Henry Blois' authorship of the 'History of the Kings of Britain' written under the pen name of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

The following is an extract from a two volume work by the Reverend Francis Lot in a book titled 'The Island of Avalon'.



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

Henry Blois as Geoffrey of Monmouth.

 As we have covered, the initial pseudo-history which constituted the bulk of the HRB prior to 1138 was destined for  the Empess Matilda and her father King Henry I. This was the pre-cursor of the Primary Historia, which was finished whilst Henry Blois was in Normandy in 1138.... to be discovered at Bec Abbey in January 1139 by Huntingdon. There is no record as to where Henry Blois spent nearly a year in Normandy, but it would be no surprise if some time was spent at the Abbey of Bec.  The initial pseudo-history underwent a drastic change where Arthuriana was added. Since Henry Blois had decided to throw caution to the wind and write under a nom de plume, there were probably many more embellishments added to the initial pseudo-history. Modern scholars seem to think today’s Vulgate HRB is identical to what I have termed the Primary Historia found at Bec.  The Primary Historia precedes what scholarship has termed the First Variant. In effect, scholarship needs to understand that the First Variant is not a variant which followed the Vulgate version but in fact preceded it and was first published in 1144. The first time the Primary Historia is referred to, was when Henry of Huntingdon accompanied the newly elected Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury on his way to Rome to collect his Pallium after being consecrated on January 8th 1139. William of Malmesbury ‘as far as he can remember’, recalls Henry Blois was appointed Legate on March 1st. If Theobald left in late January with Henry Huntingdon, it would take him the whole of February at least to get to Rome. It is known that Henry Blois was piqued at being overlooked for the position of archbishop.

What Huntingdon saw was not the Leiden manuscript but a first edition Primary Historia which excluded Merlin and his prophecies in the text.[1] Since Theobald of Bec had previously been the Abbot at Bec, shortly before his election, his reason for stopping over, on his way to Rome was to tide over, breaking his journey and to visit fellow brothers. It is here that Henry of Huntingdon, a canon of Lincoln and chronicler, one of Theobald’s entourage, receives and reads with astonishment, the book written by a certain Galfridus Artur, the first rendition of the name of Henry Blois’ phantom persona.  According to scholars like Crick, we are to believe that Gaufridus Artur as a ‘supposed’ Welshman from Monmouth, had a readership in Normandy in 1138. The book was as yet un-noticed by any contemporary in Britain. Huntingdon is an archdeacon with Alexander of Lincoln as patron and Huntingdon first published his Historia Anglorum, c.1129. Theobald, who had been abbot of Bec only a few months previously, has Huntingdon accompanying him as part of his suite. More strange is that Henry of Huntingdon’s patron, Bishop Alexander, who supposedly commissioned the prophecies of Merlin to be translated by ‘Geoffrey’, had not informed Henry of Huntingdon of either the prophesies or the HRB in which his name had supposedly appeared as a dedicatee.[2] By Huntingdon’s own account he was ‘amazed’ to find such an account of insular history as he was a historian himself and the majority of the content he had never come across before.

Julia Crick in her thesis on dissemination and reception of Geoffrey’s HRB, like all previous Galfridian scholarship, assumes the a priori acceptance that Geoffrey of Monmouth was a real person. It can only lead to unfounded conclusions. Many commentators have based their deductions on the various dedications found in HRB manuscripts and the presumption that Geoffrey of Monmouth was Welsh. A new perspective needs to be adopted.

To do this I have just shown the reader, that where the GS is concerned the author is Henry Blois. The authorship of GS is plainly to hide the deception of presenting a glossed polemic of Henry’s place in history i.e. an apologia for his actions in the Anarchy and as a memorial for his brother. I have also shown that the author of the VM and its prophecies have a high incidence of similar corroborative attitude and material in common with Henry Blois. Certain episodes parallel to events, where we know from the GS, Henry was either heavily involved in, or at which he was present. Contemporary historians even convey Henry Blois’ wily nature. If there was one person who was in a position to carry out such a fraud creating the false persona of Geoffrey of Monmouth. it would be the most powerful man in Britain. There are two principles which need to be established at the outset, so that the pieces of this bizarre puzzle fall into place. Firstly, there is no Geoffrey of Monmouth and secondly the Prophecies of Merlin in HRB and their offshoots, such as those found in the VM and John of Cornwall’s rendition.... all derive from Henry Blois.

Tatlock understands that there is virtually not one episode in the HRB whicht is not traceable or derived from some other source. The prophecies were constructed in a different manner and for a specific purpose. They substantiate the specious historicity found in the HRB by a method of confirmation which is essentially that same fallacious history written backwards. Their intent is to astound the audience by predictions that seem accurate…. many of which are conveniently verifiable as they have come to fruition in the lifetime of those reading the prophecies; others seeming to have come true by the historical account found in HRB.

It is a coincidence that the first charter that ‘Galfrido Artur’ signs, relates to 1129, the same year, Henry Blois becomes Bishop of Winchester.  The foundation charter of Oseney Abbey is a copy of the original foundation charter signed in 1129 and of the six or seven subsequent charters with the Galfridian name affixed, which are found in cartularies[3].... all could have had the name added to complete the façade of a fake persona.

These were all original charters kept at Oxford and Henry Blois, who we know was at Oxford on several occasions, added the Galfridus signatures to the various charters most probably in 1153 after Wallingford. or just after the treaty of Winchester had been signed. The differentiated signatures were fraudulently applied in one sitting in a room where the charters were kept. What exactly Galfridus’ name contributes to the charters by comparison with the other traceable and relevant witnesses, in part adds to the reasoning in deducing that the charters are genuine…. but his name is irrelevant.

Given the content of the Primary Historia, it would certainly lead to ridicule if the Trojan history and Arthurian saga were found to be an invention of the Bishop of Winchester. The tongue in cheek name of Galfridi Arturi was hazarded upon as a pen name in the copy left at Bec. This is the name Huntingdon found attached to the copy at Bec.  Geoffrey of Monmouth was the later appellation for the final Vulgate HRB which included the prophecies. The inspiration for his name came from the signature of Ralph of Monmouth found on the charters at Oxford.

What we do know is that in January 1139 a manuscript was seen at Bec, the precursor to Crick’s 76&77. The Leiden manuscript from Bec Abbey is a final Vulgate version which superseded the Galfridus Arthur version now lost (which I have termed the Primary Historia) ….  most probably discarded as the Vulgate version was circulated by Henry Blois. Crick’s version purportedly written by Geoffrey or Gaufridi Monimutensis with a dedication to Rodbertum comitem Claudiocestrie differs from the name given by Henry of Huntingdon as Galfridi Arturi. Most commentators assume it was ‘Geoffrey’s’ fame and the inclusion of the heroic Arthur which warranted Huntingdon’s reference to Galfridus Arthur. This assumption is wrong because ‘Geoffrey had no fame in 1139 and Huntingdon used the name because it was the author’s signed name in the Primary Historia. ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ as an appellation had not been considered as an authorial title until the later Vulgate HRB was published. As I have stated, Galfridi Arturi became Geoffrey of Monmouth…. inspired by Henry signing his name next to a Ralph of Monmouth. I want to make this clear; there was no Geoffrey of Monmouth before 1154. Huntingdon did not mention Walter the archdeacon or any dedication, and he did not know of the charters at Oxford or of an existing Galfridus Arthur with any reference to locate him. Crick’s 76 is entirely different from Huntingdon’s copy which he refers to in his letter to Warin (EAW).

Henry Blois presented known history in reverse as prophecy and he has done something similar in the publication of the HRB in presenting it as a book relevant to the dedicatees. Let me be clear about this also. The dedicatees were dead before the Vulgate version which includes their names was published.  Henry Blois has also created Geoffrey as the bishop of Asaph, an author of rank.  The bishop of Asaph had been consigned to death before the Vulgate HRB (as we know it today) was published. This I believe was done for no other reason than to ensure posterity and his readers visualised a real credible person who had the social and moral standing of a bishop. A bishop would not invent a fallacious history nor could it be conceivable that a consecrated and attested bishop could be a hoaxer. There may indeed be another reason and this may be that the author of the prophecies and HRB is too obviously written by someone with a keen interest in the church. Henry Blois by the invention of the colophon and its seeming effect of back-dating the Vulgate version to a time of contemporaneity with Caradoc, Malmesbury and Huntingdon, is obviously responding to a pressure exerted by curiosity to find the author.  If Henry could plant the paperwork to hoax posterity, then no-one would ever know that the bishopric of Asaph did not exist at that time. Even if it did, no Anglo Norman could get near the place with the Welsh rebellion taking place.  In that part of Henry of Huntingdon’s work which covers the period up to the death of Henry Ist, Huntingdon tells us that in Wales at that time there were only three bishoprics, Bangor, Glamorgan and St David’s. There was no mention of Asaph or ‘Geoffrey’s’ predecessor, the supposed Gilbert. It is suspicious that both Gilbert and ‘Geoffrey’ were both consecrated in Lambeth by Archbishop Theobald, yet there is not one iota of a record of either of their deeds at Asaph.  It is not until Gervaise records c.1188 that ‘Geoffrey’ was bishop of Asaph, that there actually was a bishopric. Robert of Torigni’s attestation regarding Geoffrey of Monmouth becoming bishop was informed by Henry Blois himself on a visit to Mont St Michel in 1155. William Lloyd who was Dean of Bangor became Bishop of Asaph from 1680 to 1692. He was aware of Gervaise’s record but he is suspicious also of Geoffrey’s predecessor Gilbert: I conclude, that there was no bishop there at the time when our Jeffrey writ his history. It is very possible that so ignorant a …… as he was, might not know there ever had been a Bishop of that See. And I dare say he was no prophet, though I believe as Nubrigensis (Newburgh) did, that he made those prophecies himself, which he fathered upon Merlin.

Modern scholarship is also aware that ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB is not a correct rendition of British history. It is obvious that Merlin’s prophecies are comprised of events concerning the Anarchy, and some prophecies are constituted retrospectively to concur with an already established bogus history mixed with known history found in HRB. So, why does anyone give credence to the existence of Geoffrey when all is an apparent fraud? Bishop Lloyd is confused as he believes ‘Geoffrey’ wrote the Vulgate HRB in 1138 and has not considered the dedications being a device which ‘backdated’ the Vulgate HRB. This method gives the appearance that HRB was written while the dedicatees were alive. Bishop Lloyd, much like modern scholars has not considered the power that the real author of HRB wielded in setting up a bishopric to corroborate Geoffrey’s phantom’s existence.

Bishop Lloyd is amazed at how ‘Geoffrey’ could follow a bogus Gilbert into the position of Bishop of Asaph: Yet I believe he could not foresee that there would be a bishop of St Asaph within five years after, much less that he should be Bishop of that see within twelve years after the writing of his History.

