De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesia by William of Malmesbury

You can also see the new 2019 updated information at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/

The following is an extract from volume 2 of a book called 'The Island of Avalon' by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot in which he discusses the interpolations into William of Malmesbury's DA.



http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-Volume-2/dp/132630979X


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

De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesia

The nearest we have to an authority on the DA is John Scott.[1]  He assumes any mention of King Arthur in DA is accounted as being written after King Arthur’s bogus disinterment at Glastonbury.  Most commentators assume the DA’s interpolations were inserted by several monks over a period c.1184 -91 to around 1230-47, from which date the oldest extant copy of DA dates.  As modern scholars have had no understanding of the scale of the fraud carried out by Henry Blois or the reasons for doing so, there has been a lack of direction in attempting to explain the connections between HRB’s King Arthur and its mention of Avalon, Robert de Boron’s Joseph d'Arimathie and of course the Grail.... and their affiliation with ‘Geoffrey’s’ and Melkin’s Avalon at Glastonbury. 
 The DA plays an important role in substantiating parts of ‘Geoffrey’s’ pseudo-history and vice versa where such people as Phagan and Deruvian are concerned and JG’s mention of HRB’s Arviragus to the twelve hides in DA. As we have touched on already, there can be no understanding of the stages of transition through which the DA passed after having been completed by William of Malmesbury without understanding that at least two redactions were put together for Henry Blois’s 'first agenda' in a case for Metropolitan.
 Henry Blois' post 1158 propaganda agenda which included the conversion of Glastonbury into Avalon and the introduction of Joseph as founder.... were added in DA toward the end of Henry Blois’ life and probably were never read or seen in DA until after his death. What Scott refers to as a consolidating author is responsible for some later additions concerning the Glastonbury abbey's dispute with Wells after Henry Blois' death.

 William of Malmesbury wrote a book on the history of Glastonbury abbey which mainly exists unadulterated in the latter half of the present arrangement of DA from chapter 34 onwards. We can assume that the format of title heading followed by elucidation as is marked out nowadays by chapters is how William first arranged his History. Henry Blois imitated the format in his several interpolations. As I have stated previously, the original may well have been a monograph and singular copy which can be seen to have been dedicated (in the preface) to Henry Blois.
I shall use Scott’s translation to elucidate how the book of the DA was formed and offer some speculations to early chronology.  What I believe has transpired is that.... in 1144  Henry Blois made several additions to DA, building a credible case for a bogus apostolic foundation for Glastonbury in his pursuit of Metropolitan status for himself over South Western England. This fraudulent propaganda exercise was initially built upon (and expanded from) a tentative comment originating with author B's Life of Dunstan and developed into the composition of the GR3 (version B) interpolations. Even though Metropolitan status for the Southwest of England was granted to Henry Blois at the first request in 1144 (but the status of Archbishop was never conferred on him or ratified before the pope's death).... there was not enough substance to the disciplic proposition when it came under scrutiny by a later pope in 1149.

 Even though the Eleutherius envoys were most probably named in the first attempt at attaining an Archbishopric (as Phagan and Deruvian's names were fortuitously corroborated in the First Variant HRB and the book’s composition was directed to an ecclesiastical audience)…. more compelling evidence was needed for Henry Blois' renewed request for Metropolitan status in 1149. Hence, the charter of St Patrick was produced which necessitated certain points in DA to be rationalised with the previous apostolic/disciplic polemic; and so we have such rationalisations as the ‘renovation’ of the Old church. The Charter of St Patrick was added into DA (or most probably appended) as a faked ancient document (posing as a copy of an original which avoids the question of papal seals) during the second attempt at Metropolitan status and included as part of DA as having been found by William of Malmesbury at Glastonbury.

 References to King Arthur may not have appeared in DA before 1158. It is certain that Joseph’s name was not part of DA lore when the DA was employed when presented as documentary evidence by Henry Blois in pursuit of Metropolitan status. If Arthur’s name had appeared in the early interpolated edition of DA, it would have aligned HRB’s main character with DA (and Henry Blois's bogus edition of Caradoc's Life of Gildas) and might have brought suspicion on the ‘Bishop of fabrication’.... mainly because DA was dedicated to Henry Blois.

Scott seems to think that a consolidating author is responsible for the re-arranging and editing of DA (which to a small extent may be true).  But, the basic content of the first 34 chapters of DA, (which the consensus of scholars have deduced for the most part are interpolations and derived from various hands at later dates).... are really a consequence of Henry Blois’s differing agendas from 1144 to c.1170. They are actually constituent parts of the edifice of the Matter of Britain which Henry Blois has left to posterity.
If, as scholars seem to think, the DA was interpolated over time, it would be rational that those interpolations would also be dispersed through the latter part of DA, which has largely remained unadulterated. It is rather an indication that the first 34 chapters have been inserted as interpolated folio’s.  Certainly, Scott's assumption that Arthurian material in DA post dates the bogus unearthing of King Arthur.... is vastly diminished as a theory by the lack of other detail  which would have existed as part of any interpolation (after the fact).... especially if (as is thought) the mention of the location of the gravesite had been written after the event also.  The location of the gravesite provided in DA (between the piramides) was unequivocally provided by Henry Blois as part of his interpolations into DA so that his bogus manufacture of Arthur's grave would be discovered after his death. This 'fact' has to be considered in light of all the evidence put forward in this work, which shows that many of the compositions which comprise the evidential background for the Matter of Britain and Glastonbury lore were fraudulently composed by Henry Blois. A good example of Henry Blois'  anonymity as a writer is clearly seen in the composition of the Gesta Stephani, which in itself is in part Propaganda (as explained in an earlier chapter) and the tract known as the life of Gildas (supposedly written by Caradoc).

Primarily, William of Malmesbury felt it necessary to write DA as he was unwilling to concede to the Glastonbury monks  propaganda claim (started I believe by Henry Blois[2]) concerning Dunstan’s relics existing at Glastonbury rather than Canterbury.  As Scott relates,[3] William’s shortfall in compliance to write into history the rumours concerning Dunstan’s relics is probably the catalyst for the commencement of the DA.  William seems to have become more than hagiographer employed by the monks and seems to be part of the fraternity while he carries out research while composing DA. In reference to Osbern’s accusation that Dunstan was the first abbot at Glastonbury, William sets out his own integrity and puts Osbern’s views to shame: It is a misuse of learning and leisure to retail falsehoods about the doings of saints: it shows contempt for reputation and condemns one to infamy. I should be glad to be unaware that this fate has befallen a recent author of a life of Dunstan.[4]

In 1133-34, when Henry Blois had received DA, few others had perused it.... until it was employed after William’s death at Rome as part of the case put forward for granting metropolitan to Henry. The consolidated (Henry Blois final redaction) of DA probably only arrived at Glastonbury after his own death. This final edition concerning all Henry’s further interpolations (rationalising or obfuscating certain previous contradictions) created by his evolving agenda.... is the edition which has been passed to posterity which postulates the Joseph of  (as we discuss was propagated by his Nephews) . Tatlock neatly hits the nail on the head, but he, like other commentators, has not suspected Henry’s personal interpolative input: Indeed since William dedicated his work to Henry of Blois, nephew of Henry Ist and abbot there since 1126, it would be a plausible guess (no more) that the propagandist activities of both William and Caradoc were inspired in the abbacy of that able prelate.[5] It is remarkable, given the swathes of material written by scholars on the 'Matter of Britain' and Glatonburyalia, that no-one suspected that Geoffrey of Monmouth was in fact a pen name invented by Henry Blois as I have shown earlier.

The text of DA begins with the Prologue: William of Malmesbury's preface to his history of the church of Glastonbury.

To his Lord, Henry, Bishop of Winchester, who deserves to be cherished and honoured in the deep embrace of Christ, William as son of your church, sends whatever joy you might wish for. If there be any one thing which may sustain a man in this life and persuade him to endure tranquilly reverses and disturbances of the world, it is I think, above all, contemplation of the Holy Scriptures. Even the writings of the pagans can claim to be useful in so far as the brilliance of their language inspires the reader's talents and refines his speech. But, truly the harvest of those books inspired by heaven is far richer, for on one hand they pour sustenance of deceitful sweetness into the soul, and on the other hand they secured reward of eternal bliss. Moreover there are many, nay to my mind, innumerable truths in the Holy Scriptures, both precepts and examples, by which divine Grace instructs the minds of mortals in right living. Precepts teach us how we ought to live, examples demonstrate how easy it is, with God's help, to carry out his commands. Yet nature has so fashioned the minds of some men that, although they know that both are necessary, they are incited more by hearing examples than exhortations. Similarly they respect the deeds of foreigners out of reverence for their sanctity but are seized by a keener joy if the life of any Saint who was their countryman is set forth, in which, as it were, they may perceive as in a mirror of living image of religion. For the affinity adds to the pleasure of the report and no one despairs of being able to do himself, through the grace of God, what he hears has been done by another from his part of the world.

Wherefore, I have employed my pen on that work, which I judged to be of no small value, in which I laboured to commit to eternal memory the life of the blessed St Dunstan, Abbot of Glastonbury and later Archbishop of Canterbury, and have now completed, with scrupulous regard for the truth, the two books about him for which the brethren at Glastonbury, your sons and my masters and companions, had asked. However, lest I seem to have lacked zeal in the performance of my duty, I will begin this book by going back to the origins of your church and will unfold its progress since the earliest beginnings. Nor ought this be considered very different from the original plan, since the honour of the church redounds to Dunstan and praise of him to the church.  For, she fostered Dunstan at her maternal breast until manhood; and he added greatly to his mother's splendour. Therefore, a small hope has begun to grow in my heart that this holy work may cause the dignity of the nurse to be highlighted by the example of her nursling.
Some time ago I allowed those small books, the life of the blessed Patrick, and miracles of the venerable Benignus and the passion of the martyr Indract, which I had fashioned with like care, to be examined by the monks so that if anything unreasonable had been said it could be properly corrected. After assessing my writings at length and deliberating favourably, they left me free of any blemish of blame because nothing in them gave offence to religious eyes or lacked graciousness. So, venerable master and deservedly beloved father, I offer this little work, whatever its worth, for your careful perusal.
The motive for my action is clear: that your Excellency should know the number and identity of the men who founded and exalted the church which, under God and his saints, now relies chiefly on your protection. Now however, that you had imitated (I almost said surpassed) the deeds of those ancient heroes before you heard their names. As for detractors, if perchance anyone should be so bold, I shall oppose them vigorously, for in what way can earlier guardians be preferred to you? In extending the patrimony? But, you both recover holdings earlier lost and by your able skills amass new ones. In constructing buildings? But an admiring guide will reveal more effectively than my words of praise the extent to which you surpass all your predecessors in this regard. In protecting the peace of the inhabitants? But you drive out all plunderers before the shield of your name, you banish clouds of dejection by the splendour of your countenance and you expose the chicanery of litigants by the good sense of your words. In the piety of your monks? But, as always, with God's beneficence religion so flourishes in your time that miserable envy is ashamed to fabricate any falsehood about it. The monks openly offer their love to your heart because you do not terrify them with a sneer, but receive them joyfully when they come, treat them kindly and like a father, wish them well when they leave. These words which the poet used, not unjustly, of certain powerful men certainly do not apply to you: ‘He compels all the inferior serpents to keep their distance and lords it over the empty desert’. In short, any eloquence falls short of your worth and your praise is valued more highly than anything else. Since this is so, accept I beg you, this tribute of my devotion and pledge of my zeal and do not deprive me of the fruit of my labour. So attend, if it please your heart, and give heed while I try to rescue from suspicion the antiquity of your church, arranged according to the succession of its prelates, in so far as I have been able to scrape them together from the heap of your muniments.

In the prologue of DA and from VSD, it is clear the Glastonbury monks expected William to write their propaganda into history. However, the monks were not satisfied with William’s work. They have referred William and his work to Henry Blois, who is now at Winchester. When the prologue of DA is written, the two books of VSD are already complete. But, William has not pandered to the rumour of Dunstan’s relics at Glastonbury, nor incorporated their propaganda in VSD. He has delivered an account of Dunstan’s life with scrupulous regard for the truth.

William’s DA was dedicated (as in the preface) to Henry as bishop of Winchester, (who is not addressed as papal legate). If we allow the dedication or prologue as being written totally by William (and there is no reason not to); it was probably written between 1133-4. The main body of William’s original work of De antiquitates was probably started c.1129 and finished c.1133.

We can learn a lot from the prologue about the relationship of Henry Blois to William of Malmesbury and the Glastonbury monks. William’s assessment of Henry Blois’s talents in DA is free of the later suspicions that William himself  harboured of the Bishop’s guile. This is clearly portrayed by William in the subsequently composed HN. As I  covered earlier, William was older and respectful of young Henry Blois’ social standing and it is highly likely that William’s works and relationship to Henry Blois may well have been the catalyst for Henry Blois commencing his composition of the original pseudo-history (which evolved into HRB) for the Empress Matilda (to which the Arthuriad was latterly added and expanded upon in 1138) as we covered earlier.... which eventually evolved into the Primary Historia (written by the supposed Galfridus Arthur discovered by Huntingdon at Bec), which ultimately became 'Geoffrey's' Vulgate HRB in 1155. As I showed earlier the First Variant and Alfred's copy were both precursors to the Vulgate (even though by the insertion of the dedicatees, one would be led to believe in an earlier date for the Vulgate Version).

William of Malmesbury would have been aware of the part played by Henry Blois in the usurpation of the throne by his brother. Therefore, laudatory comments on Henry’s successes in DA, regaining lost holdings and amassing new ones and the construction of buildings at Glastonbury (we should assume), refer to a time before Henry’s brother became King. At this time, Henry used his family connection with his uncle King Henry Ist to regain properties for Glastonbury abbey to which William alludes.

The confirmation of a pre- King Stephen era for the completion of DA is highlighted in the last paragraph of DA where Theobald (Henry's eldest brother) is mentioned as a relative of Henry’s, rather than 'King' Stephen. William was blatantly obsequious in the dedicatory prologue, so, one must conclude DA was written before Stephen's crowning. ( The suspicion of Henry's manipulation of the crown onto his brother's head was well known  and his guile thereafter  was understood and noted by Malmesbury in HN.  So, by William's flattery of Henry Blois we can understand that even the preface itself  (which was written sometime after the main text of DA)…. when VSD II was already completed was written prior to Stephen becoming King.

William’s mission and directive in writing the DA: ‘while I try to rescue from suspicion the antiquity of your church’ is also more relevant to Henry’s agenda at that time before Henry Ist died. As we have covered in an earlier chapter on Eadmer's letter, the ‘youth’ or young members at Glastonbury were the target of Eadmer’s letter. So, it is relevant that at this early stage, William of Malmesbury refers to those who were already opposed to Henry: As for detractors, if perchance anyone should be so bold, I shall oppose them vigorously, for in what way can earlier guardians be preferred to you?

What exactly transpired can be grasped from William’s words. William had laboured to commit to eternal memory the life of St Dunstan, and it is ‘now completed’ at the time of writing the prologue of DA. The two books about Dunstan, for which the monks at Glastonbury had asked, (we are told) were completed with scrupulous regard for the truth. This, in fact, was the problem. William did not compose the polemically charged chronicle which the monks had wanted him to tell à propos Dunstan’s relics having been translated from Canterbury (at the time of the Danish incursion there). Hence, we have William’s apology in that…. should he have appeared to his hosts to have ‘lacked zeal in the performance of his duty’, he had then composed DA to make up for any shortfall which the monks felt he had lacked by not reiterating a bogus legend (as indicated by the refutation which comprises Eadmer's letter)…. only recently started and for which there was no foundation.  But, then William says: Nor ought this be considered very different from the original plan…
In other words, in William’s mind, the initial plan to counter Osbern’s claim was to show that Dunstan was not the first Abbot; and he had done this (which amounted to the same thing in his mind) by elucidating upon the antiquity of the church at Glastonbury by writing DA. But, the wording is couched in such a way that we can understand that it was Henry who was the one annoyed at William’s adherence to the truth regarding where Dunstan's relics rested.
 William seems to complain at this unfair treatment by saying that ‘some time ago’ (i.e. before Henry Blois arrived at Glastonbury and stirred things up) he had written small books, the life of Patrick, and miracles of Benignus and the passion of Indract, which he had ‘fashioned with like care’ (as that of Dunstan). The monks had examined them so that if anything unreasonable had been said, it could be properly corrected; and after assessing his writings ‘deliberating favourably they left me free of any blemish of blame because nothing in them gave offence to religious eyes or lacked graciousness’.

It is clear that this is an admonishment against the unfair treatment he received when he had produced the life of Dunstan (VSD 1). The subtle complaint is slightly aimed at Henry Blois (peevishly), in that it infers before his arrival at Glastonbury the monks had not complained. The undercurrent of what is being said is that since Henry Blois had started the rumour,[6] William should be free of blemish; and because he wrote the truth, it should not give offence, just as it had not in the previous works.
Why would William bring up the subject of detractors against Henry if there were none? The reference to detractors is definitely against Henry personally: Now however, that you had imitated (I almost said surpassed) the deeds of those ancient heroes before you heard their names. As for detractors, if perchance anyone should be so bold, I shall oppose them. The detractors are the Canterbury acolytes who have taken umbrage at Glastonbury’s presumption at such an untruthful and recently propagated claim regarding Glastonbury's recently contrived rumour of the  possession of  Dunstan’s relics.
What I am not saying is that there was no possibility of a previous rumour of Dunstan's relics existing at Glastonbury (posited in a tentative statement by author B). It was the specific 'recent' concoction of the translation of Dunstan's relics ( rumoured to be as a reaction to the Danish incursion) which spurred the refutation to this claim by Eadmer.

 I think we may gather from William of Malmesbury's and from Eadmer’s words (and through Henry's own libellus), that Henry Blois had been bullish in his endeavour to revive the abbey’s prospects and may have tested credibility by inventing the translation story about Dunstan’s relics finding their way to Glastonbury (elaborating on the words of author B).
After all, the most famous father of Glastonbury was Dunstan and for the enterprising Henry, it would be difficult to capitalize on this asset (Dunstan's connection to Glastonbury) in terms of alms.... without possessing the relics.  William, after all his efforts on the abbey’s behalf…. (after writing DA over a period of 3-4 years while completing VSD II at the same time and living as one of the brotherhood at Glastonbury), now seeks a recompense in just wherewithal for his efforts: ‘Since this is so, accept I beg you, this tribute of my devotion and pledge of my zeal and do not deprive me of the fruit of my labour’.

Judging by the scarcity of MSS of the DA, my assumption is that DA was presented to Henry as the only monographed account.... and it is with him it remained. There are certain pointers in the texts of DA, VSD and GR1 which allow us to get a clearer picture of what was written by William and when. When GR1 was completed c.1126, GP was near completion and William firstly set about the ‘lives’ (mentioned above) and then moved on to compose VSD I after Henry arrived at Glastonbury. DA was foreseen as a necessary endeavour, because William was not going to compromise his integrity regarding the evidence of Dunstan’s burial at Glastonbury.
A general proof therefore of antiquity for the abbey was envisaged in the composition of DA (which in William's mind satisfied the 'original plan' of nullifying Osbern's erroneous accusation which by extension questioned Glastonbury's antiquity).
VSD1 refers to DA in the text and was written simultaneously with the compiling of the body of  DA. This was while William was housed in the abbey community. VSD II was completed after the textual body of DA (not the prologue) because also DA refers back to VSD I in its text.  In VSD II, William says: I have dealt in another work as well as God allowed me, with the antiquity of this most holy monastery of Glastonbury in which I profess my heavenly service. If anyone is desirous of reading about it he will find it elsewhere in my output.  This may not (as some have suggested) mean the references to Glastonbury in GR3.[7] It rather specifically refers to DA.  If one takes the ‘elsewhere’ as differentiating from ‘another work’ i.e. VD II, then it can only refer to DA (since we know version B of GR which has the Glastonbury additions is a Henry Blois concoction as discussed in the chapter on GR). 
However, the two books of VSD were written before the ‘prologue’ to DA as we have seen as above: I have laboured to commit to eternal memory the life of the blessed Dunstan, abbot of Glastonbury and later archbishop of Canterbury, and have now completed with scrupulous regard for the truth two books about him which your sons and my masters and companions had asked for.

Before we can understand how the DA was composed (minus the later interpolations after Henry’s death), we must accept that the DA ended up at Winchester with Henry as a single monographed presentation manuscript.  It is also necessary to understand that DA was spurred on by the monks at Glastonbury about the time Henry moved to Winchester. The fact that William saw his commission of DA coming from the monks (rather than Henry himself) is made clear in the last section of DA[8]: On Henry Blois Abbot of Glastonbury.

After Seffrid was made Bishop of Chichester he was succeeded at Glastonbury in the year 1126 by Henry, brother of Theobald, count of Blois and nephew of the King Henry by his sister Adela, who was also made bishop of Winchester not much later. This man of illustrious birth is also distinguished in his knowledge of letters, kind and friendly in his address and noble in kindness of heart, a man whose origins and achievement have been advantage to you, as you know, and have brought you great favour in the eyes of men. It would neither weary me to say more of him nor weary you to hear more, but it would be advisable to spare his admirable modesty, for he has this characteristic, that he blushes to be praised although he does praiseworthy things.

From this closing paragraph to William’s original unadulterated DA, we learn that William was addressing the monks initially and wrote DA to satisfy them. After DA’s completion, the dedicatory prologue of DA was written targeting Henry as the receiver of William’s endeavour. The understanding that Henry himself received the only presentation copy is the crux of how he was able to achieve the success of his literary edifice of the Matter of Britain without detection. The only other witnesses to have viewed the interpolated redactions were the papal authorities between 1144 and 1149. Thereafter, DA had even more insertions added post 1158 to a time just before Henry’s death, which are the content of chapters 1&2.... and no doubt consolidation of the various agendas into one seemingly cohesive account. That parts of the foundation lore of the old church at Glastonbury appears to contradict what were separate accounts at stages of DA.... the muddled foundation stories are nowadays accepted.... supposedly corrupted by the vagaries of time.
The real reason is that the accounts were not changed but eventually moulded and consolidated into the final redaction that Henry left before his death.  What should be noted is that what followed the prologue in the original.... is chapter 35 (the 601 charter concerning Ineswitrin), which in no way deviates from William’s said endeavour, as it starts at the earliest point (in reality and with credible documents as evidence) and thereby names the earliest said abbot of which he can find record. This instantaneously refutes Osborn's accusation .
Having dealt with the prologue I shall endeavour to proceed to comment on the first 34 chapters of DA which have been interpolated by Henry Blois.

Chapter 1. About how the twelve disciples of St Philip and St James the apostles, first founded the church of Glastonbury.

'After the glory of the Lord's resurrection, the triumph of His ascension and the mission of the Holy Ghost the Comforter, who fortified the disciples' hearts which still trembled with dread of temporal punishment, and giving them the knowledge of all languages, all who believed were together, including the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, as Luke the evangelist narrates; and the word of God was disseminated and the number of believers increased daily, and they were all of one heart and one soul. Because of this, the priests of the Jews together with the Pharisees and scribes stirred up persecution against the Church, killing Stephen the first martyr and driving far away all the rest. So while the tempest of persecution raged, the believers were dispersed and went forth into various Kingdoms of the earth assigned to them by the Lord, offering the word of salvation to the Gentiles. St Philip, as Freculfus declares in the fourth chapter of his second book, came to the land of the Franks, where he converted by preaching and turned many to the faith and baptized them. Desiring that the word of Christ should be further spread, he sent twelve of his disciples to Britain to proclaim the word of life and preach the faith of Jesus Christ.  Over them, it is said, he appointed, his dear friend, Joseph of Arimathea who had buried the Lord. They arrived in Britain in 63 AD,[9] the fifteenth year after the Assumption of the Blessed Mary, and preached the faith of Christ with all confidence.

The pagan King hearing this new and unfamiliar preaching refused to absolutely agree with it and would not alter the teachings of their forefathers. Yet because they had come from far away and because the sobriety of their life demanded it of him, he gave them an island on the borders of his country, surrounded by woods and thickets and marshes, called by its inhabitants Yniswitrin. Later, two other Kings in succession, though pagans, granted to each of them a portion of land.  From these saints it is believed the Twelve Hides derive their name to the present day. After living in the wilderness a short time the saints were incited by a vision vouchsafed by the archangel Gabriel to build a church in honour of the Blessed Virgin in a place that was pointed out to them from heaven. They were not slow to obey this divine command and in the 31st year after the passion of the Lord, the 15th after the assumption of the glorious Virgin, they completed a Chapel as they had been instructed, making the lower part of all its walls of twisted wattle, a rude construction, but one adorned by God with many miracles.

Since it was the first in that territory, the Son of God honoured it by dedicating it to His Mother and the twelve saints offered faithful obedience to god and the blessed virgin in that place. They devoted themselves to vigils and fasting and prayers and were supplied with all necessities by the Virgin’s aid and by a vision of her.  This transpired we learn both from the Charter of St Patrick and from the writings of the seniors. One of these, the historian of the Britons, as we have seen at St Edmund's and again at St Augustine's the Apostle of the English, begins as follows:

'There is on the western border of Britain a certain royal island called by its ancient name Glastonia, spacious and undulating surrounded by slow rivers whose waters are well stocked with fish, fit to serve human needs and consecrated to sacred offices. Here the first neophytes of the Catholic law among the English found by God's guidance an ancient church, built, as it is said, by no human skill, but prepared by God himself for the salvation of men, which afterwards the Maker of the heavens has proved by many miracles and sacred mysteries that He had consecrated it to Himself and to Mary the Holy Mother of God. There is more of this anon, but let us return to what we had begun.

After the lapse of many years, those saints who had been living as we described in that wilderness were led out of the prison of their flesh and the place itself, which had earlier been the habitation of saints became as a lair for wild beasts, until it pleased the Blessed Virgin that her oratory should come again to the remembrance of the faithful.

Let me make entirely clear that this chapter was not written by William of Malmesbury or a later redactor other than Henry Blois. He uses an extract from author B as an authority and another author who supposedly wrote on the history of the Britons. He also calls as a witness of authority the St Patrick charter. It does not take much to work out what is going on.  Except, where modern scholars rationalize to reverse engineer the puzzle with the assumption that…. because the St Patrick charter mentions Avalon, it must have been written after the discovery of Arthur’s Grave. Therefore, (so they believe), so too must this chapter have been constructed after that event.
Until modern scholarship accepts that the location (between the piramides) and who was in the grave was pointed out in DA at least twenty years before the disinterment of the manufactured grave of Arthur (created  there by Henry Blois)... it is impossible to get to the root of modern scholars own misconstrued chronology. However, we are left in no doubt in VM post 1155.... that Avalon was also commensurate with Insula Pomorum as Arthur is taken there; just like he is taken in Vulgate and First Variant to Insula Avallonis. It leaves us in little doubt that the island of Apples is Glastonbury because Henry Blois has spelled it out for us in his etymological contortion in DA

 This chapter above from DA was written by Henry Blois, the same man who had changed the name on Melkin’s prophecy to Avalon (as most assuredly the prophecy existed in Henry's day as I have shown in an earlier chapter) and also in this chapter is still bent on re-affirming that the Blessed Virgin’s Oratory was built of Wattle; all the words complying with the prophecy. Henry is also re-establishing that the apostolic foundation  created as lore in his first attempt at metropolitan, now aligns with his later Phagan and Deruvian foundation from his concocted St Patrick’s charter (the names being corroborated by his own First Variant HRB). The obfuscation is that the author of the ‘history of the Britons’[10] is Galfridus, but does not give an account of Glastonbury (as is implied above), but we know that the introduction of the preachers/proselytizers names into the First Variant acts as corroborative evidence of their names which appear in the St Patrick Charter. (this is discussed at length in the chapter on GR).

The following section below continues on from the above in the M manuscript version of DA. The M manuscript is derived from the older T manuscript from which Scott has made his translation. Scott says that in the T manuscript it appears at the foot of the page in a late 13 century hand.

 Now, the book of the deeds of King Arthur which relates to Joseph of Arimathea and which has in a ‘later part of the book’ about a search for the Holy Grail.... may just be the book written by Henry Blois to which Chrétien de Troyes refers. However, we have seen in HRB the very same ploy of a mysterious book was involved, but we will discuss this book under the section on the Grail in a later chapter. But, what I intend to show shortly is that Robert de Boron (who relates a story concocted by Henry Blois) introduces Joseph and the Grail in the Vaus d’Avaron in the West.... and also in his Perceval and Merlin texts, covers subjects which directly relate to Henry’s output.

 For the moment, given Henry Blois’ involvement, it is not out of the question that this section below might have been one of his own additions which was initially expunged because of its obvious dubious nature…. to be re-introduced from an older exemplar back into the T manuscript. (The book of the deeds of the famous King Arthur bears witness that the highborn decurion Joseph of Arimathea, together with his son Joseph and very many others, came into greater Britain, now called England and ended his life there. Also recorded is the search of a certain famous knight, named Lancelot of the lake with the help of his comrades of the round table,[11] after a certain hermit had set forth to Walwan the mystery of a particular fountain, the water from which continually changed its taste and colour, a miracle it is written, that would not cease until the coming of a great lion whose neck was feted with thick chains. Again in a later part of the book, about the search for a vessel that is called the holy Grail, almost the same thing is recorded where a white Knight explains to Galahad, son of Lancelot, the mystery of a certain miraculous shield which he entrusts to him to bear because no one else could carry it, even for a day except at great cost.)

Much of the bracketed section above is reiterated in Chapter 20 of John of Glastonbury. We would be very short sighted if we thought a book of the deeds of King Arthur which bears witness to Joseph of Arimathea was not written by Henry Blois. Lord Fromes copy of HRB links Joseph with Arthur. But, the round table and Lancelot are found in Perlesvaus which Nitze maintains was written at Glastonbury.

The first observation to make about the portion of Chapter 1 of DA ( not in any way disputed as part of the original T manuscript) is that Henry Blois establishes the Glastonbury Church ‘was the first in that territory’ which is consistent with his case toward convincing us of the early establishment of Christianity in Western England.  To allow for the Phagan and Deruvian foundation which seemingly is more historically credible through Bede’s mention of Eleutherius and HRB’s establishment of the preacher’s names in connection with that pope; Henry leaves us in no doubt that both of his foundation myths link chronologically from the first apostolic to the second papal envoys. The church had ‘earlier been the habitation of saints’ and ‘after the lapse of many years’ the oratory came again to the remembrance of the faithful. This is Henry rationalizing and aligning of  his own foundation legends at separate periods being employed for different agendas. This is not a consolidating author trying to excuse the two independent contradictory legends which Henry had invented. Henry explains to us (melding his two myths in time) that Philip’s dear friend, Joseph of Arimathea who had buried the Lord, arrived in Britain in 63 AD and founded a church at Glastonbury. This in itself is stretching credibility given that Joseph was Jesus’ uncle/father (as I have shown earlier). 

Obviously, if Christianity did not exist in Britain, it presents a problem for the second myth concerning King Lucius. So, in the time between from the first concoction of lore (conveniently pointed out to us) to the time of King Lucius’ cleansing in 166 AD, the church was rediscovered and renovated. Fortunately for posterity, this is corroborated in the (wholly fabricated) St Patrick charter, whereby Patrick tells us the brothers showed me writings of St Phagan and St Deruvian, wherein it was contained that twelve disciples of St Philip and St James had built that Old Church in honour of our Patroness!!!  In case there is any doubt of the existence of a previous church, we are induced to accept this façade again in the charter of St Patrick where Phagan and Deruvian carefully examining the place, they came across a figure of our Redeemer and other manifest signs by means of which they clearly knew that Christians had inhabited the spot earlier. Later they inferred from a heavenly oracle that the lord had especially chosen that place before all others in Britain to invoke the name of his glorious mother.

Chapter 2. How St Phagan and St Deruvian converted the Britons to the faith, and came to the Isle of Avalon.

