The following extract is from a book titled the 'Island of Avalon' which shows that the Bishop of Winchester Henry Blois was responsible for the invention of the prophecies of Merlin.
Please go to the new 2019 updated website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
The Interpolation into Orderic’s
book XII
The point of
insertion into Orderic’s history comes just after another short episode which
tells us of Duke Robert, while imprisoned at Cardiff. Supposedly the Duke sees in to the future
like a prophet and sees the death of his son in the ‘White Ship’ incident. He
says: ‘Alas! My son is dead’. Orderic then tells us that no messenger could
have informed the Duke beforehand, averring the miraculous foresight of the
Duke. Orderic Vitalis ends the account with the death of the imprisoned Duke
‘six years afterward’ which also sways the reader’s interpretation of the dating
of the Merlin passage i.e. twenty years before Henry Blois’ prediction of Henry
II invasion of Ireland, which as we know can only be subsequent to 1155. The
entire chapter XLVII in book XII is evidently an interpolation that Henry Blois
has spliced into Orderic’s Chronicle. The choice of
insertion is à propos because
one of the prophecies speaks of the Duke’s son’s death in the ‘White Ship’
incident. The Duke’s capacity as a seer conditions the reader to that
chronological date and thus sets up the Merlin passage to be accepted as part
of the chronicle. The cleverness of Henry Blois is in placing the interpolated
Merlin prophecies in a chronological annal, so that it appears to have been
written while Henry Ist was alive by saying:
I may therefore be allowed to introduce in this work some of his predictions
which appear to relate to the present
era. It is worth looking at the entire chapter XLVII as a whole
because this is the one chapter which has duped scholarship into believing in
the veracity of the prophecies in that they believe the passage was genuinely
written by Orderic while alive in the time of King Henry Ist: See how the prophecy of
Ambrosius Merlin, delivered in the time of Vortigern, King of Britain was
clearly fulfilled in many instances during a period of 600 years. I may therefore be allowed to introduce in
this work some of his predictions which appear to relate to the present era. Merlin was contemporary
with St Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre. He twice crossed over to England in the
time of the Emperor Valentinian, and, disputing against Pelagius and his
disciples, who cavilled at the doctrine of divine grace, confuted the heretics
by many miracles wrought in the name of the Lord. Then, after devoutly
celebrating the feast of Easter, he fought against the Anglo-Saxons, who being
pagans waged war against the Christian Britons; and prevailing more by his
prayers than his arms, routed the heathen host with an army of newly baptised
in the faith, he himself shouting
alleluia during the battle.
Should anyone desire to learn more of these events and the fortunes of the
Britons, he should peruse the books of Gildas the British historian, and Bede
the English writer, in which the reader will find allusive narrative of the
acts of Vortimer and his brothers with those of the valiant Arthur, who fought
twelve battles against the English. We are told that Merlin showed Vortigern a
pond in the middle of the floor, and in the pond two vessels, and in the
vessel's attendant folded up, and in the tent two worms, one of which was white
and the other red. The worms grew very fast and becoming dragons, fought
desperately with each other. At last, the red dragon conquered and drove the
white dragon to the margin of the pond. The King beholding these things, with
the Britons, was sorely distressed and wept. Merlin, being then interrogated by
the astonished spectators, explained in the spirit of prophecy that the pond in
the middle of the floor signified the world; the two vessels, the British isles
; the tent, the towns and villages of Britain, the seats of human habitation ;
by the two worms were meant the British and English people, who should harass
each other by turns in fierce conflicts, until the bloody Saxons, who are designated by the red dragon, had driven
into Cornwall, and to the shores of the ocean, the Britons, who are figured by
the white dragon, because they were arrayed in white at the baptismal font from
the times of King Lucius, and pope Eleutherius.
The prophet also
predicted the course of events which would occur in future ages in the islands
of the north, and reduced his prophecy to writing in allegorical language.
Having spoken of the Germanic worm and
the decimation of Neustria, which was fulfilled in Alfred, brother of
Edward, the son of King Ethelred and his companions at Guilford; he made
predictions concerning the revolutions of the present age, and the troublesome
vicissitudes of affairs, to the following effect : — I will include that which follows shortly.
We know the
interpolation is post 1155 because of the Sixth in Ireland prophecy and the
fact someone is contorting the wording so that the prophecies appear to exist
while Henry Ist is alive. Here in the preamble Henry is annulling the
accusation and derision from the critics that the prophecies are recently
invented. The fact that questions were being raised also about Merlin being an
incubus and prophesying by the Devil is counteracted above in Merlin’s
connection to Christianity…. disputing
against Pelagius and his disciples. For those who were skeptical of the
prophecies in VM and the updates into the Vulgate which could only have been written post 1155….
who has added the ‘decimation of Neustria’ now Henry II is on the throne. This prophecy was not in the earlier Libellus and was not a prophecy that
Henry would have entertained while his brother was alive. ‘Germanic worms’ were
mentioned, but the ‘decimation of Neustria’ has appeared since Henry II has
come to power and some are suspicious. When Henry, in the latter half of 1157,
realises the Celtic rebellion is not going to come to fruition, he tries
ambiguously to connect his previous prophecies intended to cause sedition back
to the time of Alfred. Another piece of evidence I will show further on
(unequivocally) is that the persona of
King Lucius as presented by Geoffrey, as a British king, is entirely Henry
Blois’ invention in HRB. Therefore, we
can establish the Merlin passage in Orderic is definitively an interpolation by
Henry Blois. The passage could not have been written by Orderic at the time
thought by scholars because Primary
Historia was only finished in 1138. Lucius only features as a fabricated
persona in First Variant from 1144 (as partof the association with Eleutherius)
and because the ‘Sixth’ prophecy is also present it must postdate 1155 anyway.
After this brief
account of events, Orderic then goes on to quote nearly verbatim the prophecies
which I will follow with shortly. King Lucius as presented in HRB as King in
Britain is entirely the invention of Henry Blois. ‘Geoffrey’ in HRB employs him
as a splice in chronology based upon Bede’s mistake and the bogus king Lucius
is again employed in DA.
The interpolator
has purposefully changed the colour of the dragons in the opposite from that
presented in the HRB (and Nennius). ‘bloody
Saxons, who are designated by the red dragon’.
It is such an obvious
mistake that is meant to imply that it is an inconsequential muddle of the
chronicler (Orderic)…. and therefore, could not be an interpolation by the very
man who wrote’ the White Dragon is indicative of the Saxons’ in the HRB…. who had it the
same way round as the serpents which are presented in Nennius. An accidental
mistake one might think, but don’t forget Henry Blois in the GS mis-names his
own Nephew as the future Bishop of Durham purposefully to hide his identity as
author as well as a few petty deprecations concerning himself.
