Tuesday, 28 July 2015



 Please go to the new 2019 updated website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
The following extract is from a book by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot titled The Island of Avalon which shows that The Matter of Britain concerning King Arthur and Joseph of Arimathea by early Grail writers such as Robert de Boron and Chretien de Troyes who mention Avalon and that island's subsequent relation to Glastonbury abbey, materialised as a propaganda stunt by Henry Blois Abbot of Glastonbury. The book also provides evidence explaining how Geoffrey of Monmouth's HRB was composed by Henry Blois and the several charters signed by the supposed Galfridus were signed fraudulently by Henry Blois.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6


The Oxford charters of Gaufridus Artur, Bishop of Asaph.




The Vulgate HRB version which has the name ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ attached is a stroke of genius latterly applied to that version of the original found at Bec abbey supposedly written by a certain Galfridus Artur.  It should be obvious from Huntingdon's précis of the version found at Bec found in EAW that the Vulgate and the earliest version were very different in content. Huntingdon neither mentions Merlin or his prophecies as they were not present in the text read by Huntingdon.
Essentially, what has transpired and fooled generations of scholars into believing Geoffrey of Monmouth really existed is that the ‘wily’ Henry Blois had seen a certain ‘Ralf of Monmouth’ on some already pre-existing charters while in the scriptorium at Oxford. Since Henry Blois has based his Arthurian epic in Wales, he decides to witness with ‘Ralf of Monmouth’ (and Walter) as if they were acquaintances and contemporary. It does not seem silly to suggest that it is from seeing Raldolfo de Monmuta that Henry derives his inspiration for his invented persona’s heritage from Monmouth. We must not forget that Galfridus Artur was the composer of the Primary Historia as witnessed by Huntingdon, not the latter name of Galfridus Monemutensis which Henry Blois employed as author of the Vulgate version.  To veil his authorship, Henry makes the pretence of being a Briton. No-one was ever going to come face to face with the author of HRB ((except where Henry Blois has planted evidence of his elevation to Bishop in front of Archbishop Theobald).
Certain critics of HRB and the Merlin prophecies looked for an author and thus the elaborate trail of corroborative evidence which was planted by Henry Blois.  My suggestion of the sequence of events is that Henry Blois signed the oxford charters in 1153 after Wallingford and only attached his 'Geoffrey of Monmouth' appellation to the Vulgate version and not the earlier more biblically referenced First Variant version as explained previously. Henry may have established the faux personage of Bishop of Asaph before inventing the nom de plume Geoffrey of Monmouth, if (as I have suggested) all the charters were signed at one time in 1153. It might seem rational to suppose that the Oxford charters coincide chronologically with Huntingdon’s reference to Galfridi Arthuri, and a real person exists. This to my mind and considering the entire evidence presented in the work is definitively not the case!  What are the chances that a Welshman from the Welsh Marches has the name of the King on which the 'hope of the Briton’s' rested and coincidentally is the one who writes about him? Commentators have thought it is a patronymic or even a ‘nickname’ based on Galfridus’ renown.[1] It is a certain fact that 'Geoffrey' was not renowned when Huntingdon discovered his text. Henry Blois chose the Galfridus Artur nom de plume long before he scribbled his signature on a few already completed (extant) charters at Oxford in 1153-4.  It would also be a near impossible chance (which confirms for us the improbable coincidence); if our Galfridus Arthur was capable enough to construct a book and was the one person with a name of the chivalric hero…. who just happened to be the protagonist of the latter half of the book he had coincidentally been given by Archdeacon Walter and then miraculously, he was able to translate it word for word. More miraculously Merlin's prophecies found in the later Vulgate version confirming much of the supposed narrative found therein. In other words it would be one almighty coincidence if the figure of Arthur (for whom the Britons held hope of his return) just happened to be the HRB author’s name anyway (remembering he could not have been renowned before 1139, Orderic's passage on the Merlin prophecies being an obvious interpolation into that work as already explained). That the Galfridian author just so happened to have the same name as his obviously concocted chivalric hero is beyond credibility. So, if it is a concocted name and a fabricated story…. why are modern scholars slow not to see it as a pseudonym of a concocted persona designed to hide the real identity of the author. 
If the real author didn’t exist …. how could the bishop of Asaph? This idiocy is excused by scholars by informing us it is ‘Geoffrey’s’ prolific fame from which a nick name has been derived. There was no fame in 1139!  Why would Huntingdon be ‘amazed’ at finding the book if his own patron had not mentioned the fame of Galfridus Artur? 