Annals of good authority record that Lucius the King of the Britons sent a plea to Pope Eleutherius the thirteenth[12] in succession from St. Peter, to entreaty that he would illuminate the darkness of Britain with the light of Christian teaching.  This King of great soul undertook a truly praiseworthy task in voluntarily seeking out faith of which he had scarcely heard, at the very time when most other Kings and peoples were persecuting it when it was revealed to them. To comprehend this matter further from another source Æthelberht, King of Kent many years after Lucius, can claim praise for a similar good deed, because he did not reject the preachers sent to him from Rome or drive them away, but received them with generous hospitality and his speech and demeanor were added thereunto. For even though he refused to pledge hastily his acquiescence to their words, it seemed to him absurd to harm them since they had come from afar to instruct him of those things which they considered so important. Both of these men then, one of whom wisely invited Christianity and the other who willingly received it are worthy of full remembrance.

There came into Britain then, these two very holy men, the preachers Phagan and Deruvian, as the charter of St Patrick and the deeds of the Britons attest. They proclaimed the word of life and they cleansed the King and his people at the sacred font in A.D. 166. They then travelled through the realm of Britain preaching  and baptizing until, penetrating like Moses the lawgiver into the heart of the wilderness, they came to the island of Avalon where, with God’s guidance, they found an old church built as is said by the hands of the disciples of Christ and prepared by God for the salvation of men, which afterwards the Maker of the heavens, showed by many miracles and sacred mysteries that He had consecrated it to Himself and to Mary the Holy Mother of God'. This was 103 years after the coming of the disciples into Britain of St Philip. So when St Phagan and St Deruvian discovered that Oratory they were filled with joy and giving praise to god prolonged their stay and remained here nine years. Carefully examining the place, they came across a figure of our Redeemer and other manifest signs by means of which they clearly knew that Christians had inhabited the spot earlier. Later they inferred from a heavenly oracle that the lord had especially chosen that place before all others in Britain to invoke the name of his glorious mother.

'They found in ancient writings the whole story, how when the Apostles were dispersed throughout the world, St Philip the Apostle came with a crowd of disciples to France and sent twelve of their number to preach in Britain. And these by the guidance of an angelic vision built that chapel which afterwards the Son of God dedicated in honour of His Mother; and to these twelve disciples, three Kings, though pagans, granted for their sustenance twelve portions of land.' Moreover they found their deeds written down.

Accordingly St Phagan and St Deruvian chose twelve of their companions and settled them on the island. They dwelt as anchorites in the very spots where the first twelve had dwelt. 'Yet often they assembled at the Old Church for the devout performance of divine worship. And just as three pagan Kings had granted the island with its appendages to the first twelve disciples of Christ in days gone by, so Phagan and Deruvian sought from K. Lucius that the same should be confirmed to those their twelve companions and to others who should come after them in the future.

And in this way many others in succession, always keeping to the number twelve, dwelt in the island throughout all the years, until the coming of St Patrick the Apostle of the Irish. To this church also, which they had thus found, the holy neophytes added another oratory built of stone, which they dedicated to Christ and the holy Apostles Peter and Paul. By their work therefore was restored the Old Church of St Mary at Glastonbury as trustworthy history has continued to repeat throughout the succeeding ages. There is also that written evidence worthy of belief to be found at St Edmund's, to this effect: The church of Glastonbury did none other men's hands make, but the actual disciples of Christ built it; namely those sent, by the Apostle St Philip. Nor is this irreconcilable with truth as was set down before,  because if the Apostle Philip preached to the Gauls, as Freculfus says in the fourth chapter of his second book, it can be believed that he cast the seeds of the Word across the sea as well.'

The last sentence is clearly arguing to convince us of tentative postulations. The first sentence should be enough to convince us of the author: Annals of good authority record that Lucius the King of the Britons sent a plea to Pope Eleutherius.  In reality Pope Eleutherius never sent anybody to the King of the Britons. But, even though Bede misunderstands the Liber Pontificalis, there is only one history book where Lucius: despatched his letters unto Pope Eleutherius beseeching that from him he might receive Christianity. So, Henry is most emphatically referring us to his own work of HRB.... rather than what we are led to believe is Bede’s where Phagan and Deruvian do not feature in the text.

The title of chapter 2 alone should convince us that two of the vital pieces of Henry Blois’ literary edifice are spliced together before his death. The title leaves no doubt: How St Phagan and St Deruvian converted the Britons to the faith, and came to the Isle of Avalon. The chapter headings are in the T manuscript and it should be understood that it is Henry who has converted Glastonbury into Avalon (as seen in VM as early as 1155). Henry Blois is the same person who introduced us to Phagan and Deruvian in HRB and introduced them into Glastonbury lore in the St Patrick charter and is obviously the same man who now connects them to Avalon as being synonymous with Glastonbury.

What I have termed Glastonburyalia did not evolve haphazardly as modern scholarship has decreed, following a proliferation of continental Arthurian and Grail material, but it was laid out in DA by the man to whom the DA was dedicated,  the same man who wrote HRB, and the same man who invented the mythical Island of Avalon…. and instigated continental Grail stories as Monseigneur Blehis (or H Blois). Lagorio's dim-witted conclusion to the corroborative elements of our three genres of study (Glastonburyalia, Grail lore/The matter of Britain, and Geoffrey's work and especially Joseph's and Arthur's connection with Avalon) are  fatuously explained as a ‘fortuitous convergence of factors’.

The title of each chapter in DA follows the format which William had set out in his original; creating a title for each subject as he covered it. The title headings are not the work of a consolidator. Scott seems to think there has been a clever consolidating editor who consolidates Glastonbury lore before 1247. Lagorio and Carley have assumed many monk’s evolved these myths in the era after William’s death over a period of about eighty years to 1247 AD…. to a point in time where the T manuscript is dateable. To be fair, if Henry Blois is not understood to be accountable for the authorship of HRB and there was no suspicion that he is connected to the invention of Caradoc’s Life of Gildas (or the invention of the Grail being derived from the prophecy of Melkin); one could see how our experts arrive at such a conclusion. One can also understand that to make the pieces of this puzzle fit, the Melkin prophecy had to follow the Grail (in their minds) and therefore since Chrétien ‘invented’ the Grail the persona of Melkin never existed.

Anyhow, Henry presses his polemical point based on HRB’s bogus historicity of King Lucius and Bede’s mistaken identification of Britain as the place where Eleutherius sent envoys to Lucius, so that we are reminded that Phagan and Deruvian pre-date any Augustinian conversion of the English. To comprehend this matter further from another source Æthelberht, King of Kent many years after Lucius, can claim praise for a similar good deed because he did not reject the preachers….

The sole reason for mentioning Æthelberht c.590 – 616 AD was to undermine the primacy of Canterbury and to show Christianity existed prior to the Augustinian conversion of Æthelberht.  Æthelberht married Bertha, the Christian daughter of Charibert, King of the Franks. Probably it was Bertha’s marriage which influenced the decision by Pope Gregory I to send Augustine as a missionary to Britain. Augustine landed on the Isle of Thanet in Kent in 597AD. Æthelberht was converted to Christianity.... and he provided the new mission with land in Canterbury on which Canterbury Cathedral now stands. Henry uses his own work of the faked ancient charter of St Patrick and his own HRB (the deeds of the Britons) to substantiate his own synopsis of the consolidation of his first agenda and the arrival of Phagan and Deruvian: There came into Britain then, these two very holy men, the preachers Phagan and Deruvian, as the charter of St Patrick and the deeds of the Britons attest.

There is no previous mention of the name Ineswitrin other than that found on the 601 charter and which would have existed on the prophecy of Melkin (as I covered earlier). Any allusions to Ineswitrin in DA are founded on Henry’s concoction of Life of Gildas under Caradoc’s name, except for the 601 charter. The name of the island is aligned to Henry’s concocted St Patrick Charter supposedly written by St Patrick himself, where Patrick fictitiously has words put in his mouth about his arrival at Glastonbury: I came to the island of Ineswitrin.

In effect, Henry Blois has three corroborative pieces of evidence which indicate that Ineswitrin now applies to Glastonbury; the St Patrick Charter, Caradoc’s life of Gildas; and the 601 charter itself, found at Glastonbury…. if one ignores the fact that the grant of the Island of Ineswitrin had the Devonian King as signatory and logically must be somewhere in the old Dumnonia (in Devon and Cornwall).  (See the chapter on the 601 charter)

Concerning Avalon, I have maintained that it was not part of Henry’s first agenda to persuade us that Avalon was indeed the same location as Glastonbury. This is clearly seen where Ineswitrin is used instead of Avalon in the St Patrick charter, and where the etymology of Ineswitrin in Life of Gildas substantiates Henry’s claim that the name applies to Glastonbury. The reasoning behind Henry’s persuasive etymology, as I have explained previously, added credibility to the 601 charter, so that the donation (by the King) applied to a known location i.e. an estate which was supposedly part of Glastonbury Island.

 Yet, as Henry melds his later (post 1158) lore into DA, Avalon is mentioned in the second chapter and in the postscript to the St Patrick charter in chapter 9 as if William of Malmesbury were the author, where St Patrick is posited as the first Abbot on the Island of Avalon… (in direct contradiction of Osbern’s assertion). But, in essence, as an indicator that the fraudulent St Patrick charter did exist as a document and was composed in a time before Henry’s second agenda concerning Avalon takes shape, there is no mention of Avalon actually on the St Patrick charter. It is not a random consolidating monk c.1230 who conveniently mentions Avalon here in chapter two in connection with the Patrick charter or in the postscript of the charter as in chapter 9. Most emphatically this is Henry Blois synthesizing his agendas in chapters 1&2. It should not be forgotten either that posing as ‘Geoffrey’, Henry is also bringing Insula Avallonis from HRB to synonymy with Glastonbury by implying it is Insula Pomorum in VM in this same era i.e. in the only county in England renowned for its production of Apples,

If Glastonbury had an ‘old’ church in 601, then it must have stood prior to Augustine’s arrival. There was a Celtic church of the Britons not born of the Roman mission of Augustine evident more than anywhere else in Britain…. in Cornwall. However, what is interesting is that there was no extant explanation or documentation of Ineswitrin in the Glastonbury records and no-one knew c.1130-34 where Ineswitrin was when William uncovered the 601 charter and the Melkin prophecy. The same applies in 1144 in the request for metropolitan; hence the need for Henry to invent ‘Caradoc’s’ etymology to substantiate that the donation of Ineswitrin was a known location. (this is covered comprehensively in the chapter on the 601 AD charter).
  As we know, William started his original DA with what is now chapter 35 which is the 601 charter. Therefore we can see Henry’s mind at work paralleling the etymological farce he had created in the last paragraph of Life of Gildas in achieving the aim in establishing Ineswitrin as an estate on Glastonbury (island) and how such a situation transpired: although that estate (Ineswitrin) and many others were granted to Glastonbury in the time of the Britons, as is plain from the preceding, yet when the English drove out the Britons they, being pagans, seized the lands that had been granted to churches before finally restoring the stolen lands.

Henry Blois is certainly no slouch at corroborative synthesis as we have seen throughout this exposé.

It was not until after VM was written at Clugny, that the first flowering of Henry’s design concerning Avalon became apparent. In VM, as we covered, Henry’s first step toward the undoing of a first agenda (creating synonymy with Ineswitrin) to an understanding of Avalon at Glastonbury…. contrives Insula Pomorum to become equitable through a conflation with ‘avalla’. Hence, we can now recognise a reverse etymological farce taking shape as his Avalon of HRB becomes Glastonbury in the apple region of Somerset…. confirmed by it being the same Island to which Barinthus took Arthur.
Ultimately, what was disclosed on the ‘Leaden Cross’ which Henry had fabricated for the grave of Arthur, confirms Avalon at Glastonbury by the fact that it was found there. So, those who were unclear as to where the Insula Avallonis of HRB existed….at the disinterment, it indisputably became the same Island of Glastonbury through Arthur having been taken to Insula Pomorum in VM.
This did not happen as a consequence of Grail literature filtering back to Glastonbury, but was considered by ‘Geoffrey’ when Henry published the VM c.1155-58 as part of the conversion process. The contrivance conflated the mythical isle in the Melkin prophecy conjoined in HRB from the name of the Burgundian town Avallon. The inspiration for creating a bogus grave to be found in the future has its seed also in the Melkin prophecy. Due to Henry’s propaganda, Joseph’s real sepulchre on Burgh Island has been transposed into a fictitious grave at Glastonbury.... and through the Leaden cross King Arthur was confirmed to be buried on Avalon.[13]

The St Patrick’s charter was part of the pre-1155 interpolations and therefore there was no Joseph material in it. Nor was mention of Joseph in DA…. or narrative which connects the Charter and Joseph, until there is the chronological link made with the apostolic foundation.... and Joseph’s foundation within DA in Henry’s later consolidating chapter 1 & 2. Yet a clear evidence of Henry’s prior attempt to gain metropolitan is evident where he melds the bogus Apostolic myth with a later Joseph myth…. Joseph having been sent by Philip and James with the concocted legend of Phagan and Deruvian in the St Patrick Charter. This re-Christianisation supposedly took place 103 years later when Phagan and Deruvian arrived. Chapter 1 & 2 of DA act as a consolidation and synthesis of these two (or three) foundation legends which reflect Henry’s changing agendas (firstly apostolic, secondly Phagan and Deruvian, thirdly, in insertions into DA of a later date which are Josephean.... yet were still interpolations made by Henry Blois).

Now, what surprises me most is that.... the scholastic community in the past might have given credence to any of the lore put forward in chapter 1 & 2 above, as there is not one word of William’s present in the text.  It is a madness to think that William wrote any of this. As we covered above, VD was written contemporaneously with DA. So, how is it that there is no mention of Ineswitrin (excepting that mentioned in the 601 charter), St. Patrick’s charter, Lucius, Phagan and Deruvian, St Joseph of Arimathea or any early establishment by apostle or disciple of the church (by James or St. Philip or Joseph) or Arviragus’ twelve hides.... in  all of William’s other works which have not been interpolated. (I exclude  GR3 version B from those which are unadulterated)

There is certainly no mention of Dunstan in the island of Avalon or Ineswitrin, but both author B and William refer to Glastonbury as the name for the island. William certainly did not know where Avalon was even if he had come across the name in HRB (which is unlikely).William had only seen Ineswitrin as the name on the original 601 charter and on the Melkin prophecy. As regards the Melkin prophecy ..... he would instantly have dismissed having no understanding of its coded nature and obtuse Latin. However, as I have already explained in the chapter on the 601 charter, William did not posit Ineswitrin as an estate on the Island of Glastonbury. Henry had initially posited Ineswitrin as synonymous with Glastonbury in life of Gildas because by doing so it established the 601 charter’s credibility as no one knew to which island the charter pertained. It comes back to the fact that one can’t donate oneself to oneself and Ineswitrin is elsewhere (in Dumnonia). Only a scholar would think it anywhere else but on the coast of  Devon or Cornwall…. with a king of that area donating it. No estate called Ineswitrin would term itself an island (Inis…with only five cottages on it).  The ‘old church’, to which the donation was being donated, would not be receiving an estate which termed itself an island and pretended to be the same island upon which the old church stood. 

We should rather be more accurately guided to find William’s real position concerning the several items mentioned above by looking at William’s VSD I & II as they were written contemporaneously with DA. William’s position would not have shifted so drastically since writing GR1…. especially concerning the later Glastonbury interpolations we covered in version B of GR3 (in the chapter on GR).

We can conclude; the only way the Glastonburyalia in GR and DA (with information covering Henry’s first agenda) could corroborate or tally.... is through one interpolator and the interpolator was alive at the time to make GR3 version B interpolations corroborate with DA interpolations. Lagorio’s interpretation which puts the DA interpolators in an era after the fire and Arthur’s disinterment, needs a ‘fortuitous convergence of factors’ for the theory to be tenable.  The additions into DA not found in GR which include Joseph and Avalon are also Henry’s work.... but accord with a second and later agenda post 1158. But, this does not deny the fact that there are definite later additions into DA and GR3 C version after Henry’s death.

Scott's analysis suggests regarding DA: it is possible that William’s manuscript was annotated at different times by various monks but at some time a substantial rearrangement of the work must have been undertaken to synthesize these additions into a coherent whole.[14]

This contrasts exactly my point. There was no major rearrangement and the synthesis was done by the single interested party who we now know invented the polemically motivated propaganda in the first place and understood the reasons for its contradictions as found in the first redaction of DA presented to pope Lucius in the hope of providing evidential support in Henry's campaign to gain Metropolitan.
Henry Blois subsequently massages the conflicting evidences from the previous agendas to align  his later additions in to DA which constitute chapters 1 and 2 as  we saw in the example above. This ostensibly accounted for how it was that the estate of Ineswitrin had been confused with Glastonbury by its re-donation (Henry providing the bogus explanation). But, this again, does not deny the fact that certain interpolations occurred after Henry’s death, but does not necessitate a consolidating editor or redactor on the scale Scott believes.

In general, DA existed in the format and order we have it today at the time Henry Blois died. No consolidating editor is going to write chapters 1 & 2. It is written by the man to whom the two agendas were an integral part of his life. The first pertained to the pursuit of metropolitan status..... the second to perpetuating his alter ego of Arthur at Glastonbury and his Grail legend on the continent at his Nephew’s court.

The propaganda can be understood to parallel Henry’s metropolitan agenda, as long as it is comprehended that Henry is author of HRB and the Merlin prophecies, the Life of Gildas, the first 34 (and part of 35) chapters of DA..... and he is the source of Robert de Boron’s Joseph d’Arimathie.
Most importantly, with the acceptance of the fact that Henry Blois was the elusive Master Blehis, we can also take into account why there is a church covered in Lead in the Perlesvaus, written by a certain Master Blihis (Monseigneur Blois) concerning ‘Gawain who overcame Blihos-Bliheris, whom no man at Arthur's court knew’.  Monsiegneur Blois and the coincidence of similar sounding Bliobleheris, Bliocadran, Blihos-Bliheris, Bréri, Bledhericus does not happen by chance. Especially where Blihos Bleheris is Robert de Boron’s greatest teller of tales at court and where Blaise is given the honour of having recorded three of Robert’s Histoires.

Is it beyond coincidence that the Master Blihis, who knew the Grail mystery, and gave solemn counselling about its revelation; the Blihos-Bliheris, who knew the Grail, and many other tales; the Bréri, who knew all the legendary tales concerning the princes of Britain; and the famous story-teller Bledhericus, of whom Gerald of Wales speaks, are separate personalities…. especially when Blihos is the anagram of H. Blois. The very PhD which qualifies one as an expert (the indoctrination of the modern consensus concerning our three genres under investigation of Glastonburyana, Geoffrey's  two works and Grail literature and  their very separation into disparate areas of study) is that which prevents one modern student seeing the wood for the trees.

We should look at one more of Scott’s assumptions regarding DA which becomes an incorrect a priori once Henry Blois is understood to have authored HRB and much of the first 35 chapters of DA: Finally we can be sure that all references to King Arthur must have been written after the purported discovery of his remains buried between the two pyramids in 1190-1, as must those chapters that seek to identify Avalon with Glastonbury because such an identification only became necessary and meaningful, after, and as further evidence for, the claim that Arthur had been buried at Glastonbury. Again, an entire theory is based upon the fact that the manufacture of the grave to which Gerald gives an account of its disinterment was manufactured at the time of the unearthing. (Most scholars citing Henry de Sully as the culprit). Even by Gerald's account (which I cover in depth later) it is ridiculous to assume that all and sundry surrounding the unearthing of Arthur's grave would have been duped by such recently buried items. (Arthur's manufactured grave had lain undisturbed for at least 20 years)

This assumption of contemporary manufacture is obviously based upon theories put out by older scholars....acquiesced to by Lagorio and which Carley and Arthurian scholars such as Crick and Grandsen regurgitate today from traditional scholastic standpoints formed over the last 150 years or so…. making flawed many subsequent assertions based on this premise.
Arthur’s tomb location between the piramides was definitively written into DA before 1171. No-one else knew where the bones were except the man who put them there and manufactured the bogus grave site with the leaden cross. It is only a fool who would believe that a Welsh bard informed Henry II of the location, because we are not stupid enough to think that the manufactured site was real. King Henry II was appraised by Henry Blois (most probably on his death bed).

Scott, however, does perceive a contradiction to the assumptions in the excerpt above: …stimulated by the association with Arthur that had already been adumbrated by Caradoc; but once concocted Arthur’s links with Glastonbury became an important element in the local legends. Curiously, an account of the discovery of his remains is not to be found in DA, although other facets of the legend are incorporated….[15]

The point is that Scott’s observation points to the fact that there is little change to DA from how Henry left it. Obviously there would be no description of the events surrounding the disinterment.  That there is no account of the unearthing adds weight to the position I have maintained in that.... the consolidating author of DA(as claimed by Scott) had a minor role and did not synthesise the most part of the material in the first 35 chapters. No account of the events surrounding the disinterment is given, but the location of where Henry planted the body is nonchalantly provided.... couched in the form of a casual ‘aside’, as if it were common knowledge. This becomes more obvious when we look to the evidence supplied by Geraldus.... dealt with in another chapter

Our consolidating author is only adding historical notes, not adding large interpolations which bolster the legend as that has already been accomplished by Henry Blois. Scott is one of the few scholars who does perceive that Avalon was not Glastonbury and is not duped by the propaganda which insinuates that the two are identical locations with differing names in time. He also (as above) knows that someone is responsible for the ‘synthesis’, but like all other commentators, thinks the jigsaw puzzle miraculously fell into place on its own and there is no suspicion upon our ‘Cicero’ (to whom Henry Blois likened himself in his self aggrandizing epitaph found on the Muesan plates commissioned by himself).
 There is only one man who could have accomplished this and had the clout to carry off the various actions which create the illusion of the Matter of Britain. Therefore,  Scott makes the erroneous supposition that all Arthur material found in DA follows the discovery of Arthur’s grave. Scott is not aware that it is the author of HRB and of the chivalric Arthur who is seen to be transposing the Insula Avallonis to Glastonbury....  (first found in his First Variant) and in his VM through Insula Pomorum. This alone would naturally negate Scott's position without understanding Henry Blois's input. The whole salad of corroboration is Henry's  and through Avalla and the pig episode…. to etymologically corroborate with ‘apple’ as in DA.  All works evidently written by Henry Blois. This has ramifications for scholar’s assumptions concerning the colophon in the Perlesvaus:

L'auteur du Haut Livre du Graal affirme même que son texte est copié d'un manuscrit latin qui a été trouvé en l’Isle d’Avalon en une sainte meson de religion qui siét au chief des Mares Aventurex, la oli rois Artuz e la roïne gisent.

The author of the Perlesvaus or the High book of the Grail claims his text[16] is copied from a Latin manuscript which was found in the Isle of Avalon in a house of holy religion which stands at the height of moors of adventure where King Arthur and Queen Guinevere lie.
At a stretch, we could make more sense of this by assuming that because Avalon is an Island the reference is to the ever-changing tides/water levels (Mares Aventurex) which surrounded the Somerset levels in Dunstan’s era as described by author B. The real point is that the author of the Perlesvaus tract knows where Arthur and Guinevere are buried, but in no way does it imply the bodies have been unearthed. (Nietze would have understood this).

We know the Perlesvaus Avalon has to be Glastonbury and there is only one person converting his fabled Avalon into a realistic location. The same assumption made by scholarship regarding this text is that it post-dates the disinterment of Arthur because of the flaw in Carley and Logorio’s assessment of Glastonbury’s association with Joseph and Grail literature. Their assumption precludes Henry Blois from being the interpolator. This is why it is vital to understand that the location of the grave was provided in DA before Henry’s death. The fact that both Guinevere and Arthur were both posited in DA as being buried at Glastonbury together, also tallies with Gerald’s account only one or two years after the disinterment.
It thus becomes feasible that Master Blihis wrote the origins of Perlesvaus and Henry Blois who posited where Arthur's grave was located is one and the same.... who stated in the colophon where both Arthur (and his Guinevere ) would be found..... in DA and in the colophon of Perlesvaus PRIOR TO THE EVENT!!!!. Therefore, it is because of Henry’s interpolations and his planned fraudulent interment of  the Leaden cross and Gorilla bones which supposedly pertained to Arthur, (the lock of Guinevere's hair also) that Arthur was able to be discovered....in Avalon!!!!…. rather than Scott’s understanding that it only became necessary and meaningful, after the unearthing that Arthur’s name was found in DA.

This following passage, obviously written by Henry, is thought by all commentators to be a later interpolation post 1190-1: I pass over Arthur, famous King of the Britons, buried with his wife in the monks Cemetery between two pyramids…. Why the nonchalance of the supposed late consolidator or even the lack of  any details of the account of the exhumation.
 It will take years before scholars accept that the idea behind the interment of Arthur was inspired by the extant Melkin Prophecy, foretelling likewise of a body to be uncovered in the future and the Leaden Cross' presence and what was written upon it is based upon Eadmer’s reference to the lead tablet confirming Dunstan’s whereabouts at Canterbury.
The reality of the interment of Joseph of Arimathea on Ineswitrin will remain clouded in mystery until academia[17] changes its position.  I have in many other places in this text explained how it was that Henry Blois proactively sought for the relics of Joseph i.e. at Montacute and on Looe island . 

Annals of good authority record that Lucius the King of the Britons sent to Pope Eleutherius asking for Christian teachers…. which starts chapter 2 (as we know) is based on Bede’s mistake. But, what few commentators have remarked upon is the creation of a King Lucius in HRB who is inserted into British history by Henry Blois purely to substantiate his myth regarding Phagan and Deruvian  (and to make a historic transition of the heroic Britons defying the might of Rome) and how the introduction of two preachers into the First Variant helps in establishing the case for Henry's pursuit of metropolitan status in 1144.
 We can see at the end of chapter 2, there is nothing which can be attributed to William of Malmesbury's original text based upon positions held in GR1, VD or VP or GP.  Scott gives a good idea of what he thinks William’s original text contains. I agree for the most part where Scott breaks down the first 36 chapters of DA. Scott’s assessment[18] of what can be accounted to William having written reduces 19 pages to just four and a half pages, but Scott still believes in the genuineness of the version B interpolations of GR3 and he admits more to Malmesbury’s pen than is necessary.

Much of Glastonbury lore in version b of GR3 was written by Henry also and is mixed into the melange of a GR3 and later corrections from other versions. However, there are references to the fire in DA which were obviously written after Henry’s death which would convince any commentator that interpolations occurred after 1184.
Prof Carley accuses John of Glastonbury of elaborating greatly the material in DA saying John ‘discovers’ many, and dubious sources to fill out William’s account. One can see how Carley arrives at this assumption. Most of the elaborations would be derived from other material put out by Henry i.e. a more complete Perlesvaus or ‘Book of the Grail’ (no longer extant), which, obviously complimented continental Grail literature since it too (in its initial stages) was authored by Henry and of course the elusive De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda.
John of Glastonbury skilfully consolidates into lore in his Cronica Henry’s DA propaganda, along with other parts of Henry’s output.... no longer extant. However, the main features of the foundation legend that Henry had concocted i.e. the building of the church by the disciples of Christ[19] and its consecration by them.... is referred to only 13 years after Henry Blois death in 1184 in a charter that Henry II attested between the 2^nd and 16^th of December just after the fire, which also remembers Arthur's association with Glastonbury.
It should be understood why there is no mention of Joseph as at this stage which is an important point in consideration of why many scholars have opted for the erroneous chronology of events at Glastonbury. There was no ‘tradition’ actually at the abbey as the DA was still a seedling planted only 13 years ago when Henry’s copy of DA came to light.  Although the legend of Joseph did ‘evolve’.... the seeds for this legend were planted by Henry Blois and we must never lose sight of the fact that although it is a concocted legend at Glastonbury.... it is based on a certain truth which was embedded in the encrypted text which became known as the Prophecy of Melkin. i.e. Joseph's relics are still awaiting exhumation (but not at Glastonbury).

To make such an outrageous claim of housing the relics of Joseph with no long standing heritage would seem foolish for the Glastonbury propagandists, but no-one could counter the antiquity of the old church or how far back into antiquity it was founded; and yet the tract of the antiquities of Glastonbury had supposedly been recorded by William of Malmesbury, a reliable historian. 
Henry II financed the rebuilding of the abbey after the fire using (as Adam of Damerham relates) the stone from Henry Blois’ palace. Henry II was a concerned benefactor to Glastonbury until his death in 1189 but his son Richard I was more concerned with employing his coffers for war. One theory is that the funding for restoration dried up at King Henry’s death, hence the disinterment of Arthur by an ingenious Henry de Sully soon afterward.
 Another theory might be that while King Henry was alive, with the proliferation of Henry Blois’ Arthuriana in the courts of insular Britain and on the continent, the time came to capitalize on the fame of Arthur or even see if the rumours were true. However, it is my belief that King Henry II was advised by Henry Blois where the gravesite was and was told that he had been informed by an ancient bard (obviously with Melkin in mind). Henry Blois may even have instructed King Henry to only reveal this on his own death bed. Hence we have Giraldus’ connection to King Henry’s involvement and the disinterment soon after King Henry’s death. This is of course speculation, but coalesces the many extraneous chronological discrepancies which will be covered in the chapter on Gerald of Wales' account of  King Arthur's exhumation.

Though Carley believes JG is ‘discovering’ material, much of it must have actually existed in John’s time and originated through Henry Blois. John is not a gross fabricator but draws from other works.  This is obviously the explanation as to how John mentions Arviragus in connection with the DA tradition. Henry would have implied in another work (possibly one of the works mentioned concerning Arthur and the round table supposedly authored by Melkin), that it was Arviragus who gave the disciples a dwelling an island:
After this Saint Joseph and his son Josephes and their 10 companions travelled through Britain, where King Arviragus then reigned, in the 63rd year from the Lord's incarnation, and they trustworthily preached the faith of Christ. But the barbarian King and his nation, when they heard doctrines so new and unusual, did not wish to exchange their ancestral traditions for better ways and refused consent to their preaching. Since however they had come from afar, and because of their evident modesty of life, Arviragus gave them for a dwelling an island at the edge of his Kingdom surrounded with forests, thickets and swamps, which was called by the inhabitants Ynswytryn, that is ’the Glass island’. Of this a poet has said, ‘The twelvefold band of men entered Avalon: Joseph, flower of Arimathea, is their chief. Josephes, Joseph’s son, accompanies his father. The right to Glastonbury is held by these and the other ten.’ When the saints then, had lived in that desert for a short time, the Archangel Gabriel admonished them in a vision to build a church in honour of the holy Mother of God, the ever virgin Mary, in that place which heaven would show them. Obeying the divine admonitions, they finished a Chapel, the circuit of whose walls they completed with wattles, in the 31st year after the Lord's passion, the fifteenth, as was noted, after the assumption of the glorious Virgin, and the same year in fact, in which they had come to St Philip the apostle in Gaul and had been sent by him to Britain.

As we know, Henry Blois, writing as ‘Geoffrey,’ enlarged upon some casual mention of a British King supplied by Juvenal.[20] Henry Blois then invents a whole persona who is mentioned sixteen times in HRB. Henry Blois donated the lives of the Caesars to Glastonbury and certainly knew Arviragus played no part in the Roman annals. Arviragus is found in no other writing. Henry employs Arviragus to give context in HRB to the pseudo-history which highlights the bogus viewpoint of relationship between the supposed illustrious Britons and how they were regarded in high esteem by the Romans. Arviragus seeks refuge (coincidentally) at Winchester, but Claudius follows him there with his army.