We should also be
aware that Henry Blois in the Orderic interpolation employs a gambit found in
HRB, where he accredits certain facts to a historian like Gildas. But what he
refers to is not found in Gildas, i.e. he is trying to establish fact where
none exists. Now, why do we see
‘Orderic’ in this interpolation employing the very same tactic? It is because
the writer of the Merlin interpolation into Orderic is Henry Blois. Orderic mentions Guortemirus and his
brothers, and Arthur and his twelve battles as all appearing in Gildas-Nennius
and Bede. Henry knows the battles are not in Bede and yet are in Nennius. He
uses the same ploy in HRB several times. Now it is hardly likely that Orderic
would assert such a thing. It is Henry establishing corroborative sources,
especially by propagating the work of Nennius under the name of the respected
Gildas. This is evidenced in that we next learn that the Saxons drove the
Britons into Cornwall. This is neither in Nennius or Bede but in the HRB. Also
the named princes in Orderic’s interpolated passage are scattered through
Nennius and Bede, if one can pick them out. Yet in Geoffrey’s HRB all ten
princes exist in the same order as Orderic has them. We may conclude, given the
evidence, Henry Blois is the interpolator into Orderic with one aim in mind: To
make it appear as if Orderic had the ‘Sixth’ in Ireland prophecy mixed with
those that were in the earlier Libellus
Merlini …. giving the impression that all the prophecies in Orderic’s book
XII were extant before Henry Ist died. Even though it is admitted that Orderic
did not write his books chronologically by scholars, some scholars have
reckoned the interpolation to 1135. This cannot be accepted, as Henry would
only have written the prophecy concerning the ‘Sixth’ once he knew his brother
was dead…..also, when he was appraised of the intention to invade Ireland in
1155.
Scholars genuinely
believe that in the twelfth century certain chroniclers (Geoffrey being the
prime candidate) thought that the authorship of the work of Nennius was wrongly
apportioned to Gildas. Let me state for the record one absolute certainty. The
person responsible for propagating and copying Nennius’ work and citing the
author as Gildas is Henry Blois. Gildas is put in direct association with
Arthur in Life of Gildas which we
know was written by Henry. So it is imperative to understand that neither Bede
nor Gildas mention Arthur by name; and by implicating Nennius’ work as Gildas’,
Henry establishes his own historicity for HRB’s chivalric Arthur. Gildas was
never at Glastonbury and it is Henry Blois who posits this in interpolations
into GR3 and DA to concur with the episode where Gildas is said to have been
present in Life of Gildas.
Make no mistake that Nennius’ work is by
Nennius and much of the inspiration of ‘Geoffrey’ is derived from Nennius.
Nennius was a genuine work which bears witness to Arthur (the un-chivalric) and
it also has Vortigern and two serpents from which Henry is witnessed to have
used as a template for the splice into HRB, for the preamble to the prophecies
(see appendix 36). Nennius does not
mention Merlin in connection with these serpents. This is entirely a case of
Henry’s muses which have inspired ‘Geoffrey’ to aver that Merlin’s surname is
Ambrosius. The author of HRB is keen that we should accept Gildas as the real
author of Nennius and so here (in the passage above) in Orderic, the same
polemical gambit is played. But also the author of chapter XLVII of Orderic would have us believe that
Merlin too was mentioned by this book supposedly written by Gildas. So this
paragraph, shown below has exactly the same polemic as ‘Geoffrey’ and the
reason for this is that Henry Blois wants posterity to believe Gildas referred
to Arthur and Merlin and was even present at the concocted episode of
Guinevere’s kidnap found in Henry Blois’s composed version of Life of
Gildas.
Should anyone desire to learn more of these events
and the fortunes of the Britons, he should peruse the books of Gildas the
British historian, and Bede the English writer, in which the reader will find
allusive narrative of the acts of Vortimer and his brothers with those of the
valiant Arthur, who fought twelve battles against the English. We are told that
Merlin showed Vortigern a pond in the middle of the floor, and in the pond two
vessels.
The intention of
Henry Blois by citing the historians ‘allusive narrative’ and naming Vortigern
is to make the reader believe that Gildas and Bede did allude to Merlin. They
did not!!! Nennius records the passage which was the inspiration for Geoffrey
involving the boy Ambrosius but he does not mention Merlin. Now we understand
why Henry is keen on having Nennius thought of as a work composed byGildas.
Orderic’s passage
leads to the mention of King Lucius and Eleutherius. Although Eleutherius is mentioned first in the Liber Pontificalis and thereafter in
Bede and in Nennius, we can only touch on this at the moment, because later, we
will discover that King Lucius has been given an entirely fictitious role in
HRB. This same ridiculous mistaken identity of King Lucius by Bede has been so
built upon in HRB in connection with Eleutherius and he has been associated
with the two preachers. What is not
surprising is that Henry Blois as the interpolator of the Merlin passage in
Orderic further confirms the fable about King Lucius he established in HRB. The
name of Lucius has been used again when interpolated into William of Malmesbury’s
DA by Henry who has made the missionaries Phagan and Deruvian (another
concoction from HRB), sent by Pope Eleutherius,
to be the discoverers’ of an already established Glastonbury church. Nobody
had heard of the preachers prior to First Variant HRB. It is Henry Blois’
device to connect them to Eleutherius and by extension King Lucius. All this
will become clear as regards Phagan and Deruvian when we cover this subject in
the chapters on William of Malmesbury’s GR3 and DA. This is Henry Blois’ most elaborate
conflation and invention and it is not by coincidence that the propaganda is
set to conflate and corroborate in Orderic’s chapter XLVII as in the HRB: Their names and acts are to be found
recorded in the book that Gildas wrote as concerning the victory of Aurelius
Ambrosius.
It would be silly
to think that the man who wrote the life
of Gildas is not the same man who tells us Gildas wrote Nennius. One can
see Henry Blois is up to the same thing in HRB: Whence afterward a contention arose betwixt him and his brother
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…
This author of the
HRB and ‘coincidentally’ in Orderic is admonishing us to read Gildas. Why would
he do this? Of course to ensure that his readers think Nennius is written by
Gildas. Of course Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu
Britanniae does not mention Troy. The Nennius manuscript is an important source
for Henry’s inspiration in HRB. It is the only work apart from a few saints’
lives and the Annals Cambriae (and in
Henry’s own bogus Life of Gildas)
which mentions Arthur. Nennius has no historical traceable provenance, but
because he mentions Arthur and because Henry has written the life of Gildas (which puts Gildas in
direct contact with Arthur at Glastonbury), Henry Blois wants his audience to
confuse Nennius’ work as that written by Gildas.
Gildas’
genuine work De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae does
not mention Arthur or King Lucius. But the author of the life of Gildas, and the two interpolated manuscripts of
Malmesbury’s DA and GR3 concerning
Lucius is by the same person (Henry) who wrote the HRB and interpolated
Orderic’s passage on Merlin. It is not surprising therefore to see the same
propaganda in all. Five of the seven explicit quotations from Gildas in
Geoffrey’s work are fraudulent i.e. Gildas did not say what is being posited by
‘Geoffrey’. But, ‘Geoffrey’ does quote Gildas in HRB without citing him as a
reference. Geoffrey thus employs a famous name to stamp credibility on his
contortions, conflations and inventions. Henry only respects Gildas without
giving the Nennius historian credit for what parts of his work he used as
inspiration. Yet Henry tries his best to
bring their names in association with each other in HRB causing confusion for
posterity. Another thing which shows the Orderic passage on the Merlin
prophecies is an interpolation is that supposedly we are to believe they were included
in the time of Henry Ist into book XII.
So, how is it that
Guortegirnus and the Britons are moved to tears where no such thing happens in
Nennius and yet coincidentally there is a likeness in the HRB where Merlin
hysterically bursts into tears before beginning the prophecies?
