s list of Islands.

Vita Merlini                                                      Isidore’s Etymologia

1. Thanatos                                                                     Thanet

2. The Orkneys                                                                Ultima Thule

3. Thule                                                                            Orkneys

4. Ireland                                                                          Ireland

5. Gades                                                                           Gades

6. The Hesperides                                                            The Fortunate Isles

7. The Gorgades                                                              The Gorgades

8. Argire & Crisse                                                           The Hesperides

9. Ceylon                                                                         Chryse and Argyre

10. Tiles

11. The Fortunate Islands

Rather than reveal his real intention, Henry Blois has decided to set up his intended objective, (that of exchanging the Avalon of HRB to be synonymous with the ‘Island of Apples’) in amongst what appears to be Taliesin pronouncing upon the subject of ‘Islands’ just after the obvious intended conflation of Alaron with Badon. Henry Blois already has another project planned in the manuscript which was the forerunner of Perlesvaus, where unfortunately, he cannot change the name Insula Avallonis (for reasons that will be explained shortly).

The fact that Arthur was taken to Insula Pomorum shows to the gullible that it must equate to the Insula Avallonis found in in HRB. The logic of such an assumption is because the island now appears to be located in Somerset because Arthur had appeared at Glastonbury in the concocted life of Gildas also authored by Henry Blois.  Posterity has been led to a conclusion to which Henry directed us in that: Insula Pomorum must be Glastonbury.

Daphne Oosterhout in her Classical sources of the Vita Merlini says:

Geoffrey appears to have been extremely skilled in moulding his sources to within his own texts. It is no different with these pseudo-scientific texts. A good example is his description of the ‘Fortunate Island’, based on Isidore of Seville’s Islands of Fortunate Women (insulae fortunatarum). Taliesin identifies this place with the Island of Apples to which Arthur was carried following the Battle of Camblan. In the HRB, this island is referred to as Insula Avallonis, the Island of Avalon, but Geoffrey very cleverly uses the similarity between the name Avalon and the Welsh word for apple, afal. As such, he links the HRB and the VM together while he could at the same exploit Isidore’s description of the Island of Fortunate Women, where apples grew in abundance. Moreover, he places Morgen and her sisters at Avalon, whereas Isidore never explains why the island is called ‘of fortunate women’. Curley has suggested that perhaps Morgen and her sisters were inspired by Pomponius Mela’s description of the island of Sena, where live nine virgins with supernatural powers.

She in her naivety goes on to say: These discrepancies between Geoffrey’s ‘lists’ and Isidore’s are more problematic. It could be argued that these changes were made by Geoffrey on purpose, although there is little evidence for this. This is another case of scholarly ignorance because if she recognised Henry Blois as Geoffrey she would also understand he was the Abbot of Glastonbury and the inventor of Insula Avallonis and manufacturer of King Arthur’s grave at Glastonbury. Oosterhout goes on to say: With Isidore, it was clear that the ‘changes’ made by Geoffrey did not serve any obvious purpose; in other words, there seems to have not been any reason for Geoffrey to intentionally deviate from what Isidore had written. Well, will she or any other scholar listen to the ‘obvious purpose’…. no, they will remain haughty in their ignorance going round and round like headless chickens. However, she does have one thing correct when she concludes: Nevertheless, it has shown that with Geoffrey hardly anything is ever coincidental. It is to my frustration that these coincidences are just ignored!!!!

In 1189-91 when the ‘leaden cross’ was unearthed, Glastonbury was unequivocally associated with Avalon, but the interpolator of DA has made this association long before the discovery of the manufactured Grave of King Arthur. It is only modern scholar’s erroneous chronology which assumes Avalon’s association with Glastonbury was made after the disinterment of King Arthur.

If they had the gumption to think that the Abbot of Glastonbury might be the author of HRB, the life of Gildas, the Interpolations in the first 35 chapters of DA and the author of Grail legend they would also realise that in 1155-7 when the Vita Merlini was authored, Glastonbury at that time was already associated with Avalon.

Their ridiculous theories create new and erroneous chronologies and cause red lines in deduction of the real train of events in Medieval England. Coincidences are never scrutinised and context is usually rationalised stupidity.  Thus when modern scholar’s erroneous chronology assumes Avalon’s association with Glastonbury was made after the disinterment of King Arthur and is obviously pointed out by Watkin they seem to ignore this fact and obey a red line that aids another fatuous deduction. It seems, it is better to believe the theories they have constructed and invent fallacious red lines, rather than accept historical fact!!! Scholars…. My ass!!!  

A Welsh ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ has little to gain in associating Arthur with Glastonbury. Henry Blois, not only is responsible for the connection of Arthur to Glastonbury made by impersonating Caradoc, but he is also responsible for the naming of Avalon and the invention of the character of the Chivalric Arthur. He is responsible for Arthur’s association to Glastonbury found in DA and is responsible for creating physically Arthur’s grave between the pyramids. It is hardly surprising that as ‘Geoffrey’ in VM, Henry persuades his audience that the apple country of Somerset possesses an Island which is known as Insula Pomorum where Arthur is known to have been taken by Barinthus.

The only assumption one can draw and to which the reader has been led in VM is that Glastonbury must be the same location as Avalon with all the other evidences which corroborate such a conclusion found in DA. This goes contrary to Oosterhout who says: With Isidore, it was clear that the ‘changes’ (of the islands) made by Geoffrey did not serve any obvious purpose; in other words, there seems to have not been any reason for Geoffrey to intentionally deviate from what Isidore had written. She does not understand that it is Henry Blois which locates Avalon at Glastonbury.

Henry Blois has achieved his goal and posterity and scholarship is none the wiser even today. It will become apparent also that Henry Blois, amongst other works of anonymity, is the author of the initial Perlesvaus which corroborates in the colophon long before 1189-91 that both Arthur and Guinevere are at Glastonbury/Avalon

However, the VM continues on with Taliesin pronouncing on the Islands:

 The most outstanding island after our own is said to be Ireland with its happy fertility.  It is larger and produces no bees, and no birds except rarely, and it does not permit snakes to breed in it.  Whence it happens that if earth or a stone is carried away from there and added to any other place it drives away snakes and bees.

Isidore’s work describes Ireland: Ireland (Scotia), also known as Hibernia, is an island next to Britannia, narrower in its expanse of land but more fertile in its site. It extends from southwest to north. It’s near parts stretch towards Iberia (Hiberia) and the Cantabrian Ocean (i.e. the Bay of Biscay), whence it is called Hibernia; but it is called Scotia, because it has been colonised by tribes of the Scoti. There no snakes are found, birds are scarce, and there are no bees, so that if someone were to sprinkle dust or pebbles brought from there among beehives in some other place, the swarms would desert the honeycombs.

Isidore is not certain about who the inhabitants are and conflates the Scottish to Irish, but knows its proportion and position. ‘Geoffrey’ (Henry Blois) knows where Ireland and Scotland are, so he does not pretend to be ignorant, which obviously Isidore is.148

The island of Gades lies next to Herculean Gades, and there grows there a tree from whose bark a gum drips out of which gems are made, breaking all laws.

Isedore’s version of Gades: Cadiz (Gadis) is an island located at the edge of the province of Baetica. It separates Europe from Africa. The Pillars of Hercules can be seen there, and from there the current of the Ocean flows into the entrance of the Tyrrhenian Sea. It is divided from the mainland by a distance of six hundred (Roman) feet. When the Tyrians, who had come from the Red Sea, occupied it, they called it in their language Gadir that is, “enclosed,” because it is enclosed on all sides by the sea. This island produces a palm-like tree whose sap, when mixed with glass, produces the precious stone called ‘ceraunius’.

It is a coincidence that Pytheas mentions this substance as floating. One would assume it is Amber149 since it comes from tree sap. It is here that Geoffrey of Monmouth changes the order of Islands found in Isidore’s work because Isidore follows with the Fortunate Isles. But ‘Geoffrey’ keeps this until the end of Taliesin’s discourse, so that it seemingly grafts into the main point of re-naming Avalon. However, ‘Geoffrey’ continues with Hesperides:

The Hesperides are said to contain a watchful dragon who, men say, guards the golden apples under the leaves.

148Saint Isidore of Seville (c. 560 – 4 April 636) served as Archbishop of Seville and Geoffrey surely knew his source would be discovered, however the source for Geoffrey’s purposes is contemporaneous enough.

149Herodotus in book 3 says ‘I cannot speak with certainty nor am I acquainted with the islands called the Cassiterides from which tin is brought to us….it is never the less, certain that both our tin and our amber are brought from these extremely remote regions, in the western extremities of Europe’. What Herodotus was actually referring to is known as British glass a sometime by-product of the smelting process of tin.

Isidores Hesperides150 are: The isles of the Hesperides are so called after the city of Hesperis, which was located within the borders of Mauretania. They are situated beyond the Gorgades, at the Atlantic shore, in the most remote bays of the sea. Stories tell of an ever-watchful dragon guarding golden apples in their gardens. There, it is said, is a channel from the sea that is so twisted, with winding banks, that when seen from afar it looks like the coils of a serpent.