As the narrative in HRB goes, the Britons break the siege and attack the Romans, but Claudius halts the attack and offers a treaty. Claudius proffers a pact with Arviragus because of the standoff at Winchester and Claudius gives his daughter Genuissa in marriage to Arviragus.  Arviragus becomes powerful which causes him to halt his tribute to Rome, forcing Claudius to send Vespasian with an army to Britain. Vespasian marches to Exeter and besieges the city. Arviragus meets him in battle there. Again, the fight is stalemated and Queen Genuissa supposedly mediates peace. Vespasian returns to Rome and Arviragus rules. Arviragus and his queen build the city of Gloucester and therein, (after Arviragus’s death), is the Dukedom of Gloucester formed. Arviragus is succeeded by his son Marius…. another invention of ‘Geoffrey’s’. This episode supplies historical context bridging together ‘Geoffrey’s’ concocted pseudo-history leading up to and setting up an erroneous power relationship between Rome and the Britons before the ensuing Arthurian legend which follows in HRB.
 If any major role had been played by Arviragus, a Roman chronicler such as Tacitus (if the early date for Arviragus is believed) or later chronicler would have remarked upon him. The British submission to Rome is seemingly presented as an accord or free gesture of magnanimity on behalf of ‘Geoffrey’s’ Arviragus…. which obviously runs contrary to realistic history. ‘Geoffrey’s’ supposed entente is laying the foundation for his pre-Saxon Britons where they are not perceived as conquered. To carry this fake history chronologically by ‘Geoffrey’…. to appear as historicity portraying a defiant Britain, no one personage (except Ambrosius) can be attached to a historical event.  So, Henry uses a persona in the guise of Arviragus (mentioned historically but only anecdotally by Juvenal) to lead in to his Arthuriana in HRB.
As we have become accustomed by now in the various tracts cited to have been composed by Henry Blois in this present work, it is part of Henry’s ability to conflate as ploy which has duped most scholars. Arviragus whose real historical contribution is slight (if at all) is employed by Henry Blois to rewrite history in the form of an embellished and fabricated persona in exactly the same way the chivalric Arthur is invented. It would have been a Henry Blois device to bring his invention of Arviragus from HRB into Glastonbury lore in his ‘Grail book’ which is from where John of Glastonbury may have sourced his elaborations. Is it not (again) a raging coincidence that both Arviragus and Arthur are known to be Galfridian inventions and yet both feature in Glastonbury lore just like Phagan and Deruvian?

So, we cannot, as Carley supposes, hold John of Glastonbury as the inventor of such stories. Even though Henry has not implanted Arviragus in DA, it seems fair to assume HRB’s Arviragus is found connected to Glastonbury through Henry and his output. It would seem a huge coincidence (given that he is an invention of Henry’s), that John found the source for Arviragus giving Joseph and his band a dwelling in Avalon.... if it had not come from the man who invented the name Avallon and put Joseph squarely within its lore and invented the persona of Arviragus. John of Glatonbury is merely the person who coalesces from different sources and one of these I am positing is a missing book which connected HRB’s Arviragus with Glastonbury lore.... and we should not look further than Master Blihis the person who is responsible for all things concerning the Matière de Bretagne.

One of the things which has made the DA most impenetrable in determining who wrote what and for what purpose, is made much clearer, by understanding that Henry had an earlier and later agenda. This is clearly evidenced in that…. in the first agenda of Apostolic foundation (along with the fabricated St Patrick charter material), Joseph is not evidently associated until he is spliced in subsequently to coincide with Henry’s previous agenda. The apostolic agenda through the apostle Philip which had been posited by Henry at his first presentation at Rome (or at least to pope Lucius) in 1144…. later becomes connected by clever consolidation to a foundation by Joseph. 
However, leaving untouched much of William’s work evidenced in the latter half of DA, Henry interpolates the DA at the beginning c601AD. But problems arise in working out when items of his later agenda are so easily and seamlessly woven into the former. This to me is clear evidence of one person who understands why the contradictions exist trying to coalesce and synthesize into one chronological legend that which was disjointed because of the overlaying of earlier agendas in a previous redaction.  Without knowledge of Henry’s purpose, most commentators have thought a separate and later interpolator has added to a former.  This is further confused by later Glastonbury interpolations into GR3 which are not Henry’s work and this follows for DA as well.  It is a salad, but it did not happen by a fortuitous convergence of factors.

Because we do not have evidence of the prophecy of Melkin before John of Glastonbury's cronica.... it in no way negates that the prophecy existed and was the basis for the mythical island in HRB and the later Joseph legend at Glastonbury in DA (not forgetting the original Melkin prophecy as I have already covered had stated that it was on Ineswitrin that Joseph was buried). The Melkin prophecy was  certainly the inspiration for the Grail and was the inspiration for the storyline propagated through ‘Robert de Boron’…. but more importantly than all those, it was the template for the manufacture of Arthur’s gravesite by Henry Blois to be found in the future.

The assumption by scholars of  an early thirteenth century interpolation and consolidation of DA is largely based on two premises. The first is that Gerald does not mention Joseph but mentions Avalon. For this reason scholars have assumed Joseph lore followed insertions about Avalon which were thought to follow Arthur’s disinterment. Secondly, modern scholars have also assumed St Patrick’s charter was produced later than the disinterment because of its reference to Patrick being ‘first abbot of Avalon’.  This presumption is entirely incorrect. The reference to Avalon in chapter 9 of DA in the postscript pertains to the monastery not the Church and would not have appeared on the faked St Patrick charter produced by Henry Blois (written in gold)…. if indeed it was presented at Rome at all. In other words Henry has employed his own propaganda of the concocted St Patrick charter and included its contents with a postscript written by himself in DA.  The suggestion is that the concocted document existed.

Avallon, (which is Henry’s Burgundian town eponym) and Joseph's name from the Melkin prophecy found at Glastonbury, have Henry as common denominator. It was Henry who clearly posited Ineswitrin as the Isle of Glass through Caradoc, purely for the motive to establish the credibility of the 601 charter by which his case for antiquity was proved to papal authorities. The chance that Robert recounts an Isle de Voirre without any contact from Henry would involve an alarmingly fortuitous convergence of factors…. since Caradoc also intonates the ‘Glass’ association with Glastonbury prior to Robert de Boron.
It should be remembered also c.1180 Robert is mentioning Joseph's association with the Vaus d'Avaron long before Arthur's disinterment c.1189-91.  So, the deduction that Avalon's association with Glastonbury was only made after the disinterment of  King Arthur (and the finding of the Leaden cross) which scholars have wrongly assumed is the first instance of Glastonbury's association with Avalon is negated on three points.
Firstly, it is plain in VM (written c 1155-8) Barinthus is taking Arthur to Glastonbury which is already Avalon by the description provided in HRB.... being synonymous with Insula Pomorum. Secondly (as long as one understands the Perlesvaus was written by Henry and his knowledge of Arthur and Guinevere lying at Glastonbury is based upon him having manufactured the gravesite).... the composition of Perlesvaus also precedes King Arthur's disinterment and therefore in it is a reference to Avalon in the colophon. Lastly, Gerald states in regard of King Arthur's disinterment what we must assume is the reference to the graves location between the piramides in DA: Indeed, there had been some evidence from the records that the body might be found there.... 
NB....The place already must have been known as Avalon to those who had read DA long before the exhumation of King Arthur's grave, because it was Henry who had written the first 34 chapter of DA where Avalon is posited as commensurate with Glastonbury and Henry Blois had died 20 years before the unearthing.

There was absolutely no precedence in Glastonbury lore concerning Joseph prior to  William of Malmesbury unearthing the Melkin prophecy about where he is buried…. probably at the same time that William uncovered the 601 charter. If we can accept Ineswitrin as the original name on the Prophecy of Melkin, (not forgetting Avallon is the name of a town in the Blois region) then the mystical island scenario on which Insula Avallonis is based in HRB and where Arthur is last seen, would make the connection to the prophecy too obvious to employ in DA without Henry’s interpolations being discovered. William had probably handed over the original Melkin prophecy to Henry Blois along with the 601 charter. That both tracts pertained to Ineswitrin as their subject matter and were found at Glastonbury, may well have been the catalyst for Henry’s storyline invention of Insula Avallonis which was not mentioned in EAW by Huntingdon..... because it was not yet part of the Primary Historia found at Bec.
If we are looking for  a reason why the Melkin prophecy is not alluded to in DA... it is fair to assume it was probably mentioned in the same bogus tract supposedly written by Melkin De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda and is not mentioned because of subtlety and traceability back to Henry.... just as Glastonbury is not mentioned in HRB and Arviragus in DA. We must not forget that the Prophecy of Melkin was a coded cipher and made no sense to William of Malmesbury or Henry Blois. Henry is surely responsible for the transference of the original name of Ineswitrin to the copy of the Melkin Prophecy that contained the name Insula Avallonis to which JG refers. (As I show quite clearly in the chapter on the 601AD charter.... Ineswitrin is in Devon)
 Henry’s authorial edifice is an illusion, just as Caradoc’s Iniswitrin is later substantiated in DA as being relevant as an earlier name for Glastonbury and is corroborated in the St Patrick charter. If more of Melkin’s work ever existed (original or composed by Henry Blois under Melkin's name), it may well have been destroyed in the fire in 1184. Yet we can say with confidence that Henry Blois was the original source of much Glastonbury lore and doubtless of the book supposedly written by Melkin concerning Arthur and the round table as well as the HRB and original Grail material.
Even though Henry impersonates Melkin and substituted the name on the prophecy, he was ignorant of its cryptic solution which located the island in Devon. However, because we know Insula Avallonis is a Henry Blois invention in HRB.... it could only mean that the name has been substituted.... and the Melkin prophecy existed in Henry's era. It would be ludicrous to accept that the chance of the decrypted message in the Melkin prophecy locating  an island in Devon (as explained in the chapter on the prophecy) is part of Lagorio's 'fortuitous convergence of Factors' because until the modern era few understood the relevance of the two numerical values in the prophecy i.e. the 13 degrees and the 104 nautical miles.

It seems obvious, if we can accept the provenance of a Glastonbury Perlesvaus, that Henry Blois also wrote the original of the Grail book/Sanctum Graal/Vulgate Estoire. He expected posterity to learn of the coincidence of the French Grail literature and its connection to Joseph, to be commensurate with Melkin’s ‘duo fassula’ on Avalon where Joseph was buried. One can only suppose that John of Glastonbury must have found the Melkin prophecy in a work along with other material (including the mention of Arviragus and his connection to the twelve hides) which must have been contrived by Henry Blois.

If the fire of 1184 had not happened and several parts to the puzzle had not been destroyed, what should have naturally coincided earlier i.e. the understanding that the Grail and ‘duo fassula’ were commensurate…. had to wait until John of Glastonbury included the Blois version of the Melkin prophecy in the Cronica…. which had substituted Insula Avallonis instead of Ineswitrin. The prophecy survived in the form where Henry Blois had substituted Ineswitrin by the Burgundian eponym Avallon. Herein is the answer as to why the ciphered instructions within the prophecy are not a fabrication as modern scholars foolishly proclaim…. but actually reveal Burgh Island through the only means possible at that date...in measurements of the nautical mile.  Avalon is not some ‘Celtic Otherworld’ as most modern commentators maintain and there was certainly no Island of Avalon before Henry Blois’ invention of the name in the First Variant.  It was certainly not mentioned by Huntingdon in EAW as I covered in detail earlier.

Arviragus is not mentioned in DA yet the boundaries of the twelve hides are in chapter 72 & 73 of DA and form part of William’s original work.
This just shows that Henry who wrote HRB, and can be seen to be a master of conflation in that work, has also brought together the association of a totally fictitious Arviragus from his HRB with Glastonbury and its twelve hides, also mentioned by William. 
John of Glastonbury (as I have covered) is a consolidator of other works concerning Glastonburyalia and we know a large part of this propaganda derives from Henry Blois' interpolation into DA. It appears as if it is John who puts together the hides and Arviragus.  I would rather suggest, given John of Glastonbury’s disposition as one who does to invent fable, much of John’s information is derived from Henry’s lost work. What we can surmise then is that Henry, else where, in other output, had connected William’s ‘twelve hides’ to a fictitious Arviragus.
  Essentially, it is vital to understand who is the author of HRB and the Merlin prophecies and then the entire can of worms unfolds. Because we know that the Merlin prophecies underpin much of the pseudo-history found in  the body of HRB.... they must have been written by the same person. So rather I have chosen to elucidate that Henry Blois wrote the Merlin prophecies in the earlier chapters of the book rather than choose the route of uncovering the author through the Historia (even though this method would have been just as sound but more involved.... pointing out Geoffrey's knowledge of the Blois region and mirroring much of the Aristocratic and courtly scenes witnessed while with his Uncle the King and which were then transposed onto a chivalric Arthur for the full appreciation of Arthur's sophistication when read by his contemporary audience

Anyway, back to the topic in hand, Gerald of Wales is only concerned with ‘Geoffrey’s’ Arthur as he appears in HRB, because Arthur's power centre was in Wales and King Arthur stood as an icon for Welsh nationalism. So, the fact that Gerald does not mention Joseph in his account of the exhumation (even having read the DA) is irrelevant..... and should not be assumed by scholars as an a priori basis for a late appearance of Joseph lore subsequent to Adam of Damerham.
The Scholastic deduction being that mention of Joseph in DA is a late invention following an inspiration from French Grail literature. If this were the case, how is it that Caradoc’s mention of Isle de Voirre (which can only apply to Glastonbury) pre-empts Robert de Boron’s Isle de Voirre…. when we know Life of Gildas was written c.1140 and Robert wrote c.1180.
Gerald of Wales neither mentions the St Patrick charter nor Ineswitrin, yet this is obviously Henry Blois’ invention which is also in DA. Gerald having read DA is not concerned with Glastonburyalia but Arthuriana. So, Lagorio’s assumptions about the ‘evolving’ of the legend concerning Joseph is flawed…. as Joseph was assuredly written into DA before Henry Blois’ death[21](along with King Arthur's burial location).

Another reason scholars assume Joseph material derives from a later interpolator and was not in DA at the time of the unearthing of Arthur is because Adam of Damerham makes no mention of Joseph either.  Adam starts, (as we have noted), where DA finishes i.e. with the abbacy of Henry Blois.  For pages Adam leaves us in no doubt of the glorious reputation of Henry Blois held by monks at Glastonbury. Adam even mentions that Henry Blois had generously ordained that 30 Salmon should be eaten at the festivals of Easter and Pentecost ‘so that his own name might be remembered’. I only mention this to show Henry’s vanity in perpetuating his legacy into the future. Adam is purely ‘following on’.... and therefore, is not repeating or reiterating anything found in DA. What is the point of recycling information already established by the famous historian William of Malmesbury. No-one doubted its authenticity since Malmesbury had died in 1143 and his work (as in the T version of DA) had not surfaced until Henry Blois had died.
Adam wrote a hundred years after Henry died. Adam says Henry died in 1177.... so his accuracy is not great and the absence of any mention of Josephian lore by Adam is certainly not grounds upon which to assume his name was not included in DA in 1171. 
Adam also mentions that certain saints were unearthed from the site of the Old church after the fire i.e. St Patrick, Dunstan, Indract and Gildas. Probably the only genuine relics were those of Indract. But that aside, Joseph is not mentioned as he was not unearthed. The point about unearthing Joseph was that no-one could attempt a bogus find.... as one would have to replicate and produce what one imagined constituted the Grail or the duo fassula.

Logically, it seems likely, that if Henry had searched for Joseph at Montacute as well as Glastonbury (as I discussed earlier), it may well be the cause of why Arthur was bogusly buried where he was. Some may speculate that Henry may have imagined the piramides might mark where Joseph was buried since Henry himself did not know where Ineswitrin was.
The reasoning being that both the 601 charter and Melkin Prophecy were uncovered at Glastonbury. But, if Henry did believe the prophecy of Melkin about a burial site for Joseph (since it was him who had provided the bogus etymology in Caradoc and changed the name on the prophecy), it clearly shows he had no idea where the remains of Joseph might be. He was also clever enough to realise that Ineswitrin (having been donated by a Dumnonian king) in all likely hood was located in Devon or Cornwall. Hence Henry's appropriation of Looe Island in 1144 and his topographical knowledge of the cliffs above Burgh Island near Salcombe (Salgoem ) where he was able to make his giant story transpire (near Totnes) indicates Henry had been in search for Ineswitrin.. ‘Geoffrey’s’ Saltus Geomagog which is ‘near Totnes’ where the Giant is thrown over a cliff by Corineus is probably the cliffs at the entry to Salcombe…. (Salgoem)’as it is still so named’, says ‘Geoffrey’.  Salcombe has the giant’s name of Magog spliced onto it and is posited as the location of the wrestling.  

It is possible that in Adam’s era, there was suspicion as to how Joseph suddenly arrived to complement Glastonbury and provide it with apostolic ancestry. Anyway, Adam was relating as a continuator from William’s research (as at end of DA), not reiterating the history already established in DA which was too recent to have formed what might be termed a ‘tradition’.
Adam is covering what had happened since DA and therefore Lagorio and Carley’s assumptions, on the basis that both Gerald and Adam do not mention Joseph (and that Joseph material could not have been in DA at the time of Henry’s death) should no longer stand as a scholastic decree. Therefore, this leaves open the entire framework I am positing i.e. that Joseph material is based upon Melkin’s prophecy and the Melkin prophecy was the catalyst for the appearance of a mysterious island in HRB (to which Arthur was taken) and the Grail is based upon the duo fassula…. and the discovery of a body on Avalon in the future is based upon Joseph’s sepulchre being found as predicted by Melkin. Most important of all is that the Grail quest is a simulation of Henry’s personal search for the relics of Joseph and the enigmatic duo fassula. Let us hope common sense prevails and the tunnel to the tomb can at last be unblocked.

However, before this can happen the experts need to understand the geometry leading to Ineswitrin and they should not discount it as anything other than an encoded document pinpointing the grave of Joseph on Burgh Island. Henry’s knowledge of the Melkin prophecy has in effect defined the Island of Avallon as the last place Arthur was seen. A genuine  Ineswitrin (as originally stated in the prophecy) has become fictionally interpreted in HRB as Avallon, named by Henry Blois from the Burgundian town.
That we should be confident that there has been a substitution of name on the Melkin prophecy is fairly self-evident. 1) The data would not pinpoint an Island in Devon coincidentally employing all the relevant criteria as found in the Melkin prophecy i.e. the 13 degrees and the 104 nautical miles.
2) There would not be five cassates on Glastonbury (if there ever had been and estate of that name on Glastonbury island but we find on Burgh Island the same amount evident today.
3) The island’s connection to Ictis (as I discussed earlier) and Joseph’s name to the tin trade are a coincidence too far to be anything other than fact.
4) The islands etymological name is evident in that it was ‘White tin Island’ or Ineswitrin. (as explained in an earlier chapter)
 5) Henry would never have gone to the trouble of the etymological addition to his own bogus composition of Caradoc’s life of Gildas.... if the 601 charter, (which spoke of Ineswitrin), did not exist. Because it existed in reality, it referred to an island in Dumnonia evidenced by its donation from its King.

It is Melkin’s prophecy, which by its geometrical directions, points out the Island in Devon. Hence, Melkin’s prophecy in reality is locating Ineswitrin as the island upon which Joseph’s relics are to be found and it is synonymous with that named in the 601 charter. Hence, it is not Insula Avallonis as stated on the prophecy (JG version) …. as we know that this name also is the invented name plucked from a town in Burgundy by Henry Blois the writer of HRB.[22] Thus we can be sure the same person has substituted the name. Therefore the Melkin prophecy was extant in Henry's day in its original form.

Any theory to the contrary which avers that both Melkin and his prophecy are a fake is a theory.... and in no way verifiable. As I have maintained from the beginning, my reason for writing this is not to put forward a theory but to show how it is that certain events have transpired which have resulted in the relics of Joseph and Jesus remaining on Burgh Island. It is easily verifiable but only when the scholars and Archaeologists understand how events transpired

Henry Blois invented the chivalric Arthur, so Arthur’s grave could not exist on the invented Island of Avalon. But this does not follow for Joseph of Arimathea on Burgh Island. The stupidity is that…. it is our experts (who supposedly are better informed than ourselves) who have decreed that a search is fruitless and no bodies are to be found on Burgh Island. Julia Crick ‘knows’ Geoffrey’s chivalric Arthur is a twelfth century invention. Therefore, Arthur could not be buried on Avalon. She is not qualified to pronounce on Joseph being buried on Ineswitrin.
Carley denies the existence of Melkin and has no idea of the meaning of Melkin’s prophecy. He dismisses the geometry which we have covered in this work. To him it has no relevance. How could it, because he was taught to accept by his mentor Lagorio that Glastonburyalia (and Joseph) just happened as a ‘fortuitous convergence of factors’ and because he has adduced there is no mention of the prophecy or of Melkin himself before John’s Cronica.
It is worth pointing out though,  that there was a devastating fire which must have burnt some volumes and evidence which would have led us to an earlier interconnection between Glastonburyalia and continental Grail literature…. if it were still extant. Carley’s expert opinion is unbending largely because several of his works on Glastonburyalia have posited conclusions which are based on false assumptions; and so any delay in the discovery of Joseph on Burgh Island is a stay of execution of the day when the ‘experts’ themselves are uncovered as frauds. Anyway, let us leave the scholars to their own devices and get back to our assessment of the first 34 chapters of DA.

Chapter 3. How a certain monk of St Denis spoke of Glastonbury.

Let us digress a little in order to further establish the antiquity of this church. When a certain monk of Glastonbury named Godfrey, from whose letter we have taken both this chapter and the next, was staying at St Denis in the district of Paris in the time of Henry Blois, Abbot of Glastonbury, one of the older monks asked him “where do your people come from? Where do you live?” He replied,” I am a Norman monk, father from the monastery in Britain that is called Glastonbury”. “Is that ancient church of the perpetual Virgin and compassionate mother still standing” he asked. “It is”, the monk said. At this the elder who was gently stroking Godfrey's head, remained wrapt in silence for a long time and at length spoke thus: “this church of the most glorious martyr Denis and that which you claim as yours share the same honour and privilege, the one in France, the other in Britain; they both arose at the same time and each was consecrated by the highest and greatest priest. Yet in one degree yours is superior for it is called a second Rome”. While he was hanging on that man’s words, the guest master separated them from each other, despite their reluctance, and they never saw each other again. But, no more of this.

It seems to me that this is a ploy by Henry Blois and this was written in DA before his death. To me it is doubtful that this was written by the writer of T.  The reader must not forget two things. Firstly, we are dealing with the master of retro authorship i.e.  Henry Blois is adept at anchoring scripts in time as we saw by the dedications in HRB.  If my assumption that DA was in Henry’s possession until his death is correct, he could well have written this for posterity. What is almost certain is that, if it was written by our consolidating author of T, the propaganda about Glastonbury as a second Rome originates from Henry Blois.[23] A good reason for suspecting this is that his name is involved and since it is interpolated and comes before much of the other propaganda inserted by Henry.... I feel it was written by him, knowing the last edition of  DA would not come into the public domain until after his death .
The propaganda in essence places Glastonbury monastery above his good friend Abbot Suger’s ecclesiastical house by the respect shown by the monk of that establishment for Glastonbury. There may be a grain of truth to the account, but in essence it is an account of a conversation which at best can be accounted as hearsay. But, this is not the first time Henry Blois uses seemingly inconsequential anecdotes which establish or add credibility to one of his propagandist positions.
  The propagandist position is that, like St Denis, (where all the French Kings were buried), so is Glastonbury where King Arthur is buried. This is how ‘lore’ is established. Even though the letter, which no doubt existed, (but was fabricated by Henry), portrays the essence of a dialogue between two priests…. the bogus letter to which the piece in DA refers, makes sure we understand that at a contemporary time (when Saint Denis, Bishop of Paris c.250 AD, established the abbey of St Denis), Glastonbury was standing as it is second to Rome.
What also raises my suspicions about Henry’s involvement in reproducing this letter as relating to a monk of Glastonbury named Godfrey, is that he is staying at St Denis in the time of Henry Blois…. and so in effect back dates the perception and  we are meant to believe in the deception…. that, if William of Malmesbury wrote this, it must have been a commonly held perception about the antiquity of Glastonbury especially in terms of primacy…. being accounted second unto Rome.

Henry’s aim, from the time he returned from Clugny in 1158, was to establish Glastonbury as the second greatest Christian ecclesiastical establishment after Rome. Before the burgeoning Cistercians, Clugny had once held this honour.  My suspicion is that the story is made up of inconsequential and intimate detail dressed up to seem matter of fact…. as a conversation portrayed in a letter. My worst suspicion is upon the final sentence in that it pretends upon William of Malmesbury’s style; to be dismissive of tale and hearsay, but as always (again) the seed of propaganda is planted and irreversible.

Chapter 4. How a great number of people first began to live at Glastonbury.

Having described the foundation, dedication and later rediscovery of this oratory it remains for me to describe how this island came to be inhabited by a large number of people. We read in the ‘deeds of the ancient Britons’ that 12 brothers from the northern parts of Britain came into the West where they held several territories, namely Gwynedd, Dyfed, Gower, and Kidwelly, which their ancestor Cuneda had possessed. The names of the brothers are noted below: Ludnerth, Morgen, Catgur, Cathmor, Merguid, Morvined, Morehel, Morcant, Boten, Morgent, Mortineil, and Glasteing. It was this Glasteing who, following his sow through the Kingdom of the inland Angles from near the town called Escebtiorne up to Wells and from Wells along an inaccessible and watery track called Sugewege, that is ‘the Sow’s way’, found her suckling her piglets under an apple tree near the church of which we have been speaking. From this it has been passed down to us that the apples from the tree are known as ‘Ealde Cyrcenas epple’, that is ‘old church apples’. Similarly the sow was called ‘Ealde Cyrce suge’. While all the other sows have 4 feet, this one had eight, remarkable though that may sound. As soon as Glasteing reached that island he saw that it abounded with many good things and so came to live on it with all his family and spent the rest of his life there. That place is said to have been first populated by his offspring and the households that succeeded him. These things have been taken from the ancient books of the Britons.

 Scott highlights the point that: ‘the reference to Henry Blois in the past, establishes that this chapter and the previous was not William’s work since Henry did not die until 1171’. This is certainly not authored by a consolidating or last interpolating editor and the author of the letter above (from which this is derived: from whose letter we have taken both this chapter and the next,) uses the same conflationary format as witnessed elsewhere.... concerning not only himself, but again with how Glastonbury got its name. The sole person, whose aim it is to convince us that…. firstly, Ineswitrin is the old name for Glastonbury and latterly that Insula Avallonis is synonymous with Glastonbury (and Insula Pomorum), is Henry Blois.
Here, I believe is how Henry connects his own French propaganda which posits an alternative Isle de Voirre and connects its namesake Glas through an episode found randomly in the vita tertia of St Patrick. I believe this is Henry’s etymological contortion through an apple eating pig owned by Glasteing…. so Glastonbury becomes identified as, Insula Pomorum, Isle de Voirre, and Avalon, all names fabricated by Henry Blois (except for Ineswitrin which should never have been associated with the location of Glastonbury).
 We should also remember that Henry’s first agenda had to convert Ines Gutrin[24] (as it pertained to Glastonbury) as if it were synonymous with the Ineswitrin on the 601 charter which he was using as an evidential part of his case for gaining metropolitan staus. This of course he had done neatly by impersonating Caradoc.[25] Henry has employed the identification of Glasteing as a swineherd from Glas. The Vita tertia of St Patrick contains an episode where St Patrick encounters a large grave in which Glas is raised from the dead saying: Ego sum Glas filius Cais, qui fuit porcarius Lugir regis Hirote. The sole purpose for which Henry employs this pig story in DA is to connect the apple island of VM through an apple eating pig to Glastonbury. This is so that the island in VM where Arthur is taken by Barinthus is now no other than Glastonbury. It is not by coincidence that this is where miraculously, thanks to Henry Blois having planted a bogus grave and identified its spot (in DA), Arthur will be found. Henry’s alter ego, the chivalric Arthur, will be the food of story tellers and Henry Blois’ entire pseudo-history will become part of British history. 

As we saw in chapter 3 of DA, the information in Godfrey’s letter from whose letter we have taken both this chapter and the next, (meaning the above chapter 4) covers a number of passages, rebuilt to cause conflation from Nennius’ Historia Brittonum and some other source (not in Nennius) which provided the court pedigrees of ‘Hywel the Good’ shown by A. Wade Evans: udnerth map Morgen, map catgur, map Catmor, map Merguid, map Moriutned, map Morhen, map Morcant, map Botan, map Morgen, map Mormayl, map Glast, unde sunt Glastenic qui venerunt que vocatur Loytcoyt.

Considering the content of this supposed letter (if one existed), I can only conclude contrary to Scott that this has Henry’s stamp on it. It might well be written into DA by Henry himself as it exists, or the information supplied was in the form of a letter composed by Henry Blois which our consolidating author of DA has transferred into DA from what was a separate letter. Since this is written by the master of illusion and retro dating…. and William himself is supposed to be the composer of DA ‘as a whole’, I would suggest Henry Blois is referring to himself as if being referred to by William. It does not imply that Henry is dead as Scott assumes, but merely implies that Godfrey was writing this letter in the time of Henry Blois. This goes some way to establishing my proposition that Henry made sure the final redaction of DA was not exposed in the public domain until after his death…. and DA was part of the 40 or so books donated to Glastonbury after his death to which Adam refers.

It is unfortunate in GS at the point where we could discover exactly what the author knew about Wales that the pertinent folios are missing. As I have covered, my proposition is that ‘Geoffrey’ obtained his knowledge of Wales as Henry Blois who was there (clearly as an eye witness in GS) to the suppression of the Welsh rebellion in 1136. It is not by coincidence that the brothers from the north come into the West where they held several territories, namely Gwynedd, Dyfed, Gower, and Kidwelly.  This is exactly where Henry had spent time.  It is also clear from GS that Kidwelly castle belongs to himself. This we might assume is through having retaken it and repelled a siege from within the castle as we discussed earlier. The fact that the book or books of the ancient Britons is referred to twice as the source for the eight legged pig is indicative of the inventor of this story…. the inspired author of so much other dubious lore found in HRB (also about the ancient Britons).

Chapter 5. On the various names of that island.

This island was at first called Ineswitrin by the Britons but at length was named by the English, who had brought the land under their yoke, Glastinbiry, either a translation into the language of its previous name, or after the Glasteing of whom we spoke above. It is also frequently called the island of Avalon, the name of which this is the origin. It was mentioned above that Glasteing found his sow under an apple tree near the church. Because he discovered on his arrival that apples were very rare in that region he named the island ‘Avallonie’ in his own language that is Apple Island, for ‘Avalla’ in British is the same as ‘Poma’ in Latin. Or it was named after a certain Avalloc who is said to have lived there with his daughters because of the solitude of the spot.

When will scholarship not be duped by Henry’s maze of eponyms and etymological contortions for Glastonbury? Scott, like most previous commentators, regards both the previous chapters (which are obviously linked), a late interpolation: principally because of the reference to Avalon, which we know was made only after the claim to possess Arthur’s bones.[26]

We should be observing that it is the same man who invents Avalon in the first place in the First Variant.... who attempts through VM to make Barinthus’ Insula Pomorum synonymous with Glastonbury and this was long before the discovery of Arthur’s 'bogus bones' in Avalon. Scholars who maintain that  the name Avalon was not associated with Glastonbury prior to the discovery of the Leaden cross are mistaken.  The Leaden cross merely confirms in 1191 the illusion set up by Henry Blois' manufacture of Arthur’s  grave site.... sometime after 1158 and before 1171. This was already predestined by the author of HRB and VM and alluded to by the same writer in the interpolations in DA. 

One can see that on this flawed principal a priori to which Carley and Lagorio both adhere, there can be no rational explanation as to how Giraldus’ testimony immediately accepts Avalon as Glastonbury…. if he had not previously had some understanding of it. Who is responsible for Arthur being found at Glastonbury, which is already established as Avalon? How could it possibly be Henry de Sully? Certainly Robert de Boron knows of an association of Joseph of Arimathea and the Vaus d’Avaron already c.1165-80. It is no coincidence a person named ‘Blaise’ records this.