To grasp the fraud
which Henry Blois has perpetrated, one has to understand that at that era if
one had the intent, a person as powerful as Henry, evidently could concoct his
own History. Especially given the situation where his renown gave him access to
so many annals such as Orderic’s and William’s where he was the one who had
copies made of their work after he had interpolated them. This is exactly what Henry Blois has set out
to do: to propagate a synthesis of his various agendas throughout his long life
at the forefront of power. This in effect is exemplified by the contents of the
first thirty four chapters of DA. The fact that Henry Blois had the capability
and the volition to interpolate and reproduce so many manuscripts is one way an
investigator can make sense of the salad of material he has left behind. It is
only when political events and the motivation behind the various interpolations
become clear, that Henry Blois is witnessed at centre stage at every turn. But,
unlike modern scholars, we need to have our eyes wide open.
Once one
understands that Henry Blois wrote the Prophecies of Merlin one can see he sets
out purposely to confuse his readers by changing the form of the prophecies as
witnessed in the differences between the Orderic interpolation, the original
prophecies which Suger would have received, and those written in the Vulgate
HRB. He then further ‘squewes’ the original purport of some prophecies in the
later VM as his agenda has changed. Add to this ‘salad’ of material, John of
Cornwall’s rendition of prophecies, (also crafted by Henry Blois) …. it leaves
little that can be relied upon. Thrown into this mix is Henry Blois’
interpolations in the first 34 chapters of DA and version B interpolations of
William of Malmesbury’s GR3. If we add to this invention of history what is
found in HRB, Henry Blois leaves no investigator any chance of resolving any of
this because he impersonates Wace and Gaimar. The reader may think that the
conspiracy theories have gone too far already, but to complicate matters
further: Henry then composes the primordial Grail literature which again
commences a whole new body of corroborative Arthurian literature which is then
expanded upon by others such as Chrétien and Robert. All will become clear as
we cover each subject to reveal Henry Blois’ involvement.
It would not be untenable for Henry Blois to be
accused of interpolating the original MS by Nennius. However, to me this seems
doubtful as it is the one main text which corroborated the existence of Arthur
as warlord. It would hardly be credible to argue that it is Henry Blois who is
the instigator of the change of authorship from Nennius to Gildas if indeed he
had interpolated the book of Nennius…. as Nennius’ work definitely existed at
an earlier date than Geoffrey’s HRB.
Henry may have first come across the Nennius manuscript at Chartres. Nennius
maybe a patchwork compilation, but the Arthurian section in it is Henry’s
anchor point. All he wishes us to believe is that it was composed by Gildas as
some manuscripts in his era did not have the Nennius name attached.
He is so keen to assign Nennius to Gildas in HRB,
VM, and the Orderic interpolation that we can only assume it was not a general
misunderstanding by medieval chroniclers as modern scholars believe. It was
rather a deliberate attempt to brand the work of Nennius as that of Gildas.
What is a Nennius’ manuscript doing at Chartres? In
the
Durham Cathedral Library MS B.2.35 we find the Nennius edition attributed to Gildas but ‘coincidentally’ the
manuscript of the Life of Gildas by Caradog of Llancarfan is part of the
Gildas-Nennius manuscript. Henry’s
sister Agnes had a son Hugh de Puiset who had been
archdeacon in the see of Winchester, before Henry promoted
him to the position of Bishop of Durham and is probably the link to Durham and
the reason the scripts were combined.
Without the relevant section in Nennius’ history,
Henry would have no foundation as an Arthurian source except a brief mention in
Annales Cambriae upon which to
establish his chivalric Arthur. The Gildas and Bede references are only by
association with
Ambrosius Aurelianus the Briton resistance leader which ‘Geoffrey’ purposefully
conflates with Arthur’s existence. The fact that Huntingdon was unperturbed
about Arthur as an invention when writing to Warin means he was acquainted with
the Arthur in Nennius. Huntingdon himself draws on other parts of Nennius and
refers to ‘the famed Arthur’ in the letter to Warin. What troubles me is that after Huntingdon’s
description of Arthur’s twelve battles in his last redaction he says: These battles and
battle-fields are described by Gildas the historian. Gildas did not
mention Arthur, only Aurelius and Badon; so has Henry of Huntingdon used the
Gildas-Nennius manuscript which I believe has had its author changed to appear
to be written by Gildas? If mention of Arthur was
in the first 1129 edition of Huntingdon’s history, this would seem unlikely
that we can accuse Henry Blois of the authorial name change. But Huntingdon
included Arthur in his history after 1139 in a later redaction.
We cannot reliably say if Nennius has been altered
but it is obvious through the construction, pasting and rearranging of Nennius
versions, it could not have been written by Gildas.
However, on balance, it is best to leave the
evidence in Nennius as it stands as
we cannot know with certainty if or when interpolation occurred. Elsewhere Henry Blois’ authorial hand is a
lot more obvious.
Ridiculously, in ‘Geoffrey’s’ account, it is
Nennius who fought Julius Caesar, so one could accept that Henry is attempting
to make the name of Nennius appear much older than it is. Maybe this is ‘Geoffrey’s’ way of convincing
us that a manuscript he had come across on which the name of Nennius exists
could contain a very ancient tradition regarding Troy. Does Nennius invent
Arthur’s battle locations as none are identifiable today? We must not forget
that Nennius also advocates a heritage from Troy and this particular provenance
was of Frankish origin as we have covered.
If we know Henry Blois is ‘Geoffrey’ and it was
‘Geoffrey’ who embellished the Trojan heritage which Huntingdon had not heard
about in 1139; why did Huntingdon write to Warin stating he had not heard this
early history if he had read Nennius. We know the HRB Arthurian escapade is a
fantastic concoction and my sole purpose in part I of this book is to highlight
certain manuscripts which Henry Blois has a personal identifiable attachment
to.
However, going
back to the Orderic insertion, it is King Lucius’ historically fictitious
request for which, Eleutherius sends two missionaries,
Fuganus and Duvianus (an entirely fictitious episode invented by ‘Geoffrey’)
who then turn up at Glastonbury…. which is the main reason the Eleutherius
episode is corroborated and highlighted in the Orderic assage by Henry.
Orderic never mentions
Bede or Gildas before in his books, so it makes one suspicious that also
Nennius material (just as it is in HRB) is being established as material
derived from Gildas. Henry, posing as Caradoc wrote the life of Gildas where Arthuriana and Glastonburyana are woven into a
completely concocted text based on the life
of Cadoc. The conflation and cross referencing of various tracts is hard to
unpick. As we saw earlier, Henry even has Taliesin returning from Brittany
where he took instruction from Gildas in the VM. It is the incremental
corroboration from the various interpolated manuscripts which has left
scholarship a minefield of false connections to stumble through.
Again we must
remember that apart from this passage, Orderic does not cite Bede or Gildas yet
is here witnessed promoting Nennius as Gildas. Tatlock
rightly states that the order of the Kings, given in the interpolated chapter
of Orderic are in the order of the HRB rather than Bede or Nennius, but in
neither of these are the Britons driven into Cornwall as in HRB. Our impostor
of Orderic cleverly portrays in this passage the appearance that the particular
events he is portraying come from three sources; Bede, Gildas, and the Merlin
prophecies with no mention of the HRB. Why, if Orderic has read the HRB
(obviated by the list of Kings) is there no other information derived from it?