On Isidore’s Hesperides we find Golden apples not as Geoffrey later attests they are on the Fortunate isles from where he derives his Insula Pomorum. ‘Geoffrey’s’ artifice is revealed when he would rather attach his ‘apple’ scenario to an Island described adjectively (fortunate) rather than overcoming some previous nomenclature like Hesperides. We can witness the conflation with the enchanted orchard of the classical Hesperides which is eventually doubly conflated with Glastonbury later on by Henry through ‘Isle de Voirre’ or Isle of Glass. I will cover this conflation later through Henry’s ingenious etymological conversion of Ineswitrin to Ynes Gutrin which gives the Glass Island which Caradoc (Henry Blois) first introduces as author of Life of Gildas.

All is interconnected through Henry’s work, Melvas is probably the origin of the name Meleagant in the Knight of the Cart. It is also through Henry Blois and his relationship with Marie of France and Alix, (wives to his Nephews) and their relation to Chrétien de Troyes, where we meet Maheloas as lord of the Isle de Voirre which relates to Caradoc’s Melvas and Caradoc’s Urbs Vitrea.

The Gorgades are inhabited by women with goats’ bodies who are said to surpass hares in the swiftness of their running.

Isidore’s Gorgades are described thus: The Gorgades are islands of the Ocean opposite the promontory that is called Hesperian Ceras, inhabited by the Gorgons, women with swift wings and a rough and hairy body; the islands take their name from them. They are separated from the mainland by a passage of two days’ sailing.

Argyre and Chryse151bear, it is said, gold and silver just as Corinth does common stones. 

150According to the Sicilian Greek poet Stesichorus, and the Greek geographer Strabo, in his book Geographika (volume III), the garden of the Hesperides is located in Tartessos, a location placed in the south of the Iberian Peninsula. Since they are beyond the Gorgades which one must assume are the Canaries it would seem the Hesperides may be the Cape Verde Islands as Isidore states: Islands (insula) are so called because they are ‘in salt water’

151Pliny refers to Chryse as an Island and was on the Medieval mappaemundi as an Island. Mention of Argyre is made in the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea as the last part of the inhabited world toward the east. However, in Pliny’s Natural History he mentions a Land of Gold via a peninsula. Pomponius Mela, says two lands lay to the east of India one Argyre was said to boast soil of Gold and Chryse was said to have soil of Silver. ‘In the vicinity of Tamus is the Island of Argyre, in the vicinity of the Ganges, that of Chryse’.

Isidores Argyre and Chryse are: are islands situated in the Indian Ocean, so rich in metal that many people maintain these islands have a surface of gold and silver; whence their names are derived.

Celon blooms pleasantly because of its fruitful soil, for it produces two crops in a single year; twice it is summer, twice spring, twice men gather grapes and other fruits, and it is also most pleasing because of its shining gems. Tiles produces flowers and fruits in an eternal spring, green throughout the seasons.

Celon and Tiles are ‘Geoffrey’s’ addition and not found in Isidore’s account on the Islands in the Sea.

 The island of apples which men call “The Fortunate Isle”152 gets its name from the fact that it produces all things of itself; the fields there have no need of the ploughs of the farmers and all cultivation is lacking except what nature provides.  Of its own accord it produces grain and grapes, and apple trees grow in its woods from the close-clipped grass.  The ground of its own accord produces everything instead of merely grass, and people live there a hundred years or more.

Isidore’s Fortunate Islas are described as: The Fortunate Isles (Fortunatarum insulae) signify by their name that they produce all kinds of good things, as if they were happy and blessed with an abundance of fruit. Indeed, well-suited by their nature, they produce fruit from very precious trees; the ridges of their hills are spontaneously covered with grapevines; instead of weeds, harvest crops and garden herbs are common there; hence, the mistake of pagans and the poems by worldly poets, who believed that these isles were Paradise because of the fertility of their soil. They are situated in the Ocean, against the left side of Mauretania, closest to where the sun sets, and they are separated from each other by the intervening sea. These are the Cape Verde islands which Geoffrey now relocates from off the coast of Africa to now miraculously appear at Glastonbury.

We can see that Henry (‘Geoffrey’) has made Isidore’s Islands singular; and now conflated it with the apples of the Hesperides to suit his goal in the translocation of a nebulous Avalon (Insula Avallonis) in HRB to be located geographically at Glastonbury. The implications of this are huge at this date of 1157.153  At this point in VM Henry now leaves Isidore and a versification of his work which he employed for his own ends.

In the HRB we hear of Avalon twice; once where Arthur is …girt with Caliburn, best of swords, that was forged within the Isle of Avalon.154

The second is where the renowned King Arthur himself was wounded deadly, and was borne thence unto the island of Avalon for the healing of his wounds.155

152See Appendix 17

153Scholars have contrived an a priori which assumes the name Avalon has no association with Glastonbury until Arthur’s disinterment when the leaden cross is found.

154HRB IX, iv

155HRB XI, ii

We were not introduced to Morgen or her sisters156 in the HRB, but one assumes that ‘Geoffrey’s’ reason for their inclusion in VM was to give a valid reason why his hero of the HRB was taken to Avalon, i.e. she can cure the sick and his wounds. Of course, the nine sorceress priestesses of Pomponius Mela’s island of Sena are to be conflated with the nine maidens on Insula Pomorum in VM and of course again, in Henry’s interpolation into DA.

  Now, an important point which becomes relevant later when investigating the interpolations into the DA is that the DA was altered for each of Henry Blois’ ‘agendas’. These agendas are threefold. Firstly, Henry Blois altered DA in 1144 for his first attempt at gaining metropolitan status for Winchester. He altered it again in 1149 for his second attempt when the St Patrick charter was added and thirdly when Henry Blois added all the Joseph of Arimathea material after 1158.

We can certainly state that the DA was interpolated after 1157 when VM had been composed because it is on Isidore’s Hesperides that we find Golden apples not as ‘Geoffrey’ later attests they are on the Fortunate isles from where he derives his Insula Pomorum. The Cauldron of the chief of the otherworld and the nine maidens who tended it are conflated with the nine sorceress priestesses of Pomponius Mela’s island of Sena…. and then again, with purposeful intent, with the nine maidens on Insula Pomorum in VM. 

The VM now has the confirmation of Arthur’s trip to Avalon with Barinthus backed up by Taliesin, who ‘accompanied’ Arthur to Insula Pomorum, but it is now not just an Island, but a court of the maidens: After it the King, mortally wounded, left his Kingdom and, sailing across the water with you as you have related, came to the court of the maidens.

So, any researcher would have to accept that in chapter 5 of DA, it is Henry Blois’ own words which compose the conflation with the Welsh Afallennau: Apple island from avalla in British is the same as poma in Latin.  Or it was named after a certain Avalloc who is said to have lived there with his daughters i.e. to conflate with the nine maidens. I hope the reader now gets a picture of what a ‘rats nest’ this is for scholars to unpick!!

To add to Henry’s salad of conflation in DA, Avalloc just happens to have daughters and supplies the eponym for Avalon just to complete the confusion.157 In this instance alone we can witness Henry’s brilliance which started out innocently by randomly picking a name from a Burgundian town and as in his muses and events mixed and evolved over the years since 1138 when he composed the Primary Historia where he had not even thought of Avalon; Avalon morphed into a location at Glastonbury.  Just as he had selected the environs of Autun for Arthur’s fictitious continental battle through Henry Blois’ proximity while an oblate at Clugny, so too was Avalon eventually based at Glastonbury because he was Abbot there.

  To not recognise that the conversion of a completely fictitious island to which a fictitious chivalric Arthur was taken to, (to what is nowadays understood to be a real location of Avalon) is to underestimate the brilliance of Henry’s subtle method of translocation. The translocation also bears witness to the evolving of Henry’s propagandist thought processes where Arthur was firstly associated with Glastonbury in the Life of Gildas.

Henry had initially posited Ineswitrin as synonymous with Glastonbury in life of Gildas because by doing so it established the 601 charter’s credibility. At that time Henry wished Glastonbury to be recognised as Ineswitrin. This was part of his first ‘agenda’ By the end of the evolution of his propaganda Henry has effectually converted Ineswitrin at Glastonbury into Avalon at Glastonbury.

Even though ‘Geoffrey’ in VM places Taliesin at the scene of Arthur’s arrival, it is irrelevant, since we can clearly see Taliesin’s inclusion in the narrative is because Henry Blois utilises material derived from Taliesin’s bardic work which comprises some parts of the VM.