If it were the leaden cross that establishes Avalon at Glastonbury, then we must ignore Giraldus’ statements, otherwise why are they unearthing Arthur at Glastonbury? Gerald says Arthur was a distinguished patron, generous donor, and a splendid supporter of the renowned monastery of Glastonbury; they praise him greatly in their annals….Gerald had read DA and the substance concerning Arthur and Avalon was already in DA. There is no way this reference can refer to ‘Caradoc’s’ one Arthur episode at Glastonbury. I will discuss Gerald in a later chapter, but briefly, Gerald is our best eyewitness.
 If we are not tethered to modern scholarship’s presumptions…. the burial site was determined by the given location between the piramides which Henry Blois had interpolated into DA as a seemingly inconsequential anecdote.  Adam writing c.1290 is far less likely to be accurate on a date 100 years after the fact.[27]  Gerald knew King Henry II personally and was an eyewitness to the disinterment. Henry II died in July 1189, so the disinterment may have happened in that year or just after his death in 1190 Gerald says: The abbot had the best evidence from the aforementioned King Henry, for the King had said many times, as he had heard from the historical tales of the Britons and from their poets, that Arthur was buried between two pyramids that were erected in the holy burial-ground…..Furthermore, in our times, while Henry II was ruling England, the tomb of the renowned Arthur was searched for meticulously in Glastonbury Abbey; this was done at the instruction of the King and under the supervision of the abbot of that place, Henry (de Sully)…..Now when they had extracted this cross from the stone, the aforementioned Abbot Henry showed it to me; I examined it, and read the words…..It read: "Here lies entombed King Arthur, with Guenevere his second wife, on the Isle of Avalon".  Quite simply, as DA states, Arthur is buried between the piramides with Guinevere. So, why should it be presumed Gerald is lying and DA’s description of where to find the body could only have been interpolated after the unearthing.
Why should the interpolator, giving the position where Arthur’s grave was found, neglect to recount anything further than the position (after the fact).  It is obvious he has no idea of what events took place. Logically, if Ralph of Coggeshall and the Margam chronicler ascribe the disinterment to chance, (because a monk had expressed a strong desire to be buried between the piramides and by fortune the grave digger came across Arthur’s bones), it can only point to two deductions.
 Firstly, we know there was no grave to be found unless Henry de Sully staged the disinterment. (This is the generally held misguided consensus). Who else would manufacture a cross which evidently establishes Avalon at Glastonbury by what is inscribed on it but the same man who concocted the persona of King Arthur in HRB. But, Henry de Sully is not the author of HRB’s chivalric Arthur, nor did he have the opportunity to point out in an interpolation in DA where the body was located as posited by Gerald. Henry de Sully is the person who supervises the dig not the fraudster. 
 So, secondly, we must deduce that Coggeshall and the Margam chronicler have heard an account of the unearthing of Arthur which someone has related to them which combats the current scepticism about a possible fraud…. by implying it was a chance and random discovery. I can only logically conclude that the grave site was manufactured there by Henry Blois. The location and specific depth etc. was revealed to the King by Henry Blois.... with the pretence Henry Blois had gleaned the information (or it had been passed into posterity) by an old Welsh Bard. The idea/inspiration for this fiasco is obviously based on the Melkin prophecy where Joseph is to be found in the future. The confirmed certainty that it is Arthur’s grave (and the location is Avalon) is established by the Leaden cross which, (as discussed previously), is modelled (inspirationally) on Eadmer’s reference to the lead tablet confirming Dunstan’s whereabouts at Canterbury (in which letter Henry was rebuffed albeit obliquely). Lastly, as Gerald records, the most likely person to be able to obtain a primate skull (which Gerald describes) is Henry Blois who inherited his uncles zoo. There is a full chapter regarding Gerald's testimony further on.

Grandsen makes an error in her method of rationalizing all the discrepancies. She presumes ‘the monks of Glastonbury suppressed the part played by Henry II, because they considered the story sounded less contrived without it’. This again is based upon the supposition that all things Arthurian in DA are interpolated after the disinterment. But in fact the opposite lends credibility to the position that…. Henry Blois, who wrote things Arthurian in DA, could not know what role Henry II played in Arthur’s unearthing. Hence, it is only Gerald who recounts Henry II involvement leading to the disinterment and provides an eyewitness account. There is no association with King Henry mentioned in DA.... which there would be if the location was inserted by a later interpolator after the disinterment…. plus some the other similar incidental detail like that provided by Gerald.
 Grandsen sees Gerald as commissioned by the Glastonbury monks to carry out a propaganda campaign. She also thinks that Glastonbury monks distributed pamphlets to other religious houses. She also reckons that Gerald had simply stated that Glastonbury was the former Avalon and was somehow responsible for furthering the propaganda by giving independent etymologies for both Glastonbury and Avalon assuming these same etymologies were not in DA already.
Grandsen also imagines some sort of joint venture, where Gerald’s version is in cahoots with the monks. Grandsen’s viewpoint assumes that Avalon becomes Glastonbury by a contemporary monk interpolating after the bogus find…. engineered by monk-craft and Henry de Sully.
Since we know Henry Blois is ‘Geoffrey’ and Avalon is based on the name of a Burgundian town.... and we know Robert de Boron’s stories come directly from Henry Blois, (who also knew the Vaus d’Avaron was in the west) and Chretien's knowledge of Arthur and Grail emanates from Henry's nephew's court at Champagne.... it is remarkable all these ‘convergent factors’ fortuitously fit together neatly for the supposed interpolating monk. Are we then supposed to believe that Gerald.... who has spent much time with Henry II. enters ‘supposedly’ into a propaganda pact with Glastonbury monks, who don’t use the propaganda about the King in their annals which they had supposedly commissioned Gerald to concoct? Events did not transpire as Grandsen, Carley, Lagorio et al have portrayed.

Between 1171 to the period 1189-90, Henry Blois’ Matter of Britain material circulated on the continent and in insular Britain and Master Blehis had made it fairly plain in the Perlesvaus that Glastonbury was perhaps Avalon (by the description of the lead covered church, which still existed in Henry's day as William avers). This fact was also plainly written in DA.
When the King decided to act[28] upon the words which we have proposed he heard at Henry Blois’ deathbed, and DA had existed in the public domain for twenty years, there came a point where the most talked about person in the medieval era was unearthed. This probably transpired in connection to King Henry’s death as Henry de Sully was appointed by Richard I.
Richard was of course the younger maternal half-brother of Countess Marie of Champagne and Countess Alix of Blois. These were the two nieces by marriage to Henry Blois’ nephews. It is at their court where Henry propagated his Grail stories to Chrétien and Robert. It is impossible to accept that an arbitrary monk in the time of Henry de Sully consolidated the bulk of Glastonburyana by interpolating DA at the advent of continental Grail literature at Glastonbury. It is quite preposterous for scholars to maintain this position given that the Perlesvaus stems from Glastonbury and the influence which Henry Blois would have had in the continental courts as Master Blehis…. and more so, surreptitiously spreading propaganda being the author of HRB and the versed story of the Roman de Brut. (This will not be easily accepted by Scholars.... that Wace's most famous work was in fact composed by Henry in part from the First Variant). This subject is discussed in the Chapter on the impersonation of Wace.

King Louis's wife Constance died and Louis married Adèle, the sister of the Count of Blois and Champagne. King Louis had also betrothed his two daughters, Marie and Alix to Theobald of Blois’ sons, Theobald and Henry. It is also important to point out that Henry’s brother (Theobald V of Champagne), presided over the wedding arrangements between Eleanor of Aquitaine and the King of France, Louis VII; and we should not forget Marie, Eleanor’s first child, was instrumental in Chrétien de Troyes obtaining the ‘book of the Grail’ written by Master Blehis, our Henry Blois. We know Marie and Alex were propagators of French romanz literature and Henry Blois was uncle to both of their Husband’s.

Now, I would suggest it was during his time in Burgundy that Henry hatched the plan to write Grail literature. It was in 1158 that Marie married the said ‘Henri the Liberal’, the troubadour, the favourite nephew of Bishop Henry Blois (since Eustace’s death). This connection must not be dismissed, as Henry returns back to England to take up his place at Winchester in that year.
 Henry Blois on his return had become less powerful and less able to manipulate state affairs. He had also realised that his malicious updated Merlin prophecies which he had written as a device to cause sedition concerning the Celts in the hope they would overturn Henry II had also failed to become reality. So, Henry settles into a more reclusive mode to write and orally propagate propaganda concerning King Arthur, Joseph and Avalon. 
In fact he was at first treated with some suspicion by Henry II but eventually staying out of trouble with his power base vastly diminished he came to be perceived as the venerable old bishop. It must not be forgotten that it was noted that Henry Blois was renowned for always writing and being occupied with books and a recognised scholar.... yet only left his libellus  as the only tract he had written for posterity. Why he would liken himself to Cicero with no output seems to have an obvious answer. His output came in many forms as he is responsible for composing HRB and is responsible for generating all the original Grail literature.

If modern scholarship could rid itself of the a priori standpoint that all things Arthurian in DA are interpolated after Arthur’s disinterment, we can then accept a Grail, Arthurian and Joseph legend emanating from Glastonbury through Henry Blois. Once this is accepted, we might then accept the Island name on the prophecy of Melkin was changed to Insula Avallonis long before JG recycles the prophecy and understand why this was done as a consequence of Henry’s first agenda changing to a second.
It is necessary that modern scholars accept the Prophecy of Melkin as part of the inspiration for the mythical island concept in HRB, and how ‘Geoffrey’s’ island is then linked to Joseph…. because we now understand that ‘Geoffrey’ is in fact the Abbot of Glastonbury.  Pertinent to this tangled mess is the sepulchre of Joseph…. to be found with a mystical object already stated in the Melkin prophecy…. and the commonality between Ineswitrin as Burgh Island, Joseph, Avalon and the Grail, which are all common to the prophecy of Melkin…. aware that the name of Avalon is the invention of HRB’s author but based upon a genuine encoded document which records for posterity where Joseph of Arimathea is buried.
 Modern commentators also must understand that originally the bones of Joseph and the duo fassula were stated to be on Iniswitrin in the Melkin prophecy and are still on Ineswitrin in reality. (It is just that Ineswitrin is now called Burgh Island). The modern scholar must grasp how Henry Blois who placed Arthur at Avalon in HRB for the reparation of his wounds is in fact the abbot of Glastonbury.... where Avalon was then recognised to be located firstly by Geoffrey's work in the First Variant Version of HRB and then surreptitiously as Insula Pomorum in VM. As we know, Henry Blois was a patron of Gerald and most probably predisposed an acceptance within Gerald concerning Arthuriana and Glastonburyalia in relation to Avalon during conversation with him in Henry’s own lifetime, (although Gerald never associated the Bishop with Geoffrey of Monmouth and is obviously dubious of ‘Geoffrey’s’ history as is made plain in his work). Is it not a strange occurrence that the three know dedicatees of the HRB are not recorded as commenting on its content but as I have posited at great length earlier in this discourse, the dedicatees in effect back date the HRB. The Vulgate edition of HRB as I have elucidated only appeared in 1155. Albert of Beverley's copy (the Vulgate's precursor) was passed to Henry's Nephew (the bishop of York) and was of course not dedicated.

Chapter 6. With what great devotion various saints came thither.

 The church of which we are speaking, frequently called by the English ‘the old church’ because of its antiquity, was that first made of wattle. Yet from the very beginning it possessed a mysterious fragrance of Divine sanctity, so that, despite its mean appearance, great reverence for it wafted through the whole country. Hence the streams of people flowing along all the roads that lead there; hence the assemblies of the wealthy divested of their pomp; hence the constant succession of men of religion and letters.

We should not forget that on the 601 charter the church was termed ‘old’ and this was on a document which obviously existed and was genuine, otherwise there would be little point in Henry making the etymological addition to the last paragraph of Caradoc’s (Henry's) bogus Life of Gildas. The church’s mean appearance i.e. in wood; we now hear again was first made of Wattle which implies it was no longer and I believe never was. Author B states it is in wood c.960AD.  So, before that date, we are led to believe in chapter 19 of DA that Augustine’s fellow preacher Paulinus, Bishop of Rochester and earlier Archbishop of York, had strengthened the structure and covered it in wood c.600 AD.
We must take account of why is it so important that the structural composition of the church is highlighted so frequently….especially, in consideration that 'William' supposedly mentions often what it used to be made of 750 years previous to when William is supposedly writing these words. As I covered already, the reason behind this propaganda is so that it mirrors with the word cratibus in the prophecy of Melkin which makes the prophecy of Melkin more likely to appear to pertain to Glastonbury.... when in reality it bears witness to relics on Burgh Island. (See the chapter on the prophecy of Melkin).

Having considered the synonymy between Glastonbury and Avalon that was seen to be in evidence through VM’s Insula Pomorum at an early date of 1155-58; we must now see we are being persuaded that the Melkin prophecy is being made to appear to be relevant to Glastonbury also through Insula Avallonis.
Hence the inordinate persuasions to have us believe that the old construction of the church was in Wattle so that another part of the Melkin prophecy complies with Glastonbury lore. But, it is the man who is inventing the lore who is also bent on us believing the Melkin prophecy applies to Glastonbury as he is the inventor of Avalon. Thus, certain parts of the prophecy’s wording i.e. cratibus, he would have us believe applies to the church in Avalon. My proposition that a parallel is being sought…. points to the existence of the prophecy of Melkin in Henry’s era and therefore is an indicator that the prophecy’s duo fassula is the template for the Grail itself.  (Not forgetting that Montacute is positioned on the decrypted line described in the prophecy of Melkin where it is also posited by Father Good that Joseph's relics are 'carefully hidden'. Lagorio's 'fortuitous' seems more by design than a random 'convergence of factors'. Also modern scholars have decreed that because the Melkin Prophecy isnot in DA or in any other tract until JG recycles it with Avalon as itspertinent feature.... we are made to accept that it could not have existed before the Advent of the Exhumation of Arthur's grave.  However this seems wrong to make such a deduction because JG must have copied it from somewhere and the most likely place is the book thought to have been written by Melkin i.e. the book titled ‘De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda’ which was obviously written by Henry Blois…. and this is where John of Glastonbury may have got some of his material from.  
Also if (as I posited earlier) the Prophecy of  Melkin and the 601 charter had been discovered by William of Malmesbury (both referring to Ineswitrin) in his researches and found in the chest as described; it would seem likely that even though no-one had the faintest idea where Ineswitrin was or to which Island the prophecy alluded to, Henry Blois would not have included it in DA because the prophecy was given to him and thus if it appeared in DA suspicion would fall on him for some of the other added interpolations found therein.

Chapter 7. On St Gildas.

As we have heard from our forefathers, Gildas neither an unlearned nor an inelegant historian, to whom the Britons are indebted for any fame they have amongst other peoples, past many years there, captivated by the holiness of the place. There too he died in 512AD and was buried before the altar in the old church.

Gildas does not even mention Glastonbury in his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae. The only connection Gildas has to Glastonbury is that found in the concocted Life of Gildas which Henry composed and has impersonated Caradoc. (see the chapter on Caradoc and how he could not have written the Life of Gildas)
The point of the interpolation in DA is to continue the proposition that Gildas was at Glastonbury. In DA is now stated Gildas died at Glastonbury in 512 AD. So, this has provided a further 100 years of antiquity from where William established his oldest evidence of antiquity in 601.The point is that where William starts DA with the 601 charter....it is 4 years after the arrival of Augustine (597AD) while Henry's polemic is tied to a proof that both Winchester and Glastonbury (in a case of primacy)  were both established before  Canterbury. (Having Gildas buried at Glastonbury establishes 85 years of further antiquity over Canterbury).

 The story of Guinevere’s kidnap, as we have covered, was initially introduced to date Glastonbury through association with a ‘datable’ Gildas and to highlight the activities of Arthur and corroborate that the HRB Arthur is synonymous with Life of Gildas’ Arthur through Guinevere. As we saw in GR3 (Henry’s interpolations), Gildas is mentioned as above, but now in DA he is actually buried at Glastonbury. Henry’s interpolations of William’s GR cover the saints at Glastonbury, but omit that Gildas was buried there. This is simply because Henry did not add this anecdote in DA when he went to Rome in the first instance, but it has been added subsequently…. when he recomposed DA post 1158 and had obviously manufactured a memorial for Gildas in the abbey.  It would hardly be fitting to produce a book on the Life of Gildas in which Gildas poses as an arbiter at Glastonbury in an episode which no-one has ever heard of before; and also posit that he was buried at Glastonbury when no previous mention of his name had been found there. This might stretch credibility too far for papal authorities not to suspect newly invented material. Gildas’ resting place is obviously manufactured at a later date and brought into Glastonbury lore in chapter 7 of DA.

Chapter 8. On St Patrick.

A little before this time, when the Angles with threatening the peace of the Britons and the Pelagians were assaulting their faith, St Germanus of Auxerre provided help against both, as we read elsewhere; for he scattered the former with an alleluia chant and blasted the latter with the thunder of the evangelists and apostles. Then, when he was considering a return to his own country, he received Patrick into his immediate company before sending him some years later, at the command of Pope Celestine, to preach to the Irish. After he had diligently carried out the duty enjoined on him, Patrick returned to England in his old age, rejecting his former dignity and popular acclaim. He landed in Cornwall on his altar, which is still held in great veneration by the inhabitants, both on account of its sanctity and usefulness and on account of its deliverance of the sick. Then, coming to Glastonbury and finding 12 brothers living there as hermits, he gathered them together and, assuming the office of Abbot, taught them to live a communal life, as he quite clearly declares in the following document that he wrote at the time.

If I am correct in my analysis that the St Patrick charter was employed in the later attempt at metropolitan status after an initial gambit of a disciplic/apostolic foundation for Glastonbury; we can then understand that the present chapter and the following St Patrick charter are a later insertion/redaction to an already interpolated DA by Henry Blois. Thus we have the anomaly in chronology where Henry has to introduce St Patrick after he has spoken of Gildas with A little before this time…..

Firstly, Henry Blois refers us to HRB and then to his interpolation in GR3 relating to Patrick the archbishop preferring to stay at Glastonbury.[29] All this we can understand is part of a persuasive polemic relating to the metropolitan request.  If a consolidating author was persuading us to believe in the St Patrick charter by stating that the Patrick charter was written at the time of St Patrick (as we are all supposed to believe), certain inconsistencies in logic appear. What is the point of the St Patrick charter if Patrick is the first abbot of Avalon and yet Arthur’s disinterment has already established Avalon as Glastonbury? Why was it necessary that this document happened to be at the tor rather than at the abbey? Well, the obvious reason is so that the copy (without the seals) was found at the abbey and so could be produced at Rome (or to pope Lucius). There is simply no way that any other person than Henry Blois wrote the St Patrick charter.... which rules out Scott’s theory of a consolidating author who comprehensively rearranges DA.
No consolidating author c.1230 would be setting us up to receive the next chapter (9) which is the St Patrick charter itself which obviously existed before any 'consolidator' and logically could only be of use to Henry in his endeavour. There is simply nothing to be gained by either producing or having us believe a document once existed....especially from a late invention as Scott believes.

I should just summarise what we have covered to make clear the construction of DA. Initially, in 1144, while at Rome, Henry had proposed an apostolic foundation to papal authorities and had included the Gildas myth at Glastonbury by presenting along with DA, Caradoc’s Life of Gildas which Henry Blois  had composed himself.
Gildas was  not a saint at Glastonbury nor was there a resting place for him there at this stage. This came later. The only reason scholars have swallowed Henry's lie in the end is because it looks as if William of Malmesbury bears witness that Gildas was at Glastonbury in GR3. As we know the Glastonburyalia in GR3 is an interpolation by Henry Blois as discussed in the chapter on the GR. 
 In 1149 Henry had constructed the St Patrick charter as additional evidence to support his case for Metropolitan status. It is unlikely DA had the last paragraph (postscript to the charter) attached where St Patrick is the 'first abbot of Avalon; and this is more likely a later addition when Henry himself consolidates DA toward the end of his life c.1169.
This late consolidation was to complement the Grail and Arthurian propaganda and material concerning Joseph (written by Robert de Boron) and originating from Henry in the court at Champagne and Troyes.
Henry added chapter 1 & 2 of DA before his death…. which, in effect, consolidates his pre and post 1158 agendas.  Where Scott deduces a late consolidator for DA, I prefer Henry’s separate agenda’s to explain the overlay of material in DA. Hence, where Scott believes chapter 8 is written by a late interpolator because it leads into the St Patrick charter of Chapter 9, I suggest that it merely reflects a follow on consolidation from Henry’s first agenda which focused on dating the antiquity of Glastonbury by the historical persona of Gildas; who, in effect had been placed at Glastonbury at the kidnap of Guinevere by the narrative in the bogus Life of Gildas. We are led to believe Gildas and 'the abbot' were present when Arthur arrived and the Glastonbury monastic institution followed on from an unbroken Christian settlement at Glastonbury church of apostolic foundation…. established as a complete chronological train of events in the St Patrick charter. 
 So, where Scott is suspicious of chapter eight’s beginning A little before this time because of chapter eight’s connection to the St Patrick charter; I suggest it is merely a reflection of the 1149 attempt at metropolitan and follows on in a consolidation from the earlier agenda which presented the Gildas material. However, as I have suggested before, the St Patrick Charter may have been produced as a separate document and then incorporated into DA as it is here presented with chapter 8 as its introduction. Either way, it is still a product of Henry Blois. As to there being any substance to the legend of Patrick’s relics at Glastonbury, it is impossible to tell, but it seems unlikely given author B’s uncertainty as to the two Patrick’s.
 Henry Blois may not be the first fraudster at the officine de faux. If one had to take a position, it would be fair to conclude that someone called Patrick was buried at Glastonbury, but the charter was concocted by Henry based upon this previous rumoured uncertainty. Many of the traditions later attached to Saint Patrick actually concerned Palladius, who in ‘Prosper of Aquitaine's’ Chronicle was said to have been sent by Pope Celestine I as the first bishop to the Irish c.431.
Prosper of Aquitaine associates Palladius' appointment with the visits of Germanus of Auxerre to Britain to suppress the Pelagian heresy and it has been suggested that Palladius and his colleagues were sent to Ireland to ensure that exiled Pelagians did not establish themselves among the Irish Christians. This is where Henry gets his information for DA concerning St Germanus’ possible connection to Patrick. We should not forget that this similarity of conflationary material in the construction of a legend smacks of ‘Geoffrey’s’ similar methods in HRB.

In author B’s lifetime, (the first to write a Life of Dunstan), there was a Patrick myth, so St Patrick at Glastonbury may have substance: now Irish pilgrims, like men of other races, felt special affection for Glastonbury, not least out of their desire to honour the ‘elder’ St Patrick, who is said to have died there happily in the Lord.

In the GP, William of Malmesbury had expressed his view that the first founder of Glastonbury was King Ina, acting under the advice of St Aldhelm, written when William had visited Glastonbury before Henry’s arrival. It seems remarkable that William then in GR3 puts Gildas at Glastonbury (but we know this is a Henry Blois interpolation), when in his unadulterated copy of DA he commences his proof of antiquity with the 601 charter.
A similar statement is found in GR1 (but we know the editions have been mired by corrections).  The relics of Benignus and Indract were recognised as genuine, but William in GP was sceptical of St Patrick’s relics residing at Glastonbury and allows the possibility of Patrick’s return after his Irish mission.
In William’s VP according to Leland, supposedly Patrick ‘came to Glastonbury, and having become a monk and abbot there, after some years yielded to nature’. He then follows on with the assertion: any hesitation about this statement is dispelled by a vision of one of the monks. This seems to me that Leland is sourcing what Henry had written about Patrick in DA.... not William’s life of St Patrick. If Henry can write a life of Gildas, he can also write a life of Patrick. (See the chapter on Caradoc and the impossibility of him being able to have written the Life of Gildas c.1140)

In William’s VD: Irishmen frequented the place in great numbers; men with a wide range of expertise, who had mastered the liberal arts fully. Wishing to give themselves over to philosophy more completely, they had abandoned their native soil, rejected all family ties and made their way to Glastonbury, led on by love of their preacher, Patrick, whose mortal remains are held to have lain buried there from time immemorial.

 If William did believe that Patrick’s relics resided at Glastonbury, it was probably down to pressure from the monks, (note his statement is tentative), but we cannot say if he recorded it based on previous author’s testimony or the monks’ firm belief (or whether he believed it himself)…. or that he even wrote the life of Patrick.  Author B struggled to rationalise Patrick’s existence with a Patricius ‘senior’ and ‘Junioris’ and expected contention on the issue: but if my writings are refuted and scorned by the envious rejection of the jealous. There is just no way to tell if there is any truth that St Patrick was at Glastonbury before Henry Blois took up the mantle to establish it as fact…. based upon what seems to be a flimsy foundation.

Chapter 9. The charter of St Patrick.

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I Patrick, the humble servant of God, in the year of His Incarnation 430, was sent into Ireland by the most holy Pope Celestine, and by God's grace converted the Irish to the way of truth; and, when I had established them in the Catholic faith, at length I returned to Britain, and, as I believe, by the guidance of God, who is the life and the way, I chanced upon the isle of Ynswytrin, (Insulam Ynsgytrin) wherein I found a place holy and ancient, chosen and sanctified by God in honour of Mary the pure Virgin, the Mother of God: and there I found certain brethren imbued with the rudiments of the Catholic faith, and of pious conversation, who were successors of the disciples of St Phagan and St Deruvian, whose names for the merit of their lives I verily believe are written in heaven: and because the righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance, since tenderly I loved those brethren, I have thought good to record their names in this my writing.

And they are these: Brumban, Hyregaan[30], Brenwal, Wencreth, Bamtonmeweng, Adelwalred, Lothor, Wellias, Breden, Swelwes, Hin Loernius, and another Hin. These men, being of noble birth and wishing to crown their nobleness with deeds of faith, had chosen to lead a hermit's life; and when I found them meek and gentle, I chose to be in low estate with them, rather than to dwell in Kings' palaces. And since we were all of one heart and one mind, we chose to dwell together, and eat and drink in common, and sleep in the same house.

And so they set me, though unwilling, at their head: for indeed ‘I was not worthy to unloose the latchet of their shoes’. And, when we were thus leading the monastic life according to the pattern of the approved fathers, the brothers showed me writings of St Phagan and St Deruvian, wherein it was contained that twelve disciples of St Philip and St James had built that Old Church in honour of our Patroness aforesaid, instructed thereto by the blessed archangel Gabriel.

And further, that the Lord from heaven had dedicated that same church in honour of His Mother: and that to those twelve, three pagan Kings had granted, for their sustenance, twelve portions of land. Moreover in more recent writings I found that St Phagan and St Deruvian had obtained from Pope Eleutherius, who had sent them, ten years of indulgence. And I, brother Patrick, in my time obtained twelve years from Pope Celestine of pious memory.

Now after some time had passed I took with me my brother Wellias and with great difficulty we climbed up through the dense wood to the summit of the mount, which stands forth in that island (Glastonbury Tor). And when we were come there we saw an ancient oratory, well-nigh ruined, yet fitting for Christian devotion and, as it appeared to me, chosen by God. And when we entered therein we were filled with so sweet an odour that we believed ourselves to be set in the beauty of Paradise. So then we went out and went in again, and searched the whole place diligently; and we found a volume in which were written Acts of Apostles along with Acts and Deeds of St Phagan and St Deruvian. It was in great part destroyed, but at the end thereof, we found a writing which said that St Phagan and St Deruvian, by revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ had built that oratory in honour of St Michael the archangel,[31]that he should have honour there from men, who at God's bidding was to introduce men to everlasting honour.
And since that writing pleased us much, we sought to read it to the end. For that same writing said that the venerable Phagan and Deruvian abode there for nine years, and that they had also obtained indulgence of thirty years for all Christian folk who visit that place, with pious intent, for the honour of the blessed Michael. Having found therefore this great treasure of divine goodness, I and brother Wellias fasted three months, engaged in prayer and watching, and controlling the demons and beasts that in divers forms appeared. And on a certain night, when I had given myself to sleep, the Lord Jesus appeared to me in a vision, saying Patrick, my servant, know that I have chosen this place to the honour of My name, and that here men should honourably invoke the aid of My archangel Michael. And this shall be a sign to thee, and to thy brethren, that they also may believe: thy left arm shall wither, till thou hast told what thou hast seen to thy brethren which are in the cell below, and art come hither again. And so it came to pass. From that day we appointed that two brethren should be there continually, unless the pastors in the future should for just cause determine otherwise.
Now to Arnulf and Ogmar, Irish brethren who had come with me from Ireland, because at my request they were the first to make their humble dwelling at that oratory, I have entrusted this present writing, keeping another like unto it in a chest at St Mary’s as a memorial for those who shall come after. And I Patrick, by counsel of my brethren, concede a hundred days of pardon to all who shall, with pious intent, cut down with axe and hatchet the wood on every side of the mount aforesaid, that there may be an easier approach for Christian men who shall make pious visit to the church of the Blessed perpetual Virgin and the aforesaid oratory.

Postscript in DA as an addition to what was written on the charter:

That these things were truly so, we have proved by the testimony of a very ancient writing, as well as by the traditions of our elders. And so this saint aforesaid, who is the Apostle of the Irish and the first abbot in the Isle of Avalon, after he had duly instructed these brethren in rule and discipline, and had sufficiently enriched that place with lands and possessions by the gift of Kings and princes, when some years were past yielded to nature, and had his rightful burial, by the showing of an angel, and by the flashing from the spot of a great flame in sight of all who were there present, in the Old Church on the right hand of the altar.

J. Arimatage Robinson’s dating of the St Patrick charter to 1220 is unfounded and is based on the train of false a priori we have discussed already. There is simply no bone fide reason to believe the Patrick charter is a construct made in 1220... simply because Wellias’s name is employed (because of the dispute with Wells).  It must be understood that initially Henry Blois concerned himself with establishing the authenticity of the 601 charter (which proved antiquity if it could be linked to Glastonbury island), by claiming Ineswitrin was in fact synonymous with Glastonbury and the charter referred to an estate on Glastonbury Island.
The Patrick charter bolsters this position.  Only later, post 1158, when Henry Blois manufactured the grave site for Arthur did he change his propagandist intent now making Glastonbury appear as synonymous with Insula Avallonis from HRB which he had invented  as Arthur’s last recorded location. Hence, the change of name on the Melkin prophecy from Ineswitrin to Insula Avallonis (so named from the Burgundian town) and made known that this place was synonymous with Glastonbury in DA.... at the same time that he was propagating his Joseph of Arimathie in the French courts. Hence Robert de Boron’s mention of Avaron in the west.

Supposedly, in Patrick’s own words in the St Patrick charter ‘I came to the island of Ineswitrin’, wholly implicates Henry Blois as author as it is he who convinces us of Glastonbury’s synonymy with this name in Life of Gildas.  He is the one person who carries out the substitution of Ineswitrin for InsulaAvallonis in the Melkin Prophecy[32] (as we know the prophecy data in the prophecy applies to Burgh Island). Henry Blois corroborates Ineswitrin’s association with Glastonbury in the last paragraph of Life of Gildas and here in the Saint Patrick Charter for consistency…. but also letting us know it is called Avalon in the consolidating (yet later) written postscript to the charter in DA.

We should remember in Huntingdon’s EAW there is no mention of Archbishops or Avalon. As we have covered, when the Primary Historia (the copy of HRB found at Bec) was written, the topic of archbishop would not feature as an issue for Henry as he did not need to make a case for metropolitan. Henry was already Archbishop of Canterbury in waiting.
Phagan and Deruvian would surely have been mentioned as the proselytisers of Britain by Huntingdon in EAW, if indeed they had been mentioned in the Primary Historia. So, at the appearance of Phagan and Deruvian along with the appearance of archbishops in the First Variant HRB, we can conclude that the Primary Historia has been updated to the First Variant and employed to bolster evidence as part of Henry’s case for metropolitan status. It would be silly to consider that the part played by Phagan and Deruvian in the St Patrick charter was thought about by some other than Henry Blois or at a much later date as Robinson suggests.[33] (See the chapter on the First Variant preceding the Vulgate).