Supposedly, Geoffrey became bishop elect of St Asaph and was ordained a priest at Westminster in mid-February 1152 and a week later in Lambeth he was consecrated by Archbishop Theobald, but there is no record of him ever visiting St Asaph.  The accepted reason for there being no record of Geoffrey at his bishopric is that the Welsh rebellion prevented his arrival. I would posit that this is precisely the reason that Henry Blois chose such a venue. Henry Blois had presented Geoffrey’s persona as being Welsh. Asaph was positioned in the rebellious North of Wales and none reading the Vulgate HRB first published in 1155 were going to care about the author if he was already dead. Like most, they assumed by the persons mentioned in the dedications that the book had been around for some time. However, Gilbert[4] some time before 24^th March 1152, and Geoffrey of Monmouth[5] are both recorded as being consecrated in Lambeth which is suspicious in itself and nothing is known about either at Asaph. In Gilbert’s time it was still called the church of Llanelwy, after the Elwy River and thus it is very suspect that Geoffrey was the first ever to be called bishop of St. Asaph and there is absolutely no record of him after the faked ordination except of course his faked signature on the charter at Oxford and the treaty of Winchester.  Whoever followed ‘Geoffrey’ as bishop of Asaph seems spurious also, a certain ‘Richard’ seems to be another invention until another ‘Gilbert’ curiously left his see to become an abbot of Abingdon in 1165. He was removed from that office in 1175. There was no Anglo Norman presence and no-one with Anglo Norman interests could verify anything about St Asaph. It seems an ideal safe place for Henry Blois to create a bishopric for an aspiring writer. It is unlikely if anyone but Robert of Torigni was even informed of ‘Geoffrey’s’ bogus appointment on mainland Britain. To understand the sequence in which the HRB was composed, we need to understand that there was firstly a Primary Historia followed by what is now known as the First Variant version which was followed by the Vulgate version. The First Variant was updated and embellished from the Primary Historia. Its most significant update was the inclusion of Avalon as Arthur’s last resting place which was not mentioned by Huntingdon. The First Variant was used for the purpose of gaining metropolitan status by Henry Blois in Rome in 1144. It contained limited prophecies and no dedications in its original form. Updated prophecies were at a later date added to the exemplar of the First Variant version after 1155. Also, the Vulgate version of HRB was never fully published with the updated prophecies until 1155. The method of dating used by scholars based on the dedications is futile. All the dedications are backdated so that the publication of Vulgate HRB is made to appear as being composed at an earlier date when the dedicatees were alive. As we can see there are no dedications in First Variant and none related to have been in Primary Historia by Huntingdon.

In the Bern MS 568 it has a dedication addressed to Robert of Gloucester. Robert is generally believed to have died in 1147 or even 1146 according to Gervaise. The Bern MS. includes the prophecies of Merlin and the dedication to Book VII in which Geoffrey speaks of Alexander as dead at the time he writes.  The HRB can’t be dedicated to a living Robert of Gloucester if Alexander in the dedication was dead. Alexander died the year after Robert.

Southwark, where Henry Blois had a palace, may be the reason he chose Lambeth for ‘Geoffrey’ to become a priest. Henry Blois at one stage has control over Theobald’s affairs at Canterbury and also was bishop of London for a time,[6] so it was within his ability to fabricate the election of a bishop that would only sign one document of significance, (the Winchester charter). That document was drawn up and probably held by Henry at Winchester. ‘Geoffrey’s’ ‘profession’ as bishop still exists, but it still does not preclude the most powerful man in Britain carrying out a fraud to prevent himself being found out as the author of a book which has seditious prophecies in it by creating a fake persona. Henry could be accused of treason if his identity were discovered. Not only would he be ridiculed, but any contemporary would soon work out that he had vainly included himself in some of the prophecies of Merlin if he had not squewed the updated prophecies in the Vulgate version.  It is because he was not discovered as the author of HRB that he went one stage further in promoting rebellion against Henry II…. now that the supposed author of HRB was dead. Nearly all the prophecies in the Vita Merlini have a high relevancy to Henry Blois and to contemporary events surrounding him. By the time Henry had covered his tracks ‘Geoffrey’ could be allowed to speak again. Henry could not be accused as the author of VM even though prophecies went up to 1157 as the book supposedly logically must have been written in the author’s lifetime. ‘Geoffrey’ supposedly died in 1154-5.

Robert of Torigni became the prior of Bec in 1149 but it was he who had originally showed the Primary Historia to Huntingdon.  Huntingdon may have made a copy from Bec of Geoffrey’s Primary Historia. He certainly made a précis of its contents which is now EAW.[7]

Most deductions are that Robert of Torigni was writing after 1152 when he relates that the new Bishop Geoffrey Arthur ‘had translated the history of the Kings of Britain from British into Latin’.  The mere suggestion that Robert of Torigni, (a historian also), believes that ‘Geoffrey’ had translated the book from an original (which never existed) indicates two things. Firstly, we should be aware that Walter’s book was never mentioned in the First Variant version in 1144 (which is the successor to the Primary Historia). So Robert of Torigni must have been told by Henry Blois that it was a translation of a previous work and also informed of the bishop of Asaph’s death. The fact it was a supposed translation of a British book was not mentioned in EAW or First Variant.  Secondly, the information concerning Walter’s mysterious book could only come from Henry Blois who has recently fled the country avoiding Normandy on his way to Clugny in 1155. Any mention of Walter would certainly be dated after his death in 1151. It is only in conjunction with Walter that the ancient book is posited as the source from which HRB is translated and this is only mentioned in the Vulgate version. Alfred of Beverly does not mention the fact that the copy of Galfridus’ book is derived from a translation of Walter’s supposed British book. The fact that all the information in HRB supposedly came from a book lent to ‘Geoffrey’ by Walter does not appear before Walter’s death or before the Vulgate version was published. Alfred of Beverly did not use the Vulgate version as his source.

It is Henry Blois who has landed at Mont. St Michel and conveyed the news to Robert of Torigni himself (now abbot of Mont St Michel) in 1155. Robert of Torigni and Henry Blois were probably about the same age, acquainted, with similar interests and must have met previously in Normandy in 1137 and thereafter with Henry’s frequent trips to Rome and passing through Bec when Robert of Torigni was a monk there. Henry Blois, after the council held by Henry II at Winchester in 1155, had fled shortly afterward from the southwest of England without the King’s permission (as all ports were being watched) and landed at Mont St Michel. This is the reason Robert of Torigni is aware of not only the bogus elevation of Galfridus to bishop but also of his recent demise. If the grandson of William the conqueror told Robert that the author of the book he had seen at Bec had become bishop of Asaph why would Robert not believe him.

Henry may have told him that the bishop of Asaph was dead. It may be that the death of the fictitious bishop was not published abroad until Henry’s return to England. The point being that Robert of Torigni and Henry knew each other and if Henry had said that ‘Geoffrey’ had been consecrated Bishop of Asaph in 1152 it would be taken on good authority.

Robert of Torigni, is understandably disconcerted  by ‘Geoffrey's’ account, and is happy to make use of Huntingdon’s précis to escape the evident pitfalls of having to piece together extracts from the chronicles of Eusebius and Jerome with Geoffrey’s rendition of historical events. A copy of Huntingdon’s letter to Warin is in Robert’s possession in which flatteringly his name is mentioned as being the discoverer of the Bec HRB (Primary Historia)….referred to in terms of being a most studious searcher after and collector of books both sacred and profane. Henry Blois also passes on verbally, news of the formerly known Galfridus Arthur (now better known as Geoffrey of Monmouth) and the spurious election of Geoffrey to a non-existent bishopric.  Robert of Torigni writes in his prologue: 'But, for that meseemeth it is unbecoming to make addition of aught extraneous unto the writings of men of so high authority, to wit, Eusebius and Jerome, yet natheless, for the satisfaction of the curious, will I add unto this prologue a letter of Archdeacon Henry, wherein he doth briefly enumerate all the Kings of the Britons from Brutus as far as Cadwallo, who was the last of the puissant Kings of the Britons and was father of Cadwallader whom Bede calleth Cedwalla. This epistle, as will be found therein, the said Henry did excerpt at Bec, where I offered him the use of a copy of the whole history of the Britons when he was on his way to Rome.'

Robert of Torigini goes on to explain the scope of his own history from Julius Cæsar to the death of Henry Ist in 1135, while acknowledging his indebtedness to the History of Henry of Huntingdon. Robert of Torigni derives information in other parts of his chronicle from Huntingdon’s history which is not in Warin’s letter. If we consider that Huntingdon died in 1154 and consider that the Merlin’s prophecies have an intricate relation to Arthur in the Vulgate prophecies, does it not seem strange that Huntingdon does not mention Merlin in later editions of his chronicle regardless of his omission of mentioning him in EAW? If, as scholars believe, the Vulgate version of HRB, which Huntingdon had initially seen at Bec had been inclusive of prophetia….why is there no mention of Merlin in Huntingdon’s later redactions of his history. Especially, if the Vulgate had existed in the public domain between 1138-1154. It is not understood by most commentators that Merlin was a later addition after the Primary Historia had existed without prophecies and any mention of Merlin. It is possible Merlin and the early set of prophecies existed in the First Variant in 1144, but these prophecies were later corrected to the updated version from HRB, but without the dedication which only existed in the Vulgate after Alexander had died. We should also make note of the change in storyline concerning Merlin and Stanheng. Neither Robert of Torigni nor Henry of Huntingdon makes mention of Merlin which also implies (even though Robert is recounting EAW) that the prophetia and Historia + Arthuriad were not combined until later. It seems to me that Robert of Torigni, whose quote under the year 1152 in the Bern MS that 'Geoffrey Arthur, who had translated the History of the Kings of the Britons out of the British into Latin, is made Bishop of St. Asaph in North Wales’ has been informed of this fictitious event and the most likely candidate to promote such a falsity is Henry Blois.  As we have already speculated, Henry Blois probably does not plant the evidence of Geoffrey’s death or promote the composition of the book of Llandaff until after his return to England in 1158.

Most commentators have assumed that the prophecies of Merlin preceded Henry Ist death because an extract of the Merlin prophecies was found in Orderic Vitalis’ Historia Ecclesiastica and they have deduced that there was a separate Libellus Merlini. This theory was refuted by Tatloc: ‘since there is no evidence or antecedent probability for an earlier version of the prophecies, and since all the evidence in Ordericus points to the use of Nennius, Bede and Geoffrey’s complete HRB, the soundest conclusion is that Ordericus used the prophecies of Merlin merely as found in the HRB and there is no ground for believing in an earlier version’.

Tatlock’s deduction concerning Orderic’s use of Vulgate HRB is correct. The one thing he has not considered is that the whole section in Orderic’s work is an interpolation by Henry Blois.

However, the fact that Abbot Suger had a copy of the first set of prophetia i.e. the Libellus Merlini, is indicative of the existence of prophecies separate from HRB (he does not mention it) which were later to be included in First Variant. The only extant exemplar of First Variant had its prophecies up dated which now form the present four versions. For example, the ‘sixth’ in Ireland prediction could not have been known prior to 1151 (when Suger died) and does not exist in Suger’s excerpt from the prophecies.