Fact..... Henry Blois, sat in a scriptorium or some such room at Oxford where records and scrolls were held and picked random charters from a shelf and returned them with varied additional signatures.

There are seven charters signed which pertained to the neighbourhood of Oxford with the Galfridus personage's signature affixed. These are thought by most scholars to have been signed for the purpose of witnessing the pertinent transaction; all in a period covering 22 years from 1129 – 1151. R.S Loomis like all the other previous ‘Arthurian scholars’ pronounces on these grounds:’ During these years 1129-51 he wrote the works by which he is known’.  This is conjecture as all the charters were signed at one time while Henry Blois was in attendance at a meeting in 1153-4 at Oxford Castle as we shall cover shortly.

In the first charter, the foundation charter of Osney abbey, Henry Blois inserts a signature as Galfrido Artur.  There are a handful of witnesses both clerks and knights who witness the original unadulterated charter also. The charter today is a copy and the other 'Galfridian' charters are found in other cartularies…. so, we cannot see where the name is inserted, but Waltero archidiacono is also a signatory. Is it not a strange fact that we know the First Variant stems from 1144 and 1149[2] where there is no mention of ‘Walter’ or ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’. We can conclude the inspiration for the ‘Monmouth’ appellation was derived from Henry having seen Ralph’s provenance on the charters at Oxford. The inclusion of Walter as the provider of the source book in the Vulgate HRB was also inspired in the Vulgate (which followed First Variant) by the extant charters at Oxford with their signatures already thereon, to which Henry was adding the Galfridus signature.  That Walter was an antiquary may only be attested by Henry Blois (in Gaimar’s epilogue or HRB), so we cannot definitively say that the reference to him as the supplier of the book is based on his interest. It may just be because his name was also on the original unadulterated charters. The fact that Osney was founded in 1129 has little bearing upon when the Gaufridus signature was applied. This is simply a case of retro-interpolation into an extant charter long after Huntingdon had witnessed such a name (Galfridus Arthur) attached to the Primary Historia in 1139.

A second charter at St John’s Oxford, in which Robert D’ Oilly confirms to the secular cannons of St George’s in the Castle at Oxford, gifts of land at Wilton has the slightly different assignation of Galfrido Arthur spelt with an ‘h’, but  the name Waltero archidiacono is the same as it is a genuine signature. This is probably from the same period because it has Robert D’Oilly’s earlier seal on it.

There is also a deed recorded in the Godstow Cartulary, in which Walter the Archdeacon grants to Godstow an exemption from some arch-diaconal payments. The witnesses are Robert Bishop of Exeter and others; but why, if Bishop Robert has met the great ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’, does he then commission John of Cornwall to translate the prophecies of Merlin from British into Latin sometime around 1149-50, (twenty years after the Godstow deed)…. if indeed ‘Geoffrey’, (a person supposedly standing in the same room), has already carried out such a feat…. and people like Orderic have them in Latin supposedly in 1134 (although as explained this is impossible). Less than a third of John of Cornwall’s verse prophecies come directly from the HRB prophecies of Merlin. We will get to this variance shortly as the John of Cornwall version of the prophecies also was constructed by Henry Blois around 1156-7. Again, the fact that the Bishop of Exeter is dead has no bearing on the JC commission or its prologue. The same device of backdating a work (by citing a dedicatee) is used as that which is evident in the HRB.

It is in this second charter in which bishop Robert signs, we come across for the first time a certain Rad. Monumuta signature. It would seem reasonable to assume that it is the close association with this name, along with Galfridus’, which has convinced commentators (amongst evidences provided by the Book of Llandaff) that ‘Geoffrey’ was genuinely from Monmouth i.e. he had a friend called Ralph, also from the environs.