I can see no reason for the St Patrick's charter's invention, given its substance, other than to strengthen the case for Metropolitan status for Henry. Scott’s assessment of the date of the charter is based upon the misguided deduction that the point of the reference in the charter to the keeping of two copies is indicative of a date of composition after the fire. More probably, it is the apologia for why it is found at Glastonbury abbey and can be produced as a copy. Firstly, because the oratory on the tor had been destroyed or fallen into disrepair. Secondly, to excuse its sudden appearance and the fact that a copy was being produced.  It all likelihood Henry Blois maintained the copy had been found by William when Henry was presenting the charter as evidence at Rome…. and thus its inclusion in DA. 
I do not agree with Scott’s claim that the charter was written post 1184 and would have been fabricated to counter Osbern’s claim. Scott’s theory is based upon the fact that the postscript says Patrick was the first abbot of Avalon. William of Malmesbury’s DA (excluding St Patrick charter) deals adequately with Osbern’s claim.... so why invent a charter post 1184.
The postscript to the St Patrick charter in DA was indeed written by Henry Blois, but the charter had existed (in gold letters) as a separate document, fabricated for the perusal of papal authorities in 1149.
The fact that Henry Blois’ second agenda was the creation of Avalon at Glastonbury indicates Henry’s inclusion of the charter into DA post 1158 as part of his consolidation of DA interpolative material rather than representing the bogus document (in gold lettering) word for word which had been used earlier.
Of course, the exposed Glastonbury Tor never had trees on it and it is just another gambit by Henry (as he does throughout HRB) to provide an incidental explanation, that since antiquity, the trees on the tor have been chopped on account of the ease of access for the pious. Also, it is a clever gambit on Henry’s behalf to invent the fact that the charter was found along with the deeds and Acts of the Apostles. There is simply no limit to the inventiveness of Henry’s muses.

The St Patrick charter, in effect (pre-Joseph lore) provides myth of the foundation story of the abbey and splices well with HRB’s mention of the preachers names. The brief references to Patrick by author B adds credence to the concocted charter. So, I would conclude that the St Patrick charter dates to 1149 and the mention of Wellias (which in effect establishes little for any interpolator concerned with Wells) is purely coincidental because (as we know from HRB), Henry is very keen on eponyms. I cannot see how Patrick and Wellias as contemporaries, strengthens to any relevant degree, the point of the entire interpolation of the charter, or Glastonbury’s case against the intrusion of the Bishop of Wells. The Patrick charter rather just highlights that Henry’s position is that Patrick must have been at Glastonbury as Wells is not so far away. 
The town nearby (Henry would have us believe) is obviously named after Wellias. Therefore, we are supposed to think that, because of the eponym, the St Patrick charter should be the more believed as genuine. As I have already said, the postscript to chapter 9 is not part of the charter and most probably is an additional later consolidation by Henry, when the conversion of Avalon to Glastonbury became the thrust of Henry’s second agenda post 1158.  If Henry had not been the author of HRB, I too would say that the Patrick charter by its inclusion of Wellias seems to be an interpolation connected with the contention with Savaric, but again, we have Caradoc’s etymology to consider if the charter was presented before the postscript was added to it in DA. It is also painfully obvious that the town of Wells is named after the several wells that exist in the town.

Henry may have provided evidence that the missionaries Phagan and Deruvian were also connected to the old minster at Winchester to which Rudborne also attests.  The conflationary logic of Henry is:..... if Glastonbury shows an early date of foundation by association with Phagan and Deruvian, it would follow that Winchester, which also plays a prominent part in HRB, must also have been established by these first missionaries of Eleutherius. The fact that they stayed in Glastonbury for nine years is just extraneous incidental detail meant to add a ring of truth to the concoction.

 Thus we have in HRB: At last, when everything had been thus ordained new, the prelates returned to Rome and besought the most blessed Pope to confirm the ordinances they had made. And when the confirmation had been duly granted they returned into Britain with a passing great company of others, by the teaching of whom the nation of the British was in a brief space established in the Christian faith. Their names and acts are to be found recorded in the book that Gildas wrote as concerning the victory of Aurelius Ambrosius, the which he hath handled in a treatise so luminous as that in no-wise is there any need to write it new in a meaner style.[34]

Henry knows Phagan and Deruvian are not mentioned in Gildas’ work and we know Henry has read Gildas as it is a source in the composition of HRB. Gildas does however mention Aurelius Ambrosius.  Henry, who is the advocator of Nennius’ work having been written by Gildas does mention Eleutherius,[35] but not obviously Phagan and Deruvian.

Why Henry chose to use Patrick was evident through author B’s senioris, junioris testimony. The rationale was that the charter would be accepted as a charter of St Patrick, which had been located by William in his endeavours to elucidate Glastonbury’s antiquity. That St Patrick was the first abbot and St Benignus his pupil was the second is a Henry myth. Even Ralph Higden questioned it in the fourteenth century supposing that there had been some confusion with a later Patrick. I would assume a tomb marked with the name Patrick existed and possibly is the reason why the myth existed about St Patrick’s burial at Glastonbury which author B relates.

The choice of the content by ‘St. Patrick’[36] as a means of propaganda should come as no surprise given Henry’s aims. What appears at first glance is a strange choice of focus (the St. Michael church) may indeed have deeper reasons. What may have happened is that due to the 601 charter which named Ineswitrin as the island being donated to the old church.... the charter may have been called into question and as an effect.... caused the focus on the tor (as being separate from Glastonbury abbey’s Old Church). The objection or suspicion may have been that in GR1 King Ine had founded Glastonbury.   
By the miraculous discovery of a charter which fortuitously had been duplicated and had been probably posited as having been discovered by William…. it could now be argued that William  wrote the interpolations concerning Glastonburyalia held in his GR3 (or at least that was the argument to be presented at Rome), even though William is made to seem ignorant of the preachers names before the advent of the newer additions which constitute the Glastonbury version B interpolations in GR3.

Again, it is vital to the understanding of the Vulgate HRB as being different from a First Variant…. and also to grasp the development of the Primary Historia into the First Variant, by assessing EAW’s evidence in the many variations of storyline it differs from  the Vulgate version. You would think that Henry of Huntingdon hearing for the first time the names of the two preachers who brought the word of God to Lucius would surely mention them by name as they are mentioned in HRB: forasmuch as the blessed Pontiff, finding that his devotion was such, sent unto him two most religious doctors, Pagan and Duvian, who, preaching unto him the Incarnation of the Word of God, did wash him in holy baptism and converted him unto Christ.[37]
Huntingdon would surely have mentioned the two preachers later found in First Variant and Vulgate versions of HRB if they had been incorporated into the copy of the Primary Historia found in 1139 at Bec.
We can see Henry Blois has conferred great status upon them in Vulgate HRB: The blessed doctors, therefore, when they had purged away the paganism of well-nigh the whole island…. This, for me is the one fact above any other of the variations in storyline (considering Henry’s activities recorded by chroniclers) which shows that Huntingdon has a different version from the Vulgate.[38] i.e. not fully expanded.
The only reason scholarship holds the view that Huntingdon’s summary is a précis of the Vulgate version is because even though the differences in storyline are glaring, they have no way of reconciling the differences and even posit the First Variant is by another author or it was composed after the Vulgate version. 
We know Henry wrote the HRB. But initially Henry Blois had composed a pseudo-history of Britain destined originally for Matilda or King Henry I (as  have explained on the evolution of HRB)…. and the chivalric Arthuriana was an addition to that tract in 1137-38 after Henry Blois having been in Wales in 1136.
Part of the reason for writing the initial pseudo-history for his uncle was to show that there had been many queens of Britain prior to Henry Ist daughter who many of the barons privately objected to as King Henry  heir.  This was written prior to Henry Blois' brother becoming King. This now redundant work (because Matilda was no longer going to be Queen) was then expanded upon in 1137-38 while Henry Blois was in Normandy   The Primary Historia (the version foundat Bec) however, had a more expanded Arthuriad (if any had previously existed in the pseudo-history) after Henry had the experience to relate facts concerning the topography in Wales and had seen Roman remains at Caerleon on which he concocted King Arthur's utopian society. The pseudo-history was a pre-cursor to the Primary Historia  and had in effect become redundant when his brother took the throne.

 Huntingdon found the Primary Historia  in January 1139. On 1^st of March 1139 Henry is made Legate because he had complained to the pope. He had been the Archbishop of Canterbury in waiting. It is not by chance that Severus becomes a Legate in HRB, when before (unless Huntingdon was vastly mistaken), he was earlier an ‘Emperor’- Imperator in Huntingdon’s EAW (before Henry’s appointment): When these tidings were brought unto Rome, the Senate sent as legate, Severus the senator and two legions. We must not forget that the Merlin prophecies were never a part of the Primary Historia either. As I have already pointed out, many ‘experts’ believe the Merlin prophecies were a part of the 1139 manuscript, even though Huntingdon’s précis of the Primary Historia  (EAW) supposedly omits mention of the prophecies and ‘overlooks’ any allusion to the character of Merlin.

The Primary Historia is the first version not a variant. Even Crick[39] comments that if the section on Vortigern, which in effect introduces the prophecies of Merlin by including the reasoning behind Geoffrey’s intermission, by means of the dedicatory letter to Alexander…. ‘could be omitted without disrupting the flow of the narrative’.[40] To concede such a glaring point and not recognise (or glibly excuse) that Merlin and the prophecies are not mentioned by Huntingdon’s EAW is a rationalised position rather than a logical deduction. 
Crick, like Carley, forces the pieces together with her assumption that Vulgate HRB was found at Bec instead of a version she has not even contemplated (which I have called Primary Historia), which, by the briefest analysis of EAW, can be seen to differ widely from Vulgate…. even by Huntingdon’s short précis. Yet, in an unperturbed and seamless way, Huntingdon continues his narrative through the very point where the Merlin saga is inserted in HRB; and where Merlin’s prophecies are integrated with Vortigern[41] and the passage which inspired Henry’s introduction of Merlin and the two Dragons (lifted from Nennius). The irony (yet the proof that Crick is misguided) is that…. Huntingdon is completely ignorant that his own patron Alexander is going to be the dedicatee of the Merlin insertion after 1148…. after both Huntingdon and Bishop Alexander have died (as all the dedicatees of HRB are a late insertion to back date the text).

We must not forget that the last version of the Merlin Prophecies were partly intended to unseat Henry II by inciting rebellion and so it was expedient that ‘Geoffrey’ was created retrospectively to establish his ‘Welshness’ from Monmouth rather than the anonymous Galfridus Arthur.[42] Henry of Huntingdon, unsuspecting that the Primary Historia is written by Henry Blois signs off on  Epistola ad Warinum  even giving Galfridus Artur a commendation: These are the matters I promised you in brief. If you would like them at length, you should ask Geoffrey Arthur’s great book, which I discovered at Le Bec. There you will find a careful and comprehensive treatment of the above. Farewell.

So, getting back to our dissection of the first 34 chapters of DA; in the Patrick charter, Henry leaves out Lucius’ name, but, because of the mistake Bede makes (who is then followed by Nennius), Lucius is automatically accepted as the King who was posited by Henry Blois himself in HRB as the King of Britain at the time of Severus.... as Severus was Roman Emperor from 193 to 211 (which is close enough for ‘Geoffrey’).  It is remarkable that HenryBlois wove a mistake by Bede into HRB and the person of Lucius became an integral part of his pseudo-history and is the cause of the arrival of the fictitious Phagan and Deruvian in the St Patrick charter.
The Eleutherius episode is entirely void of anything to do with British history as Bede had mistakenly understood Britanio for Britio. As I mentioned already, the King of Birtha was in fact a Lucius Aelius Megas Abgar. It is not too silly to suggest that since Bede referred his book to papal authorities for approval, there may well have been some purposeful misguidance, which, ultimately pretends Roman proselytization of Britain where none existed prior to their propaganda…. in referring a gullible Bede to the Liber Pontificalis.

The inspiration of Henry’s Avalon in HRB becoming synonymous with Glastonbury occurred when Henry’s second agenda formed in his mind after 1158.
So, chapter 2 of DA entitled ‘How the saints Phagan and Deruvian converted the Britons to the faith and came to the island of Avalon’; we may understand as a consolidation of his previous propaganda to his new agenda. Lucius and Phagan and Deruvian again feature in Chapter 33 of DA under the title: On the Kings, abbots and other founders of the church of Glastonbury, arranged chronologically. This chapter in effect ties together the sequence of twelve disciples of St. Philip who came to Britain, followed by Phagan and Deruvian, and followed by their distant successor Patrick.
Henry Blois is an extremely clever interpolator, but the evidence shows through Huntingdon’s précis that HRB went through a transitional evolution. The same applies for DA…. as it is clear that Joseph lore was the last to be added and was added after Henry had promulgated Grail stories. It is my opinion that the DA existed in a primary interpolated form which contained what I have termed Henry’s first agenda just as the HRB existed as the Primary Historia…. initially formed from a pseudo-history written for Matilda.

The evidence from both the First Variant version and an interpolated DA would have been presented to the pope. The pope would have been convinced by the concoction that Phagan and Deruvian were the named earliest preachers of Eleutherius’s mission to King Lucius and Henry may well have provided evidence that Phagan and Deruvian were the founders of Winchester also.
Since we are made to understand that ‘Constans, made over to the church of Amphibalus in Winchester, that he might there be admitted into the order of monks’ in HRB…. the question of primacy without doubt falls to Winchester rather than Canterbury…. if HRB is used as an historical authority, which was Henry’s goal. This is the main reason for introducing Phagan and Deruvian as named in the First Variant HRB…. and then Henry confirms them as founders (re- builders) of the Glastonbury church in DA.
Obviously, when Joseph material is added to DA in Henry’s post 1158 second agenda, it makes no difference if they renovated the ‘wattle’ church or the oratory on the tor.

The scenario is all the more believable because the St. Patrick charter was seemingly uncovered (as it is in the DA) in recent research by the well-known and conscientious historian named William of Malmesbury.

Perhaps, the first fraudulently interpolated apostolic evidence of foundation, where metropolitan was actually granted in 1144 by a pope who died straight after the Metropolitan status was granted, was deemed too tentative by an unsympathetic pope who followed on the second request for metropolitan status.
The Patrick charter itself provided the bogus account of how it was that a manuscript which Patrick himself purportedly discovered, related the events of the early foundation by Phagan and Deruvian which transpired at Glastonbury: In addition I discovered in a more recent document that saints Phagan and Deruvian had petitioned Pope Eleutherius who had granted them an indulgence of ten years….[43]

It seems likely, judging by the postscript to the St Patrick charter, that the charter was a faked ancient document presented separately from DA at Rome or to the pope.... which Henry later added into the text of DA with the additional postscript: That these things were truly so, we have proved by the testimony of a very ancient writing…..

St David’s ring had been found miraculously by Henry Blois himself at Glastonbury. St. David (we are supposed to believe) who had been Archbishop of Caerleon, in the city of Menevia had his own abbey, founded by the blessed Patrick who had even foretold of St. David’s nativity as narrated in HRB: At that time also died David, that most holy Archbishop of Caerleon, in the city of Menevia, within his own abbey, which he loved above all the other monasteries of his diocese, for that it was founded by the blessed Patrick who had foretold his nativity.[44]

We can understand that pope Lucius II granted a metropolitan to Henry on the basis of the interpolations in William of Malmesbury’s DA which (at the time) was mainly centred upon the apostolic foundation.... the GR 3 version B interpolations, and alongside  other evidential support such as Caradoc’s evidence supplied in the bogus Life of Gildas (composed by Henry Blois) which puts Gildas at Glastonbury in Arthur's era..... and which corroborated (to a degree)  the 601 charter by establishing Ineswitrin's synonymy to  Glastonbury Island. The First Variant version of HRB was obviously a great aid to presenting a pre-Augustinian Christian history which showed the antiquity of a religious house in Winchester.
  At the second attempt at gaining Metropolitan status for southern England, where the pope was less receptive, more guile was employed and Henry Blois employed further fabricated evidence. Hence the St Patrick charter.  Bede’s introduction of the mistaken Eleutherius story which was recycled in the Primary Historia, then has the preachers Phagan and Deruvian introduced and named in the First Variant…. and the Charter of St Patrick (a copy in gold) was used in conjunction with DA.  Coincidentally, it should be remembered that pope Lucius II also dispatched a papal legate, Igmarus (or Hincmar), to England, charged to investigate the request of Bernard, Bishop of St David's, (who was a friend of Henry’s), who also was petitioning to elevate his see to the rank of metropolitan.
Henry had tried to help Bernard initially by foreseeing the Pall being returned when he composed the Merlin prophecies as well as affirming credence to his position that the metropolitan had existed in Caerleon previously.  Also Igmarus the legate took with him the Pallium to William, Archbishop of York who was Henry Blois’ and Stephen’s Nephew as I have covered. This may indeed be part of the reasoning behind HRB’s glorification of St. David’s on account that both Henry and Bernard were after the same thing.[45]

Henry’s additions into DA which contained his first agenda would have been started soon after William of Malmesbury’s death in 1143 when Henry Blois lost the legation; not forgetting Henry was the person who had paid William of Malmesbury and in all likelihood had the only copy of DA. As Scott concedes, the DA, when handed to Henry Blois did not include most of the first 34 chapters.

Pope Innocent died on September 24^th, 1143 along with Henry’s power as Legate. Archbishop Theobald having endured being subordinate to the bishop of Winchester in many respects while he called legatine councils at will, beat Henry in a race to Rome and became the next legate to avoid the previous slight he had endured to his authority over the English church.
Since Henry had lost the legation to Theobald through pope Celestine, he was dreaming up ways to overcome his predicament. This set of twelfth century circumstances is one of the chance reasons that the DA and Glastonbury legends first evolved through Henry’s initial interpolations in DA. Henry had already written the Primary Historia; he was without influence with his brother and had been denied the legation…. as John of Hexham records about Celestine ‘a man of great age… had been educated amongst the inhabitants of Anjou, and designed to strengthen their hands by the abasement of King Stephen; on which ground he was exited to a dislike of Henry Bishop of Winchester.[46]

Theobald’s legation was brief because pope Celestine died on March 9^th 1144. Theobald then waited in Rome hoping to be reinstated after such a short period. But instead Henry Blois was cordially received by the next pope but was not re-assigned as legate.  The rapidity with which popes were changing was alarming but Henry obtained his goal and was granted the metropolitan for Winchester by Pope Lucius. However, the formalities were not concluded and Lucius II died on February 15^th 1148.
The next pope was a friend of Bernard of Clairvaux, a Cistercian who hated Henry Blois with a vengeance. Eugenius III who, as we have covered, described Henry as ‘a man who could mislead two Kingdom’s with his tongue’, now refused to grant the metropolitan status of Winchester.  This I believe is a fair account and explanation of how Henry’s first agenda which is relevant to the two attempts to gain Metropolitan status reflects firstly the apostolic fabricated interpolations in DA and secondly the Phagan and Deruvian foundation found in the Charter of St Patrick; both in direct relationship to Henry’s attempt for metropolitan.

Chapter 10. On the death of St Patrick.

Patrick died at the age of 111 in 472 AD, which was the 47th year after he had been sent to Ireland. If he was indeed born in 361 and was sent to Ireland in 425, this took place when he was 64; and he converted the Irish to the faith of Christ in 433. When he eventually returned to Britain he remained on the island of Avalon for 39 years leading the best possible life. Then he rested at the right hand side of the altar in the church for many years, 710 in fact until the fire in that church, whereupon his body was placed in a stone piramide, near the altar to the South and the diligence of the inmates of the house later ensured that this was nobly covered in gold and silver out of reverence for the saint.

Henry’s entire pseudo-history is based on conflation and blurred anachronisms and Henry Blois, as witnessed in HRB, does not ‘do’ dates. This is where Scott arrives at his understanding of the consolidating author who is attempting to rationalise for his readers the chronology of St Patrick with known history in his era. When in any other circumstance is the word 'if ' employed by Henry in any other interpolation? This is written by a later interpolator!
From the previous postscript where Patrick is called the first Abbot of the island of Avalon, our later interpolating author follows the acceptance of the conversion myth of Avalon into Glastonbury created by Henry. He accounts the years until the movement of the relics on account of the fire sometime post 1184.
The collection or invention of relics was a commercial necessity for religious houses.   Henry’s own interest in relic collection at Glastonbury is obvious and it is clear Henry knew Arthur’s bones would be exhumed at some date in the future to be given a more sanctified resting place within the church. (That was the point in manufacturing the grave) 
Henry Blois went to the trouble of making a non-corrosive leaden cross which, when found, would establish the existence of his alter ego (King Arthur) in Avalon. At the discovery of Arthur with Guinevere, his pseudo-history found in HRB and corroborated in DA and Life of Gildas would be accounted history. It is quite ridiculous to think that any other than Henry manufactured Arthur’s grave, given we have established that Henry is author of HRB and William of Malmesbury states he does no know where Arthur is buried in GR1.
However, given author B’s uncertainty about whether the rumours were true about St Patrick’s relics lying at Glastonbury, it would be fair to assume, if any grave existed with the name Patrick on it, Henry Blois would have secured it as St Patrick’s relics. We can assume there was no previous legend of St Patrick.... because Osbern would never have said Dunstan was the first Abbot if there was any definitive previous lore concerning Patrick at Glastonbury. This subject surely also would have been mentioned in Eadmer’s invective against the invention of false claims about the housing of relics. The above is clear evidence (as in other cases) that DA was interpolated after Henry's death, but it is not an indication that all interpolations were made after Henry's death.

Chapter 11. A vision of St Patrick

Long after the death of the blessed St Patrick, when the question often arose whether he had been a monk and Abbot there, all doubt was eliminated by the vision of a certain brother whose memory had grown shaky after the blessed man's death so that he continually asked himself whether it had been so or not. It was confirmed by the following Oracle. When he had sunk into sleep and he seemed to hear someone who was reciting the saints miracles at these words: ’therefore this man was distinguished with the holiness of the Metropolitan Pall; and later he became a monk and Abbot.’ He added too that he would show what he had said written down in letters of gold for anyone who did not completely believe it.

Scott[47] indicates that chapter 11 of DA identifies Glastonbury with Avalon. His notion is based upon the postscript to the St Patrick charter without realizing that at one stage Henry Blois had concocted a charter, but at a later date he had added the charter itself and composed a postscript for DA. So, in effect it is part of the myth that makes Glastonbury synonymous with Avalon, but the postscript was added into DA following the supposed copy of the charter and both were fabricated by Henry Blois at separate times.

In chapter 11, Henry Blois attempts to eliminate the suspicion that St Patrick might not have been associated with Glastonbury.  In effect, the chapter establishes that ‘Archbishop’ Patrick became abbot of Glastonbury and by association (and coincidence regarding an arbitrary fact) distinguished with the holiness of the Metropolitan Pall the monastery at Glastonbury. Certainly no consolidating author is interested in establishing any notion of a metropolitan pall being possessed by an abbot of Glastonbury except Henry Blois.
What is interesting though is Henry’s clever strategy of faking the St. Patrick charter. The 601 charter was ancient, the Devonian King’s flourit barely legible, having been obliterated by time. Concerning the St Patrick charter, if one was to pretend another hundred and fifty years of antiquation on top of the Devonian King’s charter…. it would be very difficult to forge a convincing document for evidential consideration to papal authorities which did not appear to be a fake.
This is the precise reason we have this explanation of how there was in existence a St Patrick’s charter composed in gold lettering which did not obviously corrode or become illegible over time. I would imagine the charter was fabricated by Henry.  The gullible contemporary’s (and us in posterity) are led to believe this charter in gold letters miraculously conveyed (as a copy) St Patrick’s words through time and gave evidence of Phagan and Deruvian’s foundation myth for anyone who did not completely believe it.

One should consider the cleverness of constructing such an elaborate mechanism, by which, Henry has thought out the possible way of convincing others how this new information had come to light.
He used William as the discoverer of the gold lettered charter.... and who would doubt such a conscientious historian? Especially, if the charter was in evidence.
Henry goes further back in history to establish erroneous lore because ‘supposedly’ Patrick is conveying the words of Phagan and Deruvian (which they had written in a book found in the chapel at the top of Glastonbury tor) which takes the myth right back to the apostolic era in that they (Phagan and Deruvian) had 're-discovered' an already existing church in 167.... their supposed era. The convolution in establishing this myth in the twelfth century without previous lore bares witness to Henry’s inventive genius. These are not the efforts of Scott’s late consolidating author, who, in effect, is confuting contrary arguments to the likely hood of St Patrick ‘returning’ to England… as he concerns himself with twisting the story to fit the known dates. Thus, we hear of St Patrick’s unlikely 111 year age at death. The consolidating monk writes after the fire and is solely interested in establishing Glastonbury’s claim of housing the St Patrick relics and their appearance in the new building.

Chapter 12. On St Indract and St Bridget.

Hence the custom developed among the Irish of visiting that place to kiss the relics of their patron. Whence the well-known story that St Indract and the blessed St Bridget, prominent citizens of that land, once frequented the place. They say that after St Bridget, who had come there in 488 AD, had tarried for some time on the island of Beckery, she returned home but left behind certain of her ornaments, namely a bag, a necklace, a small bell and weaving implements, which are still preserved there in memory of her. As our pen has recorded elsewhere, St Indract and his companions were martyred and buried there. Later he was translated by King Ine from his place of martyrdom into the church of Glastonbury.

 In chapter 12 of DA, Henry includes the first sentence just to re-iterate author B’s words, which is probably the earliest propaganda recorded at Glastonbury: Now Irish pilgrims, like men of other races, felt special affection for Glastonbury, not least out of their desire to honour the ‘elder’ St Patrick, who is said to have died there happily in the Lord.  As we have covered already, we can tell the entire proposition of Saint Patrick at Glastonbury is flimsy and we can see the discrepancy of a senior and junior Patrick as a device used to possibly explain things in author B’s era. Some have suggested Dunstan himself was the first propagator of the myth of St Patrick at Glastonbury and someone in author B’s era tries to rationalise the mistaken identity of a Patrick at Glastonbury. We have no reason to doubt the authenticity of St Indract at Glastonbury. Henry just surreptitiously connects St Bridget and Indract as historically real to the myth of Patrick by association. It sounds highly dubious that a bag and necklace would have come down from the fifth to the twelfth century, so, I would propose that these objects were more recent to associate St Bridget with the abbey.

Chapter 13. On St Benignus.

In 460 AD. St Benignus came to Glastonbury. He was a disciple of St Patrick and the third to succeed him in his Irish see, as their ‘acts’ attest. Admonished by an Angel, he forsook his homeland and the dignity of his episcopate in accordance with a vow and undertook a voluntary pilgrimage which led him under God's guidance, to Glastonbury where he found St Patrick. How much favour he found with God is revealed by many signs and miracles; witness the marks of his presence deal at Meare, the broad expanse of water granted at his prayers and the huge leafy tree that flourished from his withered staff. After endless struggles on the island he came to a blessed end and after many years had passed in 1091 AD he was translated to Glastonbury with honour.

We can see the only person interested in building a case for St Patrick at Glastonbury is Henry Blois because it is he who invented the charter.  St Patrick having been at Glastonbury is doubtful in reality, yet there were rumours and St Patrick was ‘said’ to be buried there, but it all seems controversial and dubious.  An account of St Patrick which attempts to bring him in to close association with Glastonbury would be made all the more credible if Saint Benignus of Armagh (d. 467, a known associate), was also brought into the concocted myth. St Benignus was the son of an Irish chieftain in Ireland. He was baptized into the Catholic faith by St. Patrick, and became his favourite disciple. Benignus is said to have contributed materials for the "Psalter of Cashel", and the "Book of Rights". He succeeded St. Patrick's nephew Sechnall as coadjutor and became the first rector of the Cathedral School of Armagh. The probability that St Benignus ever set foot in Glastonbury is even less than that of St Patrick. However, there is another Patrick[48] who was prominent in the area and Meare is only a couple of miles from Glastonbury. As we shall see in chapter 33 of DA shortly, Henry attempts to convince us of the notion of St Benignus’s proximity to the area because he has espied a grave inscription at Meare with an epitaph which associates a certain Beonna with the other Patrick ‘Junioris’ and would have us believe through this that Beonna is St Benignus. Henry is insistent that St Benignus should become part of Glastonbury lore because of his known relationship with St Patrick. St Patrick is more easily established and thus the St Patrick charter. In chapter 22, St Benignus’ name is mentioned in the numerous relics deposited at Glastonbury. Henry also interpolates his name into the body of William’s relatively untouched work in the latter half of DA.  A curious sentence is inserted as an aside at the beginning of chapter 66 which says in reference to Aethelweard: Harthacnut gave him a reliquary, in which the body of the blessed Benignus now rests.  In an obvious interpolation in chapter 67 in a list of abbots, Sigegar is randomly said to lie beneath St Benignus.
 In chapter 71 Patrick is named as the first abbot and St Benignus follows as the second. These must be Henry additions to the British abbots because initially William’s list will have started with Worgret who is on the 601 Charter. In chapter 72 there is a short interpolation again to confirm the translation of St Benignus in Thurstan’s era. It is the shortest chapter in DA of a couple of lines which has been inserted into William’s original work while on the topic of Thurstan. This highlights the fact that Henry has inserted it into William’s original because in Henry’s mind he makes Thurstan responsible for the bogus act of translation from Meare and thus dates the event to 1091 AD during Thurstan’s abbacy. The dexterity and thoroughness with which Henry creates his illusion is clearly witnessed. I find it extraordinary that scholars in the past have been duped into believing that St Benignus ever came to Glastonbury
. A persona of secondary importance is incidentally provided with an entire cover story to substantiate the persona of primary importance which is St Patrick; a case study of a cover story needing background. St Patrick is the supposed creator of the St Patrick charter which substantiates Henry’s goal toward metropolitan status. The whole is a web of illusion and substantiates the fact that GR version B is heavily interpolated by Henry where we are told Patrick was succeeded in the office of Abbot by Benignus, and where he affects being ever cautious by only stating fact but for how many years is uncertain. Who he was and what his name in his native tongue, is neatly given in this epitaph at Meare:

Within this to the bones of Beonna lays,

Was Father here of the monks in ancient days.

Patrick of old to serve he had the honour,

So Erin’s sons aver and name Beonna.

In the DA version of this epitaph found at Meare (covered in chapter 33), it states Irish (Hybernigene) rather than Erin. It is not by coincidence that Leland did not find the Life of Benignus….because it is stated in the interpolated section of GR3 as having been written with other saints lives…. because certainly William would never have written it. We must accept that some interpolations in GR3 are interpolations by Henry Blois into William’s final redacted manuscript as previously discussed.  Otherwise, there can be no other alternative but to recognise Saint Patrick at Glastonbury as Scott and Carley have both had to concede....not considering the Glastonbury additions to the GR3 found in version B are interpolations.  The stupidity is that, if the St Patrick charter is an obvious fake, why do we lend any credibility to Patrick at Glastonbury….especially if author B’s testimony is only tentative anyway.  What has duped our scholars is the thoroughness of both HRB and DA in clever conflation, correlation and corroboration…. the supporting evidence concerning St Benignus is a prime example which makes it all the more convincing.

If we can accept that Henry presented an early edition of an interpolated DA at Rome for his own purposes…. we can then admit it was consolidated again later by him. An unconcerned consolidating editor would more likely omit contradictory evidence rather than coalesce the whole.  If we understand this, we can see that Henry at the later stage is in fact rewriting history for posterity rather than writing it for his previous contemporary agenda. What in fact has transpired is; Henry has added later anecdotal and incidental information in DA which provides a credible background to tentative persona having an association with Glastonbury, which seemingly coincides or is corroborated by other bogus episodes in the tracts he has composed. A regard for the truth was dispensed with when he started the Dunstan rumour initially when hefirst arrived at Glastonbury or later when he composed the historical Brutus the Briton pseudo-history for Matilda.

Chapter 14.  On St Columba.

In 504 AD St Columba came to Glastonbury. Some men say that this saint completed the course of his life there, but whether this is so or whether he returned to his own country I cannot determine.

Saint Columba who lived from 521–597 was an Irish abbot and missionary credited with spreading Christianity in Scotland. He founded the abbey on Iona and Henry attempts to claim him also in a half-hearted way using hearsay, probably because of the Irish provenance and author B’s reference to the Irish. Henry also employs the same affected probity that he uses throughout, to give the appearance that these are William’s words. Scott is completely duped saying that ‘this chapter ought to be accepted as William’s work because the uncertainty expressed about whether the saint died at Glastonbury is in William’s style, whereas an interpolator would not have introduced the possibility of doubt’. Henry is not only an interpolator but a serial liar and propagandist.