However, as is evident and noted by Orderic’s editor Auguste le Prévost, Orderic’s book XII was written in 1136-7.  It would mean Orderic saw a Primary Historia before it was written (if we wish to counteract Tatlock’s insistence that Orderic sourced his list of Kings from it). But then we need to explain the ‘Sixth in Ireland’ in Orderic’s report (which we know can only post date the discussion on the invasion of Ireland held at the council in Winchester in 1155 just before Henry went into self imposed exile).

The entire chapter XLVII in book XII is evidently an interpolation by Henry Blois himself after 1155.  The signs are evident if one is not to be duped by his interpolation. Tatlock, however, is only trying to prove that there was no separate Libellus Merlini and that the interpolated passage came from the Historia. Tatlock believed that Historia and prophetia were at that time always spliced together as do most commentators. This position is largely maintained by scholars because they have not understood that the prophecies did not exist in Primary Historia and as for their presence in the First Variant version did not originally exist as the updated set found in Vulgate HRB when the First Variant was first composed in 1144. The First Variant contained just those prophecies which made up the Libellus Merlini. All four manuscripts come from one exemplar which have had the updated version of the prophecies added which can only be after 1155 as they also include the ‘sixth in Ireland’ prophecy. Modern scholarship’s assumption is even more flawed in the fact that they consider the Vulgate version a pre-cursor of the First Variant. Tatlock, does however, point out that the thirteen books of Orderic’s history were not written in the same order that they stand and Orderic also made various insertions himself, but Orderic died in 1142 and Henry Blois (the inventor of the prophecies) could not have known of a sixth king. He would certainly not have guessed Henry II plans to invade Ireland at this date as the Anarchy was still to play out for another 10 years.  In the same Book VII in which we find the Merlin insertion, Orderic retrospectively writes about Adeliza of Louvain: and the queen was crowned by the ministrations of the priesthood. She adorned the court and Kingdom for fifteen years, but though richly endowed in other respects, to this day she has borne the King no child.

Adeliza was married to Henry Ist in 1121. This would indicate this part of the book was written in 1136, if we were to add on the 15 years. Henry Blois has inserted the Merlin passage at an à propos place so that the prophecies give the impression of foretelling events still in the future based on the chronology of Orderic’s history. This is achieved by placing the prophecies in book XII at a chronological contemporaneous period before Henry Ist death.

 If we needed to allow Tatlock’s theory, (concerning kings) it does not detract from the fact that we have the Primary Historia in 1139, 30 miles from St Evroult where Orderic was composing his History, but he could not possibly have news of the ‘sixth in Ireland’ until after 1155.  The insertion of the Merlin passage into Orderic was essential for Henry Blois, as it is the earliest confirmable evidence which substantiates a vaticinatory nature to the prophecies. The prophecies are added to a section in Orderic which implies Henry Ist is still alive; so I will cover the entire section in detail in a moment.

Tatlock, like most commentators is duped by the seeming veracity of the dedications in Vulgate HRB, which logically indicate the time parameters in which the Vulgate HRB was first published.

No commentators have allowed for fraud on a grand scale and most commentators have excluded this as an option, yet most recognize the actual work as a fraud. All have been misled by Henry Blois in a convincing portrayal of a parochial and struggling ‘Geoffrey’. One obvious ploy was to write a dedication to one’s arch-enemy flattering him, calling Robert of Gloucester ‘another Henry’. Henry Blois was Robert of Gloucester’s enemy throughout the Anarchy, so not one person would suspect his authorship after lauding praise on Robert of Gloucester. Only one First Variant edition is dedicated to Robert but that addition will certainly have transpired after his death as the dedication is not expanded as in HRB.

 The point of the dedications in the Vulgate version was to backdate the work to avoid been discovered as the author. Where the prophecies are concerned it gave the aura of accurate prescience…. predicting some events which had already recently transpired in the Anarchy.  Funnily enough it is R.S Loomis’s observation that is ironic: Robert died in 1147 and Alexander in 1148 and thereafter a dedication to either would have no point.[8]  It is for this exact reason in logic that Henry Blois carried out such a ploy.

Henry Blois had composed an earlier set of prophecies which were passed to his friend Abbot Suger c.1144-5. These were then were added to First Variant. At a later date these early prophecies must have been substituted for the later version found in the Vulgate edition of prophecies.  The John of Cornwall edition of prophecies which we shall discuss at length uses the same fictional dedication method as HRB and was written by Henry himself around the same time the VM was written c.1156-7. The JC version goes even further in its seditious content than the Vulgate HRB prophecies or the VM prophecies.

It is the interpolation into Orderic which has convinced researchers of Merlin’s predictive powers. Much stead has been put in the Merlin passage in Orderic, as to dating the prophecies of Merlin, since Orderic died in 1142. The main thing to hold in mind is that the prophecies of Merlin are in no way prophetic, but are the invention of one man writing history retrospectively. Henry Blois was certainly not a prophet! The next thing to understand is that the dedications in all their forms have no bearing on the dating of the HRB. Dedicating the HRB to Waleran, Stephen or Robert is bound to help circulate the book in court or gain credence in clerical circles as a worthy read, but the dedicatees names were primarily used as a gambit to pretend that the Vulgate HRB was in circulation earlier than it actually was. The same argument holds for the colophon concerning the Caradoc, Malmesbury and Huntingdon. Only a few copies of HRB existed prior to 1155 in which there were no dedications (maybe the unexpanded dedication to Robert found in the Exeter version of First Variant), but it must be understood by the reader that the various dedications found in the Vulgate HRB were not included until all dedicatees were dead.

The most common dedication found in the various manuscripts is to Robert of Gloucester alone. The dedication below to both Stephen and Robert was composed after both of their deaths even though it has the standard retro device to confute the reader: the issue of my book now made public.  Many commentators believe the Vulgate HRB was written in 1136-7 at the only time the two dedicatees were not against each other…. or marginally later as Robert’s conditional oath of allegiance to Stephen was formally renounced in 1138. The dedication adds importance to the HRB in showing that the most noble were accountable for its patronage, production and interest. However, the dedications are a farce. The Primary Historia was not complete until the first half of 1138 and we know Huntingdon saw no dedications.

'Unto this little work of mine, therefore, do thou, Stephen, King of England, show favour in such sort that with thee for teacher and adviser it may be held to have sprung not from the poor little fountain of Geoffrey of Monmouth, but from thine own sea of knowledge, and to savour of thy salt, so that it may be said to be thine offspring—thine, whose uncle was Henry the illustrious King of England, whom philosophy hath nurtured in the liberal arts, whom thine own inborn prowess of knighthood hath called unto the command of our armies, and whom the island of Britain doth now in these our days hail with heart-felt affection, as if in thee she had been vouchsafed a second Henry. Do thou, also, Robert, Earl of Gloucester, our other pillar of the realm, lend thine assistance that, under the combined direction of ye both, the issue of my book now made public may shine forth in an even fairer light. For thee, unto whom was sire that same most renowned King Henry, hath thy mother, Philosophy, taken unto her bosom and indoctrinated thee in the subtleties of her sciences and afterward directed thee unto the camps of Kings that thou mightest achieve renown in knightly exercises, wherein, valiantly surpassing thy comrades-in-arms, thou hast learnt to stand forth as a terror unto thine enemies and under thy father's auspices as a protection unto thine own people. Being, therefore, as thou art, the trusty protection of them that are thine own, receive myself, thy prophet-bard, and this my book, issued for thine own delectation, under thy protection, so that lying at mine ease beneath the guardianship of so far-spreading a tree, I may be able to pipe my lays upon the reed of mine own muse in safe security even in the face of the envious and the wicked.'

It is doubtful, if these dedications had any truth to them, that Geoffrey would refer to Robert as thou thyself art offspring of the illustrious Henry, King of the English in one dedication and again above use the same reference to Stephen being a second Henry when the dedication is to both of them.

The whole point of this particular dedication is to date the work before 1138. Contemporaries would be well aware that the dedication indicates a date before the Anarchy if it is to Stephen and Robert and this date (ante 1138) would add credence to many of the prophecies. Why indeed, before the Primary Historia was even discovered at Bec, would ‘Geoffrey’ need security in the face of the envious and wicked? This is a Freudian slip by Henry in that it is the reason behind the dedication. This dedication is composed post 1155 because people are getting suspicious and Henry Blois needs to distance the updated seditious prophecies from himself. In a separate dedication to Robert of Gloucester alone, Henry Blois is reacting to suspicions that the whole historicity of HRB is dubious; therefore he reacts by giving his history credence by establishing a source: Now, whilst, I was thinking upon such matters, Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, a man learned not only in the art of eloquence, but in the histories of foreign lands, offered me a certain most ancient book in the British language. This as we shall cover shortly expands into creating the Gaimar epilogue.

There is no-one more likely to possess such a copy of a Stephen dedicated HRB and who could produce it for propagation in any of his scriptoriums than Henry of Blois. Henry could claim it had come from Stephen’s effects after his death.

There is not one shred of evidence which shows that the Vulgate HRB with any dedication is in the public domain before 1155. Alexander of Lincoln died February 1148. Scholars are duped into believing that the dedication to Alexander is real because of the abrupt way in which Geoffrey beaks off the HRB purely at Alexander’s request. This is how he wishes his audience to perceive the action. The Alexander dedication is obviously not in the First Variant produced in 1144 as Alexander is still alive.  In reality, Henry is just inserting or splicing his prophecies into the HRB which he had initially concocted to affect the political climate: I had not come so far as this place of my history, when by reason of the much talk that was made about Merlin my contemporaries did on every side press me to make public an edition of his prophecies, and more especially Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln.

There were no contemporaries pressing ‘Geoffrey’ because ‘Geoffrey’ never existed. The only pressing factor was certain people trying to find out who had written this book as no-one could locate Galfridus Arthur, ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ or the Bishop of Asaph.

These prophecies which existed as a separate body were then updated to the moment of inclusion in the Vulgate HRB but did exist in a separate libellus Merlini prior to 1150. We know no-one was pressing Henry Blois to publish. Instead he introduced into circulation versions of the prophecies up to the point in time of composition of the Vulgate and we can witness this by the exclusion of the prophecy about the ‘sixth in Ireland’ in the copy he had passed to his friend abbot Suger. The discussion had not yet transpired at court in Winchester in 1155.

Henry knows his ‘fifth’ in his royal numbering system (Matilda), who he assigns no action under that number, (yet specifies she was not anointed in one prophecy) has been superseded in his numbering system by the sixth. It would be fairly obvious that the numbering system in the early libellus edition of prophecies only went to four.