The area of Southern Wales after Henry Ist time and especially during Stephen’s early reign was in constant turmoil from incursions by the Welsh against Norman fortifications. Henry Blois undoubtedly knew this area and had witnessed the Roman remains at Caerleon and had located Nennius’ synonymous City of Legions there.   At the start of GS, much of the action takes place in Southern Wales. Matilda’s brother was Duke of Gloucester who was Henry and Stephen’s arch enemy, along with Miles of Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford and his son Roger. Gloucester and Hereford, both places within a twenty mile radius of Monmouth and Woodchester and Caerleon. It would be silly to think that Henry did not know this area, especially if we have identified his castle at Kidwelly. Henry based his Arthurian escapade in this area and thus, when he saw Ralph of Monmouth’s name (in the charter) he decided in his Vulgate HRB edition to name himself as Geoffrey of Monmouth (Galfridus Monemutensis). He had referred to himself originally as Galfridus Arturus, the writer of the first edition Historia Brittonum or as I have named it: Primary Historia.  Alfred of Beverley only refers to him as Britannicus, yet rather than this meaning the ‘Welshman’ it probably means not of Saxon (English) or Norman stock but Celtic/Briton. One would certainly get that impression from the contents of the prophetia and HRB. But it is only in the Vulgate version, the Monmouth appellation is added where ‘Geoffrey’ hails from Monmouth and the Vulgate is titled Historia Regum Britanniae.
 Rad. de Monumuta signs his name…. and just after we see Henry has promoted his bogus persona. He signs as mag. Galf. Arturus. Five different ways of signing one’s name is probably Henry Blois’ way of giving the illusory appearance of a gap of time between each signature. Who has this many permutations to one name: Galfrido Artur, Galfrido Arthur, Galfrido Artour, Galfrido Arturo; and must have signed the Primary Historia as Galfridus Arturus.  What is his function at Oxford, and why, (when he supposedly becomes bishop elect or bishop itself), does he require a name change dropping the ’L’ to Gaufridus. If one were to be cynical, it seems a pointless exercise being Bishop of Asaph and staying in Oxford.

A coincidence is that the writer of the De mirabilibus urbis Romae, is a certain Magister Gregorius which, as we will show shortly, was also written by Henry Blois.

The dating of the deed is not important, but is dated to 1139, because in the charter which precedes it in the Cartulary, Bishop Alexander states that the grant which Archdeacon Walter made at the abbey of Godstow was made in the presence of King Stephen.

 Now around the same date, again in the same cartulary is a grant of land in Shillingford by Archdeacon Walter with Radulfo de Monumuta and above his name is inserted Galfrido Arturo.

In the four charters to date, one man has spelt his name four different ways. This is a ploy of variation in spelling used in the HRB and the Vita. It pretends a time span between signing or in the case of HRB and VM, time has corrupted the spelling.

 In 1139, when Stephen and his court are arresting bishops in Oxford in the presence of Henry Blois, at that time, there is a statement in the same cartulary by Archdeacon Walter that when the church of St. Giles, Oxford was founded, he agreed that his Villains (rustici) in Walton should pay their tithes to the new church.  When, in 1139, it became the property of Godstow, Walter, in the statement renewed his permission; again, witnessed by Radulfo de Monmuta. Why is ‘Geoffrey’s’ surname,( if it is his patronymic), spelt five different ways. If it is a nickname and transposed onto his persona by public renown, why if he is scribbling his own signature and it is a real nickname, does he find it necessary to have different forms of it.

Also in the Godstow cartulary is a grant of land in Knolle by a certain ‘Richard Labanc’, but Henry Blois, keeping track of his fraudulent illusion’s chronological sequence and continuing the pretense that ‘Geoffrey’s’ aspiring ambition is coming to fruition; signs his name as Gaufridus episcopus sancti Asaphi; again, along with a Walter Oxenefordie archdiaconus.  Walter died in 1151 and in the Bittlesden Cartulary there is a charter dated ‘the feast of Remigus (12 May) 1151 and it is attested by Robert Foliot, Archdeacon of Oxford. Robert Foliot had already succeeded Walter by this date; so ‘Geoffrey’s’ supposed friend Walter is definitely dead.  So how is it, Henry Blois, (as he signs as ‘Geoffrey’) was now bishop of Asaph? This is not possible…. if we believed any of these signatures reflect a living bishop of Asaph. The answer might be that Henry Blois, after Walter’s death, forgets the exact date he died and signs as if Galfrido Arthur had attained his ambition. The problem is that the fictitious ‘Geoffrey’ did not get elected until the 24th February 1152…. so how could he be signing alongside a dead person if he were real! Modern scholars’ rationalization is that they now believe the charter is a fake. Rather…. it is down to the fact that Henry has added the bishop’s name inadvertently forgetting the chronological sequence.