Chapter 15. On St David the Archbishop.

How highly St David, the great Archbishop of Menevia, esteemed that place, is too well known to need illustration by our account. He verified the antiquity and sanctity of the church through a divine Oracle, for he came thither with seven bishops, of whom he was the chief, in order to dedicate it.  But after everything that the service customarily required had been prepared he was indulging himself in sleep on what he thought would be the night pre-ceding the ceremony. He had submerged all his senses in slumber when he saw the Lord Jesus standing beside gently asking him why he had come. Upon his instantly disclosing the reason the Lord restrained him from his purpose by saying that he himself had long ago dedicated that church in honour of his mother and that it would not be seemly to profane the sacrament with human repetition. As he was speaking he seemed to pierce the Saint’s palm with this finger and added that he should take it as a sign that he ought not repeat what the Lord had done beforehand; but because he had been motivated by devotion, not impudence, his punishment would not be prolonged, so that, when he was about to say the words, ‘through him and with him and in him’ in the mass on the following morning, the full vigour of his health would be restored to him. The priest was shaken out of his sleep by these terrors and, just as at the time he grew pale at the ulcerous sore, so later he applauded the truth of the prophecy. But, so that he might not seem to have done nothing, he quickly built another church and dedicated it as his own work.

These words come in the Canon of the Mass after the Consecration and before the Lord's Prayer. The corresponding passage in our Prayer Book is: 'Not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences; through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom and with whom in the unity' etc.  The chapter is designed to substantiate the fact that there was already a church in St David’s era. The life of St David by Rhygyfarch ascribes the foundation of Glastonbury to St David. The only reason this chapter is included in DA by Henry Blois is to stipulate that St David merely tried to consecrate an existing church so that Rhygyfarch’s version did not contradict Henry’s bogus apostolic foundation…. or even that by Phagan and Deruvian (in the St Patrick Charter). The DA version counters the tradition found in the eleventh century Life of Saint David which states that St David founded twelve monasteries to the praise of God: first, arriving at Glastonbury, he built a church there; then he came to Bath, and there causing deadly water to become salutary with a blessing, he endowed it with perpetual heat, rendering it fit for people to bathe…[49]

Scott’s assumption that William heard this from oral tradition as he was not familiar with Rhygyfarch is irrelevant as it is not William writing. To say that Henry Blois was ignorant of the part played by St David in history would be futile because the base storyline and interaction of Dubricius found in the HRB is derived from Rhygyfarch’s Life of David.
We can see how the primacy of the fictional Caerleon was subtly transposed onto St David’s so it did not contradict Rhygyfarch’s testimony: Here begins the genealogy of Saint David, archbishop of all Britannia by the grace and predestination of God.
Giraldus Cambrensis also wrote a Life of St. David, but is little more than  a recycling of Rhygyfarch. In fact all the surviving manuscripts of The Life of Saint David may be traced to Rhygyvarch's text as their ultimate source. So, Henry was on tricky ground having to find a rationalisation for what was Rhygyfarch’s account of the foundation of Glastonbury.
In any case, whether the bogus miracle story of Christ’s appearance to St. David was included as an apologia to counter balance Henry’s fabrication of an early foundation, by establishing a ‘consecration’ by Christ himself, rather than a 'foundation' by St David, or whether it was primarily included to counter the assertion of Rhygyfarch; both establish the right of primacy to a church pre-existing any Augustinian foundation.
The chapter contradicts the stone building of King Ine in GR1 (William’s genuine position for the stone building) and makes for an early foundation myth. Essentially, it harks to the apostolic foundation of Henry’s first attempt at metropolitan by implying that (through the disciples) Christ Himself was the inspiration for the founding of the ‘Old Church’. In GR William notes that the place of St David’s burial is uncertain yet in chapter 16 Henry has inserted an account of how he came to be at Glastonbury. St David has little bearing on Henry’s early agenda and was probably necessarily included as part of Glastonburyana lore to counter Rhygyfarch’s suggestion that Glastonbury had been founded by St David.

Chapter 16. Of the relics of St David.

This worthy saint of God died in 546 AD. Moreover certain men assert that the relics of this saintly and incomparable man have been placed with those of the blessed St Patrick in the old church, a claim supported and confirmed as beyond doubt by the frequent prayers of the Welsh and many of their stories, in which they openly disclose that Bernard, Bishop of the Ross Valley, has more than once looked for the relics of the saint there, despite the opposition of many, but has not found them. We will append an account of how his relics were translated from the Ross Valley to Glastonbury. In the time of King Edgar a certain lady named Aelswitha acquired them through a kinsman of hers, who was Bishop of the Ross Valley at that time when all the districts had been so devastated and scarcely anyone was to be found there, except a few women, and these in scattered places. And she bought the relics to Glastonbury.

The ‘certain men’ who assert.... can be understood as the singular Henry Blois, placing St David’s relics close to those of the bogus Patrick relics. This may be a later insertion in DA by Henry as Henry’s friend Bernard died in 1148 and there would probably be no claim at Glastonbury or reference to Bernard’s search for the grave in Wales until after Bernard were dead. 
If the St Patrick tomb had already been planted in the old church at the time author B wrote, author B would not have implied his burial there as ‘tentative’ based on hearsay. It is upon author B’s tentative testimony confusing two Patrick’s that Henry builds the entire fabrication of St Patrick at Glastonbury. Henry is cognisant of the fact that his friend Bernard had tried to locate the relics of St David without success. 'Rosina Vallis' does not appear elsewhere in William of Malmesbury as an alternative to Menevia. We can conclude that Henry visited the Ross valley in 1136 and affects a distance from Bernard (posing as William) by calling him bishop of the Ross valley. Henry Blois also cross references the Vallis Rosina found many times in Rhygyvarch's text, of the Life of David: "The land," say they, "whereon you are, shall be yours forever." And Bwya gave that day to holy David the whole of Vallis Rosina for a perpetual possession…. To this he answered, "I grieve to have seen smoke rising from Vallis Rosina, which encircled the whole country…. Henry also supplies the bogus translation story by connecting it to Aelswitha in the time of King Edgar. This is written by the man who loves to establish a myth to the glorification of Glastonbury.

Chapter 17. On the relics translated from Wales to Glastonbury.

Certain religious men from Wales bear witness that, intending a journey to Rome in those days, they brought with them to Glastonbury many bodies of saints and relics which they left behind there when they set out on their journey. This translation occurred in 962 AD, the 420th year after the death of St David.

The myth of St David at Glastonbury is based upon St David’s relics not existing elsewhere in Wales. This fact is made clear to Henry by his friendship with Bernard and should require us to be suspicious of any episode which mentions his name in connection with Glastonbury. Bernard, bishop of St David’s died in 1148, so there may be some possibility that the bogus translation myth was employed in  1149 when Henry again persisted in his request for metropolitan status at Rome.  The story above could hardly come to light during Bernard’s lifetime if Bernard were looking for relics in Wales.

Chapter 18. On the sanctity and dignity of the church of Glastonbury.

The church of Glastonbury, therefore, is the oldest of all those that I know in England and hence the epithet applied to it. In it are preserved the bodily remains of many Saints, besides Patrick and the others of whom I spoke above, and there is no part of the church that is without the ashes of the blessed. The stone paved floor, the sides of the altar, the very altar itself, above and within, are filled with the relics close packed. Deservedly indeed is the repository of so many saints said to be a heavenly shrine on Earth. How fortunate, good Lord, are those inhabitants who have been summoned to an upright life by reverence for that place. I cannot believe that any of these can fail of heaven, for their deaths are accompanied by the recommendation and advocacy of such great patrons. There one can observe all over the floor stones, artfully interlaced in the forms of triangles or squares and sealed with lead; I do no harm to religion if I believe in some sacred mystery is contained beneath them. Its age and its multitude of saints have called forth such reverence for the place, that at night scarcely anyone presumes to keep watch there, nor during the day to spit there; let anyone aware of displaying such outcomes and quake with bodily fear. No one has brought a hunting bird within the neighbouring cemetery or lead a horse thither and left again without himself or his possessions being harmed. Within living memory everyone undergoing ordeal by iron or water who has offered a prayer there has, with one exception, rejoiced in his salvation. If anyone sought to place any building nearby which by its shade interfered with the light of the church that building became a ruin. It is quite clear that to the men of that province no oath was holier or more oft repeated than that ‘by the old church’, upon which they did anything rather than perjure themselves, out of fear of sudden retribution. The testimony of many absolutely truthful men throughout the ages upholds the truth, if it be doubtful, of the words we have set down.

The aim of this entire exercise in the composition of the interpolations into DA is summed up in the first sentence in proving that William thought the church of Glastonbury was the oldest of all. William supposedly says: In it are preserved the bodily remains of many Saints, besides Patrick and the others of whom I spoke above.
In William’s unadulterated Life of Patrick related by William, there is no mention of Patrick at Glastonbury to the end of book 2 which Leland has related. It is in the Life of Patrick where Henry Blois, (writing as William), states on the final folio, there will be a third book…. which we can only imagine would have dealt with the fable of Patrick’s return from Ireland. In all likelihood the third book was never written just like the Estoire des Bretons said to have been written by Gaimar.
The Life of Patrick  may have existed, but if it did, it would have been written by Henry Blois. This of course would lead into the fictitious time in later life when Archbishop Patrick settles as Abbot of Glastonbury. Leland relates that the works he came across were mutilated. Leland states that: ‘I found two at Glastonbury, where the monks say Patrick is buried, though this distich take, unless I am mistaken from the epigrams of Bede, tells a different story’.  Leland then goes on to relate information he had found about Patrick which he assumes was written by William, but had in fact been written in DA by Henry Blois.
John of Glastonbury is irrelevant also because his information is derived from HRB and DA. After stating that Constans was formerly a monk at Winchester ( the reader knowing why this fable was introduced and by whom) John of Glastonbury goes on to recycle that St Germanus brought Patrick into his intimate circle. Prior to Henry Blois, the Patrick myth was just tentative at Glastonbury, so when we read the bodily remains of many Saints, besides Patrick…. we should realise these are the words of Henry Blois. The sentence which suggests if anyone sought to place any building nearby which by its shade interfered with the light of the church that building became a ruin could refer to the state of disrepair the buildings were in before the arrival of Henry Blois and to my mind suggests that this passage was written before the fire in 1184.

Chapter 19. On St Paulinus the Bishop.

To return to my theme, the birth of St Patrick in 361 AD preceded the arrival in Britain of the blessed Augustine by 236 years. The traditions of our fathers maintain that the latter’s comrade in preaching, Paulinus, Bishop of Rochester and earlier Archbishop of York, had strengthened the structure of the church, previously made of wattle as we said, with a layer of boards and had covered it from the top down with lead. It was managed with such skill by this celebrated man that the church lost none of its sanctity and its beauty was much increased. And certainly the more grandly constructed a church is, the more likely it is to entice the dullest minds to prayer and to bend the most stubborn to supplication.

Henry Blois states his theme here, in that, Patrick preceded St Augustine by 236 years and this is the thrust of his argument and the intent behind his propaganda. It is the point of interpolating DA with a St Patrick legend at Glastonbury. It is not in any way coincidental that, the time span by which St Patrick preceded Augustine is a stated 236 years. It clearly points to the fact that it is Canterbury’s primacy, which Henry is trying to show has no basis. It is also made clear that Augustine’s contemporary Paulinus repaired the church and Paulinus’s name is most likely happened upon because Bede attributes the building of a stone church at Lincoln to him. In other words, Paulinus is randomly chosen to repair a pre-existing church as a known builder (of that era when Augustine arrived) and one whose action provides a proof of antiquity. This same Paulinus in Rhygyvarch's Life of St David is: One of the bishops, called Paulinus, rises, with whom the pontiff, Saint David, had formerly read, and says, "There is one, made bishop by the Patriarch, who has not yet appeared at our synod….

In effect, the chapter is evidential support for Henry’s aim which establishes that the church was old when Augustine and Paulinus came to Britain.... which indeed was a fact, as noted in the postscript to the 601 charter,  but it also establishes a rationalisation of why the church is no longer in wattle. All contemporaries could see the Old Church was wooden and it probably had a lead roof.[50] 
I cannot stress enough how this onslaught of polemic about the previous construction of the church only highlights that the church is wooden at the time Henry Blois wrote; and it is Henry Blois who wishes us to be apprised of the wattle construction…. as it is not an issue in GR1 or VSD II. We should then accept and understand Henry has seen and is in possession of the prophecy of Melkin. How can we think otherwise? Especially, when much of the inspirational iconography of the Matière de Bretagne, (which is Henry’s work) is derived from the prophecy.
The Melkin prophecy must have been in existence for Henry Blois, (the man who exchanged the island names on it), to be the same as the person who instigated the translocation of the fictitious name of Arthur’s Avalon to Glastonbury.  There is only one reason he persists in letting us know the previous construction was in wattle. It is to find relevance to match the criteria of cratibus found in the prophecy of Melkin. What in normality would seemingly be a point of such little consequence i.e. the previous constituent composition or construction material or method of build, is repeated far too often to be in any way anecdotal comment, but definitive polemic. This is overstated; what used to be the construction material which is ‘no longer evident’. This insistence appearing in the sections known to be interpolated in GR3 and DA. All bear witness the church is in wood. Hence the introduction of Paulinus covering it with wood.

Chapter 20. On the translation of Indract and his comrades.

Some years later the bodies of the martyr Indract and his comrades were translated from their place of martyrdom and buried in that church by Ine, King of the West Saxons, who had received a divine vision. Indract’s body was put in a stone pyramid to the left of the altar, the others were put under the floor in places either carefully chosen or dictated by chance.

These are probably William’s words and follow the description of the church and its sanctity found in chapter 18. There seems to be no propaganda value for Henry…. so the chapter seems to be slotted in where he thinks appropriate in his new version of Glastonbury’s chronological history.

Chapter 21. On the relics translated from Northumbria to Glastonbury.

Sometime later when the Danes were attacking Northumbria, Tyccea, an Abbot from those parts, migrating from the north to the West under the cover of peace, retired to Glastonbury where, in his capacity of Abbot, he assumed the role of the church in 754 AD. For many years the north of the country was exposed to the plunder of those pirates while the rest of England suffered no attacks. Naturally, Tyccea brought with him rich sureties from his homeland, namely the relics of Aidan, Bishop of Lindisfarne, the bodies of the saints Ceolfrith, Benedict, Eosterwine, Hwaetberht and Selfrith, abbots of Wearmouth, Bede the presbyter, Hebba, Begu, and Boisil, together with the body of Hilda abbess of the monastery once known as Streoneshalh but now called Whitby. These relics were placed above the altar and added greatly to reverence for the place. Moreover when Tyccea himself bid farewell to life, he received a distinguished burial in the right-hand corner of the greater church near the entrance to the old one. This sepulchre is noted both for its size and for its artistic engraving.

These for the most part are William’s words and follow the previous chapter, but Henry has seen fit to assign to Tyccea the translation of Northern saints which is anachronistic. In GP King Edward carried out the translations. Henry himself was a relic collector and may have been responsible for some relics. However, there is something suspicious about foisting the translations on Tyccea. The story may be contrived so as not to chime with his bogus story of the translation of Dunstan due to the Danish incursion.

 If we follow the same rule as above where an occasional name is added by Henry we can see Bede features. Bede who was an idol of William’s would have been mentioned elsewhere if he had genuinely known of Bede’s resting place at Glastonbury. Henry has claimed Bede so as to make Glastonbury appear a seat of learning where all who were noted in history seem to have wished to be buried there, or been translated there. The notion that every famous person in British history is buried at Glastonbury is ludicrous.
Joseph of Arimathea, St Patrick, St Begninus, St David, Gildas, King Arthur, Bede….nonsense!!! Notice the same ploy in the next chapter in the pretence: I will pass over the ones mentioned before, namely…. and then ‘again’ does the complete opposite by naming them.

Chapter 22. On the various relics deposited at Glastonbury.

Since the island of Glastonbury is remarkable in containing the ashes of so many saints beside those mentioned above, it is a pleasure to record the names of a few out of the many whose bodily remains, we do not doubt, for the most part rest there. For to account in detail the relics of saints collected their by Kings and magnates would be to extend this volume immeasurably; besides, they are recorded in the gospel books. I will pass over the ones mentioned before, namely that twelve disciples of St Philip, Phagan and Deruvian and their many disciples, Patrick, Benignus, Indract and his comrades, Gildas the wise, St David of Menevia, and those whom the venerable Tyccea is said to have brought thither. Know that it is reliably said that resting there are St Paulinus, Archbishop of Northumbria, two Innocents translated thither from Bethlehem by pious King Edgar, St Dunstan, our magnificent father on account of whose translation from Canterbury to Glastonbury we subjoin, as well as the bishops of St Aidan and St Besilius, martyred at a tender age; also the relics of St Urban, Pope and martyr, the bones of the martyrs St Anastasius, St Cesarius, St Benignus and St Melanus the bishop. There also rest St Aelflaed the queen and St Aelswitha, the virgin whose flesh and bones are still whole, as those who have seen them attest, and whose hair shirt and holy robe have not rotted. There to are the bones of the Queen St Balthild and the virgin St Mamilla as well as the saints Ursula, Daria, Crisanta, Udilia, Mary, Martha, Lucy, Luceus, Waleburga, Gertrude, and Cecilia. In addition to the saints just mentioned there are innumerable relics of saints, the gifts of Kings, Princes, bishops and other nobleman, some of whose names are recorded in the old books of the church. Many relics too, carried from the Kingdom of Northumbria at the time the Danes were waging war there. Others were brought from Wales, when it was being persecuted, to Glastonbury, as though to a storehouse of saints. And although we do not have complete knowledge of them, they themselves rejoice in their full knowledge and contemplation of God.

This passage naturally follows the previous. It has much that is originally William’s material. However, interspersed are names such as Mary and Martha (perhaps the innocents brought from Bethlehem) amongst a list William no doubt had compiled with the added reminder that Glastonbury history goes right back to the associates of Jesus: For to account in detail the relics of saints collected……. would be to extend this volume immeasurably; besides, they are recorded in the gospel books.
We should note again the cleverness with which Henry often affects a position to seem disinterested with imparting information and yet follows it with the information anyway which plants the seed of propaganda. We see this where he makes a pretence of omitting material about Arthur in DA…. yet goes right ahead and drops the bombshell of where he is buried between the piramides. Again above: I will pass over the ones mentioned before, namely that 12 disciples of St Philip, Phagan and Deruvian and their many disciples, Patrick, Benignus, Indract and his comrades, Gildas the wise….

Indract is certainly relevant to Glastonbury. The rest are placed in association at Glastonbury entirely due to Henry’s agendas. This chapter would seem to be constructed pre-1158 because it incorporates all the renowned around whom Henry had created an  ancient association with Glastonbury. Obviously, Joseph does not feature in Henry’s pre 1155 first agenda of interpolations into DA which deals with primacy and the case for metropolitan.
Joseph, Avalon (at Glastonbury) and Arthur’s burial in Avalon are all part of the post 1158 agenda on Henry Blois' return to England. Because this passage is peppered with Henry’s fabrications, it is worth noting that the passage about Dunstan’s translation having being included in this chapter along with the others (who are spuriously connected to Glastonbury), lends credence to the position that the Dunstan translation myth was started by Henry Blois.
As we concluded when investigating Eadmer’s letter; St Dunstan, our magnificent father on account of whose translation from Canterbury to Glastonbury we subjoin; we know is certainly not William’s position. We can therefore look upon this chapter as a consolidation of Henry’s fabrications interspersed with William’s original words.

Chapter 23. On the translation of St Dunstan from Canterbury to Glastonbury.

Since we have been talking about other saints, we will append an account of how St Dunstan was translated. In 1012 AD during the reign of the famous King Edmund, called Ironside in his native tongue, the Danes landed on the eastern shores of England and brought all of the territory of Kent under their control. There they deprived many of their proper rank, banished many from their homeland and subjected many to a very cruel death. In this way, by slaughter rapine and burning, they destroyed divine things as much as human ones all the way to the city of London, sparing neither rank nor age nor sex. As a result the venerable Archbishop Aelfheah, not to mention any others, was driven from his seat of high office, had his estates devastated and his possessions seized. Who could tell of the rest without weeping? Alas the sorrow of it! The wicked villains entered the metropolitan church of the English people, and attacked the religious servants of God. It is horrible to tell of it. And they drove all of them from the house of God and destroyed everything by fire.

It came to pass that at that time King Edmund came to Glastonbury. There he spent some time during which he related the complete story of that terrible captivity of Abbot Beorhtred and the brethren of the house, telling them that the church of Canterbury had been burnt and entirely bereft of inhabitants and religion. The Abbot and the whole congregation were saddened at hearing this, as if a sword had pierced the heart of each of them. Among other things, they began to recite the lofty virtues of their distinguished father Dunstan who had, throughout his life, wonderfully honoured Glastonbury by gifts of ample estates and magnificent liberties and, above all, by instituting there the regular life. Deciding to be silent about all except religious matters, they at once fervently entreat the King and beseech his help and advice, that they might transfer the relics of that glorious man to the religious place where, nourished once on the milk of religion, he had attained such great virtues that he had been able to illuminate not only the flock at Glastonbury but all the provinces of England.

Hearing this, the King met their desire with pious goodwill and determined that what they asked of him should be speedily effected. There was no delay; with his wish now granted the Abbot enjoined the undertaking of this mission on four of his fellow monks, specifying that, with the help of some friends, they should hasten to Canterbury, and should transfer the bones of the most holy Dunstan to Glastonbury. His sons received their father's orders most dutifully and, when they had made all the preparations for the great journey and had been blessed, they flew forth to obey their orders enthusiastically, trusting in the mercy of God and, especially in the power of the saint himself. For these monks had formally clung to the blessed Dunstan while he was alive by performing services in his chapel and had also committed his body to its burial place after his soul had been translated to peaceful rest; they had then remained by the side of his successor St Aelfheah until his martyrdom. For it pleased both these archbishops to have as assistants individuals from the monastic community of Glastonbury, both on account of the unsurpassed love and affection in which they especially held their nursemaid and so that, spurred on by the examples of their immediate attendants, they would not deviate from the life which they had previously been accustomed to live with them in the monastery. The names of those brothers were Sebrithus, Ethelbrithus, Bursius, and Aeldwordus, surnamed Quadrans. When these brothers came to Canterbury they found the place bereft of all its inhabitants, just as they had heard from the King. They went at once to the tomb of that most holy man, which was easily recognised by them because they themselves had placed him in his sepulchre. When they opened it they found the bones of St Dunstan, more precious than gold or Topaz; for his flesh had been destroyed over the long period of time; and gathered them up with fitting reverence, and not without tears. They also recognised the ring that had been placed on the saint’s finger when he had been committed to burial, the one that he was said to have made himself when he was a young man. When they had accomplished everything for which they had come they gave boundless thanks to the one who had made their journey prosperous and returned to Glastonbury, joyfully bringing back with them the most precious relics. With how much delight their return was received by everyone, especially the monks, can be more easily inferred by a sympathetic reader and it can be disclosed by this writer's skill. This translation was effected in 1012 AD, the second year after the murder of the Archbishop St Aelfheah and the 24th year after St Dunstan's final sleep.

We have already covered that Eadmer’s letter was in response to the claim put out by rumour that Dunstan’s relics lay at Glastonbury. Much of the above goes way beyond being an apologia…. but should be looked upon as a direct confutation by the man who started the rumour in his youth. At the time of the dispute there was no written counterclaim…. how could there be?  Henry’s polemic here in DA provides a background to a story which was invented by Henry himself at a time when those who had opposed the rumour had all died. Note now, that the entire story is  on King Ironside’s word and the bogus escapade now becomes his idea. 
Eadmer gives a good enough account of why the proposition is ludicrous. Eadmer wrote his letter 1126-29 never mentioning King Ironside as part of the rumour he was rebutting. Henry most probably wrote this in DA for no other reason than it was him who concocted the rumour in the first place, forty years ago. It would not have been included in DA for Henry’s attempt at metropolitan. Such a proposition would bring the whole of DA under suspicion because William’s VSD did not mention the translation and all and sundry generally accepted Dunstan’s relics at Canterbury.
So, I would suggest this propaganda is included as part of Glastonbury lore when Henry re-consolidated the DA c.1165-70…. as most who had been involved in the Dunstan dispute which prompted Eadmer's letter were then dead.
A continuator (Scott’s consolidator) has followed Henry’s lead in constructing the following chapters 24 and 25 out of necessity after the fire in 1184.

The initial rumour regarding the re-location of  Dunstan's relics  may have been a fabrication which, Henry, in later life regretted, as Eadmer’s letter does pointedly accuse the ‘youth’ at Glastonbury and implicates Henry as a fabricator. He was the most renowned youth at Glastonbury at the time. Dunstan was the most renowned son of Glastonbury before Henry went to work fabricating lore for every other famous saint he could possibly conceive might be equated with Glastonbury.  As we can guess, initially the rumour of the translation of Dunstan’s relics was instigated to revitalise the coffers of Glastonbury just after Henry Blois’ appointment as abbot there.
In propaganda terms, for Henry’s first agenda trying to gain Metropolitan status for south west England at Rome, there is no benefit for proposing Dunstan’s relics lay at Glastonbury (as it was untrue) and we know Eadmer’s letter dates much earlier than 1144.
There is no benefit to counter Osbern’s accusation that Dunstan was the first abbot as this mainly had ramifications on the antiquity of Glastonbury and was the genuine cause of William initially taking in hand the composition of DA. The only benefit which can be derived from the composition of the fabrication of the translation rumour of Dunstan’s relics is the attraction of pilgrim’s. Dunstan was Glastonbury’s most famous son at that time.
 The ASC under the year 994AD records the devastation of London by the Danes and the capture and martyrdom of Aelfheah in 1011. Chapter 23 of DA can be looked upon as a reassertion of the bogus claim made by Henry himself in his youth when there is no-one left to contest the issue. 
As we know, Henry has a copy of William’s most recent recension GR3 and as we have seen..... is interpolating into that also, but the chronology in that is not clear. Hence, we can excuse the minor anachronism in the supposed date of translation.

Chapter 24. How the relics of St Dunstan were hidden under the ground.

When this had been accomplished, the brethren refreshed by God's bounteous kindness, began a series of discussions to consider how they could commit their treasure to a safer place of confinement, for they feared with some justification, that when the enemy's fury had been appeased and the church of Canterbury restored to its original state, the Archbishop, who was pre-eminent in authority and power, would demand back the relics that had been taken from him, whereupon the happiness that the monks had felt at their acquisition, would be equalled by their misery at their subsequent loss. The conclusion of their deliberations was a decision that two of their senior brethren, who were more reliable in keeping secrets, should conceal the most holy bones in an undisclosed place and acquaint no one with the knowledge of the secret as long as they lived. Only when faced with imminent death should they point out the place to one of the older and wiser brethren, who would similarly disclose it to someone at the moment of his death, just as had happened to him. In this way it would happen that as time passed and event followed event, the place would remain unknown to all except for one person who would know the truth, until it should please the most high that this light should not be hid under a bushel, but should be placed on a candlestick to give light to all in the house of God. Once the plan had been so conceived the two brothers chosen for the purpose put it into effect. For they did a painting on the inside of a small wooden receptacle, properly prepared for this end, and wrote on the right-hand side S, with an inscription, and on the left D, with an inscription wishing to signify by these letters the name of St Dunstan. They put his remains in the receptacle and concealed it in the larger church beneath a stone cut out for the purpose beside the holy water on the right-hand side of the monk’s entrance, a place of which all the others were quite ignorant. There he lay for 172 years, knowledge of this resting-place being entrusted to one man only at a time in the fashion prescribed.

Chapters 23, 24 and 25 obviously link together in that they cover the rumour of the disinterment of Dunstan at Canterbury and the translation to Glastonbury legend/fable and the relic’s subsequent reappearance. This took place conveniently in the year of the Great Fire (1072+172=1184). The implication given by the date is that the relics were ‘miraculously found’ in 1184 and an apologia was constructed to rationalise their fortuitous appearance at such a time when pilgrim funds were much needed to rebuild the abbey. However, the event of the fire may have been chosen by an interpolator who wrote long after the fire to explain that it was because of that event why the relics were duly unearthed at that date.

There are two scenarios with which we might explain this happening. Given that Henry had buried Arthur and revealed the location of his burial site, he may well be accused of having concocted the painted vessel of St Dunstan. We should not forget that, like Arthur, the translation of Dunstan story was merely a concoction and we know Henry Blois goes to great lengths to substantiate his concoctions. In which case, we may look upon chapter 23 and with the exception of the last sentence of chapter 24, as having been written by Henry.
Chapter 25 is undoubtedly a late interpolator. The case for chapters 23 & 24 having been written by Henry, I base upon the author, who has a full understanding of how he had concocted the story in the first place even naming the dubious abbot responsible for the translation and also Henry’s wish to perpetuate and substantiate his own propaganda.

 The other scenario is that a later interpolator has picked up the story and either created a hoax much like Henry de Sully was thought to have done…. or merely recounted the episode at a much later date…. as if it had transpired long ago and used the fire as the reason for the relics being re-discovered.

Chapter 25. How those relics were discovered.

Time passed and the saint still lay hidden underground until there was a certain monk there named John Canan, mature in years and most wise in mind, who was very well-informed about the ancient regulations of the monastery and into whose keeping knowledge of this secret had in turn been committed, according to the reliable testimony of the brothers. This monk had been assigned guardianship of a certain brother named John of Whatley who was youthful in years and in the monastic life, and whom the elder loved with exceeding fondness for his sunny nature. Urged by his fellows, the young monk used to exhort his master, despite constant rejection, entreating him urgently and sometimes flattering him, to point out to him the spot which contained so great a treasure. Finally the elder was softened by these repeated flattering requests and so one day, when the boy was questioning him in the usual way, he gave vent to these words: ‘my most beloved son, you cannot enter the church and sprinkle yourself with holy water without your clothes touching the stone under which that which you seek lies hidden. But do not press me any more about this; rather consider wisely and in silence what you have heard’. The youth certainly did not cover what he had heard with a curtain of oblivion, while the elder in due course yielded to fate.

After his death what he had said in secret was proclaimed from the rooftops and became common knowledge. Yet although all were perplexed by the ambiguity of his words they languished in complete inactivity and no one applied his hand to a test by which the knot of so great a doubt could have been untied. Sometime later the monastery of Glastonbury was assailed by fire which consumed not only the church and other buildings but its ornaments and treasures; and what is more, the greater part of its relics. It is not our task to describe here the sorrows caused by the fire because it is not our intention to occupy ourselves with these matters. The monks, seeking some solace for their grief, gathered together those few things that the flames had spared especially the relics. Then, troubled about St Dunstan, they recalled what John Canan and after him John of Whatley had said about him, which we related above, and they discussed it among themselves. After a few days had passed two of the brethren, Richard of Taunton and Ralph Toc, who were bolder than the rest in this matter, went with like mind to the place indicated earlier by John. They investigated it thoroughly and discovered the stone of which they had heard. Turning it over they beheld beneath it a wooden receptacle strengthened on all sides by iron bands. Calling the prior and the whole congregation together, they opened it and found therein the most sacred bones of the blessed Dunstan, with his ring on the bone of one of his fingers. And to remove every shred of doubt they saw a painting of him on the inside and S, with an inscription, on the right side of the receptacle and D, with an inscription on the left, representing the name of St Dunstan who had been placed therein. John of Canan’s story was thereby confirmed and the monks cheered by the discovery of these most desirable relics after their earlier distress, took them up joyfully and placed them with fitting reverence and devotion in a shrine suitably covered with gold and silver where they joined the shoulder and arm of St Oswald, King and martyr. The church of Glastonbury may therefore rejoice that it is fortified by the presence of so great a patron, thanks to whose intercessions and merits God continues to perform his great works there, repeatedly restoring life to the dead and health of those with all kinds of illnesses and frequently bringing aid to the foolish in all their perils.