There nine sisters rule by a pleasing set of laws those who come to them from our country. She who is first of them is more skilled in the healing art, and excels her sisters in the beauty of her person.  Morgen is her name, and she has learned what useful properties all the herbs contain, so that she can cure sick bodies.  She also knows an art by which to change her shape, and to cleave the air on new wings like Daedalus; when she wishes she is at Brest, Chartres, or Pavia158 and when she will she slips down from the air onto your shores.  And men say that she has taught mathematics to her sisters, Moronoe, Mazoe, Gliten, Glitonea, Gliton, Tyronoe, Thitis; Thitis best known for her cither.  Thither after the battle of Camlan159 we took the wounded Arthur, guided by Barinthus160 to whom the waters and the stars of heaven were well known.  With him steering the ship we arrived there with the prince,161 and Morgen received us with fitting honour, and in her chamber she placed the King on a golden bed and with her own hand she uncovered his honourable wound and gazed at it for a long time.  At length she said that health could be restored to him if he stayed with her for a long time and made use of her healing art.  Rejoicing, therefore, we entrusted the King to her and returning spread our sails to the favouring winds.”

156It will be discussed later on in the chapter on Vera Historia de morte Arthur, where Morgan is also mentioned, Henry’s later addition of this lore to an HRB version.

157We should remember that the DA interpolations which associate Avalon with Glastonbury existed in DA long before the unearthing of the Arthur in 1189-91.

158Pavia is presumably Paris; Brest and Chartres are also locations more relevant to Henry Blois than a Welsh Geoffrey of Monmouth.

159Geoffrey’s reference to the battle of Camlann is made to accord with an entry in the 10th-century Annales Cambriae, recording the battle in the year 537 which mentions Mordred (Medraut). ‘The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) perished’.

160There seems little doubt that the Navigatio Brendani is the source; the early eleventh century account of the voyage of St. Brendan. Followed by the Norman poem (ed. Fr. Michel), Voyages Merveille de St. Brendan (Paris 1878), where a certain ‘Barintz’ does the same (II. 75,101).  This version would certainly be known by Henry Blois because it was written for his uncle’s Queen Adeliza. Barint in the St Brendan legend starts the Saint off on his voyage by telling him of a marvellous isle.

161‘Geoffrey’ has based Arthur’s arrival at Avalon after the battle of Camlan. ‘Geoffrey’s’ artifice is clearly revealed in setting up the association of ‘Alaron’ with his various Island material which leads into his Fortunate Isle scenario.  ‘Geoffrey’s’ statement in the HRB where Arthur ‘wounded deadly and was borne thence unto the island of Avalon for the healing of his wounds, where he gave up the crown of Britain unto his kinsman Constantine’ assumes that giving up his crown, he died there at Avalon and was never seen again. It is this same assumption that facilitated credence given to the fabricated find of Arthur’s remains at Glastonbury in 1191.  As we know, initially in the Primary Historia, Arthur is not taken to Avalon….otherwise this would have been mentioned by Huntingdon in his synopsis of HRB i.e. EAW. In  the First Variant (Bern 568) Henry Blois uses the ambiguous word letaliter ‘mortally wounded’, so a clear progression in story-line is witnessed; ultimately, to where a grave is manufactured by Henry Blois to coincide with Arthur having died at Avalon. Also, if we take Alfred of Beverley’s evolving HRB, we can see that Henry Blois has not reached his ‘second agenda’ in the development of Avalon: Alfred omits mention of Avallon in his reworking of the passage concerning ‘Caliburnus’. Henry got his idea of the sword being made on an island from the Aeneid where Aeneas’ arms are made by the Cyclops on the isle of Lipari.

Henry Blois, not forgetting that Merlin is supposedly speaking prior to the Saxon invasions, makes recorded British history into predictions that appear to have come true.

 Merlin said in answer, “Dear friend, since that time how much the Kingdom has endured from the violated oath, so that what it once was it no longer is!  For by an evil fate the nobles are roused up and turned against each other’s vitals, and they upset everything so that the abundance of riches has fled from the country and all goodness has departed, and the desolated citizens leave their walls empty.  Upon them shall come the Saxon people, fierce in war, who shall again cruelly overthrow us and our cities, and shall violate God’s law and his temples.  For He shall certainly permit this destruction to come upon us because of our crimes, that He may correct the foolish.” 

Taliesin then postulates by means of prophecy the expectation of the Britons. Henry Blois using the voice of Taliesin pretends to state ‘the hope of Arthur’s return’ into a current hope of the 6th century. I would not be surprised if Henry Blois left the prophecy open so that at some future date it might apply to him; especially as he would be returning by ship if some mishap were to happen to Henry II.

Until the the reader is acquainted with the prophecy of the seven Kings supposedly composed by Merlin and translated by John of Cornwall this proposition seems foolish, but Henry Blois definitely had plans to return as a ‘chief’ if Henry II had been overcome by the Celts. 

In any case, the meaning reiterates the same feeling current at the time, to which William of Malmesbury and Newburgh referred. It also conveys the same sentiment as that found in the prophecies of HRB of a lost noble nation needing to be returned to its former peace. The return of an Arthurian figure, a saviour, might be more in line with what Henry Blois is trying to propose.

Merlin had scarcely finished when Taliesin exclaimed, “Then the people should send someone to tell the chief to come back in a swift ship if he has recovered his strength, that he may drive off the enemy with his accustomed vigour and re-establish the citizens in their former peace.

Henry Blois then cuts Taliesin short with an unequivocal prediction through the mouth of Merlin. Merlin speaks with powerful authority as he did in the HRB prophecies. He contradicts Taliesin’s generalised hope and sets about telling us what will transpire which his audience knows has already taken place historically (having read HRB). This in effect confirms Merlin’s accuracy in the prediction about the Britons being enslaved for many years.

“No,” said Merlin, “not thus shall this people depart when once they have fixed their claws on our shores.  For at first they shall enslave our Kingdom and our people and our cities, and shall dominate them with their forces for many years.  Nevertheless three162 from among our people shall resist with much courage and shall kill many, and in the end shall overcome them.  But they shall not continue thus, for it is the will of the highest Judge that the Britons shall through weakness lose their noble Kingdom for a long time, until Conan163 shall come in his chariot from Brittany, and Cadwalader164 the venerated leader of the Welsh, who shall join together Scots and Cumbrians, Cornishmen and men of Brittany165 in a firm league, and shall return to their people their lost crown, expelling the enemy and renewing the times of Brutus, and shall deal with the cities in accordance with their consecrated laws.  And the Kings shall begin again to conquer remote peoples and to subjugate their own realms to themselves in mighty conflict.”  “No one shall then be alive of those who are now living,” said Taliesin, “nor do I think that any one has seen so many savage battles between fellow citizens as you have.” 

162The ‘three’ Geoffrey refers to may be Cadvan, Cadwallo, and Cadwallader, on the basis of Book XII of the HRB originally, but since this is the VM updated prophecies c.1156, hoping to cause rebellion against Henry II; the three are more probably Conan Cadwallader and the Scottish in general as a nation  since the heir apparent and King David had recently expired.

163See appendix18

164See appendix 19

165See appendix 20

We now have Henry’s true desire of unseating Henry II confirmed in actual speech by Merlin rather than found in a list of other prophecies. It is hard to grasp to which three Henry is relating to because Henry has morphed the prophecies since he published the initial Libellus Merlini to which his friend abbot Suger refers. Maybe originally the three were Constans Uther and Ambrosius166 against the Saxons. Maybe it is a case of Henry squewing the number three of the Kings used to indicate William the conqueror, William Rufus and Henry Ist, but it is not clear.

What is clear is that the prophecy’s main purport, whether originally relating to the Saxon era (as is indicated by an initial resurgence and then an eventual subjugation of the Britons) is that the end of the subjugation comes through Conan and Cadwallader both coincidentally fighting against Henry II in 1155.

So, here we have a clear indication that Henry Blois is trying to rouse the indigenous Celts through prophecy. Henry Blois writing as Geoffrey has made it clear that if the Bretons (with Conan) and the Welsh (with Cadwallader), along with the Scots, Cumbrians and Cornish rise up against the invaders (specifically the Angevin Henry II) they will once again retain the crown of Brutus. 

I hope the reader can get an insight into how manipulative the real Henry Blois actually was. Not only did he invent the story of Brutus in HRB, he is now predicting that the fictitious crown would return to the indigenous Britons. When the reader understands the JC prophecies, we will see upon whose head the crown of Brutus is foreseen i.e. the seventh King, Henry Blois!!!

All these things Merlin recapped for our benefit to run according to the history as it was understood, so that we and ‘Geoffrey’s’ Anglo-Norman readers were amazed at Merlin’s accuracy. Merlin, speaking in the sixth century, comes out with a prediction, remarkably up to date by coincidently naming two people167 on the current political landscape. Henry Blois affects sedition through a fraudulent prophecy of Merlin inciting Conan and Cadwallader to rebel against Henry II; prompting them to join in firm league, to subjugate their own realm to themselves.168 In John of Cornwall’s rendition of the prophecies of Merlin (also fabricated by Henry Blois) it becomes evident that Henry sees himself as the natural replacement of Henry II once the rebellion has succeeded.