Henry Blois was fraudulently applying the signatures after the fact because how could a supposed bishop of Asaph apply his signature alongside a Walter that died in 1151 when he only became bishop in 1152. The charter concerning land in Knolle is too inconsequential to be a fake as the scholars have proposed.  The answer is not that the original charter is a fraud or any of the other six charters; but the signature has been added after the fact.  Henry Blois has not considered accurately the date of Walter’s death to coincide with Theobald’s fictitious ordination. It is Henry Blois’ promotion of ‘Geoffrey’ to ‘Bishop’ which is the chronological error, not the charter itself. It just helps to support the point that Henry is inserting Galfridian signatures into extant charters.

Normally with this kind of discrepancy one assumes a fraudulent charter as most scholars have divined, but a Mr. W. Farrer is at pains to clear up the conundrum by showing us that ‘Episcopus’ could be used for one who was only ‘bishop-elect’.  This is not a good solution in this case; as there is a charter of Bishop Robert de Chesney in the Thame cartulary upon which Henry Blois signs as mag. Gaufridus electus sancti Asaphi, alongside a Rob. Oxonefordie archidiaconus. The point being that, (as in this charter), if Henry were going to sign as ‘bishop elect’ to imply Geoffrey’s status, he would have written it as he meant it; just as he has done before. The other point already mentioned is that the charter deed is of such little consequence…. it is hardly a prudent fraud for monetary gain and therefore can be deemed not a forgery itself. 

The last, but most important, charter puts Henry Blois at the scene of the fraud. It would be a strange quirk of fate, given the evidence so far, if the witness, Galfrido and the bishop of Winchester, signing the same document, were not one and the same.  ‘Geoffrey’s’ name appears in the form Galfrido de S. Asaph episcopo on the treaty of Winchester.[3]  As we know, a temporary truce was reached at Wallingford in July on the banks of the Thames as described in the GS and highlighted as a predicted episode in the Merlin prophecies.[4]  Eustace, Stephen’s son, was annoyed that a deal had been struck, as the Treaty of Winchester essentially removed the crown from his reach. A formal agreement between Stephen and Henry Fitz Empress as the future Henry II was drawn up at Winchester. The probability is that, Henry Blois, as one of the negotiators with Theobald of Bec, composed the terms of the document. In the later Treaty of Westminster an undue proportion of it was concerning William’s inheritance, as Eustace had already (suspiciously) died.

Henry, as we saw earlier had an uncle’s affections for Eustace; evidenced by paying for the pomp of his knighthood. Eustace had a sudden and suspicious death on the 17 August 1153, a month after the truce at Wallingford. The Treaty of Wallingford was initially The agreement. Later at Winchester Henry would have drawn up a treaty to end the Anarchy. After Eustace's death the treaty of Westminster was signed in November 1153. Henry Blois, in whose possession the treaty was probably left for good keeping…. signed on ‘Bishop Geoffrey’s’ behalf for the last time. There was no Geoffrey!!!