This ‘Sixth’ (on its own) could easily be predicted after the treaty of Wallingford in the summer of 1153. As we have discussed, the council which debated the invasion of Ireland did not happen until 1155,[9] immediately before Henry left for Clugny. The fact that the reference to the invasion of Ireland occurs in the Chronicle of Clugny xxxviii and attests to the fact that knowledge of this conference was known at Clugny indicates the source of such knowledge is Henry. Also, Peter the Venerable travelled to Clugny with Henry’s transferable wealth and Henry Blois followed soon after the court meeting by way of Mont St. Michel. It would have been at this court that Henry Blois was ordered to surrender his castles to King Henry II and Henry Blois understood the power dynamic was shifting against him. Rather than comply, he fled to Cluny and thereby the Irish information is referenced in their chronicle. As Robert of Torigni dates this Irish discussion to Christmas 1155,[10] he also would have heard this most probably from Henry Blois who landed at the island where Robert of Torigni was newly established as Abbot. At this time the fraudulent news was conveyed that Geoffrey Arthur who had translated the history of the Kings of Britain from British into Latin, as stated in Robert’s chronicle, was now Bishop of Asaph. Most commentators believe it was general knowledge, but there is no other record of it in Britain except that which was planted by Henry Blois i.e. no contemporary chronicler until Gervaise makes any record of our Bishop of Asaph. Henry’s subtlety must not be underestimated and must be taken into account. Robert of Torigni took it upon himself to publish an edition of Sigebert’s Chronicon within which he interpolated accounts of the Dukes and bishops of Normandy which were, at the time of publishing, also the Kings of England; those that reigned after Bede’s time up until 1150. Since Robert referred to Galfridus Arthur rather that Geoffrey of Monmouth we might also assume he has not seen a Vulgate version with dedications. Robert in his preface says that ‘Sigebert mentions not one King of Britain but Aurelius Ambrosius’ which must be derived from Bede; all the rest are from Geoffrey. Robert of Torigni was happy to make known the letter to Warin from Huntingdon by publishing it in his chronicle as it was Robert who discovered the Primary Historia to Huntingdon in the first place. Robert’s reason for publishing the letter was to make known the high standing to which Huntingdon refers to him in the letter: a most studious searcher after and collector of books both sacred and profane.  Both Huntingdon and Robert are apparently not incredulous to Geoffrey’s history and include ‘Geoffrey’s’ fabulations in their own Histories.

It can be asserted that Robert would definitely have read the ‘ex-prophetia’ Primary Historia at Bec and would be eager to hear of the news about the author of that book. The question is whether Henry Blois created Geoffrey of Monmouth’s persona in the Vulgate HRB prior to his fictional death. Certainly, Alfred of Beverley does not refer to a ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ specifically.

Henry Blois’ ploy, as we will uncover later in the propagation of Grail literature, is that he journeys to locations, continental and insular to spread different propaganda that only later collides. So, notice of ‘Geoffrey’s’ death, as we have already mentioned, was probably established on his return in 1158. 

John of Cornwall’s translation of the prophecies for Robert Waleran, Bishop of Exeter who died in March 1155 was fabricated after that date by Henry Blois and certainly does not establish a primary source from which both ‘Geoffrey’ and John worked. It was Henry Blois’ intention that posterity should believe that the Merlin prophecies might be Cornish, falsely establishing a Celtic source in antiquity. These prophecies were composed as a propaganda exercise.  Since Robert Waleran was a personal friend of Henry Blois, it is not difficult to understand (with the usual retro-dating he employs), how Henry Blois makes it appear as if the Bishop of Exeter possessed the Cornish version of prophecies before his death. 

Henry Blois managed to interpolate Orderic’s work with the chapter on the Merlin prophecies. This could have been achieved as Henry has passed by the abbey of St Evroult, in which was found Orderic’s manuscript…. any time after 1143. He is on the way to Rome that year to secure the Pallium for his Nephew William, who Henry has elevated to Archbishop of York. Henry Blois on previous trips to Rome, probably had conversations with Orderic about his history being a fellow monk and interested in history. Henry Blois is of royal blood and arguably the most powerful man in England and renowned in Normandy.  While breaking his journey and tiding over at St Evroult, he hears of Orderic’s death. He asks the abbot to borrow the manuscripts as yet unduplicated since Orderic’s death. He promises to return them on his return Journey. He obviously does not since the prophecy about the ‘sixth in Ireland’ is included. Therefore the interpolation must ante-date the Winchester council 1155.

Henry understands any historian’s works endure. Henry thus interpolates one small passage concerning Merlin’s prophecies in the appropriate section of Orderic in book XII. To most observers, given the surrounding material, it appears that the prophecies must date prior to Henry Ist death. Henry Blois, clever as always, leaves out the one prophecy concerning Henry Ist death from an already extant block of prophecies he has composed earlier.  The Prophecy concerning the death of Henry Ist is too highly specific and is too obviously fraudulent. By leaving it out, it appears that the block of prophecies were truly made before the King’s death. The missing prophecy concerning the King’s body parts, is in the Vulgate prophecies. This has also added credence to the prophetic powers of Merlin in that commentators believe the interpolation to be a genuine part of Orderic’s work. They have considered the prophecy which is not included in Orderic’s work concerning the body parts to have been inserted by a subsequent interpolator in the Vulgate version. Not so! Henry when he interpolated Orderic’s work left it out on purpose because it was specifically too obvious and therefore diluted the prophecies credibility and authenticity.

I know I labour this point, but it is most critical in dating the prophecies (see appendix 14).  Henry Blois could not be able to predict the ‘Sixth in Ireland’ until after 1155. Not only is the prophecy highly specific but it obeys Henry Blois’ numbering system found in Vulgate version and VM and it could only exist after two events; the death of Stephen (before which, the libellus numbering only went to four ) and the said council in which the invasion of Ireland was discussed. When this evidence is added to the fact that the record of these events is recorded at Clugny where Henry fled after the council at Winchester it provides a strong case for the ‘Sixth in Ireland prophecy’ only existing post 29^th September 1155.[11]  Because this is one of the prophecies found in Orderic’s work it is obvious that the interpolation must post date the council at Winchester. We must not be fooled by Henry Blois’ cleverness inserting the Merlin passage in Orderic’s book XII.

Leo iusticiae is Henry’s vaticinatory name for his uncle King Henry Ist of whom he cleverly speaks in the Orderic insertion in the present tense…. as if still alive. In the interpolation into Orderic King Henry Ist is cleverly posited as ‘awaiting his divinely ordained but uncertain destiny’.

 Henry Blois in reality was at odds with the HRB dedicatees, Waleran and Robert. Robert of Gloucester became a permanent enemy from the time he and others had convinced Stephen to free the occupants at Exeter castle. Robert then went to Normandy and returned as the leader of the Angevin cause. Waleran was different in the fact that he was on Stephen’s side to begin with, but Henry Blois was wildly jealous of the sway he and his brother had over his brother. Henry blamed Waleran and his twin brother for planting doubt in Stephen’s mind which led to the arrest of Roger Bishop of Salisbury, one of the main causes of the Anarchy. Henry of Blois dislikes Waleran so much that he refers to him as the Dragon of Worcester[12] in the prophecies. Waleran IV of Beaumont, 1st Earl of Worcester who was married to Matilda de Blois, daughter of King Stephen. In 1141 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 I have mentioned, the single manuscript with Stephen and Robert as dedicatees is simply a devise used by Henry Blois to predate the HRB to 1136. Which supplicant author vying for a patron’s approval dedicates his work to patrons who are at war with each other?   The evidence for dating of Vulgate is found in the updated version of the prophecies and not through the bogus dedications.

We can assume (considering references to metropolitan) that the very first version of First Variant which was presented to papal authorities had the prophetia attached. This assumption is made on the basis that the copy which we have today would have entailed too much reworking of the body of the text to have included the Merlin Prophecies as an addition. One could speculate that only subsequently the prophecies were added to the First Variant version and then the prophecies were updated later. There are so many possible scenarios. We can see how the First Variant found its way to Beverley. We know the First Variant ante-dates the Vulgate as it was used by Henry in 1144; but if the ‘Sixth in Ireland’ prophecy is included in any version, it certainly post-dates 1155.

 There is still nothing to prove that the HRB and Prophetia have been spliced by 1147 because Alfred of Beverley’s work was finished after this date.[13] Suger, abbot of St Denis was a friend of Henry Blois.[14]  Henry and Suger were both scholars, historians, and passionate about architecture.  Abbot Suger, with a similar love of architecture to Henry wrote a panegyric on Louis VI, Le Gros in his Vita Ludovici regis around 1150. In the manuscript he gives an extract from the prophecies beginning at The Lion of Justice… and ending at, Mount Aravias, as found in Vulgate HRB. Orderic’s interpolated passage which post-dates these prophecies is the first reference to Merlin apart from Alfred of Beverley’s earlier mention of him. Abbot Suger must have been presented a copy of the libellus Merlini by Henry Blois. The gullible abbot Suger refers to Merlin as ‘veracious’ and says that not one word of the prophecy has proved untrue. One would assume he has no idea it was constructed by his friend.

Henry Blois finished the Primary Historia in 1138 and left a copy of it at Bec while he was in Normandy.[15] The Primary Historia at Bec did not contain the prophecies of Merlin. There is no contrary evidence to this position and in fact all the evidence points to confirming this statement. However, scholars believe that the Primary Historia (i.e. that book found at Bec from which EAW is derived) is the same as the Vulgate. This position has led them to believe the prophecies existed in the Bec version. The Bec version is plainly a first edition and this can be easily established by story-line variance in the abbreviation of Geoffrey’s history found in Huntingdon’s letter to Warin.

Henry of Huntingdon’s and Warin’s correspondence shows no mention of Merlin in 1139.  Tatlock puts this down to Huntingdon’s uneasiness as a Christian, being unable to mention supernatural prophecies; but this does not explain the occurrence of Arthur’s different speech and the ‘Breton hope’ of Arthur’s return found in EAW and other substantial story line differences. Logically if the Primary Historia had included the prophecies, Alexander who was patron to Henry of Huntingdon would surely have been mentioned in the letter to Warin because of his patrons influence. There was no dedication to Alexander in the version at Bec because there were no prophecies attached.[16]  Huntingdon has not informed Warin of the prophecies or mentioned Merlin simply because Alexander has nothing to do with the Primary Historia.

Alexander’s name as dedicatee was simply a device employed to explain the introduction of the prophecies which were not in the first redaction. Huntingdon is ignorant of his patron’s supposed commissioning of the translation of the prophecies. There is not a comment, then or subsequently. Henry of Huntingdon would never have an opportunity to comment on the dedication to Alexander because Huntingdon died in 1154 and the Alexander dedication was not included until the updated prophecies were added to Vulgate HRB the next year. You would think Alfred of Beverley might have mentioned Alexander c.1150. If the Primary Historia had a dedication to Robert of Gloucester, this fact is also not mentioned by Alfred of Beverley or Huntingdon. Neither is the name of the Archdeacon Walter. Huntingdon had no way to track how this wondrous volume came into existence in Normandy. Henry Blois had secretively deposited it at Bec or nonchalantly said it was from some Welsh author called Galfridus Arthur. Henry Blois could create any story since there were no references in it except to a certain Galfridus Artur as author. Alexander was dead before the updated prophecies and their dedication were added to the Vulgate HRB and so was Huntingdon.