It is this point which confirms along with the others that it was not Orderic
who wrote this passage. Orderic, like Henry Huntingdon, would be very
interested in the HRB and it is likely would have related to another part of it….
if indeed HRB had been widely published as is commonly thought. As Orderic died
in 1142 (long before Vulgate was published) it cannot be established that he
saw HRB in any redaction. But definitely the author of the Orderic
interpolation had. However, Henry Blois
would deem it necessary not to mention HRB material, as his intention is to
show in the Orderic passage these prophecies existed before Henry Ist died….
when HRB was not published. It is for this specific reason Henry avoids the
only prophecy which is so highly specific and seems dubious vaticinatory
material concerning William the Conqueror’s body parts. Even the incredulous
would not believe a sixth century seer is going to randomly see into the
future, the gruesome details of separating Henry’s Grandfather’s entrails from
its body. Woe unto thee, Neustria, for the brain of the
Lion shall be poured forth upon thee; and with mangled limbs shall he be thrust
forth of his native soil. We might speculate
that this particular prophecy was in the early Libellus Merlini which found its way into the updated Vulgate
prophecies. But, we might argue that since the interpolation in Orderic is
inserted after publication of Vulgate HRB, Henry may well have chosen to omit
this prophecy from the batch interpolated into Orderic’s work because it was
just too blatantly concocted. It could in no way pass off as something a sixth
century seer would have foreseen. In other words he had heard there was
suspicion of this prophecy. Scholarship of course sees the body part prophecy
as a later insertion into the HRB prophecies.
Some commentators have
reasoned that because it is the only missing prophecy from a mirrored block of
prophecies found in the HRB, this prophecy concerning the embalming process of
William the Conqueror must be a later interpolation into HRB. I feel it has
rather been omitted from Orderic by Henry. One should consider the outcome of
deleting this prophecy in Orderic, because it has had the desired effect in
lending credibility to the rest of the prophecies.
Are we really so stupid
to believe the prophet Merlin predicts the birth of Matilda’s third child, the
very circumstance which allows Henry Blois to install his brother as King….and
it just so happens, coincidentally, that Merlin’s prophecies are published in
that era. As Tatlock shows, the author of the Merlin insertion into Orderic’s
work is more than acquainted with the HRB, but many commentators prior to
Tatlock’s proof based their deductions of the existence of an entirely separate
Libellus Merlini on the testimony of
Orderic. Their assumption was that a Libellus
Merlini existed in Henry Ist reign as is portrayed in the interpolation
itself. It is the main intention of the interpolation i.e. the prophecies
supposedly existed before their predictions came to pass…. independent of HRB
(HRB not being mentioned). Logically, if the Merlin prophecies already existed
in Latin while King Henry Ist was alive (as the contrivance in the Orderic
interpolation establishes) why is bishop Alexander halting ‘Geoffrey’s’ work….
insisting a translation be made c.1136-38?
If a Latin copy of Merlin’s prophecies exists what is John of Cornwall
doing translating them into Latin for the Bishop of Exeter. Come to that…in
reality what are bishop’s doing paying any attention to the Merlin prophecies.
Some even more credulous
scholars (because of the interpolation into Orderic), believe in Merlin’s
vaticinatory power, which seems to predict the future before King Henry’s
death. They have therefore given credence to the rest of the prophecies.
If there is any work
that could be called the Libellus
Merlini, it is an early set of prophecies. But they must have been written
by Henry Blois and circulated separately from the Primary Historia. This would have been the set of prophecies which
Henry’s friend abbot Suger commented upon. If there is any one specific
addition to the early prophecies possessed by Suger it would have to be the
allusion to the ‘sixth’ throwing down the walls of Ireland. This, as we have
explained, can only be dependent on a sixth (Henry II)…. and his wish to
provide his brother William lands in Ireland as discussed at the Winchester
council held in 1155. There is nothing in the rest of this block of prophecies
in the insertion into Orderic or the same section in HRB prophecies which takes
us to a date further than 1139. Henry, as the pope’s legate, is the ‘shadow of the
helmeted man’ in 1139. What we can conclude then is that there was an earlier Libellus Merlini which circulated
separately before being spliced as an updated version of the prophecies as
found in the Vulgate version of HRB and may have existed in a primary form in
the First Variant in 1144. However, because the prophecies in the First Variant
are the updated (corrected) version we must conclude they have been added to an
exemplar of the First Variant from which the other four copies are derived.
Let us get back to the
interpolated passage in Orderic and just briefly deal with a few of the
prophecies themselves. There are a few differences from Vulgate HRB: A people shall come over, in
timber and in coats of iron who shall execute vengeance for iniquity. It shall
restore the ancient inhabitants to their homes, and the ruin of the strangers
shall be made manifest. Their germs shall be eradicated out of our gardens, and
the remains of that race shall be decimated; they shall bear the yoke of
perpetual servitude, and shall tear their mother with ploughs and harrows. Two
dragons shall succeed, one of whom shall be slain by the darts of malice, and
the other shall perish under the shadow of a name. A lion of justice shall
succeed, whose roar shall cause the towns of France, and the dragons of the
island to tremble. 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. The
men with crisped locks shall wear clothes of various textures and colours, and
their exterior shall betoken their interior. The feet of lurchers shall be
struck oft. The beasts of chase shall be undisturbed. Humanity shall mourn over
the punishment. The tokens of commerce shall be cut in sunder, and the halves
shall be round. The rapacious kites shall perish, and the teeth of wolves be
blunted. The lion's whelps shall be transformed into sea-fishes and his eagle
shall build her nest on the Aravian Mountains. Venedocia shall be red with a
mother's blood, and the house of Corineus shall slay six brethren. The island
shall be bathed in the tears of night, and thence the people shall be incited
to all sorts of villainies. The men of after times shall aspire to soar aloft,
and new men shall rise to favour and eminence. Piety shall be turned by the
impious to the injury of those who possess it. Armed therefore with the teeth
of the bear, it shall transcend the
summits of the mountains and the shade of the helmed warrior. Albany shall be
roused to fury, and calling in those who dwell by her side shall give herself
up to the shedding of blood. A bit forged on the Amorican sea shall be put into
its jaws; but the eagle that severs the bond shall devour it, and shall exult
in making her nest for the third time. The whelps of the roaring lion shall
awake, and leaving the forests, shall hunt under the walls of towns. They shall
make a great carnage among all who resist, and tear out the tongues of bulls.
The necks of the lions shall be loaded with chains, and ancient times be
renewed. After that, from the first to the fourth, from the fourth to the
third, from the third to the second, the thumb shall be smeared with oil. The
sixth shall throw down the walls of Ireland,' and convert the woods into an
open country. He shall reduce the several portions to one, and shall be crowned
with the lion's head. He shall restore the places of the saints through the
country, and fix pastors in convenient situations. He shall invest two cities
with palls, and confer virgin gifts on virgins. He shall therefore obtain by
his merits the favour of the Thunderer, and shall be crowned among the blessed.
There shall arise from him a pest, which shall penetrate everywhere, and
threaten ruin to his own nation. Through it Neustria shall lose both islands,
and be shorn of her former dignity. Then the citizens shall return to the
island."