To remove every shred of doubt, seems to imply that a physical object was fabricated to substantiate the bogus relics. The detail of the rediscovery given by the later interpolator is in the tradition started by Henry at the officine de faux, but it is clumsy by comparison.

Chapter 26. On a venerable cross which once spoke.

In the church of Glastonbury there is a certain cross, worthy of their narration and covered in gold and silver, which once spoke or rather, the holy spirit spoke through it, to a monk of that place named Aylsi, in this fashion. When the monks passed by the cross, and it was as though it was by an altar, he did not incline his head with due reverence as the disciple of the rule required of him, although eventually on a certain occasion he did so bow when passing it. At this the cross burst into speech, as if it had the appropriate organs saying: ‘it's too late now Aylsi, now it's too late Aylsi’. Shocked by the divine voice he fell immediately to the ground and died.

The reader may remember that in the account of De Inventione Sancte Cruces Nostre, in which we have seen has the hand of Henry Blois à propos de Waltham; it also has a cross which is miraculous in that the head bows to King Harold. The cross was a very powerful symbol and to the superstitious medieval pilgrim, a story of such power and wonderment would bring pilgrims.  Henry Blois understood the power of the cross and will have used it to his advantage.

Chapter 27. On another cross from which the Crown fell.

There is also in that place another very ancient cross which once used to stand in the refectory. Of this it is said that when one day King Edgar and Archbishop Dunstan were sitting at the table in the refectory thoughts contrary to the divine will arose in the Kings heart, at which, marvellous to relate, and image of the Lord attached to the beam of the cross shook its whole body, so that the force of this motion caused its Crown to fall between the King and the Archbishop. The King's confession made clear what this portended. For when asked by St Dunstan what he had been thinking or what he had been considering doing, the King acknowledged that at that very moment he had been considering transferring the monks to another place and bringing nuns thither. The King was on this account reverently rebuked by the Archbishop, who pointed out that it was contrary to the divine will, and so he withdrew the proposition as an error.

This may well be a polemically designed passage to resist some intention by the bishop of Bath or King Henry II, Richard or John to replace monks with nuns at Glastonbury abbey.

Chapter 28. On a wounded cross.

There is a third cross smaller than the others, yet more renowned among the people which, has of old been covered with gold and silver. By a divine miracle a great volume of blood once flowed from this when it was struck by an arrow; how this came about I will not fail to recount elsewhere.

The small cross, which is renowned among the people, may well be the small cross supposedly found with the Holy cross which went to Waltham, which is said to have been left in the church at Montacute.  Again, this might well be another bogus story concocted as a pilgrim attractor. How the arrow hit the cross is not explained elsewhere, which may indicate, in whatever concoction the story appeared, it was burnt in the fire.

Chapter 29. On a certain image of the blessed it Mary.

Also to be found there is an image of the blessed St Mary which was not touched, not even the veil that hung from its head, by the great fire that surrounded the altar and consumed the cloth and all the ornaments on it. Yet because of the fire’s heat blisters, like those on a living man, arose on its face and remained visible for a long time to all who looked, testifying to a divine miracle.

Obviously written after the fire and  could not be connected to William or Henry Blois. Because the lacquer had bubbled and the image of St Mary was saved from the fire, a miracle was made of it.

Chapter 30. On the altar of St David, commonly called ‘the Sapphire’.

We read in the life of St David, Archbishop of Menevia, that while he was administering in his office of Abbot, to many of the brethren in the monastery of the Ross Valley, that he himself had built, an angel appeared to him one night saying: ‘tomorrow morning you must gird yourself, put on your shoes, and set out for Jerusalem. But you will have companions on your journey, two men from your household well known for their uprightness, Teilo and Padran, who will meet you tomorrow at an agreed place which I will now show you’. Without delay the saint disposed of the useful articles from his small cell, received the benediction from his brethren and, setting out on his journey early in the morning, reached the agreed place where he found the brothers as promised. So they began their journey together, not surrounded proudly with escorts but rich in the unity of their souls, none of them the Lord, none of them a servant. As they approached foreign lands St David was enriched with the gift of tongues so that they would not need an interpreter among the strangers. At last they drew near to the desired place and on the night before their arrival an angel appeared to the patriarch of Jerusalem and said:’ Three Catholic men are approaching from the far west whom you are to receive with joy and courteous hospitality, and consecrate as my bishops’. As a result of this divine vision the patriarch gladly carried out the orders concerning the approaching saints. After he had consecrated them he said to them: ’the power of the Jews prevails over Christians and by confuting us they drive out the faith. Appear before them therefore and preach to them constantly every day so that their vehemence will be checked and will abate when they come to know that the Christian faith has spread to the far West and that its praises are sung at the ends of the earth’. In obedience to his command they devote themselves to preaching and by its success convert the infidels and strengthen the weak. After completing all their tasks they arrange to return home. Thereupon the patriarch enriched the venerable father David with four gifts, namely a consecrated altar on which he used to offer the body of our Lord and which was valued for its innumerable miracles, a remarkable bell, a staff and the tunic of woven gold, all of which are vaunted for the brilliance of their glorious miracles’. ‘But’, said the patriarch, ’because these would be burdensome to you on your journey I will send them to you when you have arrived home’. ’The holy men bid farewell to the patriarch and at length reached their homeland where they awaited the fulfilment of his promise. Eventually they received their gifts brought to them by Angels, David in the monastery called Langemelech and Padam and Teilo in their own monasteries. Hence it is commonly said that those gifts came from heaven.

 Since St David wished so precious a treasure to have a most worthy guardian after his death he presented that stone to the church of Glastonbury while he was still alive because he cherished that church with fond love on account of its venerable antiquity and especially on account of the relics of St Patrick and the other saints preserved there, as will most clearly be proven to anybody reading his deeds. Moreover that altar is still displayed in the church of Glastonbury in memory of the saint, preserved not by human diligence but by divine providence which, amid constant storms of change with Kings and Kingdoms rising and falling, the fierce hurricanes of war raging and almost everything else being destroyed, continued to check the greedy hands of those who would have stolen it. The cover in which the blessing David received that stone is still preserved and appropriately honoured in his episcopal see. After this famous stone, hidden in the past for fear of war, had lain concealed for a long time, its whereabouts known to no-one, Henry of blessed memory, the Bishop of Winchester and Abbot of Glastonbury, located it in a doorway of the church of the blessed Mary and adorned it sumptuously with gold, silver and precious stones, as can be seen today.

 It is highly unlikely, given the attributes I have uncovered regarding the fabrications of Henry Blois, that a sapphire belonging to St David was genuinely discovered by Henry. In my opinion this was written by Henry, who, as I have posited before, is guilty of including his name as if it were written retrospectively.
The account above is closely allied to the storyline of Rhygyvarch's Life of St David which also names Padam and Teilo. The point which is relevant is that Henry Blois (the ‘back dating’ specialist), could have referred to himself as he did earlier in the third person to avoid any suspicion of authorship.
The reason we should consider this possibility is two-fold; firstly, because of his relationship with Bernard bishop of St David’s. It would be simple to donate the skin covering spoken of in Rhygyvarch's Life of St David which authenticates the bogus find and would be easy corroborative evidence to find at St David’s…. if the skin covering found its way there via Bernard. Secondly, Henry Blois is the only one respected enough to concoct such a find and not be suspected of a manufactured fraud…. and rich enough to have the altar adorned so that it became part of Glastonbury lore.[51]
Don’t forget, it is highly likely the introduction of St David’s name in DA is to counter Rhygyvarch's Life of St David which asserts Glastonbury was founded by St David. We can assume by the other references to Rhygyvarch's Life of St David that Henry Blois has read it and employs certain passages to give a semblance of coinciding reality.
It seems a possibility to suggest that Bernard was given the purported cover which probably was just a random piece of skin manufactured to seem like the cover of the altar which he had found.  Henry manufactures the bogus find to coincide with Rhygyvarch's Life of St David: When all things are done, they undertake to return to their native land. Then it was that the Patriarch presented father David with four gifts, to wit, a consecrated altar, whereon he was wont to consecrate the Lord's Body, which, potent in innumerable miracles, has never been seen by men from the death of its pontiff, but covered with skin lies hidden away.

Chapter 31. On the nobles buried at Glastonbury.

There is much proof of how venerated the church of Glastonbury was even by the nobles of our country and how desirable for burial, that there especially under the protection of the mother of God they might await the day of resurrection, but I omit it from fear of being tedious. I pass over Arthur, famous King of the Britons, buried with his wife in the monks Cemetery between two pyramids, and many other leaders of the Britons, as well as Centwine who lies in one of the pyramids. Also there are tombs of the Kings Edmond the Elder, in the tower to the right, Edmond the Younger, before the high altar, and Edgar, previously in a column before the entrance to the church, but now in a shrine which also boasts the remains of the martyr Vincent. If space be available posterity will not complain that I was told such things in vain. I pass over in silence to the tombs of the bishops Brihtwig and Brihtwold, which richly adorn the northern portico of St John the Baptist, and those of the bishops Lyfing and Sigfrid and the ealdorman Aelfheah, Athelstan, Aethelwine and Aethelnoth, each of whom granted £100 worth of land and many other goods to Glastonbury.

Every commentator seems to believe the mention of Arthur (or some even Avalon) did not appear in DA until after Arthur’s disinterment. The Glastonbury interpolations in GR3 already discussed are polemically aligned with those in DA. They were undoubtedly inserted as part of Henry’s case for metropolitan. Why is it that scholars are so easily duped by Henry Blois’ affectation of probity whilst pretending to be William; and by their naivety, dismiss any possibility of understanding why the body was found where it was. Henry has no intention of ‘passing over’ Arthur, using the same scheme in GR3 chapter 21:How sacred was that place, even among the Princes of the land, so that there above all other they preferred, under the protection of the mother of God, to await the resurrection, there is much to show, which, for fear of being tedious, I omit.  But, here in DA (after having planted the bodies in a manufactured grave), he actually stipulates the location where Arthur and his wife (Guinevere) are buried: but I omit it from fear of being tedious. I pass over Arthur, famous King of the Britons, buried with his wife in the monks Cemetery between two pyramids, and many other leaders of the Britons.  The last thing Henry is doing is passing over the mention of Arthur but directly indicating where he had buried some artefacts that when uncovered would appear to be King Arthur and Guinevere's resting place. And if anyone at the exhumation were in doubt (according to Gerald), both King and Queen and the name of the place were disclosed on the Leaden cross.

I am amazed that Carley is so easily duped and cannot see fraud. This is the problem with medieval scholarship in that his mentor’s a prioris were never substantiated and have been assumed to stand, uncontested, not on merit but out of scholastic respect. Admittedly Lagorio uses the sweeping ‘fortuitous convergence of factors’ to tie up all which is not known or fathomable about the Joseph legend, but it is very much the same resigned stance when we consider the sudden appearance of Avalon and Arthur at Glastonbury. One cannot just create tradition in an instant at Arthur’s unveiling. Henry Blois accomplishes it by foisting his words onto a reliable William of Malmesbury and others in a book about Glastonbury; not forgetting ‘Geoffrey’s’ efforts concerning the synchronicity of a non-descript, non-locational Avalon in HRB, which became an Insula Pomorum (c.1155-58)….  easily identifiable with Glastonbury  .
Henry uses the same ploy in chapter 22 as we witnessed above with a whole host of names, which are clearly Henry’s concoctions,: I will pass over the ones mentioned before, namely that twelve disciples of St Philip, Phagan and Deruvian and their many disciples, Patrick, Benignus, Indract and his comrades, Gildas the wise, St David of Menevia.
If we know the chivalric Arthur persona is Henry’s concoction in HRB and he feigns to ‘pass over’ mention of him and all the above mentioned (excepting Indract) in their association to Glastonbury; why is that scholars cannot see the affectation of a pretence in skirting over something which Henry is in fact establishing as propaganda to the reader? It is clear he pretends nonchalance when in fact they are the main characters in his propaganda. The latter half of chapter 31 seemingly splices back into William’s words.

Chapter 32. On the two pyramids.

If I could elicit the truth I would gladly explain the significance of those pyramids which are a mystery to almost everyone. They are located a few feet from the old church and border on the monk’s cemetery. The taller one, which is nearer to the church, has five stories and is 26 feet high. Although it is almost in ruins, due to its great age it still preserves some memorials of antiquity which can be clearly read, even if not fully understood. For on the highest storey is an image fashioned in the likeness of a bishop and on the second an image displaying regal ostentation and the words Her, Sexi and Blisyer; on the third the names Wemcrest, Bantomp and Winethegn; on the fourth Hate, Wulfred and Eanfled; and on the fifth and lowest story an image and this writing Logwor, Weslicas and Bregden, Swelwes, Hwingendes, Bern. The other pyramid of 18 feet has four stories, on which may be read Hedde, Bregored and Beoruuard. I will not rashly certify what these mean but hesitantly suggest that within those hollow stones are contained the bones of those whose names can be read on the outside. It can certainly be maintained that Logwor is he after whom Lugersbury, now Montacute is named, that Bregden gave his name to Brent Knoll, now Brent Marsh, and that Beorhtwald was abbot after Heamgils. Concerning these and others who may come up, I will speak at greater length later. For now, I will proceed to set down the series of abbots, what was given to each for the use of the monastery and by which King.

We discussed the piramides under the section on GR and the reason Henry has chosen this space between the piramides is because they are different from any other grave markers in the Glastonbury cemetery…. and only feet away from the old wooden church. The piramides which are a mystery to almost everyone are highlighted on purpose. It is ridiculous to pretend to be ignorant of their significance in a graveyard when names of people are on them. What Henry is really trying to do is to highlight the mystery of why the pyramids are there, because between them he has planted the body of the famous King Arthur and his wife. The description of the piramides and the persons named for the most part seem to emanate from William.

Chapter 33. On the Kings, abbots and other founders of the church of Glastonbury, arranged chronologically.                                                                                                                                               It ought first be mentioned that three pagan Kings gave twelve portions of land to the twelve disciples of Saints Philip and James who came to Britain in 63 AD, whence the name ‘the twelve hides’ still persists. Then saints Phagan and Deruvian who came to Britain and illuminated it with the gift of faith, obtained from King Lucius, who was reborn in Christ through their efforts, confirmation of the island of Avalon and its appurtenances for the twelve brethren established there and the others who should follow them. Their successor after many years was the blessed Patrick who, finding twelve brothers still there leading a sort of eremitic life, instructed them in the communal life and enriched them with many possessions, as we can well believe even if they are unknown to us. His successor was St Benignus. Who he was and what his name was in the native tongue is expressed not inelegantly by the verses which are written as an epitaph on his tomb at Meare:

The bones of father Beonna are disposed within this stone.

He was in ancient times the father of the monks here.

And formerly Patrick’s servant too, perhaps

So say the Irish who call him Beonna.

 He was succeeded there by many abbots of the British nation, whose names and deeds, veiled in a cloud of oblivion, have been lost to memory over time. Yet their remains which still rest there reveal that the church was held in the highest veneration by the great men of the British. A painting commemorating events of the past, exhibits the names of three only of those abbots, namely Worgret, Ledemund and Bregored, about whom I will have more to say later.

Henry Blois is a master at his craft, intonating that the Island of Avalon was connected through the twelve hides and the disciples through his factiously expanded Lucius from HRB. We may speculate that this chapter was in the edition of DA presented in the 1149 presentation because there is no real consolidation of the lore before chapters 1&2 and those two were definitely the last to be added to DA. Lucius has no place in British history. Avalon is an invention of Henry Blois’ along with the foundation myth of Disciples and Phagan and Deruvian. We are informed by Scott that this chapter is largely a fabrication of a later reviser because it refers to St Philip, Phagan and Deruvian. This is more accurately a chapter written by Henry Blois the creator of Avalon in HRB and the man who has subtly materialised his invention to exist at Glastonbury. We should never lose sight of the part that the island of Ineswitrin in the original form of the prophecy of Melkin has played in this saga, which we have covered already.  St Philip, Phagan and Deruvian are all Henry Blois concoctions. We know St Benignus at Glastonbury is a Blois invention which lent corroborative evidence in establishing St Patrick definitively at Glastonbury, but I do not deny there may have been a Beonna at Meare associated with the other Patrick. It is even possible that there was a painting with the names of Worgret and Bregored on it. However, the mention in this chapter of Worgret and Bregored is probably because their names are on the 601 charter and help to verify that it is genuine to aid Henry’s case…. as we know, the rest of the chapter is comprised of Henry’s propaganda. He is leading toward a further mention of Worgret (about whom I will have more to say later),as he gets to the point where William originally started his DA with the 601 charter.

Chapter 34. On the illustrious Arthur.

We read in the deeds of the most illustrious King Arthur that at Caerleon one Christmas he distinguished with military honours a most vigorous youth named Ider, the son of King Nuth, and, in order to try him, led him to Frog Mountain, now called Brent Knoll, to do battle with three giants notorious for their wickedness who he had learnt were there. This young soldier had gone on ahead of Arthur and his companions without their knowing it and had boldly attacked the Giants whom he killed in a terrible slaughter. After he had done so, Arthur arrived and finding Ider weak from excessive exertion and helplessly lying in a trance where he had fallen, he and his companions began to lament that the youth was almost dead. So he returned home unutterably sad, leaving behind the body that he thought was lifeless, until he could send a conveyance there to bring it back. He considered himself responsible for the young man's death because he had come to his aid too late and so when he returned to Glastonbury he established 80 monks there for his soul, generously granting them lands and territories for their sustenance as well as gold, silver, chalices and other ecclesiastical ornaments.

Scott remarks that this story, the source of which cannot be determined was obviously interpolated after the purported discovery of Arthur’s remains at Glastonbury.[52]This is not definitive. Who else but the composer of chivalric Arthur material and (the giant fighting Arthur) would insert this with Arthur returning to Glastonbury.
Scholars would have us believe that, at the discovery of the leaden cross, all and sundry (Glastonbury monks included) were instantly informed and converted to the fact that Glastonbury used to be called the island of Avalon and there had been no preconditioning of this wondrous translocation in the period between 1171-1190-1 (except Caradoc’s brief mention of Arthur and his association to Glastonbury just to retrieve his wife). How do we explain the supposedly independent Vaus d’Avaron[53] of Robert de Boron c.1160-80, Chretien and Robert’s and Caradoc’s Isle de Voirre…. the Grail’s appearance through Chrétien in the same era…. Perlesvaus’ reference to the church covered in lead, along with Joseph of Abarimacie and the Grail. Most importantly, King Arthur with Guinevere being buried together..... mentioned in a book written at Avalon as witnessed in the colophon of Perlesvaus. We would have to necessarily ignore Giraldus’ testimony (see chapter on Giraldus Cambrensis) to uphold Scott’s view that all reference to Arthur postdates the exhumation.

The chapter is quite simply an invented story which incorporates the local topography of Brent Knoll and provides an episode which infers another link to Glastonbury for King Arthur….which in turn implies Arthur in deed set up the monastery there.
This is such a clever passage by Henry Blois in that it is entirely independent of HRB’s Arthuriana, yet corroborative . It associates ‘Caerleon’ with the chivalric Arthur like Chretien and HRB.  Both having their source from Henry Blois but now Caerleon's King Arthur is associated with Glastonbury. This could not be an association that could be made in HRB at that stage without obviating Henry’s authorship. It also coincided with ' Caradoc's' kidnap episode which also puts Arthur at Glastonbury.
King Arthur ‘returning’ to Glastonbury implies that he came from there…. and therefore provides adequate proof by association of Henry’s other goal…. the conversion of Avalon into Glastonbury. As I have mentioned, the latter chapters of DA from chapter 35 onward are more or less how they existed when Henry received DA from William. There is one later interpolation in chapter 69 which Henry has added regarding Arthur. Chapter 69 is titled: On the possessions of Glastonbury given by English Converts to the faith.

What is vitally important to recognise in this next interpolation in chapter 69 of DA is that it occurs in the section of the book which for the most part remains unadulterated i.e. William’s original composition. Scott sets in bracket’s the following interpolation on Arthur distinguishing it as an inserted interpolation found in a body of genuine text written by William.
What this actually proves for us is the genuine words of William would have run: Firstly, the King of Devon gave 5 hides of land known as Ineswitrin. What this reveals is that the 601 charter actually existed, as one can determine (as Scott indicates) how William’s words were set down originally.  Secondly, from this sentence above, we can understand that William had no conception that Ineswitrin was synonymous with Glastonbury as the original composition written by William commences the chapter titled: On the possessions of Glastonbury given by the English converts to the faith. [54] Therefore, as I have maintained, the etymology that leads us to believe Ineswitrin is synonymous with Glastonbury which is found in the last paragraph of life of Gildas and in chapter 5 of DA titled: on the various names of that Island is all part of Henry’s propaganda concerning his first agenda (which is the pursuit of Metropolitan status for southwest England). 

As William starts by the date in chap 69 with the first donation to Glastonbury (which he also does at chapter 35, the start of the original DA).... Ineswitrin was given by the King of Devon with the five cassates on Ineswitrin (see the chapter on the 601 charter)…. we have Henry’s interpolation concerning Arthur’s fictitious donation into the largely untouched part of DA: Arthur in the time of the Britons gave Brent Marsh and Poweldone with many other lands in the neighbourhood, for the soul of Ider, as has been mentioned above; these lands were fallen upon and taken away by the English when they were pagans but later restored, with many others after their conversion to the faith.[55]
The latter half of the polemic as we discussed under the section in GR is part of the vital rationalisation of Henry searching for a way to establish what otherwise is a conundrum. Why, if Ineswitrin was synonymous with Glastonbury would a King of Devon be donating it to itself. The later rationalisation is that Ineswitrin was known as Glastonbury in the time of the Britons and was then restored to Glastonbury subsequently having been taken from them by the Saxons i.e. the Saxons then restored to the church what was initially theirs, when they supposedly converted to the faith.
Henry sees the flaw in this argument in GR and in DA in that…. if at this time one King ‘supposedly’ ruled England, what is a King of Devon doing donating an Island to the ‘old church’. He, therefore, tries his best to explain the contradiction in the next chapter. The obvious solution which we have maintained throughout is that Ineswitrin is Burgh Island in Devon and it was never synonymous with Glastonbury (as the bogus Life of Gildas would have us believe). We can see William’s unadulterated reference to land known as Ineswitrin implies he does not know where it is.

One final observation is that Henry invents a King Nuth and Ider who feature nowhere else and so clearly disarms any suspicious mind into thinking that the account of this King Arthur in DA, which is the same King Arthur as that in HRB (both connected to Caerleon), are supposedly derived from independent sources..... and therefore add to the credence of an historical chivalric Arthur.
To everyone’s credulity, through this propaganda in chapter 69, King Arthur ‘returned’ to Glastonbury…. so it would only be natural, if Arthur were buried on Avalon (obviated after the fact of his disinterment), that Glastonbury was always (in its previous guise as Avalon) associated with Arthur.
What we should also take note  that the title to chapter 69 On the possessions of Glastonbury given by the English converts to the faith, where land ‘known’ as Ineswitrin was a ‘possession’ of Glastonbury (originally written by William) corroborates William's chapter 35 and its title, which originally commenced the DA..... both existed before much of the 34 chapters of Henry Blois’ interpolations were added.
We can see below Henry has not changed the original title of chap 35 written by William which started DA.[56] If Glastonbury and the ‘old church’ are commensurate’ then as stated in the title below…. how can the estate of Ineswitrin be ‘given’ to Glastonbury. It comes back to the fact that one can’t donate oneself to oneself and Ineswitrin is in truth located elsewhere. Only a scholar would think it anywhere else but in Devon…. with a king of that area donating it.
No estate called Ineswitrin would term itself an island (Inis…with only five cottages on it).  The ‘old church’ to which the donation was being donated would not be receiving an estate which termed itself an island and pretended to be the same island upon which the old church stood.

Chapter 35. On the estate of Ineswitrin, given to Glastonbury at the time the English were converted to the faith.

In 601 AD the King of Devon (Domnonie) granted 5 cassates on the estate called Ineswitrin to the old church on the petition Abbot Worgret. ‘I, Bishop Maworn, drew up this deed. I, Worgret, Abbot of the same place set my hand thereto’. The age of the document prevents us knowing who that King was, yet it can be presumed that he was British because he referred to Glastonbury in his native tongue Ineswitrin, which as we know was the British name. But Abbot Worgret, whose name smacks of British barbarism, was succeeded by Ledemund, and he by Bregored. The dates of their reigns are obscure, but their names and ranks can clearly be seen in a painting to be found near the altar in the larger church. Aeorhtwald succeeded Bregored.

 (It ought rather be believed that this King was an Englishman because in the time of the Britons there were no provincial Kings, as in the time of the English, but only absolute monarchs and also because, although that estate (Ineswitrin) and many others were granted to Glastonbury in the time of the Britons, as is plain from the preceding, yet when the English drove out the Britons they, being pagans, seized the lands that had been granted to churches before finally restoring the stolen lands and many others at the time of their conversion to the faith.)

In the bracketed passage, as Thompson[57] rightly points out, it is written by the same scribe as T, but Scott thinks it a later addition.  However, innocently Thompson observes that ‘The writer was presumably thinking of such figures as Arthur and Vortigern’. This is precisely what our interpolative author is making sure we and papal authorities understand. Not for any reason that it might corroborate HRB, but simply completing Henry’s insistence that Ineswitrin applies to Glastonbury to strengthen the case for antiquity in pursuit of metropolitan status ( in corroboration of the 601 charter which is in evidence). The charter was being produced in front of the pope along with DA and GR3 to show that lands previously owned by Glastonbury i.e. Ineswitrin, had been seized in Saxon times and reinstated back to Glastonbury. Not for any purpose in gaining lands, but purely to show that this 601 charter was proof that Glastonbury existed before the Augustine mission in that…. it already had an existing 'old' church, which, as we are directed to understand conveniently in ‘William’s words’ from GR3: Another point is worth notice; how ancient a foundation must be that even then was called old church.

We can understand more clearly why Henry Blois went to such lengths to interpolate William’s work. If he was ever going to free himself of subordination from Archbishop Theobald, he would have to be a metropolitan bishop. If it could be shown Winchester through HRB and Glastonbury through DA were of a more ancient establishment, clearly he could contest the primacy of Canterbury.
This also clarifies the contradictions between two separate agendas in DA.  One aimed at a metropolitan which includes a disciplic foundation, later confirmed by the St Patrick charter. The 601 charter in effect is what convinced pope Lucius II to grant metropolitan status in the first place.
Henry’s friend Bernard at St David’s had been trying most of his life as bishop to gain the same thing based upon what was maintained in Rhygyfarch’s Life of David and this is why Henry tries to help out by predicting a metropolitan in the early Merlin prophecies.
Henry Blois employs William of Malmesbury’s works to create a bogus history for Glastonbury, but it is not entirely fallacious as Glastonbury’s old church did exist before Augustine’s arrival. Yet he is using Glastonbury’s antiquity (and bogus material in HRB about Winchester) to gain metropolitan status for the whole of  south western England.
As we saw previously, when John of Salisbury writes on Henry’s trip to Rome in 1149: After being publicly received back into favour, he began to intrigue with Guy of Summa, bishop of Ostia,[58] Gregory of St Angelo and other friends (as they afterward confessed) to secure a pallium for himself and become archbishop of western England.  How Guy of Summa, bishop of Ostia and Gregory of St Angelo compromised Henry we shall not know. What their ‘intrigue’ consisted of and what their role was in helping Henry.... would shed light on much surrounding Henry’s manipulative intentions.

The 601 charter could be though a fraud by Papal authorities or at least be accounted irrelevant until conveniently the Life of Gildas persuades us to misconstrue the 5 cassates of Ineswitrin as part of the same island as Glastonbury. The only other mention of the island of Ineswitrin was in the Melkin prophecy about the discovery of Joseph of Arimathea’s body and William would have thought this unfathomable writing a ludicrous invention.... as there was nothing in any charter or previous legend (excepting those of the Cornish) concerning Joseph. 
Why would there be? There was no legend of Joseph at Glastonbury.  The monastic house to which Ineswitrin was given in 601 was not a West Saxon house and the island of (Ines) Witrin’s connection and location became lost in time when the church at Glastonbury was taken over by the Saxons. 
The only residue of the truth about Joseph of Arimathea's link to Britain was maintained in a weak legend of the Cornish which still bore witness to Joseph’s presence in Britain. The work of Melkin or certainly his prophecy was paid no attention by William of Malmesbury. Henry obviously could not include it in DA as it would be evident by the commonalities found in it that it was the template for the mythical Insula Avallonis in HRB, the emergent Grail stories and the reappearance of a famous body in the future.

Henry had not conceived of Joseph as the founder of Glastonbury in DA when it was first presented to the pope and the Primary Historia had no mention of Avalon when it was first composed and found at Bed. But, Henry had deemed Avalon for the place where Arthur was last seen in the First Variant HRB and we know by its more high tone and biblical nature….  the First Variant was part of Henry’s evidence for the 1144 case which convinced  pope Lucius to grant Metropolitan to Henry.  Why scholars believe a supposed scribe (still alive in 1247) decided to include Joseph in DA when Arthur is already a huge attraction at Glastonbury is never clearly defined. Especially when Robert de Boron and the author of Perlesvaus had made Joseph’s connection with Avalon 70 years previously. 
The simple answer is that no late scribe coalesced and formulated the lore concerning Joseph at Glastonbury.  Henry Blois’ Joseph in DA becomes insignificant by comparison to Arthur and this is the reason for his seeming late appearance in Glastonbury lore. Scholar’s rationalisations about Joseph's inclusion into DA are incorrect.  As I have explained, Adam of Damerham would not bother mentioning him (as he picks up where DA finishes)  and Gerald’s interest is only in Arthur.
Gerald is not interested in some obvious concoction…inventing a saint to attract pilgrims with no previous tradition. Joseph’s association with Glastonbury c.1193 is written into DA,  but it is not clear to what extent the Perlesvaus had affected Gastonburyana or what effect continental Joseph d’Arimathie legends had combing with extant lore at Glastonbury.  ‘Chrétien’ has already told of the Grail and ‘Robert’ of Joseph, but more importantly, there is already a book written by Henry Blois at Glastonbury which connects Joseph and Arthur to that place.[59]

Henry in the end is responsible for chapter one and two of DA, but essentially, if he had included the prophecy of Melkin in DA it would have been too obvious that he was the instigator of the Matter of Britain.
Henry Blois had HRB which propelled Arthur onto the continental stage (through Wace) and Arthur’s burial place he had already included in DA. He had written the pre-cursor to Perlesvaus which of course mentioned Joseph. Scholars are trying to make sense of incomplete evidence. The original author who composed the huge undertaking of bringing Christ's artefacts (brought to Britain by Joseph) and connecting the in either Latin, French verse or prose up to the era of King Arthur is the same man who wrote HRB and fabricated the persona of the Chivalric King Arthur. Neither Chretien nor Robert nor the author of  the Belgian copy of Perlesvaus is the originator of the tales that link the Graal through Joseph to the death of Arthur.  All of them (however they heard of  the tales) are recycling Henry Blois' material which had a provenance at his two Nephew's courts.
If Henry wanted to remain the anonymous ghost writer, posing as Master Blihis while introducing Joseph…. he had to be careful. It is Henry who had interpolated the very book which is dedicated to him by William of Malmesbury which also mentions Joseph and in which he converts Glastonbury into Avalon; it would hardly be a clever act to include the prophecy of Melkin in DA. The Melkin Prophecy would in effect link his name to both works in their connection to Glastonbury/Avalon and possibly implicate him in authorship of HRB where Insula Avallonis is first mentioned; but, even worse, it would link him to Chrétien and Marie of France and most importantly the Grail and Master Blihis.
This is the main reason the prophecy of Melkin is not included in DA. But, thankfully, Henry Blois did not change the contents and instructional data in the Prophecy one jot. Henry changed the name of the Island from Ineswitrin to Insula Avallonis based upon his personal association with Avallon in Burgundy…. just as he had staged Arthur’s battle in the same region of Autun (as we discussed earlier).
What is certain is that he had no idea where the Island of Ineswitrin was located (in Devon) or to whom  Abbadare refered.   To include the Melkin prophecy in DA would be to advertise the inspiration for the Sang Real and the mythical island concept in HRB and betray himself to the world as an interpolator, impersonator and ghost writer of HRB.
Hence, the Melkin prophecy was merely deposited in the scriptorium at Glastonbury (or included in the bogus work of Melkin’s concerning the Arthurian round table....a title which Henry must have written) to be reproduced in John of Glastonbury’s Cronica sive antiquitates Glastoniensis ecclesie. with the name of the island exchanged i.e. from Ineswitrin to Insula Avallonis.
From then on, it was believed Joseph also was buried in Avalon and therefore Glastonbury. Henry had the satisfaction in knowing that once King Arthur was going to be discovered and the Leaden cross was seen, Avalon would be established forever at Glastonbury by what was written on the cross. The DA would confirm the legend and Joseph of Arimathea would then establish Glastonbury as a second Rome (even though he would never be found there).