No-one knew where to find ‘Geoffrey’ to ask about the old book he had translated and by the time Walter is mentioned in the Vulgate post 1155, Walter had been dead four years. Surely an intelligent mind like Huntingdon’s would have mentioned either Merlin, his Patron, bishop Alexander in the dedication or even Walter…. if they had existed in the Primary Historia. Why an erudite scholar like Tatlock who puts Huntingdon’s uneasiness as a Christian as an excuse for the omission of the mention of Merlin feels the need to add to the view that the Primary Historia (copy found at Bec) was synonymous with Vulgate HRB; without mentioning the obvious differences seen in EAW’s synopsis is an oversight. 

There is no evidence to the contrary to oppose my view that the dedications are all late additions and this devise of backdating used by Henry Blois is prevalent in that he does the same with Caradoc and other manuscripts. Neither should we consider the evidence provided in the epilogue of L'estoire des Engleis concerning Walter in Geffrei Gaimar’s account as having any bearing on the dating of the Vulgate HRB…. or to the veracity that HRB was a translation of the ‘Good book of Oxford’. I will cover this shortly, but the Gaimar epilogue is a fantastic ploy designed to mislead posterity. L'estoire des Bretons was never written contrary to what we are led to believe. Henry attaches his fabricated epilogue to the L'estoire des Engleis which was genuinely written by Gaimar. There will be readers who doubt that one man could get up to so much tampering with manuscripts and that I am a conspiracy theorist gone mad.  One must understand that firstly Henry was laying a false trail to preserve his anonymity and secondly he enjoyed leaving to posterity what he had created: a near fairy-tale history of the British Isles. The prophecy of Melkin was extant in the era that Henry Blois was at Glastonbury and was a major influence on the way our three genres under investigation inter-relate. Once this fact is uncovered in progression, the reader will then understand why it is so necessary now to plough through such seemingly innocuous detail concerning Henry Blois as author of HRB.

Commentators who thought there was a separate version of the Merlin prophecies largely based their assumption on Orderic’s seemingly early mention of the prophecies. Until one recognises the author of the prophecies could not know to predict an Irish invasion (discussed at the court in Winchester in 1155) one cannot know that Orderic’s passage concerning Merlin is an interpolation made after that date.  The passage in Orderic’s book XII on the prophecies can only be a genuine part of Orderic’s work if one believes the prophecies are truly vaticinatory. This is not a tenable position!  Once the Orderic passage on the prophecies, book XII is recognised as an interpolation, it still does not negate the possibility that there was a separate Libellus Merlini, albeit not updated to include all the prophecies found in the Vulgate HRB. Some of these in HRB as we have covered look back through the period of the Anarchy (although not as comprehensively as Ganieda’s and other prophecies in VM). VM is definitely later than the updated prophecies found in the Vulgate version.

Abbot Suger must have had a first edition of the prophetia judging by the content of the block of prophecies he comments on. But Suger, who died in 1151, did not mention the HRB as being part of the work that embodied the prophecies. The most important fact which pertains to Suger in this instance is that he did not quote the prophecy which involved the Sixth (i.e. Henry II) in Ireland.  A preliminary version of the prophecies could have been part of the First Variant version which was employed for the purpose of obtaining metropolitan status for Winchester in 1144 at Rome. We can assume they were employed to that end based on the fact that the metropolitan of Winchester is foreseen (before the sense of the prophecy was twisted). Also it was prophesied that it would lose its episcopal/metropolitan see (which intonates that it must have historically had one to loose) or maybe this was added while Henry was in Clugny.  But, it would more likely have been included to influence Rome. We know the First Variant was designed to lean toward a clerical audience and obviously the main body of text infers that Winchester had a monastery and a bishop long before Augustine’s arrival. This should be taken into account with the fact that the author of HRB ignores Canterbury, while understanding Henry’s enmity with Canterbury which we will cover later when discussing Eadmer’s letter and his enmity with Theobald of Bec.

Commentators have been duped by Henry Blois’ fraud. Henry makes pretence to stop halfway through his Vulgate HRB (at a place where the Merlinian insertion has been made at the historical point of Vortigern in contrast to the Primary Historia) to accommodate Alexander’s supposed request. The insertion is based loosely on Nennius’ template of the boy Ambrosius before introducing the prophetia.[17]  One can see the original pseudo-history had the Arthuriad spliced on to it in the Primary Historia at the same point.  This is indicated by Huntingdon’s portrayal of an ‘unexpanded’ Arthurian epic given the relative space apportioned to it in the précis. The expanded Arthuriad could only been added after Henry had been to Wales and was not part of the original pseudo-history intended for his uncle. Henry uses the same point at a later date to splice in the prophetia which splits Arthuriana from the pseudo-history and Henry cleverly contrives this insert by reason of having been compelled by Alexander.  Henry also pretends in the VM to be looking for more positive recognition[18] from Robert de Chesney as patron than he had received from Alexander giving the impression of seeking advancement. The picture which is painted which forms the persona of ‘Geoffrey’ is so thoroughly covered and contrived that we must understand Henry’s determination in creating a bogus history which has no attachment to his name as author. We must also consider the pressures which caused him not only to add the contrivance of Walter and his book, providing HRB with a credible provenance for its material. Also Henry’s thoroughness is seen in his effort to compose Gaimar’s epilogue. Henry Blois employs Robert de Chesney in VM because it appears that his patronage is continuous in the same bishopric.[19] It makes no difference that Robert de Chesney lived until 1166 as the VM was published on the continent and ‘Geoffrey’ was already supposedly dead. If Robert de Chesney did see a copy he would assume ‘Geoffrey’ had died before presenting it to him. Perhaps the dedication in VM was added after 1166 as Henry lived until 1171.

The dedications are worthless as a method of dating the text as Crick attempts. In reality Henry Blois needed no patron but financed his own distribution of HRB. It is no wonder that the Vulgate HRB proliferated so quickly. Henry could have copies made by any of the many scriptoriums over which he had control and distribute them to monasteries as a presentation. He could distribute copies feigning nonchalance at the content by passing off HRB as an interesting read.

The dedications are a ruse and make no difference to the dating of the Vulgate HRB but rather by their absence in First Variant and no mention of them in EAW’s précis of Primary Historia…. add credence to the position that the Vulgate edition came out last. The most frequent dedication is to his arch-enemy Robert of Gloucester; the surest way to deflect any suspicion of authorship. Robert died in 1147 so any contemporary would think the Vulgate HRB is at least eight years old in 1155 (the real publication date). ‘Geoffrey’ could not be located (for obvious reasons) plus he was supposedly dead when his book became widely read. It was only c.1153 when Henry Blois started laying a paper trail that implied Geoffrey had lived and was a real person. It was not common knowledge that there was a Bishop of Asaph and no-body cared if there was as before anybody knew ‘Geoffrey’ was a bishop…. he had been consigned to death.

The question as to why there is no comment from any of the dedicatees or comment about such dedications defies normal referencing by chroniclers if the book had been out since 1136 as modern scholars believe. The reason no one really pursued the trail is that the trail was laid retrospectively and it is impossible to find someone who does not exist…. and when any investigator does….he finds ‘Geoffrey’ is already dead.

The version found at Beverley which Alfred uses arrived there through the family contact of Hugh de Puiset Nephew of Henry Blois.  The prophecies and the HRB are not referred to together until the copy that Alfred recycles from is passed around among the monks there. Why is it that Huntingdon’s third and last edition of Historia Anglorum in 1154 still makes no mention of Merlin even though he discovered the Primary Historia 15 years ago? You would think that a man who was ‘astonished’ to find what could be a bogus history (when he first set eyes on it) would certainly relate that his patron’s endeavours had brought the prophecies of Merlin to be added into this book.  If the Historia were so widely read…. why is Alfred from 1139 up until c.1150-1 the first to mention HRB and Merlin together? Why is it only Alfred, who, (by his account probably had a copy in 1147), was the only writer who comments on HRB. Especially, as scholars believe…. if HRB was circulated so widely? The simple fact is that it was not! Alfred wrote the first Latin chronicle to incorporate extracts from HRB into its narrative fabric but it was not based on the Vulgate version as Alfred does not refer to ‘Geoffrey’ but calls him Britannicus. Alfred knows the author is bogus, naming himself Galfridus Arthur. So, Alfred just refers to him as Britannicus rather than using the obviously bogus surname of Arthur. Alfred’s work includes an unadulterated copy of Huntingdon’s EAW.

Who would have the effrontery to inform three insular historians, William of Malmesbury d.1143 and Henry of Huntingdon d.1154 and Caradoc of Lancarfan (probably died c. 1128-36), to be silent as to the Kings of the Britons, seeing that they have not that fictional ancient book by which ‘Geoffrey’s’ authority is established. Who in their right mind would consider the HRB a translation of another book?

The historian’s that ‘Geoffrey’ is supposedly addressing are low born in Henry’s eyes and probably considered by him as plodding chroniclers.  One of them would have made comment if they were alive to do so…. even to a haughty bishop of Asaph (although Malmesbury was long dead before 1152). This epilogue/colophon, found in a few MSS, has been understood by commentators as a reaction to criticism regarding the veracity of the HRB. Some commentators have determined a later date of publication for the MSS which have this inclusion. Again, it is purely a devise which procures contemporaneity with the historians mentioned just as Henry employs the same device with the dedicatees. It is only modern scholars who do not recognise the contrived dis-ingenuineness that Caradoc is Geoffrey’s ‘contemporary’

Caradoc was already dead. Henry had assumed his name to write the Life of Gildas in 1139-40; being evidenced by the Modena Archivolt.[20] William of Malmesbury died in 1143 without comment and never mentioned the life of Gildas. Henry Blois turns his hand briefly to compose the Life of Gildas; probably while the construction of the Primary Historia was in progress or just after. This is before Henry turned his hand to interpolating GR3 and DA which only transpired after William of Malmesbury’s death in 1143.  It is scholars who are duped by Henry’s interpolations into GR3 and DA who believe William would have known of Caradoc.  It would be astounding if Huntingdon made no comment from 1139 until 1154 concerning the addition of the Merlin prophecies if they had been combined early in that era and the work was widely published (especially as one of those named in the colophon). If ‘Geoffrey’ was an Oxford canon or Bishop of Asaph…. someone other than Robert of Torigni would have mentioned his position in Britain. Especially considering the contentious and totally novel content concerning insular British history. Some critic would have wanted to verify the source i.e. Walter’s ancient book. The simple reason no one comments is because no one can until much later. Newburgh works out that the prophecies have been altered (from the initial Libellus).

The illusion created where the author is now dead…. and so are the dedicatees (and especially Walter), is a masterstroke in retrospective publication and deflection of scrutiny. We are left with the impression that the Vulgate HRB came into the public domain 15 years before it actually did. It is only later that Gerald of Wales and Newburgh comment years afterward.

The reader may recall that in a previous letter, written in 1135 to another friend called Walter, (not Warin), Huntingdon, when referring to Winchester and its two previous Bishops, writes: In their seat is occupied by Henry, the King’s sons, who promises to exhibit a monstrous spectacle, compounded of purity and corruption, half a monk, half a knight.[21] Henry of Huntingdon, who is a serious historian, does not like Henry Blois because he sees Henry as architect of Stephen’s usurpation of the crown: He had as his helper Henry, Bishop of Winchester, who earlier had thrown the realm into grievous disorder, delivering the crown of the Kingdom to his brother Stephen…[22]

We have already covered that William of Malmesbury not only slighted Henry’s father, but also let the world know just how duplicitous Henry was. It is not surprising therefore that both historians are seemingly dismissed with distain. It made no difference anyway because both Malmesbury and Huntingdon were dead when the colophon in HRB was added. There could be no challenge to Henry’s offhanded distain for their authority as historians.