Henry
Blois posing as Orderic Vitalis, uses the discovery of the dragons, as told by
Nennius; in a folded tent in two jars in the pool amid the pavement, details
mostly not in the HRB. The people coming over are the Norman’s in their coats
of mail, but, as adopted throughout the prophecies, the descriptions are
presented as if the seer were seeing images; all part of Henry’s deception. It shall restore the ancient
inhabitants to their homes, and the ruin of the strangers shall be made
manifest.
As I have discussed, the inspiration to include the
prophecies came from Henry Blois’ having read Cicero of whom he admits in his
self-professed epitaph, he aspires to outshine.
The principle is exactly what Quintus says: ‘what nation or what state disregards the
prophecies of soothsayers, or of interpreters of prodigies’. There were other influences and source
material such as corroborating historical detail from Welsh poetry which Henry
also employs in the composition of the prophecies (especially in VM). Henry
employs the tone of Biblical prophecy at times as a template. ‘Geoffrey’ as we
know had read the Roman Oracula Sibyllina
which contains animal symbolism and probably the Sibyl Tiburtina with utterances such as: Then
will arise a King of the Greeks whose name is Constans, which
also may have inspired his tone.
Similarly the nine globes in the vision are nine generations, and we can
see ‘Geoffrey’s’ or rather Merlin’s six Kings (or JC’s seven) being employed as
the numbered Kings in the prophecies. Few commentators have allowed that
‘Geoffrey’ may well have been influenced by such continental prophecies such as
the 8th century Vision of
Childeric
which identifies Clovis as the lion and Dagobert as the bear and unicorn;
using similar animal symbolism to the Merlin prophecies. Henry Blois, therefore,
would have been more acquainted with this continental material unlike a Welsh
Geoffrey of Monmouth (if he had ever existed). Clugny possessed one of the most
extensive libraries on the continent and may well have had in its collection
the Vision of Childeric. Other continental influences not normally
considered in the conventional premise of an exclusively Welsh or insular
‘Geoffrey’ may be the Anchorite Vision
where similarly to Merlin’s insular garden, a vision of a fair meadow exists
where Normandy, full of flowers (churches) are protected by a wild horse
(William the Bastard) and where the cattle are the enemies of Normandy and the
Heifer is Robert Curthose. Obviously, the prophecies of the Eagle that did prophesy at
Shaftesbury,
was a similar prophecy to which his contemporary audience was acquainted with. Other
influences may come from the Vision of
the five Beasts
where animals such as a tawny wolf, a white horse, a black hog, a grey wolf, a
flame coloured dog all represent Kings. Henry Blois’ melange of nonsense in the prophecies does in fact have a source
base for its construction and it was the same author who composed HRB; where
also, nearly every episode can be traced to a source or is based on a pattern.
Where astrology is concerned, what Tatlock
terms a ‘Götterdammerung’ is plainly vaticinatory ‘hodge podge’, the tone of which
may be constituted from anywhere and probably have no meaning to Henry himself.
It is merely an affected form of
astrology which feigns future predictions that are currently unknown and are
therefore unclear as they are unspecific…. purely because Henry did not posses
prophetic powers.
Henry Blois may even have been
inspired by Herodotus’ : an Eagle will nest in rocks and bring forth a strong and brutal Lion… We should not so much concern
ourselves in the methodology or template which Henry Blois uses, but be more
concerned with his own agenda chronologically as this dictates the content of
the prophecies. ‘Geoffrey’
depicts Merlin Caledonius as a star-gazing sage, deriving knowledge of future
events by observing the heavens from his mansion of seventy windows….
which ostensibly shows Merlin’s powers of prediction is based in astrology and
hence the
‘Götterdammerung’.
I would estimate the first set of prophecies were
released by Henry Blois c. 1139-1143. They in effect comprise the main body of
the updated version found in today’s Vulgate HRB. The sense of some have been
squewed and some new added to those early one’s which constituted the Libellus Merlini. These were then followed by the VM prophecies
and again in the same period 1155-58 by John of Cornwall’s translation of the
supposedly British/Cornish book of prophecies.
The agenda for the original set when Stephen was
alive was to affect the political climate so that Henry and his brother were
received not as offspring from Norman conquerors, but as saviours like a
returning Arthur. Henry adapted some of the prophecies with a twist so that
they had the appearance of being the same as the original set he had put out
for consistency’s sake.
The reader of the prophecies is deluded into
thinking that if the prophecies written in the sixth century which correctly
predict things that we know transpired (because they are historically recorded
in HRB)…. then we must conclude that the HRB is not a pseudo-history. It was
mainly Tatlock’s work which shows clearly that ‘Geoffrey’s’ account is a
constructed fabrication, but still some modern scholars view the prophecies as
credible. This is mainly because of Henry’s clever move to splice in Welsh
bardic material in VM.
So, to pick up after that brief digression…. the
prophecy above, as I explained earlier, Henry Blois sees the reintroduction of
the Normans as eradicating the Saxon germ; and they genetically (the Normans),
as the ancient inhabitants are the Britons returned. They are returning home to
the ruin of the strangers (Saxons) as the prophecy above implies. This is
Henry’s political polemic while his brother is still alive. The purport of some
of the prophecies where positivity is applied to the Norman eradication of the
Saxons were written while Stephen lived. This was supposed to promote an
attitude of acceptance and acquiescence of Norman rule among the populace. This
sometimes applied to Normans and Bretons through proximity. Where there is
negativity toward the Normans, we know Henry Blois’ brother is dead and he
wishes the ‘predict and effect’ mechanism of the prophecies to unseat Henry II.
Two dragons shall
succeed, one of whom shall be slain by the darts of malice, and the other shall
perish under the shadow of a name.
As I
covered this same block of prophecies in HRB earlier…. many here are repeated
which I shall skip over because their elucidation is the same as previously.
Orderic’s
interpolated passage of Merlin prophecies carries on similarly as the same
block found in Vulgate HRB:
Piety shall be
turned by the impious to the injury of those who possess it. Armed therefore
with the teeth of the bear, it shall
transcend the summits of the mountains and the shade of the helmed warrior.
The Latin here is so obtuse that even Orderic’s
editor has trouble following the sense. It has been vastly chopped down and
subtly changed since the publishing of the prophecies in Vulgate HRB.
The HRB is still not much clearer until one knows
it is Henry Blois that is constructing the prophecy. ‘They that come after shall
strive to outsoar the highest, but the favour of the newcomers shall be
exalted. Piety shall do hurt unto him that doth possess through impiety until
he shall have clad him in his father. Wherefore, girdled about with the teeth
of wolves, shall he climb over the heights of the mountains and the shadow of him
that weareth a helmet’.
‘They
that come after’ are Henry and his brother and at the time of the construction
of the early Libellus Merlini
prophecies, Henry viewed what he and his brother would accomplish as newcomers
would ‘outsoar’ any previous reign. He refers to his brother’s piety which
should be understood as ‘sense of honour’ (chivalry). Stephen’s sense of honour
which is made plain by Henry in the GS was another reason for the continuation
of the Anarchy rather than dealing mercilessly with opponents. Stephen making a
deal with David, King of Scotland, a prime example as I already covered. The
reference to ‘possession through impiety’ is obviously the allusion to the
usurpation of the crown. The fact that Henry mentions Stephen being clad in his
father might suppose this sentence was added after Stephen’s death or have a
church meaning or relates to William the Conqueror.