The last statement of Taliesin’s in the passage above underlines that Henry Blois’ conception of Merlin is as someone who lives through the ages169 and has witnessed these battles fought between the Britons themselves, the idiocy of which he laments constantly in that their power is reduced which has allowed the foreigners to dominate them obviously parroting this sentiment from Gildas and Bede to appear empathetic with their national admonishment of the warring Britons.  Merlin has seen the various foreigners through the ages and the chaos they bring to Britain, and the sentiment of Merlin can be understood as: ‘Oh, if only the Celts, (the Britons of a bygone age) would stop fighting amongst themselves they would not have been invaded down through the ages’. 

166Ambrosius’ name is employed in HRB to conflate with Gildas and Bede’s accounts as he is the resistance leader conflated with Arthur by ‘Geoffrey’.

167Not Cynan and Caduallo or Caedwalla

168We can see the same seditious prophecy in Vulgate HRB: Cadwallader shall call unto Conan, and shall receive Albany to his fellowship. Then shall there be slaughter of the foreigners: then shall the rivers run blood: then shall gush forth the fountains of Armorica and shall be crowned with the diadem of Brutus. Cambria shall be filled with gladness and the oaks of Cornwall shall wax green. The island shall be called by the name of Brutus and the name given by foreigners shall be done away. Here again, we are told the he-goat from the castle of Venus with a silver beard will succeed and there will then be peace in his time. It does not take too much imagination to see who this might refer to.

169The same is posited by Robert de Boron who obtained his sense of Merlin from Henry Blois as will become clear at the end of this investigation.

Merlin said, “Indeed, that is the truth. For I have lived long and seen much; our own folk turning on one another, and the chaos the barbarian brings.

The brief exchange acts as a conversational narrative conjunction before Henry Blois launches into the next lot of text in the VM, the object of which again is to endorse the historiography of the HRB.

“And I remember the crime when Constans was betrayed and the small brothers Uther and Ambrosius fled across the water.170 At once wars began in the Kingdom which now lacked a leader, for Vortigern of Gwent, the consul, was leading his troops against all the nations so that he might have the leadership of them, and was inflicting a wretched death upon the harmless peasants.  At length with sudden violence he seized the crown after putting to death many of the nobles and he subdued the whole Kingdom to himself.  But those who were allied to the brothers by blood relationship, offended at this, began to set fire to all the cities of the ill-fated prince and to perturb his Kingdom with savage soldiery, and they would not permit him to possess it in peace.  Disquieted therefore since he could not withstand the rebellious people, he prepared to invite to the war men from far away with whose aid he might be able to meet his enemies.  Soon there came from divers parts of the world warlike bands whom he received with honour.  The Saxon people, in fact, arriving in their curved keels had come to serve him with their helmeted soldiery.  They were led by two courageous brothers, Horsus and Hengist,171 who afterwards with wicked treachery harmed the people and the cities.  For after this, by serving the King with industry, they won him over to themselves and seeing the people moved by a quarrel that touched them closely they were able to subjugate the King; then turning their ferocious arms upon the people they broke faith and killed the princes by a premeditated fraud while they were sitting with them after calling them together to make peace and a treaty with them, and the prince they drove over the top of the snowy mountain. 

Henry Blois in this last section confirms his HRB’s historiography, whereas, before, it was written in the form of historical record in the body of HRB, it is now re-iterated here in the VM as a future awaiting…. predicted by the prophet, whose vaticinations undoubtedly have materialised as history for Henry’s audience. If the reader needs any help understanding this; this was revealed to Vortigern at the same time as the original prophecies in the HRB.

These are the things I had begun to prophesy to him would happen to the Kingdom. 

Henry Blois then goes on to relate that Vortigern had tried to repel the Saxons he had initially invited to Britain until he was betrayed by Rowena Hengist’s sister who he was infatuated with and who poisoned him. Rowena recalls her brother back to Briton. Henry never forgets to put himself in character as Merlin, supposedly speaking as an ancient Briton and of ‘our’ army.

170HRB, VI, v-xix.

171See appendix 1.5

This therefore he did, for he came with such force against our army that he took booty from everybody until he was loaded with it, and he thoroughly destroyed by fire the houses throughout the country.

We then hear a complete contradiction in the story line where, (while these events were happening), Vortigern, now alive again, is defeated by the returning Britons from Brittany.172 The only reason I suspect for doing this is to locate Vortigern’s tower (for the narratives sake) in Wales so that he is differentiated from the good Britons who returned from Brittany and associated with the savages (in Henry’s mind) that now inhabit Wales. This is entirely consistent with ‘Geoffrey’s’ sentiments. By doing this, Henry allows himself his own personal views on the Welsh and offers by way of explanation the reason he is derogatory toward them. 

“While these things were happening Uther and Ambrosius were in Breton territory with King Biducus and they had already girded on their swords and were proved fit for war, and had associated with themselves troops from all directions so that they might seek their native land and put to flight the people who were busy wasting their patrimony.  So they gave their boats to the wind and the sea, and landed for the protection of their subjects; they drove Vortigern through the regions of Wales and shut him up in his tower and burned both him and it.  Then they turned their swords upon the Angles and many times when they met them they defeated them, and on the other hand they were often defeated by them.  At length in a hand to hand conflict our men with great effort attacked the enemy and defeated them decisively, and killed Hengist, and by the will of Christ triumphed.

This episode is aligned with the pseudo-history concocted in HRB but has nothing to do with the inciting to rebellion of the Celts found in the prophecies.

After these things had been done, the Kingdom and its crown were with the approval of clergy and laity given to Ambrosius….

Henry Blois always conscious of the role of Church in the state mentions its relationship far too much throughout the VM and HRB which betrays his own sentiments of the Cluniac, Gregorian reformation he had high hopes of achieving when he installed his brother Stephen on the throne.

Henry carries forward with the story line repeating and setting in order the events for the most part recorded in the HRB. The point of recapping of all this to Taliesin is fairly pointless except for reasons of corroborating the historiography of the HRB, Taliesins words giving credence to ‘Geoffrey’s’ invented history and by padding out the text. That is until Henry arrives at his real objective in this section of VM which is to splice in new prophecies as if told contemporaneously with those found in the Vulgate HRB.

Ambrosius dies and his younger brother Uther takes to fighting battles over by the Humber. He is then succeeded by his son Arthur who is still a boy and ‘Therefore after seeking the advice of clergy and laity he sent to Hoel, King of Brittany, and asked him to come to his aid with a swift fleet, for they were united by ties of blood and friendship’…whom at length conquered his enemies the Saxons and forced to return to their own country, and he calmed his own Kingdom by the moderation of his laws. He also subdued the Scots and Irish and subjugated the Norwegians far away across the broad seas, and the Danes whom he had visited with his hated fleet.

172HRB XII, xix: And, as barbarism crept in, they were no longer called Britons but Welsh, a word derived either from Gualo, one of their Dukes, or from Guales. Also, we can see Henry’s hatred of the Welsh of his era: But the Welsh, degenerating from the nobility of the Britons, never afterwards recovered the sovereignty of the island…

He conquered the people of the Gauls after killing Frollo to whom the Roman power had given the care of that country; the Romans, too, who were seeking to make war on his country, he fought against and conquered, and killed the Procurator Hiberius Lucius who was then a colleague of Legnis the general, and who by the command of the Senate had come to bring the territories of the Gauls under their power.173  (Vita Merlini)

Henry has no option but to invent fictional Roman names because of the existence of the Roman annals. Merlin is now re-iterating and corroborating the historical fictions as presented in HRB. Henry had already tried to infer that Britons had overtaken Rome, but one cannot have a fictional battle at the valley of Siesia without a commander which could be conflated by his name with a real Roman in the annals. However, Henry has neatly brought us to the juncture in the HRB where Arthur has to return from France to take on Mordred.

Meanwhile the faithless and foolish custodian Modred had commenced to subdue our Kingdom to himself and was making unlawful love to the King’s wife.  For the King, desiring, as men say, to go across the water to attack the enemy, had entrusted the queen and the Kingdom to him.  But when the report of such a great evil came to his ears, he put aside his interest in the wars and, returning home, landed with many thousand men and fought with his nephew and drove him flying across the water.  There the traitor, after collecting Saxons from all sides, began to battle with his lord, but he fell, betrayed by the unholy people confiding in whom he had undertaken such big things.  How great was the slaughter of men and the grief of women whose sons fell in that battle!

In the Vulgate HRB, we have Arthur being delivered to an Island called Avalon. We can witness Henry leading from an island Alaron through pointless text lifted from Isidore to introduce us to the Fortunate Isle (singular) which is also known as Insula Pomorum. Arthur was to receive medical care there. However, the readership of VM now has the confirmation of his trip to Avalon backed up by Taliesin, who accompanied Arthur to Insula Pomorum, but it is now not just an Island, but a court of the maidens.