It is plain that the writer of the HRB and Vita Merlini, as we have previously commented, is versed in the classics. Therefore, anyone undertaking such a venture as the composition of HRB is knowledgeable about history. But, to recall all the various sources and make voluminous conflatory connections would require an immense memory bordering on the photographic. We also witness Henry’s ability to construct chronologies with names that mirror possible history. Henry of Huntingdon in 1128 had not formed a dislike for the newly installed Abbot of Glastonbury because he had not at that point helped his brother usurp the crown. So, it is worth mentioning again that Huntingdon relates a rather strange anecdotal episode concerning King Henry Ist while in Normandy in 1128: while King Henry abode there he made enquiries concerning the origin and progress of the reign of the Franks; upon which someone present who was not ill informed (uneducated) thus replied: Most powerful King, the Franks like most European nations sprung from the Trojans. For Antenor and his followers becoming fugitive's after the fall of Troy, founded the city on the borders of Pannoia called Siccambria.  After the death of Antenor, these people set up two of their chiefs as governors whose names were Turgotum and Franctionem, from whom the Franks derive their name. After their deaths, Marcomirus was elected: he was the father of Faramond, the first King of the Franks. King Faramond was the father of Clovis the long-haired, from whence the Frank Kings were called ‘long-haired’. On the death of Clovis he was succeeded by Merové from whom the Frank Kings were called Merovignians. Merové begat Childeric; Childeric, Clovis, who was baptised by St. Remi; Clovis, Clothaire; Clothaire, Chilperic;  Chilperic, ClothaireII; ClothaireII begat Dagobert, a King of great renown and much beloved; Dagobert begat Clovis II. Clovis had three sons by his pious Queen Bathilde, viz Clothaire, Childeric, and Theoderic; King Theoderic begat Childebert; Childebert Dagobert II, Dagobert, TheodericII; Theoderic, Clothaire III, the last King of this line. Hilderic the next King, received the tonsure, and was shut up in a monastery. In another line, Osbert was the father of Arnold, my daughter of King Clothaire; Arnold begat St Arnulf who was afterwards Bishop of Metz; St Arnulf, Anchises; Anchises, Pepin, the Mayor of the palace, Pepin, Charles Martel, Charles, King Pepin; King Pepin, Charles the Great, the Emperor, a bright star, which eclipsed the last year of all his predecessors and all his posterity; Charles begat Lewis the Emperor; Lewis the Emperor, Charles the Bald, Charles, King Lewis, father of Charles the Simple; Charles the Simple, Lewis II; Lewis, Lothaire; Lothaire,, Lewis, the last King of this line. On the death of Lewis, the Frank nobles chose for their King, Hugh, who was the son of Hugh the Great. Hugh begat pious King Robert. Robert had three sons, Hugh, the beloved Duke; Henry, most clement King; and Robert, Duke of Burgundy. Henry begat King Philip, who ultimately became a monk, and Hugh the great, who in the holy wars joined the other princes of Europe, and rescue Jerusalem from the infidels in the year of our Lord 1095. Philip was the father of Louis, the King at present reigning. If he trod in the footsteps of his warlike ancestors, you, Oh King, would not rest so safely in his dominions. After this King Henry withdrew into Normandy.[23]

There is good reason to suspect that it is Henry Blois reciting the above, showing off his acumen to his uncle. Firstly, this is a genealogy which Henry would have learnt on his father’s side. We should not forget his relationship to King Henry was through his mother. Henry Blois is the King’s nephew, a rising star…. probably in his early to mid-twenties, son of Adela the King’s sister…. of noble origin, grandson of William the conqueror. Henry had recently gained repute for putting in order a great monastery. Is Huntingdon the historian miffed or jealous that ‘someone’ of such high breeding, impeccably educated, born to prosper, can recount the names of the Frankish Kings in chronological order with such ease? Huntingdon is supposedly the historian.  My point is that Henry Blois is with his uncle as part of Knight’s service from Glastonbury…. as a new and promising knight attending as a favoured Nephew.  It is a coincidence that our Leiden manuscript from Bec is the only one to have a brief history of the Frankish Kings beginning with ‘Antenor et alii profugi’.  ‘Antenor’ is not found with any other HRB manuscript. It also contains, incidentally, Crick’s F-redaction of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, a chronicle originally created by William of Jumièges to which, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni extended the volumes to include history up until Henry Ist.

Henry Blois’ brother Stephen is recorded in Normandy in 1128 with King Henry at the time of Henry’s Frankish recital…. so why not his younger brother with knights from Glastonbury? It certainly sounds like Henry Blois…. because like the HRB, it is wildly inaccurate, but has all the right sounding names. Again, we see Henry’s penchant for eponym’s so widely peppered throughout HRB. Henry Blois, from Royal descent would have studied Blois and Frankish history while a student at Clugny and might have developed delusions concerning Troy and his own genealogy. Henry’s father was numbered Stephen II, Count of Troyes. Troyes is not far from the towns of Autun, Langres, Avallon, and Clugny, all of them in the region of Blois. As the ‘someone’ in Huntingdon’s account states, there certainly was an existing tradition that the European people were descended from ancient Troy. Therefore, it is not too unreasonable to suggest that Henry growing up at Clugny researched the history of the Franks and was able to relate a chronological sequence, even if it were partly fabricated. Did he not do exactly that for the Kings of Britain in the HRB? It seems as if Huntingdon’s ‘someone’ ….the one who divulges the account, is in fact Henry Blois. Henry’s thought process for instigating the composition of the HRB started while he worked at Glastonbury with William of Malmesbury in 1126-9, but we shall get to that in part II of the book. Let us return to look briefly at the letter to Warin related by Robert of Torigni: ’Here beginneth the epistle of Henry the Archdeacon unto Warin as concerning the Kings of the Britons. ‘Thou dost ask of me, Warin the Briton, courteous man as thou art, and witty withal, wherefore, in telling the story of our country, I should have begun with the times of Julius Cæsar and omitted those most flourishing reigns that were betwixt Brute and the days of Julius? Mine answer is that albeit I have many a time and oft made enquiry as to those ages, yet never have I found none that could tell me, nor no book wherein was written aught about them. Even thus in the illimitable succession of years doth the destruction of oblivion overshadow and extinguish the glory of mortality! Howbeit, in this very year, which is the eleven hundred and thirty-ninth from the Incarnation of our Lord, when I was journeying to Rome with Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, at Bec, where the said Archbishop had formerly been Abbot, to my amazement I found the written record of these events. For there I met with Robert of Torigni, a monk of that place, a most studious searcher after and collector of books both sacred and profane. He, when he had questioned me as to the plan of the History of the Kings of the English issued by me, and had eagerly heard what I had to say in answer, offered unto me a book to read as concerning those Kings of the Britons who held our island before the English. These extracts therefrom, my best-beloved, I do therefore send unto thee, albeit they be of the briefest, as becometh a mere friendly letter.’

Huntingdon then follows with a précis of the earlier chapters, in which Huntingdon quotes the two first lines of Brute's prayer to Diana and the first four of her response. Condensing as he goes towards the end and showing no marked interest in Arthur. Huntingdon relates the more romantic episodes in the first part at disproportionate length concerning Brutus, Leir, Belinus and Brennus, Arthgallo and Elidurus, Androgeus. The fact that Henry of Huntingdon saw a copy of what I have termed the Primary Historia, a pre-cursor to both First Variant and Vulgate HRB which records differences in storyline by comparison with First Variant and Vulgate HRB…. is the evidence for assuming HRB was an evolving work. Primary Historia was not widely read and few copies were made. Any that existed were superseded by Vulgate. Even though, understanding it was constrained by brevity, Henry of Huntingdon’s précis rearranges material at times indicating that Primary Historia is a different edition from First Variant and Vulgate; and there are significant changes in actions and anecdotes and the spelling of names unaccountable as transcription error.[24] Primary Historia was as different as First Variant was from Vulgate.

To prevent Brutus’s landing, the giant natives of Albion wade out into the sea, rather than the conventional landing at Totnes noted in HRB.  Lucrinus is shot in a battle by his wife Gondolovea herself. The Saxons in Arthur's time destroy ‘Caerleon on the Severn’ and the beast that eats Morvid is sent from hell, which is not in the Vulgate that we know. King of the Bretons, Budicius brought up Constans and Aurelius Ambrosius in Huntingdon’s rendition. In the Vulgate HRB Budicius brings up Utherpendragon and Aurelius Ambrosius, not Constans.  Witelinus, archbishop of London becomes Guithelinus in HRB where he is termed Metropolitanus. This in effect witnesses Henry Blois’ enmity with Canterbury and Theobald by implying that before Augustine, London was already a metropolitan.  More importantly the development of storyline is evidenced in the evolution of HRB relative to events concerning Henry Blois. One can witness between the Primary Historia in 1138 to the First Variant in 1144 a difference in storyline where three archbishops (archflamens and metropolitans are referred to where they surely would have been mentioned (both absent in EAW) by Huntingdon if they had been noted in the original Primary Historia. There is also the appearance of Phagan and Deruvian which surely would have been noted by Huntingdon as this was the first time he had come across their names as the proselytisers of Britain. This becomes a crucial point when we look at how the First Variant was employed by Henry Blois at Rome in his pursuit of metropolitan status.

Huntingdon must have loved this book. Huntingdon himself describes Stonehenge in his Historia Anglorum, first published c.1129, as one of the four wonders of England, before having read the Primary Historia at Bec. Undoubtedly, Henry Blois had read Huntingdon’s work in the process of constructing his initial pseudo-history. To find Uther Pendragon had erected Stonehenge must have been puzzling for Huntingdon. But, note again my proposition that Merlin was not mentioned in Primary Historia. It is only later that ‘Geoffrey’ decides that Merlin erected Stonehenge. It seems that, at the introduction of Merlin, (after the Primary Historia at Bec had been found) the most mystifying object on the British landscape was then accounted to Merlin having erected it; not as Galfridus Arthur had previously composed (before he had even invented Merlin). It is no wonder that Henry introduces giants with the abundance of megaliths across the British landscape. In Huntingdon’s version we can see what was originally in  the Primary Historia : 'Uter Pendragon, that is, Dragon's head, a most excellent youth, the son of Aurelius, brought from Ireland the Dance of Giants (giants circle) which is now called Stanhenges’. We can witness Henry’s conflated construction here and his clever introduction of Merlin based on Nennius’ boy Ambrosius who is perhaps purposefully conflated from Ambrosius Aurelianus; one of the few people that Gildas identifies by name in his sermon De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae…. and the only one named from the 5th century. Basically, Henry had posited the son of Aurelius as having brought the Giants Dance from Ireland in the Primary Historia. Latterly when introducing Merlin in First Variant as a character before the prophetia Henry calls him Ambrosius (surname) as he conflated Merlin on Nennius’ passage (shown in appendix 36)…. where Ambrosius is named rather than Utherpendragon as Henry had previously recorded in Primary Historia. Also in Huntingdon’s précis, Pascent, the son of Vortigern, had Aurelius poisoned.