There is no other bishop of that era where no deed or record exists on any document or in any Cartulary. Our bishop of Asaph is a ghost and more specifically there is no mention of him in Asaph. This has always been put down to the impossibility of ‘Geoffrey’ being able to carry out his duties at Asaph due to the Welsh rebellion. The real reason in reality is because of the war.... Henry chose the location St Asaph as part of his illusion which could not be verified. ‘Geoffrey’ was fictitiously consecrated at Westminster because the bishop of London had just died and Henry was temporary custodian of the see. If the Bishop of Asaph was a man of such repute, supposedly having come to the attention of the most powerful people in the country, it is a bit strange that no-one knows where he is buried or his deeds mentioned. The only person who had the opportunity to carry out this fraud is Henry Blois. We should not forget concerning Geoffrey’s authorship of HRB…. Arthur’s continental battle scene involving Autun and Langres…. and the fact it is in Blois territory…. and so near to Clugny along with the town of Avallon....all in the Bloisregion which he knew so well.
 Henry Blois had already lied on such a large scale re-writing British history in HRB, so what difference would it make to sign a fake name as a witness to some documents and create a persona to hide his authorship….especially if he was ever uncovered as the inventor of the seditious Merlin prophecies. Much of the success of the HRB would depend upon the ability to propagate copies and we know Henry had charge over several scriptoriums. There seems little doubt to the authorship of the VM being by the same person that wrote the prophecies in Vulgate HRB. The content of the prophecies (easpecially Ganieda's) is so highly relevant to Henry himself. The GS, by its descriptions puts Henry on location where the relevant prophecies are detailed.

Our only evidence that the Bishop of Asaph existed in any sort of reality comes from Gervaise of Canterbury. In his Opera Historica, Gervasii Cantuariensis relates: Obit Robertus Episcopus Londonensis. Septimo kalendas Martii sacravit, Theodbaldus Cantuariensis archiepiscopus apud Lambethe Galfridium electum Sancti Asaph, astantibus et cooperantibus Willelmo Norwicensi, et Walterio Rofensi.[5]

'Robert bishop of London died. On the seventh kalends of March (i.e. 23 March) Theobald archbishop of Canterbury consecrated at Lambeth Geoffrey as bishop-elect of St Asaph, with the help and attendance of William of Norwich and Walter of Rouen.'


‘Geoffrey’s’ supposed consecration (as above) was attended and helped by a certain Willelmo Norwicensi, William from Norwich and a Walterio Rofensi, Walter from (Rouen) Rochester? Whoever they were is inconsequential…. as no-one records their names again and…. by late 1154 or 1155 they were probably dead if they ever did exist in reality.

In 1153 the enmity between Theobald of Bec and Henry Blois had dissipated. They had been the negotiators of the peace settlement at Wallingford. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Henry after having concocted a profession and consecration document for the bishop of Asaph while at Canterbury (at a future date), deposited them amongst records. 25 years after the event in 1188, Gervaise records amongst a plethora of other material, the extract provided above. The Bishop of London died and we know Henry oversaw the see for a time while Stephen was alive. Geoffrey of Monmouth was supposedly ordained at Westminster on Saturday 16th of February 1152 and consecrated on Sunday the 24th of February a week later. These dates being endorsed on the fake profession.[6] It would not be tentative to suggest that Gilbert, Geoffrey’s predecessor at Asaph, is also fictitious as nothing is known of him either.

Apart from the two witnesses and supposedly Theobald of Bec…. no one ever met Geoffrey in person. The witnesses to the oxford charters never met him either. How could a living bishop sign next to a dead Walter? One would think if ‘Geoffrey’ were at the signing of the Treaty of Winchester he would emerge on documentation somewhere or by comment of his having been present somewhere. If he were not in Asaph…. where was he?

Apart from Newburgh, only one other contemporary comments on ‘Geoffrey’s’ work. Giraldus Cambrensis was also unconvinced by the veracity of ‘Geoffrey's’ HRB. He recounts in his Itinerarium Cambriae the experience of a man called Meilerius possessed by demons and who could pick out false passages in a book: ‘If the evil spirits oppressed him too much, the Gospel of St John was placed on his bosom, when, like birds, they immediately vanished; but when the book was removed, and the History of the Britons by 'Geoffrey Arthur' was substituted in its place, they instantly reappeared in greater numbers, and remained a longer time than usual on his body and on the book’.

 By the time Giraldus Cambrensis wrote this, Henry Blois was dead, but we should not forget Henry Blois was Giraldus’ patron. It would be safe to assume Henry Blois would have surreptitiously substantiated verbally various parts of ‘Geoffrey’s’ false history of Arthur. Giraldus may have been informed of the interpolated propaganda contents of DA before Henry Blois death. I shall deal with this point later in chapter 27.