After it the King, mortally wounded, left his Kingdom and, sailing across the water with you as you have related, came to the court of the maidens.

The problem for Henry Blois is that Arthur is taken to Avalon in First Variant and Henry has fabricated the name from a Burgundian town and probably from the similarity of place name where174 his father was killed i.e. the Battle of Ascalon. The Island Ineswitrin is the real inspiration for his mystical isle as was originally designated by Melkin in his prophecy and to which Henry Blois has changed the name to Avalon (in the prophecy also related by JG). Only Henry knows that it equates with the same location on which Melkin has said Joseph of Arimathea is buried and had been called Ineswitrin originally.  I reality, Henry Blois has no idea where Ineswitrin exists except that it is in the old Dumnonia having been presented by a Devonian King.

173See Appendix 31

174Henry’s Father died May 19, 1102 in Ramla, Holy Land at the Battle of Ascalon. This may have some Freudian bearing on the choice of name in choosing the Burgundian town’s name.

Melkin’s prophecy was the inspiration for Henry Blois’ fictitious island he has called Avalon on which he has conveyed Arthur according to the tale in HRB and (by Barinthus) in VM. Now, this small shift of definition I just bring to the attention of the reader because Arthur is now at the palace of the nymphs or court of maidens.

It is plain that it is Henry who has interpolated the piffle about Avalloc and his daughters in DA, but what I am trying to demonstrate is that Henry does not care what allusions or conflations he makes; his aim (or post 1158 ‘third agenda’) is to have the reader of DA, VM and HRB all understand that Glastonbury was once known as Avalon. He accomplished his mission because when Gerald of Wales spoke of Avalon, Gerald understood that it was the old name for Glastonbury. Gerald was not convinced solely by the leaden cross which was unearthed in front of him. He had already read HRB, VM, and most importantly, the interpolated DA (as I shall cover shortly). 

However, moving on to the conclusion of this section of VM which, is in essence a recap of HRB (cleverly, more convincingly confirmed by Henry posing as ‘Geoffrey’ in the contemporaneous words of Merlin):

Each of the two sons of Modred, desiring to conquer the Kingdom for himself, began to wage war and each in turn slew those who were near of kin to him.  Then Duke Constantine, nephew of the King, rose up fiercely against them and ravaged the people and the cities, and after having killed both of them by a cruel death ruled over the people and assumed the crown.  But he did not continue in peace since Conan175 his relative waged dire war on him and ravaged everything and killed the King and seized for himself those lands which he now governs weakly and without a plan.

We now enter a phase where Henry remembers that he is still the narrator of a story concerning the madness of Merlin with his friend Taliesin. After the praising of God, Henry now introduces a spring which miraculously will heal his madness. Not the most original of ideas but enough to hold and delight his readers and puts the storyline in context after the whole recap of the faux history in HRB. ….and all his madness departed and the sense which had long remained torpid in him revived, and he remained what he had once been – sane and intact with his reason restored. 

We should not forget either the Gaste Fontaine and the Gaste Foret both here in the VM are also both icons in the Bliocadran. But the real evidence that the Bliocadran was composed by Henry Blois might be found in the similarities to his own situation to that of Percival’s mother.

 She is going on a pilgrimage to Saint Brandain and we know the Voyage of Saint Brendan is where ‘Geoffrey’ has sourced the name Barinthus found in the VM.  However, a month before she departs she had secretly sent out loaded wagons and carts ahead of her departure; just as Henry Blois had done by moving all his movable wealth to Clugny, having had it transported separately in the care of Peter the Venerable. Likewise with Henry’s situation at the time of composing the VM, we find in the Bliocadran that Percival’s mother’s announcement of the pilgrimage was a ruse to disguise the fact that her flight was to be permanent just as Henry Blois by transporting all his wealth intended to stay at Clugny because he did not trust what revenge King Henry II might suffer him. (see letter 3 in Note1).  Likewise also Percival’s mother travels by way of Calfle on the Mer de Gale (Sea of Wales) which I would imagine is somewhere on the north or south coast of the Severn as Henry Blois had done leaving England by avoiding the ports on the south coast. From there, after the voyage, the Mother and Percival go into the gaste foret which is metaphorically Clugny.

I will elucidate upon the connection of VM with the Bliocadran in the section on the Grail legends in progression.

Merlin then continues on in VM in a soliloquy professing to understand the movement of the heavens and the workings of animals etc. before ending with the fact that due to the water he is now normal again: For now, I have the water which hitherto I lacked, and by drinking of it my brains have been made whole.  But whence comes this virtue, O dear companion, that this new fountain breaks out thus, and makes me myself again who up to now was as though insane and beside myself?

At this point in the text we are told ‘Taliesin answers’ but in effect does not. He instead enters into a lengthy monologue lifted again from Isidore’s XIII, Xiii. De diversitate aquarum, (concerning the diversity of bodies of water).

The point of which this monologue serves is to relate back to the healing of the fountain which has cured Merlin of his madness where we hear amongst other such marvels for example that of: another fountain, called Cicero’s, which flows in Italy, which cures the eyes of all injuries  And also of: The land of Boeotia is said to have two fountains; the one makes the drinker forgetful, the other makes them remember.176

175The original Duke of Brittany not the contemporary Conan Earl of Richmond c. 1138–1171.

176Similar non-sense was in the prophecy about the fountains at Winchester in the HRB prophecies.

Merlin then commences his own lengthy monologue; its main constituents sourced from Isidore’s XII.vii, De avibus (concerning Birds).

This pointless recycling of Isedore’s work goes on for some time as ‘padding’ but is also not relevant to our discussion, but it commences with: Merlin presently said to them, “The Creator of the world gave to the birds as to many other things their proper nature, as I have learned by living in the woods for many days.

Then Henry introduces another character into the story-line with the intent of carrying out a clever bit of subliminal contortion on the part of the reader; in the hope conflation is caused in his readers minds. He introduces us to a man named Maeldinus who, with the story-line in VM, is associated with apples and would naturally lead any future investigator that enquires into his name to make the obvious conflation Henry has led us to.

It is a conflation between insula Pomorum and Insula Avallonis. It is not by coincidence a certain Melchinus in his prophecy (found at Glastonbury) refers of the island of Avalon; especially now that Henry has substituted the original name of Iniswitrin to Insula Avallonis on the prophecy. I propose throughout this work that Melchinus’ prophecy and its Icons is the inspiration behind Henry naming Avalon as the mystical island where Arthur was to be buried. The source idea is based on the Island on which Joseph was supposedly buried as pointed out in the Melkin prophecy and which Henry Blois had discovered at Glastonbury along with the 601 charter and this will become clear to the reader in progression. So, King Arthur’s grave is manufactured at Glastonbury graveyard by Henry Blois and the Duo Fassula from the Melkin prophecy becomes the Sang Real by how it is described in the Melkin prophecy.

The Melkin prophecy (originally about Ineswitrin) is Henry’s template for the place Arthur is taken after his fight with Mordred. Considering Melkin’s prophecy speaks of an undiscovered sepulchre, I would suggest Henry’s notion of planting Arthur’s body in the graveyard at Glastonbury is derived from Melkin’s prophecy which in effect refers to Joseph’s undiscovered tomb. Nor would it be too difficult to work out that Melkin’s duo fassula are the template for Henry’s Grail. In progression I will show that the Melkin prophecy existed at the time Henry Blois was alive and he was responsible for the change of name on the prophecy from Ineswitrin to Avalon which JG then recycles in his Cronica.

It seems propitious therefore that a certain Maeldinus is introduced as a character in VM which suggests to readers also that his name is associated with Insula Pomorum and therefore Avalon. 