The bear is usually a Wolf. As explained earlier,
it relates directly to Henry Blois himself as the Bishop of Winchester and the popes
Legate. (See appendix 12). Again we get the sense of what I covered previously
about the Alps being metaphorically synonymous with Rome. Henry’s climbing over
the mountains is his trip to Rome to see the ‘Helmeted man’, the pope. The
‘shadow’ allusion is just his phony vaticinatory way of speaking through
Merlin, but the sense is that his legateship and its power is derived from the
pope.
The whelps of the roaring lion
shall awake, and leaving the forests, shall hunt under the walls of towns. They
shall make a great carnage among all who resist, and tear out the tongues of
bulls.
This is a tricky one to decipher. The allusion is to the keen hunting practice
of Norman Kings who hunted in the forests as I referred to earlier. The lion’s
whelps are now besieging towns such as Exeter, Bristol, Oxford to name but a
few. The ‘whelps’ are William the conqueror’s offspring of which Stephen and
Henry both were. The carnage is the Anarchy.
The ‘whelps’ could refer to Henry and his brother
or William Rufus and Duke Robert. Leaving the forests and hunting under the
walls of towns seems likely to refer to Stephen besieging towns in the Anarchy.
Henry of Huntingdon records that after banishing Baldwin de Redvers,
from England: Elated by these successes,
the King went to him at Brampton, which is about a mile distant from Huntingdon and there he held pleas of the forests with his
barons; that is, concerning their woods and hunting, in violation of his
promise and vow to God and the people.
The sixth shall
throw down the walls of Ireland, can only relate to
Henry II and must date after 1155. It is
for this reason we can deduce the interpolation into Orderic’s work was made
not only after King Henry Ist death (as he was the third) but after 1155. This
would essentially have to take into account Matilda as the ‘fifth’ not being
anointed and knowing it was Henry II’s intention to invade Ireland.
He shall reduce
the several portions to one, and shall be crowned with the lion's head. He
shall restore the places of the saints through the country, and fix pastors in
convenient situations. This is a reference also to
Ireland in assuming Henry II brother William will become king as discussed at
the Council at Winchester. Restoring the
places of the saints refers to St Patrick. The fixing of Pastors is the point of the
invasion as far as pope Adrian IV
is concerned where his Papal Bull Laudabiliter gave King Henry II the right to assume control over
Ireland and apply the Gregorian reforms,
He shall invest two cities with palls, and
confer virgin gifts on virgins. He shall therefore obtain by his merits the
favour of the Thunderer, and shall be crowned among the blest.
Many have thought that the two cities referred to
are the new bishoprics set up by Henry Ist, Ely in 1109, and Carlisle in 1133.
This may be the case or it may be Henry Blois’ hope that Winchester and St
David’s gain Metropolitan status. As we know from Henry Blois’ personal
efforts, he tried on more than one occasion to have the see of Winchester
created as a separate Metropolitan, so that he would not be subject to
Canterbury. He also promoted St David’s cause in the HRB for his friend
Bernard. He saw the power wielded by Roman Canterbury as having usurped the old
Briton church and brought into subjection by papal control. It is for this
reason in the HRB, St David’s acts as a polemic for his cause and he stresses
Dubricius and Caerleon as the example before the advent of the Roman church and
Augustine. His main point is always to infer that the Briton church was
established independent of Roman Canterbury.
This is vastly apparent in Henry’s interpolations in DA. Part of the
inspiration for writing the polemical view that is clearly outlined in the HRB,
may have been formulated as he delved into the history of Glastonbury after
having found the charter which donated Ineswitrin to Glastonbury. This charter
which obviously existed, formed for the most part the proof Henry Blois needed
for his proof of Antiquity regarding Glastonbury. This is a lengthy subject which
we are working toward which unlocks the reasoning behind the various
interpolations in DA.
In Henry’s time at Glastonbury he became aware of a
certain fact. There was a Briton church independent of Rome prior to Augustine.
Even though in the Liber Pontificalis
it said that (a British) King Lucius had asked to be Christianised and Henry
believed this as fact (which it is not), Henry also had in his possession the
prophecy of Melkin. Because Joseph is posited as buried in Britain in the
Melkin prophecy, one might assume an earlier possible apostolic foundation in
Joseph. The Eleutherius episode mentioned by Bede has little bearing on the
truth of what is said to have transpired when it comes to early foundation
myths. The Eleutherius episode may have stemmed from propaganda purposely put
out by the Roman church which denied primacy for the Briton Church. The Vatican
actually may have caused Bede’s mistake. Bede himself recounts that he actually
went to Rome to see that nothing he had written had caused offence. Roman
Christianity was a monopoly that was not to be shared with the Britons. What I
am implying is that the mistake by Bede, where he makes Lucius a British King,
could have been inspired by Rome, as this would indicate that any church in
Britain is an offshoot of Rome. Gildas did not mention Lucius’s request (prior
to Augustine) and Bede mentions it afterward. So, it seems like Roman inspired
propaganda based on a misinterpretation of Liber
Pontificalis. Again, I will have to
deal with this in the chapter on GR.
However, it is for this reason I believe Chapter 29 of the Acts of the Apostles
at a very early stage was eradicated from the New Testament as it bore
testimony of St Paul’s visit to Britain. If it was not Aristbulous or Philip
who proselytised Britain, maybe the first Christian (or believer that Jesus was
the Messiah) was Joseph of Arimathea. I
shall cover this aspect also in Part II because it is evident by the end of
this exposé that Joseph’s remains are still in Britain undiscovered.
Again, returning back to the Orderic interpolation,
which could only have been written after Henry II was on the throne, because
King Henry II is the ‘pest’ in the new updated version which incites rebellion.
There shall arise
from him a pest, which shall penetrate everywhere, and threaten ruin to his own
nation. Through it Neustria shall lose both islands, and be shorn of her former
dignity. Then the citizens shall return to the island.
The pest is more probably a lynx (following the
iconography of cats of the Leo’s), but Henry is predicting the end of Norman
domination because he is hoping the Celts are going to unseat Henry II. What
needs to be understood by the reader (and once we cover the JC prophecies, it
becomes abundantly clear) is that Henry Blois in exile at Clugny was doing his
best to incite rebellion against Henry II by feigning that Merlin had seen a
Celtic rebellion against the Norman’s.
No such state as Neustria existed of course in
Merlin’s day. Henry is stirring Celtic discontent by citing Conan and
Cadwallader to rebel against Henry II after which Norman rule will end and
Henry Blois will rule. Many have thought this prophecy is derived from the
Armes Prydein, (which it was in the original Libellus), but as usual Henry
twists this Brythonic prediction by Myrddin of the Celtic resurgence against
the Saxons which now applies to the Normans…. and coincidentally the names are
relevant still to the Breton and Welsh leaders. In the Armes Prydein it
mentions Aber Peryddon which is linked to the next verse
in the Vulgate prophecies which is directly linked to Henry Blois as the old man, 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.