 It is interesting that Gerald, like Huntingdon, refers to ‘Geoffrey’ as 'Geoffrey Arthur' not Geoffrey of Monmouth and this form of reference to Geoffrey may well stem from interaction with the bishop of Winchester himself as this might be how he referred to ‘Geoffrey’.

As the venerable statesman, Henry Blois had become patron to Gerald who quoted Merlin prophecies often, but would never have suspected Henry Blois as author of HRB or the prophecies of Merlin. Gerald’s hope of metropolitan for St David’s could well have been encouraged by Henry Blois after Bernard’s passing.

Scholarship has long been suspicious of Geoffrey’s part authorship of the book of Llandaff where corroborative evidence is supplied for the HRB. The same goes for Caradoc of Llancarfan’s so called Gwentian Brut or Brut y Tywysogion; the same supposed author of the Life of Gildas.  Henry Blois, as will be shown in part II of this book is the author of the Life of Gildas. Henry impersonates Caradoc after his death, even though he pointedly steers us away from this possibility by proclaiming through ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ that Caradoc is ‘Geoffrey’s’ contemporary.

Henry had vast resources and could pay or commission works by Welsh monks. Geoffrey who might have been suspected of such a propaganda exercise was thought to be dead. It is certainly Henry Blois who has interpolated the Book of Llandaff with so much ‘coincidental’ corroborative detail.

Henry Blois mode of infiltrating his propaganda into the public domain to secret his authorship takes many forms:

1) Sometimes he invents a persona as he did with Geoffrey of Monmouth and constructs fictitious intimate material as found in HRB and VM whereby the author appears to aspire to rank.

2) Henry Blois may invent an author as he does with Magister Gregorius the author of De mirabilibus urbis Romae, which involves his interest and fascination with the bronze horseman which he includes in the HRB and prophecies, but also shows his fascination with statuary and architecture and Rome.

3) He sometimes interpolates existing work and inserts his own propaganda as we see with the book of Llandaff.

4) He may use an existing author’s name who has expired and wholly composes his propaganda under their name as we witness in Caradoc of Llancarfan’s life of Gildas.

5) He will take another’s work such as William of Malmesbury’s Antiquitates and interpolate it.  This method was used to best advantage as that book was specifically dedicated to him. Henry probably had the only original monograph copy. Henry also interpolates a copy of William of Malmesbury’s GR (version B) with a few details concerning Glastonbury. The interpolations in DA and GR by Henry Blois act to confirm that William believed certain things which sometimes he categorically contradicts elsewhere in his other works. It is only when Henry Blois’s evolving agenda is elucidated that we can date and confirm the reasoning behind the interpolations.

6) Henry Blois also is known to have started the rumour concerning Dunstan’s remains at Glastonbury which we shall cover when investigating Eadmer’s letter.

7) He invents spurious contemporaneity in antiquity for authors, feigning eyewitness accounts through a certain Turkill in the De Inventione, where the ‘holy cross’ was brought from Montacute to Waltham, where Henry Blois just happens to be Dean.

8) Henry may be the one who would have us believe Nennius’s original account was written by Gildas, but this is speculative on my part. The supposition is that he did this as he knew the manuscript was a patchwork of older works attributed to Nennius but did not know if there were other copies extant. Nennius, who took it ill that he should be minded to do away the name of Troy in his own country. But since Gildas, the historian, hath treated of this contention at sufficient length[7]…. yet we know Gildas did not mention it; and we know ‘Geoffrey’ has read Nennius.

9)  Henry impersonates Gaimar who had already written L’estoire des Engles. This is very useful to him as he starts with the pretext of having written a previous volume of a French version of ‘Geoffrey’s’ Historia, the supposed L’ estoire des Bretons: Heretofore in the former book, if you remember it, you have heard how perfectly Constantine held the dominion after Arthur.  This happens to be non-existent and no-one else refers to it…. but he pretends L'Estoire des Engles is a continuation of a previous volume put out by Gaimar called L’ estoire des Bretons. The reasoning, I believe, (apart from the fact that Henry wrote the Roman de Brut) for implicating that such a volume had been written is that Henry had initially stated that HRB was a translation of a British book. Later as pressure came to bear in substantiating that this book existed it became a book ex Britannicus…. now understood as Walter’s book having originated from Brittany. Henry provides the only substantiation for Walter’s very ancient book in the famed ‘Gaimar’s epilogue’, the very basis which the HRB relies on for its credibility. It is such an easy illusion to carry out after Gaimar’s death and Henry even has the cheek to state: So that at Winchester, in the cathedral, there is the true history of the Kings. Henry Blois interpolates Gaimar’s L’estoire des Engles  also while having it copied which will be covered in a later chapter.