After he had finished speaking a certain madman came to them, either by accident or led there by fate; he filled the grove and the air with a terrific clamour and like a wild boar he foamed at the mouth and threatened to attack them.  They quickly captured him and made him sit down by them that his remarks might move them to laughter and jokes.  When the prophet looked at him more attentively he recollected who he was and groaned from the bottom of his heart, saying, “This is not the way he used to look when we were in the bloom of our youth, for at that time he was a fair, strong knight and one distinguished by his nobility and his royal race.  Him and many others I had with me in the days of my wealth, and I was thought fortunate in having so many good companions, and I was.  It happened one time while we were hunting in the lofty mountains of Arwystli that we came to an oak which rose in the air with its broad branches.  A fountain flowed there, surrounded on all sides by green grass, whose waters were suitable for human consumption; we were all thirsty and we sat down by it and drank greedily of its pure waters.  Then we saw some fragrant apples lying on the tender grass of the familiar bank of the fountain.  The man who saw them first quickly gathered them up and gave them to me, laughing at the unexpected gift.  I distributed to my companions the apples he had given to me, and I went without any because the pile was not big enough.  The others to whom the apples had been given laughed and called me generous, and eagerly attacked and devoured them and complained because there were so few of them.  Without any delay a miserable sadness seized this man and all the others; they quickly lost their reason and like dogs bit and tore each other, and foamed at the mouth and rolled on the ground in a demented state.  Finally, they went away like wolves filling the vacant air with howlings.  These apples I thought were intended for me and not for them, and later I found out that they were.  At that time there was in that district a woman who had formerly been infatuated with me, and had satisfied her love for me during many years.  After I had spurned her and had refused to cohabit with her she was suddenly seized with an evil desire to do me harm, and when with all her plotting she could not find any means of approach, she placed the gifts smeared with poison by the fountain to which I was going to return, planning by this device to injure me if I should chance to find the apples on the grass and eat them.  But my good fortune kept me from them, as I have just said.  I pray you, make this man drink of the healthful waters of this new fountain so that, if by chance he get back his health, he may know himself and may, while his life lasts, labour with me in these glades in service to God.”  This, therefore, the leaders did, and the man who had come there raging drank the water, recovered, and, cured at once recognized his friends. Then Merlin said, “You must now go on in the service of God who restored you as you now see yourself, you who for so many years lived in the desert like a wild beast, going about without a sense of shame.  Now that you have recovered your reason, do not shun the bushes or the green glades which you inhabited while you were mad, but stay with me that you may strive to make up in service to God for the days that the force of madness took from you.  From now on all things shall be in common between you and me in this service so long as either lives.”  At this Maeldinus (for that was the man’s name) said, “Reverend father, I do not refuse to do this, for I shall joyfully stay in the woods with you, and shall worship God with my whole mind, while that spirit, for which I shall render thanks to your ministry, governs my trembling limbs.”  “And I shall make a third with you, and shall despise the things of the world,” said Taliesin.  “I have spent enough time living in vain, and now is the time to restore me to myself under your leadership.  But you, lords, go away and defend your cities; it is not fitting that you should disturb beyond measure our quiet with your talk.  You have applauded my friend enough.”

At this point in the story it looks as if Henry Blois was finding it tedious to pad out a story-line in which the main point was to implant polemic and uphold the pseudo-history of HRB. It is here that Henry decides to have one more dabble in Prophecy before an abrupt end to the work, as the three men Merlin, Taliesin and Maeldinus177 send their audience away and remain in the wood along with Merlin’s sister Ganieda.

177The fact that there is a King Melvas at Glastonbury and a Maheloas, a great baron, lord of the Isle of Voirre in Chrétien’s ‘Erec’ and here a Maeldinus (of royal race) all attached to Glastonbury, all having emanated from Melkin or the Maeldanus in the Life of Cadoc (on which Henry based his life of Gildas) just indicates Henry’s ability to conflate sources.

The next set of prophecies Henry Blois wishes to impose on the reader are supposedly spoken by Ganieda, who, incredibly sees into the future from the sixth century. Incredibly so much that is relevant to her reading audience in the twelfth century, who have just lived through the Anarchy. Even to a Norman audience her prophecies must stretch credibility; to believe that the one occasion Ganieda is found prophesying, amazingly, the content of the prophetic vision pertains to the era in which the book which contained her vaticinations was published.

The chieftains departed. The three remained, with Ganieda, the prophet’s sister, making a fourth, she who at length had assumed and was leading a seemly life after the death of the King who so recently had ruled so many people by the laws he administered.  Now with her brother there was nothing more pleasant to her than the woods.  She too was at times elevated by the spirit so that she often prophesied to her friends concerning the future of the Kingdom.  Thus, on a certain day when she stood in her brother’s hall and saw the windows of the house shining with the sun she uttered these doubtful words from her doubtful breast.

Any reader who has just been bored while traipsing through the construction of VM as we have just done, will shortly be able to make a bonefide decision about whether or not Henry Blois is writing these prophecies. What most scholars already understand is that whoever authored the Merlin prophecies composed HRB. Once this is understood, it becomes very evident from Ganieda’s prophecies below that the author of GS is the same person also and is still alive in 1157 which total negates a dead Geoffrey from composing them!!!. 

Ganieda starts with the three defining moments of the Anarchy, the seizing of Roger of Salisbury and Alexander of Lincoln at Oxford, the siege at Winchester and the battle of Lincoln.  If truth were told, the Anarchy probably would not have taken place if Henry Blois had not manipulated the crown onto his brother’s head. The events are so highly relevant to Henry Blois, it is doubtful that there was anyone who would be more concerned with such issues. Again, the content exposes Henry Blois as the author,  but I have put the explanation in the appendix so I can move on from VM as some elucidations are lengthy.

 I see the city of Oxford filled with helmeted men, and the holy men and the holy bishops bound in fetters by the advice of the Council,178 and men shall admire the shepherd’s tower reared on high, and he shall be forced to open it to no purpose and to his own injury.179  I see Lincoln walled in by savage soldiery and two men shut up in it, one of whom escapes to return with a savage tribe and their chief to the walls to conquer the cruel soldiers after capturing their leader.180  O what a shame it is that the stars should capture the sun, under whom they sink down, compelled neither by force nor by war!181 I see two moons in the air near Winchester182 and two lions acting with too great ferocity,183 and one man looking at two and another at the same number, and preparing for battle and standing opposed.184  The others rise up and attack the fourth185 fiercely and savagely but not one of them prevails, for he stands firm and moves his shield and fights back with his weapons and as victor straightway defeats his triple enemy.  Two of them he drives across the frozen regions of the north while he gives to the third the mercy that he asks, so that the stars flee through all portions of the fields.186The Boar of Brittany, protected by an aged oak, takes away the moon, brandishing swords behind her back.187  I see two stars engaging in combat with wild beasts beneath the hill of Urien where the people of Gwent and those of Deira met in the reign of the great Coel188 O with what sweat the men drip and with what blood the ground while wounds are being given to the foreigners!189  One star collides with the other and falls into the shadow, hiding its light from the renewed light.190 Alas what dire famine shall come, so that the north shall inflame her vitals and empty them of the strength of her people.191 It begins with the Welsh and goes through the chief parts of the Kingdom, and forces the wretched people to cross the water.192 The calves accustomed to live on the milk of the Scottish cows that are dying from the pestilence shall flee.193  Normans depart and cease to bear weapons through our native realm with your cruel soldiery.  There is nothing left with which to feed your greed for you have consumed everything that creative nature has produced in her happy fertility.  Christ, aid thy people! Restrain the lions and give to the country quiet peace and the cessation of wars.”

178See appendix 21

179See appendix 22

180See appendix 23

181See appendix 26

182On 14 September 1141, Queen Matilda and Empress Matilda, ‘the two moons’ brought their rival forces to the rout of Winchester. See also appendix 22

183Duke Henry the future King Henry II and Stephen are the two lions, and the one man looking at two and another man looking at two are Henry Blois and Theobald of Bec already mentioned at the ’Ford of the Staff’ (Wallingford). Henry Blois and Theobald of Bec are the peacemakers as neither side (situated each side of the river), wanted to fight. As Henry equates himself with Cicero he would know: A bad peace is always better than a good war.

184The one man is Henry Blois looking at the two. The two are the Queen Matilda i.e. King Stephen’s wife and the Empress Matilda. ‘Another’ is Robert of Gloucester looking at the two also, preparing for battle.

185William the Conqueror, Henry Blois’ Grandfather was accounted the first Leonine king in the Libellus Merlini which only went to four Kings originally;  William II, was the third son of William the conqueror of England, called William Rufus. He was the second Leonine king. The third was Henry Ist and the fourth was King Stephen the brother of Henry Blois. Orderic Vitalis says: crowned on the eighteenth of the calends of January being the fourth King of the Norman race.

186See appendix 25

187See appendix 24

188See appendix 27

189See appendix 28

190See appendix 29

191See appendix 30

192‘In the same week, a like good fortune smiled on King Stephen in another part of the Kingdom. For the earl of Albemarle and Roger de Mowbray had an engagement with the King of Scotland,’ and having put to the sword a multitude of the Scots, avenged the cruel slaughter which these people had made of the English without any respect for the Christian religion. The Scots, it appears, fearing the sword which threatened them, fled towards the water, and rushing into the river Tweed where there was no ford, in their attempt to escape death, met it by drowning.’ After the war had continued for a length of time between the two Kings, and it had been accompanied by great atrocities on the one side and on the other, to the general loss, envoys were sent by divine inspiration, to treat of peace between the two Kings, now weary of pillage and slaughter, as well as of continual anxiety and toil; and thus their alliance was renewed’.

193See appendix 30. Also, a poem in Canu Taliesin entitled The Battle of Gwen Ystrat: “The men of Catraeth arise with the day around a battle-victorious, cattle-rich sovereign this is Uryen by name, the most senior leader.”