Huntingdon is hardly going to trifle in making up these differences. He has read them as they exist…. not revised the details. Modern scholars would have us believe that Huntingdon saw a version of Vulgate HRB as we know it today. It is Gaufridus Artur, who then becomes ‘Geoffrey’ who then becomes Bishop of Asaph, AKA Henry Blois who makes the changes as part of an evolution of HRB in later editions. The Allobroges of the later version are the Senones, Brennius is Brennus "the supreme of men, the glory of the brave, the eternal star of Britain", Tenuantius is Themantius, and a few other names are differently spelt just as we find in the VM by comparison with the HRB.  

Henry’s invention of Merlin, where he weaves him into HRB at some period after the appearance of the Primary Historia probably transpired after the release of the Libellus Merlini. This was introduced into First Variant because of the need to insert the first edition of prophecies which now concern themselves with aspects of metropolitan status in ancient Britain and the predictive reinstatement of two metropolitans. At the same time, other pertinent storyline changes occur such as the invention of Avalon which is not mentioned in the Primary Historia either.

Why does Huntingdon not include Merlin the prophet’s name?... at least if not the prophecies themselves? The answer is simple. Henry Blois had not conceived of Merlin’s prophecies in 1137-38. The break in the Vulgate HRB where Henry Blois inserts the dedication to Alexander and the prophetia is so obviously not a break in an ongoing work as is portrayed by ‘Geoffrey.’ It is a clumsy insertion which would have required editing to the First Variant so that Merlin became spliced into the story. Is it not strange that Arthur and Merlin never meet? It would not be silly to suggest the reason for this was that editing was not extensive but mainly constituted an insertion. The splice is again made where originally Henry had added Arthuriana to the original pseudo-history. The Alexander dedication (not in First Variant) shows Henry Blois’ genius ploy of backdating the spliced Vulgate HRB…. so that the prophecies appeared to have been in the book prior to some of the events they pretend to predict. That ‘Geoffrey’ had been a Bishop in a location few Anglo Normans had any interest in and the fact that ‘Geoffrey’ was already dead when the Vulgate edition is widely published, prevents any sensorial retribution. This is why none appears amongst his contemporaries and only later by commentators such as Giraldus and Newburgh.

 If Huntingdon had really read the Vulgate HRB in 1139…. why would he not mention the marvellous prediction of King Stephen as ‘four’ and the astonishment that the actions of ‘five’ (which was Matilda) were undisclosed and a future ‘Sixth’ King was going to invade Ireland.  All of this was highly relevant because he surely would have been able to recognise the first three Kings. Huntingdon had written accounts about them in his own history. To see that the predictions were true about them would have fascinated him. Huntingdon simply never saw the prophecies in 1139, never saw his patrons name attached to them…. and the prophetia was not part of the Primary Historia. Why if his patron commissioned such a translation on the prophetia is it ignored as part of his exposé to Warin?  Why, instead, would Huntingdon invent a new storyline with Uther Pendragon filling Merlin’s shoes?  Some scholars have attempted to implicate Huntingdon’s invention of his own variation of storyline by implying he was addressing a fictitious person rather than a real Breton called Warin to justify the epistolary form of the piece. This is scholastic rationalisation. In the brief reference to Arthur’s wounds and how he fell (with no mention of Avalon)[25] he says in reference to Warin: But the Bretons, your ancestors, refuse to believe that he died.  Huntingdon is writing to a friend being as informative as such a brief précis allows. But, to not mention Merlin is a gross oversight…. if indeed Merlin and his prophetia were included in the Primary Historia,  given Huntingdon’s relation to Alexander and the fact that the Anarchy was about to take place and all of this had been predicted and was easily understood from the prophecies. Not even Huntingdon would misunderstand that the ‘eagle’ pertained to Matilda of the broken covenant and she had just had her third child. Huntingdon would be negligent in not mentioning this prophecy as it affected everyone in Britain. It is not as if he did not know where mount Aravius was either as he was just about to pass through that range on his way to Rome.  All evidence shows Merlin and his prophecies were not in the Bec copy in 1139…. but still scholars assume the book which Robert of Torigini handed Huntingdon was what we know today as the Vulgate version.

It is because of this precarious assumption, so many subsequent deductions become inaccurate. Don’t forget also that Robert of Torigini says Henry actually ‘extracted’ it at Bec, so it is not as if he was working from memory. The simple fact is that Huntingdon did not see the fully evolved Vulgate HRB with updated prophecies but a Primary Historia, which, because of its lack of copies, has not survived as an exemplar of HRB. It is from the Primary Historia that the First Variant evolved to become the Vulgate not vice versa.  Huntingdon would not presume to have the artistic licence of a conteur. He is a recognised historian. It was Merlin in a specific episode who brought the Giants Dance to Britain in our version of HRB. This is not confusion on Huntingdon’s part, but reflects an evolving introduction of Merlin into the story line after the copy found at Bec.

‘The answers of Lear's three daughters also vary from our HRB. Thus Goneril is made to say: 'Beneath the moon that marketh the boundaries betwixt things mutable and things eternal, nought is there that can ever be so much unto me;' and Regan: 'My love for thee is more precious than all riches, and all things desirable are as nought in comparison therewithal.' Cordelia, the only sister named, gives her answer: 'So much as thou hast, so much art thou worth, and so much do I love thee,' without any preface to soften the bluntness of her speech. The moral of the tale is thus rendered: 'accordingly, hence hath been derived the saying, "Things moderately said are ever the more to be appreciated."

Huntingdon is an accurate chronicler of events and not an inventor of fiction. It is impossible to have the many discrepancies without assuming a different version. At the siege of Lincoln a Keldricus arrives with a countless English host only to be thwarted by the arrival from Brittany of Hoelus, son of Arthur’s sister and Budicius and the siege of Lincoln was dispersed by agreement. In HRB it is Cheldricus at the siege of Lindocoliam instead of the more obvious Lincoliam and the siege ends in great slaughter, not concord.

Most poignantly of all, Huntingdon provides a speech by Arthur which relates to the ‘Britons hope’ of Arthur's return as well as having just reminded Warin about the Breton’s refusal to believe Arthur is dead. What is important is that Huntingdon follows on to say and they (the Bretons) traditionally await his return.[26] This ‘hope’ of the Bretons is the very reason that when Henry Blois first concocts the story of the Chivalric Arthur, no place of burial is given nor suggestion that he arrives on Avalon mortally wounded.[27] Nor is it overtly stated that he died. This perpetuates an already existent folk belief, which, for no other reason, Huntingdon makes plain is current and traditionally held. Most importantly of all is that it shows the progression and evolution between Primary Historia and the First Variant, in that, Insula Avallonis is then mentioned in First Variant. Now, if the name had been present in Primary Historia it also would have been mentioned by Huntingdon…. if not only because it would be the first location to search. One could verify and prevent any further rumour of an Arthurian return. Anyhow, this ‘hope’ and Arthur’s legendary status was prevalent among the Celts as is alluded to by William of Malmesbury in his GR1[28]  and was genuinely part of insular English/Celtic zeitgeist at the time.

The critical point which shows Huntingdon has read a different version from our Vulgate HRB is highlighted in this next extract from the letter to Warin: 'When he was about to cross over the Alps, an envoy said unto him, "Modred, your nephew, has put your crown upon his own head with the assistance of Keldricus, King of the English, and has taken your wife unto himself”. Arthur, thereupon, boiling over with wondrous rage, returning into England, conquered Modred in battle, and after pursuing him as far as into Cornwall, with a few men fell upon him in the midst of many, and when he saw that he could not turn back said, "Comrades, let us sell our death dear. I, for my part, will smite off the head of my nephew and my betrayer, after which death will be a delight unto me." Thus spake he, and hewing a way for himself with his sword through the press, dragged Modred by the helmet into the midst of his own men and cut through his mailed neck as through a straw. Nonetheless, as he went, and as he did the deed, so many wounds did he receive that he fell, albeit that his kinsmen the Britons deny that he is dead, and do even yet solemnly await his coming again. He was, indeed, the very first man of his time in warlike prowess, bounty and wit.'

It is Henry Blois’ changing circumstances between 1138 and 1158 which ties the evidence together as his agenda alters after the death of his brother. Why, for example, are there three different accounts of Arthur’s demise; one in the version above in the Primary Historia another in HRB and another in VM. It evidences one of Henry Blois’ secondary designs behind writing the version involving Avalon…. and then while at Clugny after 1155 semantically transforming that same Island in the Vita Merlini to establish a previously geographically unknown location of Avalon…. to locate it at Glastonbury as Insula Pomorum. The complimentary fictions (corroborative evidences) which bolster this transformation and translocation of Avalon are by Henry’s hand in DA. To avoid digression here, Henry Blois’ supporting evidence which is unfolded in DA, through several clever devices, will be dealt with in part II.

Henry Huntingdon then wraps up his epistle: 'These, then, my best-beloved Warin the Briton, are in brief that which I did promise you, whereof, if you desire to read the whole at length, make diligent enquiry after the great book of Galfridi Arturi which I found at the Abbey of Le Bec, wherein you may find the aforesaid treated with sufficient fullness and clearness. Fare thee well’!

The enquiry which Warin makes to Huntingdon (previously) is, why did he (Huntingdon) start his history with Caesar rather than with the Trojan Brutus? We know by his reply that Huntingdon had searched but found nothing. The question to Huntingdon was specifically about insular history…. so Warin was aware of Nennius’s account of Brutus.[29]  Certainly ‘someone’ knew of the Frankish descendants from Troy, so ‘Geoffrey’s’ invention was not a totally new fictitious historical fabrication that was new to Huntingdon or Warin.  Henry of Huntingdon, as we have discussed, does not like Henry Blois and as a slight, refers to him as ‘someone’.  In his letter to Walter (not Warin) in his pontifications ‘on contempt for the world’, he says about the bishops of Winchester and Henry Blois, as I have previously related “now there sits in their place Henry, (of Blois), nephew of King Henry, who will be a new kind of monster, composed part pure and part corrupt, I mean part monk and part knight.”

The point is that the reference to Henry written to Walter by Huntingdon is obviously soon after Henry’s appointment to Winchester.  Huntingdon is relating to a friend the prospect of what might become of Henry Blois. It is an ominous prediction, perceived through a trait or character defect that Huntingdon has observed first hand in the ambitious Henry Blois. It may have been written before Stephen became King because of the reference to King Henry Ist. So, why is Henry of Huntingdon referring to Henry Blois as part Knight, if the Anarchy has not started as yet unless it alludes to his time at Epernon where he refers to him as ‘someone’. It seems fair to suppose that Huntingdon witnessed Henry Blois’ demonstration of ‘educated’ genius in his recital of the History of the Franks from Troy. He was there as an eyewitness to make the character prediction based on what he had witnessed of Henry Blois.