Even though the section of the HRB prophecies
related in Orderic is not exactly mirrored, it tends to show that it is the
initiator of the prophecies writing Orderic’s interpolated passage as it was
surely written after 1155 and if these had come from the earlier Merlin prophecies
(which could not have been prior to Henry Ist death), they certainly could not
have foreseen the ‘Sixth’ invading Ireland. So the discrepancies between the
Vulgate version and Orderic prophecies are therefore thought to be caused by
the existence of an earlier Libellus
Merlini. Since Orderic died 1142 the
libellus version is supposed to have
existed at the time Orderic is thought to have written the passage. It is not a
case of Orderic mis-copying the prophecies but the originator of them changing
them at will. If Orderic just copied them they would not differ in form from
HRB. So, where many researchers have thought the Libellus Merlini or book
of Merlin which Orderic says he is quoting from ( supposedly written between
1120 and 1135), based upon a reference to Henry Ist as being King of England
i.e. still alive; this view can no longer be accepted that Merlin was indeed a
prognosticator…. because the ‘Sixth’ prophecy post dates 1155. There was at this stage no ‘Sixth’ or Henry
II, not forgetting the first set had only evolved to the ‘fourth’ as I implied
previously.
Commentators have believed the veracity of the
Merlin prophecies because the interpolation occurs in the Orderic chronicle at
the right era. Also Henry Blois adds for good measure: until the times of Henry and Griffyth, who in the uncertainty of their lot are still expecting… which establishes
in a bone fide chronicle of history that the prophecies look as though they
pre-exist Henry Ist death. Let us not be duped by such sophistry. We would have
to be very gullible to believe not only can the originator of the passage see
past the fourth and the fifth, but produce an accurate prediction that the
‘Sixth’ will go to Ireland. How does Merlin’s focus arrive in the precise era
of Henry Blois and how is it that his prophecies corroborate the bogus
pseudo-history found in HRB. The prophecies nearly all connect to Henry and his
interests and matter which affect him and his family?
Henry simply
inserted the interpolation after 1155 into a copy of Orderic and had it copied.
Henry was under serious pressure to show that the prophecies pre-existed the
events they supposedly predicted. The obvious solution was to include a passage
on them in a reliable chronicle. Crick is duped believing that the passage in
Orderic was written by him: the Prophecies provoked the kind of intellectual and political
responses logged by Orderic:
they offered reassurance, solace,
historical exegesis, intellectual stimulus, on the one hand, and political
direction on the other. Such conclusions are
provisional, of course: At
least there is the understanding of the prophecies role in political direction.
Of course the conclusion can only be provisional, for without grasping that
Orderic’s passage is an interpolation…. how can Crick settle the conundrum of
prophecies transpiring as supposedly predicted after Orderic’s death in 1142….
without believing Merlin a genuine prognosticator. Of Crick’s eighy five copies
of the separate prophetia i.e. the Libellus
Merlini, independent of HRB, a study should be carried out to see how many
are missing the (allowing for corrections) how many are missing the prophecy
which appeals to the Celts to rebel against Henry II and also how many are
missing the Sixth in Ireland. If they are missing, we can assume these copies
are earlier than 1155.
It was after
the establishment of the veracity of Merlin’s prophecies by carrying out this
fraud, and the fictitious death of Geoffrey of Monmouth that Henry Blois
carried out his most imaginative move, by writing the Vita Merlini which brings Avalon in direct conjunction with Insular Pomorum which centres Arthur’s
Mystical Island at Glastonbury. In the interpolation into Orderic Henry
substantiates for posterity the date of the prophecies while feigning to interpret
and add commentary as the Merlin interpolation into Orderic’s work continues:
I have made these
short extracts from Merlin's book and offer them to the studious who are not
acquainted with it. Some of his prophecies I have traced to events now past, and,
if I mistake not, more of them will be
verified in the experience of posterity either with joy or sorrow. Persons
acquainted with history will easily understand the words of Merlin, when they
recollect what happened under Hengist and Catigirn, Pascent and Arthur,
Ethilbert and Edwin, Oswald and Oswy, Cedwal and Alfred, and other princes both
English and British, until the times of Henry and Griffyth, who in the uncertainty of their lot are
still expecting; what may befall
them in the ineffable dispensations of Divine Providence. For instance, it
is as clear as light to the intelligent reader, that Merlin is speaking; of the
two sons of William, when he says: " Two Dragons shall succeed,"
meaning libertine and fierce princes, "one of whom," that is William
Rufus, '' shall be slain by the darts of malice," namely by an arrow in
hunting, "the other," that is duke Robert, " shall perish in the
shadows of a dungeon, retaining only his former title," that of duke.
"The lion of justice shall succeed, which refers to Henry," at whose
roar the towers of France and the Island dragons shall tremble ; because in
wealth and power he transcends all who reigned in England before him. In the
same manner, the wise can clearly decipher the rest. I might say more in explanation,
if I undertook to write a commentary on Merlin, but leaving this; I resume the course of my narrative,
and shall faithfully relate the events which
have occurred in my own time.
I hope the reader appreciates the sophistry of
Henry Blois attempting to decipher his own prophecies. He uses the same ploy in
John of Cornwall’s prophecies. For me, Henry’s brilliance is in establishing
fact for the reader that he wishes them to deduce themselves…. without having
to state it overtly himself. There is no better example than the sentence in
which he specifically intends us to understand the prophecies existed in the
era in which King Henry Ist was alive
and still expecting what fate might have in store for him by positing: Henry and Griffyth, who in the uncertainty of their lot are still expecting; what may befall them… yet, few of
his readers would be happy with the prediction of a Norman down fall: more
of them will be verified in the experience of posterity either with joy or sorrow. How very
fortuitous for posterity that Orderic dates the prophecies to Henry I era by
implying what fate still had in store for him. Logically, the only conclusion
for scholars such as Crick, is that Merlin was indeed able to see into the
future as not only did he see a sixth King but Merlin accurately predicted that
the said sixth King would invade Ireland. Such conclusions are
provisional, of course until
the passage is understood to be an interpolation.
The Vulgate redaction of the HRB (with its updated
prophecies included) was published in 1155. So, many of the hopes and
predictions that were posited as prophecy by ‘Merlin’ in the libellus Merlini could not be changed as
they were in the same form that Abbot Suger (and no doubt others who are
unrecorded) had witnessed. But, as we have seen, it was vital for Henry Blois
(posing as Merlin) to establish that it was not an author, after the events
which are portrayed prophetically, who composed the prophecies. It is for this
reason the Orderic interpolation is so important.
So, given the structure of the First Variant, I
would conclude the earlier prophecies were included in a version, but not the
thirteenth century versions of the First Variant we now have….. as these have
the (corrected) updated prophecies in them (albeit without dedication).
Even though
Bishop Alexander died in 1148, the inclusion of the Alexander dedication in HRB
did not occur until after 1155 as Henry of Huntingdon who dies in 1154 never
once comments on his patron’s affiliation with the prophecies and Albert of
Beverley does not mention the part Alexander supposedly played in having the
prophecies translated.
Henry Blois releases his Vulgate version of HRB
which include the updated prophecies and a dedication to Robert of Gloucester
to portray the façade of a struggling Geoffrey of Monmouth seeking patronage.