The word Neustrians is employed for Normans so that an air of antiquity is maintained. Here, unlike in the original Libellus Merlini where the Normans were saviours, we now fully understand that Henry II is on the throne and Henry’s only hope of return to England is to rouse the Celts to rebellion by appearing seemingly to castigate the Normans.194 Henry Blois does not betray his Norman heritage; just as he averts all suspicion of authorship of the Gesta Stephani by being on occasion derogatory about himself. The stratagems employed to divert suspicion of authorship in the various works in the course of this exposé are varied and ingenious. Henry Blois writing as ‘Geoffrey’ in the VM, speaking as Ganieda, Merlin or Taliesin feigns British nationality as can be seen below by his inference that the author is British:

1. The war-lord Horsa and many others met their deaths at the hands of our men.

2. She promptly sent word overseas to her brother to come back with sufficiently large forces to overcome our warrior people.

3. Our men made a great effort in an attack

4. And they conquered by the sword all the territories of our native land that lie beyond the Humber.

5. During this time the faithless and foolhardy guardian of our realm

6. Your power will not prove a match for our fierce nation.

Berating the Normans has the same effect. The confirmation of that which I have maintained about Henry Blois employing the updated Merlin prophecies to rouse all the Celts to come together is laid bare here. The VM was written in the period between 1155 and 1158 when Henry was trying a desperate ploy to regain power. This upstart son of Henry Blois’ nemesis i.e. the Empress Matilda had come down hard on Henry Blois as soon as Stephen was dead.  No Norman or Anglo-Norman, especially a cleric in Oxford, would have the audacity to write that the ‘Normans should depart and cease to bear weapons through our native realm with your cruel soldiery’. It is no wonder Gerald relates that King Henry II wanted to obtain a copy of VM.

194We should also note that Henry’s own self image of the importance he wields in determining national events is evidenced in a self-written epitaph on the Meusan plates: lest England groan for it, since on him (Henry Blois) it depends for peace or war, agitation or rest.

If the reader is still not convinced that Henry Blois is the author of these prophecies and the instigator of these updated prophecies which incite rebellion, he should read the version of Merlin’s prophecies supposedly put out by John of Cornwall (which I cover in the section on John of Cornwall). That version puts Henry as the seventh king and Henry Blois vainly sees himself as an ‘adopted son’ firmly on the throne in England. 

However, no Norman could deny in the period just after Stephen’s death that the entire country was depleted. Henry’s readership of VM would understand that the prophecy was indeed an accurate prediction by Ganieda. Henry’s last devise is to appeal to Christ (as if it were a Briton speaking) through Ganieda that peace may come as she ends her prophecy with: Restrain the lions and give to the country quiet peace and the cessation of wars.”

Ganieda having ‘seen’ so many tumultuous events which apply to the reign of Stephen, six hundred years in her future, may have tested the whole of VM’s credibility. However, Henry’s vanity had Ganieda see things which concerned Henry Blois directly. It is not by coincidence that historical records of events to which Ganieda alludes and which provides the explanation of all of Ganieda’s prophecies are covered in detail in GS (again authored by Henry Blois). Deflection and secrecy of authorship was vital, especially when we consider the consequences if the Bishop of Winchester was discovered in such a deception and of the invention of Merlin and his prophecies.   

She did not stop with this and her companions wondered at her, and her brother, who soon came to her, spoke approvingly with friendly words in this manner, “Sister, does the spirit wish you to foretell future things, since he has closed up my mouth and my book?  Therefore this task is given to you; rejoice in it, and under my favour devoted to him speak everything.

‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ speaking through Merlin then goes on to convince his readers that Ganieda spoke of future events by the spirit and contrives the rhetorical question referring to his book of the prophecies of Merlin. Such a device verifies the credibility of such a book for the naïve and gullible of his reading audience (even to modern scholars).

I think Henry realises that some of his audience may pay little respect to prophecies from a woman no one has heard of before. So, the great Merlin adds his stamp of authority explaining (so that we might understand how it is that we are blessed with Ganieda’s insight) and the reason Merlin’s mouth has been ‘shut’. This indeed must be because (in reality) Merlin’s initial book (libellus Merlini) was already published and it had already been squewed from its original to the updated prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB.

 Prophecies such as the Dumbarton and Carlisle prophecies were added here in VM and it would seem odd for more newly invented prophecies to turn up that had not previously been mentioned. Henry could not help himself in referring to the major parts of the Anarchy which Merlin had somehow missed and so they were seen by Ganieda instead.

The close to VM is rather a dull and an odd circumlocution on which to end an extraordinary composition which as a whole expresses the Mental state of Henry Blois while at Clugny. He goes depressed and gets his life back but certainly he nervous of returning to England as recorded in the letter from Theobald of Bec: You need have no fear for the future, dear brother, because the King himself is longing for your return and promises peace and security of every kind; and that you may not have the least doubt of this, we are taking your safety into our hands by giving you safe conduct from the coast to the King’s presence…

So, ‘Geoffrey’ ends the VM with:

I have brought this song to an end.  Therefore, ye Britons, give a wreath to Geoffrey of Monmouth.  He is indeed yours for once he sang of your battles and those of your chiefs, and he wrote a book called “The Deeds of the Britons” which are celebrated throughout the world.

Whether ‘Geoffrey’ wrote this with his original or not is only contested on the point that the colophon exists in one manuscript. However, it acts as a confirmation that the two works of HRB and VM are by the same supposed author who, (even though this VM has only recently been published circa late 1156 to 1157) is now dead and supposedly died in 1154. Tongue in cheek, Henry Blois suggests a memorial to a person that never lived. The real problem would have been laying the wreath on his grave because there wasn’t one. More importantly it gives the illusion that all these prophecies were written before Henry II came to the throne. Lastly and the probable insertion of this last colophon is to show that Geoffrey of Monmouth linked back to Galfridus Artur the author of the Primary Historia which as EAW relates was titled De gestis Britonum. The later title the Historia regum Britanniae (The History of the Kings of Britain) or the Vulgate version was originally titled De gestis Britonum in1138 or the Deeds of the Britons as in the colophon of VM.

Henry Blois lived until 1171, so there is the possibility of later additions by Henry.  However, considering Henry’s recall to England, by Theobald of Bec, the terminus post quem fits the recently received news at Clugny. This is the news of a July 1157 battle at Coleshill. A battle in which Henry II was victorious and remained alive and therefore Henry Blois’ wish of insurrection was doubtful to come true; hence, the sudden termination of the VM with these events and a return to Winchester and the King’s Court. Henry Blois was very nervous about his return as can bee seen by Theobald allaying his fears of return in the letters sent to him.

There may only be one objection to an 1157 completion date which Tatlock discusses,195 based upon assumptions made by Delisle,196 but these should be dismissed. Tatlock gives a completion date not much after 1148. The discrepancy arises in a comment on the differentiation between Merlinus Ambrosius and Merlinus Caledonius or Silvester. The assertion for a date prior to 1157 is based upon two library catalogue descriptions of Geoffrey’s HRB one copied from the other197 in Normandy, where we read… Libri XII, in quorum septimo continentur prophetiae Mellini, non Silvestris, sed alterius, id est Mellini Ambrosii.  The comment on the two Merlin’s is derived from Bec library, but Crick198 informs us, the Leiden manuscript was catalogued in 1160, so I can see no reason to assume a date prior to 1157 given that ‘Geoffrey’ did not die in 1154-5.

Tatlock seems to assume the Leyden MS, which has the VM prefixing the whole manuscript (containing much besides the HRB), who assigns an early HRB date (basing his premise purely upon the dedication), proposes as said…. ‘not much after 1148’ for the Vita’.  He dates the second of the library cataloguing ‘between early 1152 and 1154’ and the first even earlier. This would have to be wrong on account of Stephen’s ‘nineteen’ years mentioned in the text of VM and the ‘sixth in Ireland’ prophecy which must post-date 1155.

195Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Vita Merlini 272

196Bibl.Ecc. Des Chartres, LXXI, 506-509, and in Faral II 20-22.

197Crick’s 76&92 MSS

198The Historia regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth IV. Dissemination and reception in later middle ages Prof. Julia C. Crick, 204

No previous proposition should prevent us here maintaining a completion date for the Vita Merlini as late as Aug- Sept 1157; and the terminus post quem of Chambers, Faral, Parry and Bruce is inconsequential based mainly upon the 13 December 1148 election date of Robert de Chesney to Lincoln and its supposedly recent transpiration made to appear by reason of the word ’just/recently’ in the preamble of VM.

  Dedications as a form of dating in both HRB and VM have no bearing on the date of the work as commentators such as Crick need to understand before teaching another generation of scholars incorrectly.199 Crick has certainly done a lot of legwork but I just can’t see what she achieves not establishing ‘who’ Geoffrey is firstly and by ploughing through manuscript evidence: Moreover, without manuscript evidence, there is virtually no indication of how the work was disseminated; we have only Gaimar’s description of how the Historia text he used was obtained via Walter Espec  from Robert of Gloucester. As we shall cover shortly Gaimar’s epilogue is composed by Henry Blois, so Crick is wildly misled. I will cover Gaimar and his epilogue in progression.