Huntingdon knows Henry Ist is staying at Epernon in Normandy for eight days as safely as if he were in his Kingdom.[30]

Huntingdon’s pique is somewhat of professional jealousy. Huntingdon’s observation as to Henry’s character, it is not so far from the mark. If it had not been for Henry Blois’ position, (already established in Britain as Bishop of Winchester), it seems unlikely that Stephen would have been crowned within three weeks of Henry Ist death. Henry Blois is not without guile and Huntingdon’s assessment is real. He even states a similar attitude about Henry much later in life as we have seen when relating about Theobald of Bec: He had as his helper Henry, bishop of Winchester, who earlier had thrown the realm into grievous disorder, delivering the crown of the Kingdom to his brother Stephen, but now seeing everything destroyed by robbery, fire and slaughter, he was moved to repentance…[31]

The only reason we have laboured this point is that, if we consider Henry Blois’ implication in the Trojan-Frankish recital; it is just another piece of the puzzle which fits as an able composer of HRB which features Brutus. William of Malmesbury has not accepted the Brutus story.[32]

It is doubtful that William ever saw a copy of the Primary Historia and certainly never saw the First Variant as that was used in conjunction with the first interpolations into Malmesbury’s DA as part of the case Henry presents at Rome…. to show that a metropolitan had long existed in southern England prior to Augustine’s arrival.  Concerning the colophon,[33] in HRB, Henry Blois (or ‘Geoffrey’) had kindly conceded that he would hand over as continuator, in the matter of writing the Saxon’s history to William of Malmesbury. It was already written!!!  But just to confirm that which I postulated above about the relationship between Blois and Huntingdon…. ‘Geoffrey’ is not so kind to Henry of Huntingdon and he is singled out for abuse. As I have covered, all three were dead when the colophon in Vulgate HRB was added, so no umbrage was felt by Huntingdon, but the return insult was conveyed to posterity. This would never have been written against two very well connected and sincere historians when they were living…. especially by an unimportant prior in Oxford. The point is that even if the bishop of Asaph were real and signed the treaty of Winchester (which he did not in reality) as co-signatory with Henry Blois…. ‘Geoffrey’ is hardly going to dismissively consign to silence with such a haughty tone of effrontery, the historian who has Bishop Alexander as patron also. 

Essentially the Vulgate colophon is an artful display which retro-dates the HRB. It is artful in confirming the source book as if indirectly. Henry Blois would have seen Huntingdon’s references to him. This fact should be taken into consideration and understood by the reader, as Henry Blois’ partial catalyst for setting out his own subtle apologia in GS. As we have covered, Henry becomes a much nobler Henry of Winchester for posterity, softening his own character and excusing/rationalising his deeds in the GS. Both Malmesbury and Huntingdon had left a negative impression for posterity concerning Henry Blois in their writings. For a man of such vanity who knew that future historians would judge by what chroniclers have recorded, this was essential to rectify. But, one can see from ‘Geoffrey’s tone he cares little for Malmesbury or Huntingdon. Huntingdon relates an account of Brutus from the Primary Historia to Warin. The brief passage which Huntingdon relates in his Historia Anglorum about Arthur’s twelve battles comes from the Vatican recension of Nennius, but in Huntingdon’s history there is no mention of the Brutus material or Troy.  An odd turn of events, since he had read Henry’s Primary Historia in 1139, but makes no addition into the Historia Anglorum in his final recension mentioning Troy.

---

[1] Julia Crick has observed Henry of Huntingdon’s silence has been interpreted as incredulity. However, it does not explain why the persona of Merlin is thus expunged from EAW.  The Primary Historia never had any mention of Merlin or his prophecies. The reason is simply because Henry Blois had not thought of the prophecies in 1138. Merlin and his prophecies were a later development.  Crick’s belief that ‘Henry of Huntingdon failed to report the prophecies at all in the letter which he wrote to the Breton Warin’ is entirely erroneous…. implying it was a conscious decision by Huntingdon. It is evident the Primary Historia found at Bec significantly differed from the First Variant and Vulgate in storyline, even though we only have Huntingdon’s précis from which to divine the differences..

[2] Prof. O.J. Padel understands this discrepancy: Henry and Geoffrey lived within the same diocese in England, and they moved in the same circles; they even addressed the same person, Alexander Bishop of Lincoln (1123–48), in their respective works…. How, then, could Henry have been ignorant that Geoffrey was at work on his History, or (once it was completed) how could he not have heard of it before being shown a copy at Bec? This problem has been raised, though not solved…. It simply will not be solved until the scholars realise the dedications were written into Vulgate HRB after the dedicatees death. It was a device to back date the apparent time HRB was first published to obscure authorship and lend credence to the prophecies.

[3] The English Historical review, vol 34, No 135 (July 1919. Pp.382-385

[4] Gerv. Cant. I 126; Cant. Profs. no. 93

[5] Gerv. Cant. I 142; Cant. Profs. no. 95

[6] Henry in effect administered the bishopric of London between 1138 and 1141. Henry Blois in his capacity of sub-dean was in effect the bishop of London as the see became vacant in 1160. He consecrated Thomas Becket as archbishop of Canterbury on 3^rd June 1162 as Bishop of London.  There was plenty of opportunity to carry out his fraud concerning the consecration of the Bishop of Asaph.

[7] EAW. But this year, when I was on the way to Rome, to my amazement I discovered, at the abbey of Bec, a written account of those very matters.

[8] Arthurian literature in the middle ages. R.S. Loomis p.81

[9] The Laudabiliter was issued in 1155 whereby the English pope Adrian IV gave King Henry II the right to assume control over Ireland.

[10] As we covered already Adrian IV published the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, which was issued in 1155 whereby the English pope Adrian IV gave King Henry II the right to assume control over Ireland and apply the Gregorian reforms. We have established that Henry Blois knew of this intention to invade and published the prophecy concerning the ‘sixth’ as vaticinatory prophecy. Henry thought the invasion was expected imminently. The Normans did eventually invade Ireland, but not until 1 May 1169 long after the Vita Merlini and HRB prophecies were written.  It was not until the 18 October 1171, however, (two months after Henry Blois’ death) that Henry II landed an army in Waterford. Initially the topic was discussed at the court in Winchester by Henry II as he was hoping to give Ireland to William his younger brother, making him King. The plans were abandoned when their mother, the Empress Matilda, objected. 

Henry Blois had to wait four years from the time he wrote the prophecy concerning the ‘Sixth and the Irish invasion’ until a partial realization of Merlin’s prediction became fact when a small band of Norman Knight’s arrived in 1161. However, the vaticinatory vision in the VM (which differs in HRB) The sixth shall overthrow the Irish and their walls, and pious and prudent shall renew the people and the cities, was based upon what Henry Blois understood in the Laudabiliter and  were going to be the implementations of Gregorian reform within Ireland which were proposed at Winchester at Michaelmas in 1155.

[11] Robert of Torigni: At Winchester about the time of Michaelmas in 1155 Henry II holds a council with his nobles to discuss the conquest of Ireland which he seems to have desired to give his younger brother William on terms of homage.

[12] HRB VII, iv

[13] However, it would be strange that the prophecies which speak of Metropolitans were not used in First variant.

[14]  See note 4, ‘venerable brother and dearest friend Suger Abbot of St Denis’.

[15] The GS written by Henry Blois: When the King had learnt more fully that these things were happening in Normandy, He sent envoys across the sea (for he could not go there so quickly himself on account of the heavy burden of pressing affairs). It was Henry Blois as Stephen’s envoy who left for Normandy in lent that year. If the pages of GS which immediately follow were not missing, we might have read an account of the affairs in Normandy.

[16] Michael Curley p.49, is duped by Henry Blois’ illusion: Given such a milieu, Geoffrey probably would not have concocted the story of Bishop Alexander’s urging him to provide a translation of the prophecies and then gone on to publish a dedicatory epistle containing such a lie. As soon as retrospective dedications and a late publication of Vulgate HRB is considered, Curley’s point is negated.

[17] See Appendix 36.

[18] VM prologue: Therefore may you favour my attempt, and see fit to look upon the poet with better auspices than did that other whom you have just succeeded.

[19] In the charters that Henry signed at Oxford one is co-signed with Robert de Chesney which helps the illusion. Curley p 49

[20] See chapter 13

[21] Henry of Huntigdon V, 15

[22] Henry of Huntigdon IV, 37

[23] Henry of Huntingdon.  Historia Anglorum VII.38.

[24] Historia Anglorum, Diana Greenway, p.558-583

[25] In Arthurian Literature XV edited by Prof. James P. Carley, Felicity Riddy, we are spuriously informed by our Arthurian experts (by Watkin): in 1138 Geoffrey of Monmouth had already said that Arthur was taken to the Isle of Avalon to be healed p.81. This is incorrect as EAW does not mention Avalon. Watkin assumes that what I have termed the Primary Historia (i.e. that book found at Bec), is synonymous with the Vulgate.

[26] Historia Anglorum, Diane Greenway. P. 589 c.9.

[27] In a later chapter (32) concerning the death of Arthur found in a First Variant version we see an initial proposition that: although it was not bringing an immediate death, nevertheless boded ill for the near future, which allows for the arrival on Avalon. However, in this version known as Vera Historia de morte Arthuri Arthur is actually killed by a spear.

[28] Gesta Regum Anglorum, Thompson and Winterbottom. P.27 8.2. This Arthur is the hero of many wild tales among the Britons even in our own day, but assuredly deserves to be the subject of reliable history rather than of false and dreaming fable.

[29] Nennius’ material about Brutus would indicate such a history existed prior to Geoffrey. Nennius starts his history by saying: ‘the Island of Britain derives its name from Brutus a Roman Consul rather than a Trojan’. He also states that ‘We have obtained this information respecting the original inhabitants of Britain from ancient tradition. The Britons were thus called from Brutus: Brutus was the son of Hisicion’. This history by Nennius’ admission was written in the 838 year of our Lords incarnation and in the 24^th year of Mervin, King of the’ Britons’. The story of Brutus thus, precedes Geoffrey’s account by three hundred years…. if we are to believe no interpolation has taken place in Nennius. He also says ‘the Saxons were received by Vortigern, four hundred and forty seven years after the passion of Christ’ and other similar material that Geoffrey professed to have found in his fictitious book using all the insular annals as source material.  There are problems with Nennius as Newell discusses but my suspicion of interpolation into Nennius is that I believe (and it is clearly attested) that it is Henry Blois as the main promoter of the misunderstanding that the Nennius MS was written by Gildas as he even includes this in his interpolation into Orderic.

[30] Historia Anglorum. Diane Greenway. P. 479 chap 38

[31] Historia Anglorum, Henry of Huntingdon, X, 37, p. 771

[32] GR. I 68.3

[33] I hand over in the matter of writing unto Karadoc of Llancarvan, my contemporary, as do I those of the Saxons unto William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon, whom I bid be silent as to the Kings of the Britons, seeing that they have not that book.

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