Robert of Gloucester was dead along with the fictitious author himself…. and in
reality Henry did not need the patronage. The sole purpose of the dedication is
to ante date the publication of the Vulgate version specifically.
Waleran de Beaumont, Count
of Meulan died in 1166 and if he knew of the HRB and saw a copy dedicated to
himself with Robert, he was probably as bemused as most are today. As we have
touched on already, Waleran was 1st Earl of Worcester and is mentioned by Henry as
are many other items that have piqued him: Against him shall rise up the Dragon of Worcester. Waleran of Meulan, the
lay patron of Bec, put his own man as Archbishop in England. It is mainly
because of this Henry Blois detested him.
Waleran and his twin brother, Robert, Earl of Leicester, were Henry's
chief rivals for Stephen's favour. At the Battle of Lincoln in 1141 Waleran was
one of the royalist earls who fled when they saw that the battle was lost
resulting in Stephen’s capture. Straight afterward Waleran gave up the struggle
with Stephen as his Norman lands were being taken over by the invading Angevin
army. He surrendered to the Empress Matilda and so in Henry’s mind was a
traitor. As
we have stated, the single manuscript with the Stephen and Robert dedications
is simply a devise used by Henry Blois to predate the HRB to 1136.
The dedication to Waleran de Beaumont, Count
of Meulan in no way helps the dating of the HRB as is thought by commentators.
As long as we know Henry is the author there is nothing to counter a position
that the dedication was only added to a copy after Waleran’s death as Henry
lived another five years. Henry does not like Waleran because it was Waleran
who instigated the arrest of the Bishops. Also he dislikes him for the bad
advice Waleran offered his brother. The GS states: The Count of Meulan and those other adherents of the King who were on
terms of the closest intimacy with him, indignant at the splendid pomp of the
bishops…
As for Walter, Archdeacon
of Oxford, Henry probably did know him because Stephen’s base was at Oxford in
the early Anarchy. However, Henry certainly knew of his death in 1151 and his
name was employed to put flesh on the bones of Geoffrey of Monmouth i.e. having
a provenance in and around Oxford, because Henry had also randomly signed some
charters there in the name of Galfridus Artur, (along with those previously
signed by Walter) just after the pact at Wallingford. Although Walter was
already dead it created the aura of previous publication just like the use of
the dedicatees and provided a relationship to someone who had known of
‘Geoffrey’. Henry had connected a real person that ‘Geoffrey’ could be linked
to who was probably known for his interest in antiquities. This link carried
out the vital function of being the person who supplied the book that the whole
HRB was supposedly translated from. Walter died in 1151, so his name (like the
dedicatees) was included into the Vulgate HRB after his death. He was not
mentioned in the First Variant used at Rome in 1144 and 1149. At this early
date Henry had not even assigned his authorship to the pseudonym of Geoffrey of
Monmouth and still used Gaufridus Artur….
and had not yet added the various signatures to the charters kept at Oxford
Castle. Henry very cleverly also presumes again on Walter’s name in his
concocted epilogue attributed to Gaimar.
Gaimar did write the L’estoire des
Engles but did not write the epilogue and certainly there was never any
tract called L’estoire des Bretons ever
written. It is a clever ploy, but we shall get to that shortly.
What might have happened if Stephen had lived concerning
‘Geoffrey’, we can only speculate, but
soon after Stephen’s death, Henry saw fit to end Geoffrey’s life in 1154-5
while still producing the VM which posterity can only assume was written in
Geoffrey’s life time. The problem Henry had is that he could only add so much
and squew only so much of the previous set of prophecies attributed to Merlin
found in the separate Libellus Merlini.
These were added to and updated when they were spliced into the Vulgate HRB as
far as possible so that they still resembled the prophecies in the original Libellus Merlini. Certainly, the
harangue for the Scots, Cornish, Welsh and Breton’s to unite was Henry’s
addition after his brother’s death to incite rebellion against Henry II. The
invention of the VM which essentially has so much padding in it, as we have
covered, was put together to complete Henry’s look back wards at events in the
Anarchy by employing Ganieda as the new source, but his main intent was the
hope that the Celts would rebel.
I think the
reception and credibility of the VM was not received without suspicion as
certain of the previous prophecies and icons were twisted to apply to events
that occurred later in the Anarchy and some of them were startlingly obvious.
Suspicions were probably raised when the intelligence of
a few reflected upon how it was that a seer in the sixth century saw history
only as events which had occurred to which the annals related and specifically
correlated with history as related in HRB. Also unrealistically, the prophecies
largely referred to the contemporary reader’s era, and had a deluge of detail
concerning the Anarchy. This mass of
detail about things recently transpired was counterbalanced by the meaningless Götterdammerung extravaganza which had the
appearance of future events. Rydberg
showed that the source of the Götterdammerung
was an adapted passage of Lucan’s Pharsalia. The end of the prophecies, of course, had to
be highly unspecific, as Henry’s powers of prophecy only enabled him to predict
(in reality) past events…. and so, all prophecies which made any sense, were of
those events which had already transpired.
Henry tried to apportion the prophecies equally spread about the Danes
and Saxons and the Norman invasion and the state of the Church and the Anarchy
of recent times. At times, even references so highly specific which represented
Portchester castle being rebuilt by Henry Blois. But, our seer knew if the prophecies did not
potentially give the air of looking into the future for all of time he would be
discovered as a fake. Hence, the Götterdammerung.
There seems little doubt that Henry Blois was the author
of the HRB and VM, even though some of my suppositions regarding Henry’s mind
set and aspirations might be spurious. Even Tatlock
noticed that Geoffrey was ‘at pains to make the city of Winchester prominent
and exalted’. If half of my interpretations were dubious or tentative the fact
that Henry Blois requested metropolitan status for Winchester and this was
mentioned along with the fact that one of Arthur’s dragons was supposedly left
in the Cathedral at Winchester etc. indicates there are too many commonalities
with Henry Blois. This is without all the evidence we have yet to cover!! The
fact that Henry Blois impersonates Wace and then introduces the round table
which is now in the Great Hall at Winchester…. is just one of many coincidences
that need further scrutiny. We shall get to the bottom of this in part III
The
astrological salad of skimble skamble seems to start with what could have been
an anagram of Blois in Stilbon.
Henry’s vision of the utopian Arcadia of antiquity could well be envisaged by
himself as the primary shepherd as indicated in the John of Cornwall scenario
of a returning ‘adopted son’ to rule over the united Britons after they have
unseated Henry II and the Norman foreigners:
" Stilbon of Arcady shall change his shield,
and the helmet of Mars shall call unto Venus. The helmet of Mars shall cast a
shadow, and the rage of Mercury shall overpass all bounds. Iron Orion shall
bare his sword. Phoebus of the ocean shall torment his clouds. Jupiter shall
trespass beyond his appointed bounds, and Venus forsake the way that hath been
ordained unto her. The malignity of Saturn the star shall fall upon the earth
with rain of heaven, and shall slay mankind as it were with a crooked sickle. .
. . The tail of the Scorpion shall breed lightnings, and the Crab fall at
strife with the Sun. The Virgin shall forget her maiden shame, and climb up on
the back of the Sagittary. The chariot of the Moon shall disturb the Zodiac,
and the Pleiades shall burst into tears and lamentations."