10) Henry also impersonates Wace who wrote Roman de Rou. Henry, writes a French version of the Historia called Roman de Brut started before 1155 in rhymed vernacular and he uses the First Variant Version at the beginning of Roman de Brut as the template upon which he versifies. This dates Roman de Brut’ start of composition by Henry Blois before Vulgate was finished. Henry adds new details, writing as Wace in the Roman de Brut, concerning the ‘round table’ which were not in the HRB. Henry employs his usual obfuscatory technique because he does not include the Merlin prophecies and says “I am not willing to translate his book, because I do not know how to interpret it. I would say nothing that was not exactly as I said.”  We should not forget Alfred of Beverley had said the prophecies were ‘too long to go into’…. so omits them also. I will cover Henry’s impersonation of Wace by writing the Roman de Brut in a later chapter.

Henry sums up the hope of the Britons impersonating Wace and feigns recalling what Merlin had predicted of Arthur: So the chronicle speaks sooth, Arthur himself was wounded in his body to the death. He caused him to be borne to Avalon for the searching of his hurts. He is yet in Avalon, awaited of the Britons; for as they say and deem he will return from whence he went and live again. Master Wace, the writer of this book, cannot add more to this matter of his end than was spoken by Merlin the prophet. Merlin said of Arthur, if I read rightly, that his end should be hidden in doubtfulness. The prophet spoke truly. Men have ever doubted, and, as I am persuaded, will always doubt whether he liveth or is dead. Arthur bade that he should be carried to Avalon in this hope in the year 642 of the Incarnation.

 If one remembers in HRB, Henry had written: The house of Romulus shall dread the fierceness of his prowess and doubtful shall be his end…. which in itself shows it is Henry Blois inventing the prophecies and corroborating his own bogus continental Arthurian campaign in HRB. ‘Master Wace the writer of this book’ (who hopes to interpret rightly) implants his name so ridiculously in the text it smacks of the epitaph on the leaden cross pointing out that Glastonbury is Avalon. The gambit seems to have fooled most scholars.

11) Lastly, and most cleverly of all, Henry Blois propagates Grail literature through his Nephew’s wives and in other ways which fits his post 1158 agenda in converting Glastonbury to the Island of Avalon.  An Anagram of Henry Blois’ name in the "Elucidation" is prefixed to the rhymed version of Percival le Gallois under the name of Master Blihis, which someone has mistaken ‘Monsieur’ for Monsigneur Blois. How this name is associated with the primary sources of Grail literature is discussed in Part III.

All of these methods of propaganda will be discussed later, along with his most successful work, the propagation of the Perlesvaus and the Joseph of Arimathea material found in Robert de Boron’s work. Once this is understood, it unlocks much of the bewilderment in connecting the issues between Arthurian legend, Glastonburiana and their connection with Grail literature. Once we find out the culprit who has invented the material that comprises The Matter of Britain we are then in a better position to assess from where the source material came and fathom which parts are based in reality.



[1] Even William of Newburgh writes: 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…. However, ‘Geoffrey’ had no renown in 1138 when the book was finished and left at Bec and after 1139 when Huntingdon in EAW named the author of HRB as Galfridus Artur.
[2] This will be covered in a later chapter on the First Variant version.
[3] See Foedera, conventtiones, Literae, etc. by T. Rymer and R. Sanderson, London, 1704-35, Vol 1,14.   Faral, La Légende,ii, 38; J.Parry and R.A. Caldwell, ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’, Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages, ed. R.S. Loomis (Oxford, 1959), 74.
[4] Two Kings shall encounter in nigh combat over the Lioness at the ford of the staff.
[5]  Gervasii Cantuariensis ,Opera Historica,  MCL-XI
[6] Michael Richter, Canterbury Professions (Boydell and Brewer, 1970), relevant entry is no. 95
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)