We can rely on Ganieda’s prophecy of the two kings meeting at Wallingford to set a date of at least 1153. That is, if it had not been shown that the ‘sixth in Ireland’ prophecy could only have occurred later than 1155. If we take the later suppositions of sedition and Coleshill…. we can get a date as late as 1157; nearly ten years after Tatlock’s date. Their early reckoning too is based on Henry Blois’ propaganda insertions into  the book of Llandaff which provided the date of the Bishop of Asaph’s death along with the conclusion drawn about De Chesney’s recent election in 1148

Henry’s dedication to Robert de Chesney was just another form of ruse to hide Henry’s identity by choosing and flattering those who he had little respect for. It was also made to keep up the illusion that the bishop’s of Lincoln were ‘Geoffrey’s’ patrons. Not even Robert de Chesney could deny that his predecessor might have commissioned the prophecies translation by Geoffrey and that Geoffrey had taken it upon himself to write VM for his own further advancement appealing to a patron of the same diocese. There was no request involved in reality, and of course, if de Chesney did see VM, he would assume that Geoffrey died before he could present it. My bet would be that the VM was circulated continentally first and then after 1166 was introduced with a dedication after de Chesney was dead.

Henry Blois did not need their patronage and the entire dedicatory tone was a stratagem meant to mislead. The dedication could have been added after De Chesney’s death as ‘Geoffrey’ had done with  the dedications in Vulgate HRB.

The first definitive assertion of differentiation between the two Merlins’ is by Gerald de Barri in Itinerarium Cambriae written in 1188-91 long after Crick’s 1160 date for cataloguing the Leiden MS. However, 1160 is still two years subsequent to Henry’s move back to Winchester from Clugny. Even though Henry Blois was patron to Gerald,200 Gerald never suspected Henry Blois as the author of HRB. Gerald, happy to quote Merlin, had not much good to say about ‘Geoffrey’. 

To my mind, (disregarding the possibility of Henry’s vaticinatory ability), the whole paragraph toward the end of VM has to have been written after the event of Coleshill. Such a flimsy detail regarding the death of Geoffrey in 1155 seems immaterial since his persona is a fabrication anyway.

199The most balanced scholar in his approach to Geoffrey’s work is Prof. O.J. Padel: What is certain is Geoffrey’s subtlety and the complexity of his work: the gravest error that we students can commit is to underestimate it. The more one learns about his work, the more one feels that Geoffrey was always one step ahead of his twentieth-century readers: anything that we may establish, by dint of hard work and detailed scholarship, is open to revision by some future discovery.

200David Knowles. Saints and Scholars. P 55. It is largely due to Gerald’s record, who only knew Henry in his later life after his return from Clugny in 1158, which has secured Henry’s reputation in posterity as a revered elder statesman of the church giving generous patronage and wise council to such as King Henry II and Becket alike.

Taliesin was a sixth century poet and bard whose work has partially survived in the Welsh manuscript, the Book of Taliesin. Taliesin who is believed to have sung at the courts of at least three Celtic British Kings would of course interest ’Geoffrey’ and provide a contemporaneous companion and bouncing board in the VM for Merlin. Taliesin’s work dated from a few poems to the sixth century, praises King Urien of Rheged and his son Owain mab Urien, and several of the poems imply that he also served as the court bard to King Brochfael Ysgithrog of Powys and his successor Cynan Garwyn, either before or during his time at Urien’s court. Some of the events to which his poems refer, such as the Battle of Arfderydd may be the source for historical annals as Taliesin seems to have been at the battle just as Merlin pretends to be.

Taliesin’s name is directly linked with the Y Gododdin from which we have the poetic account previously mentioned and he is also mentioned in Nennius’s Historia Brittonum. Strangely, it would seem that this second Merlin Sylvestris is modelled upon Taliesin because even Taliesin’s parentage like Merlin’s was suspect. Although not an incubus, Taliesin was adopted as a child by Elffin, the son of Gwyddno Garanhir, but also more to the point, he has a possible connection to the original Melkin, (Meldred, Melvas, Maelgwn, all Kings) as Taliesin prophesied the death of Maelgwn from the Yellow Plague. 

Taliesin also became companion of Bran the Blessed and King Arthur which sounds suspect as a late addition. But in the life of St Cadoc we hear: ‘in those days, a certain King, of the name of Maelgon, reigned over all Britain’. This I am sure was ‘Geoffrey’s’ reason for the inclusion of Maeldanus as a contemporary with Taliesin and Merlin in VM. The triple death divination and a prophetic madman called Lailoken befriended by St Kentigern of Glasgow (d.603) certainly associates more closely with a Calidonian Merlin. The Merlin in VM is a stargazing Merlin rather than an incubus as this would be unacceptable to readers.

The reasons for reconstituting Merlin in the Vita Merlini is because in HRB, ‘Geoffrey’ had put no flesh on Merlin’s bones. His prophecies were the substance of Merlin Ambosius in HRB. Later in this exposé, we will see Henry’s ingenuity to explain how it is that Robert de Boron possesses certain knowledge i.e. of Joseph and the Grail where Merlin is posited (just as he is in the VM), as a type of reappearing time traveller through the ages.

To make Merlin seem more real, Henry needed to give him location at a point in time with the added reality of interactive contemporaries who existed in history in the era projected by ‘Geoffrey’. 

Henry Blois does clearly expose his authorship of the Vita Merlini in many places, but even in the HRB Henry betrays his own sentiments too often: ‘the disaster they had suffered in the loss of the Kingdom, they sent as legate Constantius the senator,…a wise man and a hardy, who had wrought more than any other to magnify the power of the commonweal’.

Henry Blois just after the primary historia was discovered at Bec became Legate and this is the time such embellishments or expansions between Primary Historia were made. Henry Blois was papal legate in England 1139–43 just at the time where we see these expansions split one version of expansions being included in First Variant and the other branch going toward expansions found in Alfred of Beverley’s copy.

Henry just happens to be a ‘legate’ also and it should be no shock that ‘Constantius took unto himself the crown of the Kingdom and therewithal the daughter of Coel unto wife. Her name was Helena, and all the damsels of the Kingdom did she surpass in beauty, nor was none other anywhere to be found that was held more cunning of skill in instruments of music nor better learned in the liberal arts’.

We will see that Henry Blois’ prospect of a marriage to a nun is Henry Blois’ possible hope in John of Cornwall’s rendition of the prophecies.

As Tatlock points out201 ‘one must be wary of assuming that every authentic legendary or historical Briton name here reflects in the attached narrative authentic tradition. Invented narrative attached to authentic names belonging to the same period concerned or other periods, is so common in the HRB as to be fairly called its formula’.

As I have mentioned, it seems that Henry employs a metaphor, interchanging the woods or forest for Clugny as opposed to the material world at court he had been part of; full of double dealings, deceit and lies.  He had been greatly concerned with affairs in the Anarchy, during the years his brother was in power. I suggest that the innocence of the cloister boy returning home was like rediscovering inner peace and assuaging his anxiety at the loss of his wealth which is mentioned in the letter from Theobald in note 1.

Clugny was the woods, the forest of Calidon, and a place to heal one’s conscience from the madness he had endured in England and this is reflected in the opening of VM (especially with the 19 years coinciding with his brother’s reign). I might suggest also that some who were religiously instructed from an early age undergo a self-realisation of past misdemeanours and account this religious experience as a form of madness within themselves. This may be part of the reason for its inclusion in the story-line of the Vita Merlini and the feeling that Merlin gets back to his old self and his previous personality is restored after drinking the water.

Although not suggested by its manuscript tradition, it would seem from the later references to the VM that it was popular, but I believe the reason for its lesser dissemination as opposed to that of the HRB is that Henry did not propagate copies throughout the monastic system on the continent…. probably because it was less acceptable in verse firstly and also the monastic system viewed the HRB as a good read of history in Latin.

The VM had much less history and was designed to be read aloud at court. Therefore, it was not reproduced and distributed on the scale of the HRB in monastic scriptoriums. HRB’s distribution was simply achieved by handing it out to grandees and abbeys in the course of Henry’s travels; innocuously secreting its authorship, by presenting it as an interesting and inoffensive work by a non-descript cleric called Geoffrey. 

The Vita Merlini in general can be seen to be derived from various sources, but it has a disconnected style compared with the unique condensation and organised construction of the HRB which ‘does its best’ to follow time chronologically. The Vita is no less contrived but its structure is haltering; as if Geoffrey after a long focus has to realign his plot to make sure that the points for which the Vita Merlini was produced are made. The overall effect is a less flowing structure than the HRB, (but to have versified some of Isidore’s work is already a feat).  Maybe this is acceptable to Henry, who, throughout the matter of fact HRB, presented it as believable History.  Henry adjusted his sights and agenda and in his first word says:

I am preparing to sing the madness of the prophetic bard, and a humorous poem on Merlin.

He in fact carries out certain intended facets which in effect help to align his propaganda concerning a partly fictional history which was to become known as the Matter of Britain.

201Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Vita Merlini 269

Pin It on Pinterest