The DA remained with Henry Blois as an only copy. In it were transferred interpolations which at two separate periods became relevant to his aims. It is these contradictory standpoints; the apostolic foundation and the Phagan and Deruvian foundation which has steered commentators to conclude each slegend was composed different interpolators.

The first two chapters of DA which include Joseph material were added last.  These synthesises all Henry’s differing agendas. Scott envisages some astute reviser before the scribe of our present copy which he terms T or Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.5.33 (724).
The manuscript is attributed to Adam of Damerham which continues the history of the monastery down to c.1230 but in the same neat hand is a catalogue of the contents of the abbey’s library and the same scribe has dated the catalogue to 1247. It is from this information that we can determine the MS date. This is in fact the earliest extant manuscript of DA. There are certain interpolations which seem to pertain to the dispute with Wells and others which refer to the abbacy of Henry Blois, some of which have been added since Henry Blois' death in 1171. There are also references to the fire which destroyed the abbey in 1184 which cannot be any part of what William wrote or what Henry Blois left as his own final redaction of DA.

One other factor which may have a bearing on Joseph’s name remaining less well connected to Glastonbury until the fourteenth century is because of material lost in the fire in 1184. Whatever Master Blihis had left behind from which our present Perlesvaus and High History of the Grail is derived.... must have survived second hand. There must have been other material which connects for instance Henry’s Arviragus from HRB to material which John of Glastonbury is using which is also lost…. and from which literature Melkin’s prophecy is reproduced by JG. These tracts inevitably must have been part of Henry’s literary edifice which comprises part of the corroborative elements of the Matter of Britain. 
It is plain that whoever wrote Perlesvaus was already apprised of the story of Chrétien’s Perceval and Robert’s Joseph d’Arimathie and seems to know a lot about Glastonbury.  With a name like Master Blehis and Arthur’s connection to Glastonbury and the certainty of Henry having written HRB and the Merlin prophecies, one would have to be blind not to see the dots and connect them. Especially since Perlesvaus follows on from a previous tract which was later recycled by Chretien.

In his final days at Winchester between 1165 and 1171, Henry writes the elusive Book of the Grail which may have gone up with the fire, disappeared on the continent, or Henry had used its fictional existence much like he had done with Walter’s book in HRB. In other words, the rumour of a fictional book establishes a fictitious source for all Henry’s concoctions.  Glastonbury is not connected to HRB, Joseph is connected to Glastonbury in DA and Perlesvaus but DA connects the same ‘Caerleon’ Chivalric Arthur from HRB with Glastonbury where HRB avoids mention of Glastonbury. However, Glastonbury is connected to Arthur, Joseph and the Grail on the continent through Robert's Vaus d'Avaron.... and Chretien’s Isle de Voirre, which had its origin in Caradoc’s/Henry’s etymological farce.[60]

A complex propaganda invention was carried out by Henry Blois.  Joseph material was written into his literary ediface before Henry’s death as he was the instigator of it and it was Henry Blois who connected it to Glastonbury. While Henry was alive it was not in the public domain in DA but Joseph was connected (through Henry Blois's propaganda) to the grail and Arthur in his Nephew's courts on the continent. This entire edifice of erroneous history was inspired by Henry Blois' possession of the Melkin prophecy. 
Most scholars concur and have dated Joseph d’ Arimathie by Robert de Boron c.1180. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the date in the origin of the story.   It is largely speculation  derived from the assumption that the fire of Glastonbury was the catalyst for the monks at Glastonbury inventing propaganda in an attempt to gain pilgrims to increase the coffers.
The theory is that  the monks spliced Joseph material onto their own account of a Glastonbury legend after a continental emergence of Romance literature in Britain. The same view is held for the coincidences of  a Glastonbury Perlesvaus.
It is a bit contrived to assume that a British king Arthur in HRB and Joseph by Cornish legend…. both in Britain, are propagated in France and are the cause of the legends which took fruition in Britain, and coincidentally at Glastonbury. Glastonburyalia merely coincided with the foreign template of Grail lore.... because it was the abbot of Glastonbury who spread the propaganda on the continent. The abbot wrote HRB, invented the origins of  court verse relating Arthurian adventures and Josephean histoires and corroborated both of these in DA.
If modern scholarship really had a cohesive theory and their view was the true order of how events miraculously transpired; and that there was no substance in reality to Melkin’s cipher (or the legend of Joseph); it would automatically make Kim Yale’s deconstruction of the prophecy a complete geometric coincidence.
As we know…. there is not a single piece of the geometric criteria found to be redundant in the Melkin prophecy as it clearly points to Burgh Island, yet scholarship prefers to exclude the numerical values and declare it a fake.
Ultimately, it would mean a fourteenth century fabricator (as posited by Carley) jumbles up some figures and meaningless icons (supposed to relate to Joseph’s burial at Glastonbury) which coincidentally lead us (geometrically and by instruction to bifurcate a line) to a Devonian Island which coincidentally was donated to Glastonbury in 601 known then as Ineswitrin.
Our Joseph of Arimathea happened to be a tin merchant in Cornish legend in the old Dumnonia.... and a King donates an Island to Glastonbury.  This Island then happens to be described by Diodorus (in reference to Ictis) as having a tidal causeway and happens to be an island renowned for ‘provending’ tin (two miles from where the cache of ingots/Astragali were found).
It would also mean (if we assume the prophecy did not exist) that Father Good took a stab in the dark and happened to posit Montacute as a place where Joseph was buried…. rather than Montacute having been supplied by Melkin as a place on the (bifurcated) line to which he had indicated in the prophecy should be constructed to locate the Island which is the primary subject of the Prophecy.  A remarkable stab in the dark (for Carley's supposed fourteenth century fabricator) since it is not until the modern era the prophecy was decrypted. 
We would be silly to think of Montacute in any other way than a marker on the line (which extends to burgh Island after its bifurcation point through Montacute), which the prophecy intended us to find. This again (supposedly by coincidence).... is mentioned pertaining to Joseph’s burial by Father Good.
Now, if we add these random coincidences together with an Island which has a name in ancient ‘British’ which could (by my reckoning) have been derived from ‘White Tin island’ (Ineswitrin) and then connect the 601 charter to Glastonbury in which its British name is used.... and coincidentally fits Diodorus’ description of Ictis (which had a tidal causeway); it becomes glaringly obvious that the Island of Ineswitrin is not at Glastonbury.

Carley will not back track on his position that Joseph lore at Glastonbury must be a late invention. Crick is also aware that the chivalric Arthur persona is an invention by 'Geoffrey'; she knows  King Arthur's remains could not exist on any island (including Glastonbury) as he is a fabricated persona from the mind of ‘Geoffrey’.  Yet she never satisfactorily answers  how Glastonbury became the Insula Avallonis out of Geoffrey's imagination before 1189 as Gerald implies.
Crick does not know who transferred the Burgundian name of a town to become a mystical island in a book about which she professes to be an expert. She believes the book was written by Geoffrey of Monmouth. She fully concedes its historicity is a fabrication and yet never questions the identity of ‘Geoffrey’ and never appears to enquire upon his validity i.e. the three stages of Geoffrey’s appearance as Gaufridus Artur, (author of Huntingdon's Bec copy),....and author of the copy that found its way to Beverley in 1147 and to whom Alfred refers to as Britannicus' (as he knows Gaufridus Artur is an assumed name)..... and also Geoffrey of Monmouth the name given to the author of the Vulgate version..... who finally in another guise, became the Bishop of Asaph. How it is no-one ever met Geoffrey. How is that the only testimony to GOM or to the Bishop of Asaph's existence are attested to by fabricated evidence of a fake consecration by Theobald of Bec as archbishop of Canterbury. There is only one person who could have added the various versions of GOM's name to the Oxford charters and especially to the Treaty of Winchester.
Crick is not in a position to advise on the existence of Joseph of Arimathea on Ineswitrin.  If our experts are inept, to whom do we turn to convince an ill advised owner of Burgh Island that she (even though she is Jewish) should allow the uncovering of a 2000 year old mystery concerning Jesus.

Without cross referencing the authorship of HRB with that of Glastonburyalia and Grail literature, Crick[61] nor Carley, nor anyone else.... is in a position to pronounce upon whether Joseph of Arimathea is buried on Burgh Island without checking the facts rather than relying on previous erroneous conclusions arrived at by mentors in a previous generation.

The beauty of writing this book is the certainty that the established experts will deny the substance of Melkin’s prophecy and my findings. Even they as ‘experts’ cannot prevent what God has ordained at its appointed time to be uncovered.
    
There are a few more pertinent points to cover in DA which may help elucidate what actually transpired at Glastonbury after Henry Blois died. We have no certainty who our secondary consolidating author of DA was or if there was more than one after Henry until the scribe of T gives us our  oldest manuscript version. What is a certainty is that all the information in DA could not be corroborated so prolifically in other tract (like life of Gildas and GR3 version B) except by the design of one author.
     One interpolator may have been Robert of Winchester who was prior at Glastonbury under Henry while Henry Blois was bishop; who then became abbot of Glastonbury after Henry’s death. Robert of Winchester was concerned with infringements from Wells before Savaric's usurpation. Two churches, at Pilton and South Brent, the patronage of which was disputed between Wells Cathedral and Glastonbury Abbey, fell under the jurisdiction of Wells while Robert was abbot. This contention was the start of friction through to Henry de Sully’s abbacy between 1189 -1193, when Savaric FitzGeldewin took over as Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury.[62]
However, there are charters found in GR3 version B and C of DA which must be early concoctions concerned with the infringements of the bishop of Bath and Wells. These charters provide polemical support for dismissing any attempt on behalf of a bishop to set foot inside Glastonbury. (See chapter on GR3).
It is possible to speculate that these charters may represent an earlier attempt to appropriate Glastonbury from Henry while Henry was at Clugny in exile, but there seem to be no records referencing this while Henry was alive. One must conclude that these are additions to charters directly related to the Savaric affair.

 In regard to the later passages after Henry’s death concerning Dunstan, we can observe that the boldness of the assertions in DA concerning Dunstan are much in keeping with the confident un-historically correct assertions made about Patrick, St Benginus, Arthur and Joseph. Henry Blois was the person with enough confidence to dismiss conventionally held beliefs about Dunstan at Canterbury and with the gall and historical knowledge to propose the concocted account that Dunstan was translated to Glastonbury when Canterbury was set ablaze by the Danes.
So, it is possible to speculate that a later interpolator just after the fire uses the premise (originally rumoured by Henry) for a definitive find of Dunstan by planting a tomb and finding the unequivocal remainsof Dunstan.[63]
The only reason to labour this point is that Lagorio followed by Crick and Carley all seem to think that the complex manoeuvrings which brought about the unearthing of Arthur, the apostolic, and Joseph foundation and the creation of Avalon at Glastonbury…. just happened to transpire through the combined efforts of various interpolators. Grandsen’s theory that through desperation after the fire, Avalon, Joseph and Arthur, became an integrated body of Glastonbury lore by the simple interpolation of DA.... and as most scholars assume, such lore took its cue from continental romance literature.
 R.S Loomis, after questioning why Avalon came to be identified with Glastonbury, tells us it is not the scheming of an Angevin King or the cupidity of Glastonbury Monks.... but it all rests on the mistaken logic of a Breton minstrel.[64]
I fully admit there may well be flaws and mistakes in my theory, but until scholars admit that the accepted theory is less tenable than the theory advanced in these two volumes…. Henry’s authorship of HRB will be denied; Glastonburyana will be accredited as having taken shape by a ‘fortuitous convergence of factors’ and the real Master Blehis of Grail literature fame will not be associated with the Glastonbury Perlesvaus or the proliferation of Grail literature at Henry's Nephew's courts. More importantly,  the body of Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea will remain fifty feet underground on Burgh Island as long as academia remains intransigent to Henry Blois' influence on the matter of Britain..[65]

It is remarkable that the appearance of a continental Grail in our ‘experts’ view, becomes the template for the ‘Glastonbury’ duo fassula found in the prophecy of Melkin and not vice versa. Would it make sense that Glastonbury waits two hundred years to invent a prophecy? Why invent an ‘ecclesiastically more acceptable Grail’ which is now (duo) doubled?  It is not clear to what purpose the Grail could possibly be made double if it were a late invention.
Those experts who posit such a theory can find no rationale for Glastonbury’s doubling of a singular Grail, simply because it never happened. Robert’s chalice of the last supper or magic vessel and Chrétien’s singular Graal are the product of Henry Blois’ propaganda on the continent derived from imagining what the duo fassula might be; but even Henry understood it was intricately connected to Jesus and wove into his  tales as a single ‘vessel’.
Let it not be misunderstood that both the Glastonbury ‘two Jugs’ and the continental singular Grail were inspired by the duo fassula and its relevance to Jesus…. which, (Melkin makes plain) exists in Joseph of Arimathea’s sepulchre and is still in it today.  The duo fassula, because of its blasphemous implications, is subtext in the Melkin prophecy, within which, Melkin hides the real reason for composing his cryptic geometric puzzle i.e. to show where the bodies of Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus are buried. Henry Blois’ misunderstood the ‘doubled’ fasciola which in reality pertains to the Turin shroud (See Goldsworthy's 'and did those feet') and thought duo fassula pertained to two vessels. But, he imagined un Graal as a ‘vessel’ containing what he thought was Jesus’ blood (sang real) as he could not link 'two vessels' (duo fassula) to Jesus.

Scholarly opinion naively believes that two hundred years before the advent of a fabricated prophecy, ‘William of Malmesbury had pointed out that 'Wattle' was the material of construction of the church at Glastonbury and stated the fact with such frequency in all innocence and with no intent. Why would William of Malmesbury think it necessary to relate to his readers that the church ‘used to be made’ of Wattle?  Why are such pains taken to erect a bronze plaqueat Glastonbury which in effect provides the only basis for any understanding of a supposedly recently invented linea bifurcata?  Why was it necessary to mark where the Old Church had existed by specifically mentioning a linea bifurcate if there was no previous lore concerning it? The answer is that it is specified in the Melkin prophecy and the officine de faux is trying to find commonalities with the Melkin prophecy.... just as Henry had done earlier with the 'Wattle' while impersonating William.  Not even Henry Blois had managed to conceive or invent any extraneous lore which would incorporate the use of the linea bifurcate which would help substantiate the existence of Joseph at Glastonbury.  He like all scholars in the present era could not grasp the code within Melkin's prophecy.

In fourteen hundred when John of Glastonbury composed his work,  the monks believed the fabricated history which Henry Blois had conjured up about Glastonbury, and further continuators had built upon the foundations of Master Blihis' work. Henry based his entire edifice of Arthur’s Avalon, Joseph and the Grail on the prophecy of Melkin; ‘not’ vice versa. The linea bifurcata was just another piece of Melkin’s puzzle that monk craft employed (through the bronze plaque) so that the linea bifurcata appeared to be marking where the Old Church had stood (the Grail chapel) after the fire.
Such fabrications were because of the church's association with Joseph. It would be a remarkable coincidence that the one icon from the Melkin prophecy Henry Blois did not embellish  i.e. the linea bifurcate.... was instead invented as a means of marking the ‘Old Church’ relative to Joseph’s supposed sepulchre, but yet in reality.... actually geometrically locates Ineswitrin in Devon. As common sense observers,we can witness this in the geometry. The scholars have a theory which explains Glastonbury’s Joseph lore as a ‘fortuitous convergence of factors’ but we  have a beyond probable coincidence of geometry which just so happens to employ every numerical criteria and icon provided by Melkin.[66]  It isnot by coincidence either that this geometry identifies an island (the old Ineswitrin).

The layman requires no  specific qualification to understand to which island the geometry identifies. However, the scholastic viewpoint is that the geometry is meaningless Mumbo Jumbo..... and the prophecy has relevance to Muslims and Syria (or whatever other babble is peddled).  For what logical reason would the supposed inventor introduce such meaningless icons such as a linea bifurcata, the numerical values (of 104 and 13) which no interpolator seems to find further use for, or the mystifying sperula…. if indeed the prophecy was intended to convince us of a sepulchre of Joseph in the abbey grounds.
What have these random words and numbers to do with Baybars, Muslims or Syria…. or are we to assume the numerical values have Middle Eastern relevance also? It is an effrontery to common sense that Prof Carley feels he has free licence to pontificate such nonsense. It is a sad fact that Carley’s pontifications are unchallenged by acquiescent deference. What relevance would the linea bifurcata have to a concocted prophecy?
If the prophecy had been concocted, one would think that the monks would have made it simpler to understand. Melkin’s prophecy is the foundation for the Matter of Britain.... not the ‘matter of Syria’ and it is an encrypted geometrical puzzle. As I have already covered, there was certainly no misunderstanding (even in the fourteenth century) that the 'bifurcated line' was understood as directional, yet now Carley et al. muddy the waters even further with their baseless learnèd opinions.

The DA was probably presented to Henry at Winchester just before his brother became King. Once Stephen was enthroned, Henry’s pseudo-history, the basis of HRB (which was being composed at the time) was put on hold, as affairs of state took up his time. Any plan of a book destined for Matilda was obviously forgotten as Henry had helped his brother to usurp her crown.[67]. The work intended for the Empress Matilda or Henry Blois Uncle was now obsolete.
The Anarchy as such had not started, but Henry found himself in Wales suppressing the Welsh working closely on his brother’s behalf while his brother dealt with the Scots in the north. There would of course be no account of Wales in GS ( at the beginning of  the Gesta Stephani) unless Henry Blois had been there, but alas, from what we would have known of his eyewitness account…. the folios are missing. (See the chapter on the GS where it becomes obvious that Henry Blois is the author of that tract).
 Henry Blois advised his brother (after attempting to quell the rebellion in the south) to let the Welsh fight amongst themselves as is implied in GS. It was not until mid 1138 while he was in Normandy, Henry Blois finished the first rendition of the Primary Historia (the copy of HRB found at Bec), which was the initial pseudo-history (destined for Matilda and King Henry Ist) with the chivalric Arthuriad added to it.
There were probably only two copies of the Primary Historia until it was reworked into the First Variant post William’s of Malmesbury’s death in 1143, to be employed in the 1144 request for metropolitan status.  The exemplar of the First Variant (which was owned by Henry) was updated with Prophetic material which dated from 1155.... (this is how we have the First Variant version with the 1155 edition of the prophecies).
There were no dedications to Alexander or mention of Walter in the Bec edition as I have previously discussed.  However, the Vulgate HRB, had the various dedications at the beginning and the prophecies with the dedication to Alexander (and the association with Archdeacon Walter). This must post-date 1151 when Walter had died. The final Vulgate version post-dates 1155 which has the ‘sixth’ in Ireland prophecy.
The arrogant colophon, which is really directed to ‘whomever it may concern’ (but made to look as if it were pointed to three historians), is the final addition to the Vulgate HRB as pressure rose as to the authorship of the prophecies  to show that the seditious prophecies were extant even while William of Malmesbury was alive. This is the genius of the Merlin interpolation into Orderic Vitalis' work as this in effect (by what it states) predates the prophecies to Henry I‘s time.

 One can only assume the colophon was concocted in response to readers suspicions of a fabricated history. The colophon ostensibly establishes a source book and archaic provenance for the fantastic array of previously unknown history. Henry made it seem as if the whole HRB was written earlier by addressing William of Malmesbury as if he were still alive. (See chapter on the Oxford charters).
 It was post 1155 when the majority of copies of HRB started to be produced and proliferated on the continent with dedicatees that had already died. The original Primary Historia is no longer extant (except by extract in EAW) and the few extant First Variant versions were eventually replaced by the more complete Vulgate edition. As there were probably only two copies of Primary Historia produced by Henry Blois it is not difficult to accept that any original copy (with the prophecies not updated) has survived into the present era. We also know that between 1147 and 1151 there were only two references to the copy Alfred of Beverley's used, both of them insular and this version was the precursor of the Vulgate which had the dedications and the updated prophecies of Merlin within.

Since the DA reflects two parts of Henry’s first agendas, both stemming from attempts to obtain metropolitan (the apostolic foundation followed by the Phagan and Deruvian foundation), it is safe to suggest that neither the earlier or later agenda was deployed before William’s death.
If we can accept that both the early and later foundation myths for Glastonbury are the consequence of separate attempts by Henry Bloisto attain metropolitan status for the southwest of England (in which Glastonbury and Winchester are shown to have existed prior to Augustine), this indicates that Henry had interpolated DA at an earlier stage (in 1144) and employed it as a genuine work of William’s words. The second attempt at Metropolitan status probably was accompanied by the St Patrick Charter (written on gold lettering) which was later written into DA. Paragraphs like the postscript to the charter rendered in chapter 9 of DA where ‘Avalon’ is mentioned.... would not have existed in DA at the papal presentation, but is part of a later consolidation of DA by Henry post 1155. Chapter 22, where basic Phagan and Deruvian lore is introduced may well have been part of the 1144 attempt based upon the HRB’s reference to Eleutherius, and latterly, the lore expanded upon by its inclusion in the St Patrick Charter.

One pertinent point in the Matter of Britain (post Henry’s death) is that Henry’s invention of a chivalric Arthur in HRB spurred on the interest in the subsequent disinterment i.e. the unveiling of the grave of Arthur at Glastonbury outshone Henry’s introduction of Joseph lore at Glastonbury and the Grail links with the duo fassula

As I have already said, the Joseph tradition fomented at a slower rate.... becoming legend by the time John of Glastonbury undertakes to consolidate and recycle the various sources. The essential difference between the HRB Arthuriana and the material about Joseph of Arimathea in DA is that the truth behind the story of Joseph and the material concerning the Grail propagated on the continent, (although fabricated by Henry in romanz) is based in reality (from the Melkin prophecy).  The proof of which is 50 feet down in a naturally formed cavity on Burgh Island (the old Ineswitrin).

That Henry suspected Ineswitrin as the place of Joseph's burial (as posited in the original Melkin Prophecy)....  and such a place existed in reality, is highlighted by the fact that Henry Blois  is somehow connected to the search at Montacute (as dean of Waltham and his invention of De Inventione) and the procurement of Looe Island while he was Bishop of Winchester.

The Montacute search for Joseph spawned the fictitious story found in De Inventione. As we have mentioned, Montacute was the only other place mentioned in connection with Joseph’s burial (by Father Good).... and since it is a precise marker on the geometrically constructed line which Melkin hoped posterity would construct; the information could only have come from Melkin documents at Glastonbury. This means the prophecy and the reference to Montacute in connection  with Joseph's remains quoted by Father Good, existed in the time of Henry Blois' abbacy at Glastonbury.

Henry’s search for Ineswitrin almost certainly prompted his acquisition of Looe Island in the hope that.... that island might be Ineswitrin.  Henry went to the old Dumnonia i.e. Devon and Cornwall[68] in search of an Island.... based upon the fact that the 601 charter mentioned by William implied the island existed in Dumnonia. Henry knew the countryside of Devon well as we are appraised from being the author of GS. He was left by his brother in charge at Exeter after the siege. Henry, who we know was in Plympton as an eyewitness to a dawn raid on the castle there in 1136 was also very close to Ineswitrin at some stage either then or later.

If we refer back to Henry Blois’ concoction in both JC and HRB; that is, if I am correct about Salcombe (Salgoem) and ‘Geoffrey’s’ Saltus Geomagog (which like Salcombe is near Totnes as stated), where the Giant is thrown over a cliff by Corineus (in HRB), being one and the same place…. we may suspect that Henry had ridden up on ‘Bolberry Down’ where he imagined the battle episode to have taken place with the giant up on the cliffs as related in HRB. This cliff top to the west overlooks the Ineswitrin of old from a vantage point on Bolt Head. It overlooks the present day Burgh Island.  Is this where Henry got the idea from the fight on the cliffs?

William of Malmesbury proposes in DA, with the help of documents at Glastonbury abbey, to show the line of succession of abbots from antiquity; and, after he has recorded the names and dates of some nineteen English abbots before the year 940, he says: 'I fancy it will now be clear how far that writer was from the truth who wildly stated that the blessed Dunstan was the first abbot of Glastonbury'.

It is plain that William was certain that Osbern was wrong. In VSD 1 William states against Osbern: it is a misuse of learning and leisure to retail falsehoods about the doings of Saints; it shows contempt for reputation, and condemns one to infamy. William disliked Osbern and disagreed with what he had written and even refuses to refer to him by name.

Henry’s problem was that if a donation had been made to the ‘Old Church’ on the Island of Glastonbury; to which island does the 601 charter apply in reality? Henry found it necessary to contrive that the five cassates donated were local to Glastonbury to avoid any contention or discrepancy as to whether the charter was genuine or not.  GR1 has no mention of Ineswitrin and the island is not mentioned in any other genuine work or saints life prior to William finding the 601 charter.

We cannot conclude that the charter itself is an invention because it dates to four years after Augustine’s arrival. If it were a fabrication it would surely have ante-dated 597AD. I have shown above that it fits in to where William originally referred to it in DA as the proof positive of Glastonbury's antiquity.  One can only surmise the original manuscript of the Melkin prophecy which pertained of the island of Ineswitrin (where Joseph is buried) was found at the same time, because it relates to the island in the 601 charter…. even though the island’s actual location was lost to memory when the West Saxons took over Glastonbury and when Ine built the stone church. The most certain fact that Henry could know is that Ineswitrin was in Devon or Cornwall, the old Dumnonia. Yet some other piece of information existed about Joseph’s burial site which spurred him to search at Montacute.  (This is discussed at length in the chapter on De Inventione and Montacute.

In the two books on the life of Dunstan written contemporaneously with DA, there is no mention of Ineswitrin.  In the Life of Patrick, written before DA, there is no mention of Ineswitrin.  Yet, we know the person who concocted the St Patrick charter is one and the same who impersonated Caradoc who gave us the entangled etymology which convinces us Ineswitrin is at Glastonbury.

However, it is plain in the chronological sequence that William’s DA originally commenced at 601AD with the Ineswitrin  601 charter which constituted the best (genuine) proof of the antiquity for the abbey. The 601 charter was then added to William of Malmesbury’s GR3 which constitutes chapter 27& 28. In GR, most of the previous preamble which starts at chapter 19 in GR3: Now, as we have reached the reign of Cenwealh, and the proper place to mention the monastery of Glastonbury, let me then from its birth tell thereof, the rise and progress of that house, so far as I can gather it from the formless mass of the documents.... is positioned where it is in GR by William’s genuine inclusion of the 601 charter in his most recent updates to GR after DA had been written and William had left the confines Glastonbury.

The accusation of some sceptics to the genuineness of the 601 charter will be that William did not refer to Ineswitrin in VD II, (written at the same time as DA), but the simple truth is that William recounted a copy of the charter purely to show the date when Ineswitrin was donated to Glastonbury. William would never have thought that Ineswitrin was the previous name of Glastonbury because quite simply, it was not. 

 Therefore it was not mentioned in VSD II. The truth of this statement is indicated in the way the last paragraph of Life of Gildas is added to the main body showing the intention of carrying out the fraudulent etymological trans-location. The final paragraph would only have been added to the bogus work supposedly written by Caradoc, after William’s death in 1143 as William had never contemplated in either GR3 or DA that Ineswitrin was in any way synonymous with Glastonbury.[69]

The only reason some might think William did think of Ineswitrin as being synonymous with Glastonbury is because of all the propaganda put out by Henry Blois under the name of William of Malmesbury subsequently and the belief that Caradoc had actually written the etymological spin in the last paragraph of Life of Gildas. 

William, out of favour with the monks, not having delivered what the monks expected, went to Henry at Winchester c.1134.[70] Henry gladly accepted the DA and paid William. Henry Blois now had the only copy of DA into which was added the various stages of Henry’s agendas which reflect the legends upon which modern Glastonburyalia still bathes itself in myth.

By the time the monks at Glastonbury received the DA upon Henry Blois’ death, 30 years had transpired since William’s death. Since William’s sojourn at Glastonbury, most of the elder monks who could have remembered William’s visit were passed on. This is, in effect, how the names of Ineswitrin and Avalon were foisted imperceptibly upon Glastonbury.

Only 13 years after Henry’s death, there was a fire and many who could contradict the sudden appearance of Glastonbury lore were in disarray. By the time Henri de Soilly unearthed the much famed King Arthur which Romanz, and the DA, and a Glastonbury Perlesvaus had rumoured to be connected to Avalon…. Glastonbury’s standing as Avalon was at last corroborated.

Henry’s bogus history of Arthur had been accepted by all, based on the success of his HRB. The existence of Avalon was accepted as a credible account of  where Arthur went for the healing of his wounds in history.... because the Leaden cross found in Arthur's manufactured grave had now identified Arthur’s relics in Avalon at the graveyard in the monastery at Glastonbury.

Through King Henry II’s influence, as Gerald suggests, Arthur was unearthed at Glastonbury (see appendix 34). We should not forget either, that Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughters were most probably primed in Arthuriana in a direct link through Henry Blois. Eleanor of Aquitaine may indeed have something to do with influencing Arthur’s unearthing after King Henry II’ death through her son Richard. King Henry II died in July 1189 and in September 1189 Richard I of England appointed Henry de Sully Abbot of Glastonbury.

There was no long standing legend of Joseph in Britain c1144-1171 except in the south west of England. There was the mention of him in DA and whatever was understood about his connection to Britain…. through Perlesvaus, Joseph d’ Arimathie, the  Melkin prophecy and his connection to Avalon (possibly posited in Henry’s/Melkin’s De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda) in the decade following Henry's death. From Henry's death onwards, lore concerning Joseph in Britain was made more easily acceptable as the disparate works on the continent and those such as DA in insular Britain collided and corroborated each other.

That Arthur, the Grail and its heroes searching for the Grail’s elusive presence are connected with Joseph of Arimathea can only sensibly be understood as their separate stories having been spliced together by Henry Blois originally, before Chretien and Robert expanded upon the connection with Master Bihis and Blaise. It should be understood that the extant Perlesvaus is a continuation of a greater original work written by Henry Blois which is the Grail book from which all subsequent Arthurian literature follows. It may even seem as if the long and intertwined branches were segmented by the author having heard the tales read from Henry Blois' grail book. (this is discussed under the chapter on Robert de Boron.

With an already extant Glastonbury Perlesvaus and with the advent of Henry’s Grail literature in France, it did not take the monks at Glastonbury (before and just after the fire) very long to deduce that their Melkin prophecy and the Vaus d’Avaron of Robert de Boron’s Grail literature, both gave account of Joseph. But, also in DA Joseph’s name was present in the first two chapters and Glastonbury was already known as Avalon.

Robert’s mystical ‘vessel’ went to the Vaus d’Avaron. What Lagorio sees as ‘a fortuitous convergence of factors’ was blatantly by design. With the advent of Henry’s Grail material, it would not take very long for someone to figure out that the duo fassula (from the Melkin prophecy) was the template for the Grail; especially since it was associated with Joseph…. and all of this emanated from Glastonbury/Avalon and through Henry spreading his romanz material on the continent through Master Blehis. Bliho Bleheris, Bledhericus and Blaise.... a coincidence ignored by modern scholars. This coincidence is especially crucial when we know that GOM did not exist but authored by Henry,  Caradoc was impersonated by him, DA was interpolated by him and GS was also anonymously authored by him. Henry's legacy to the world is the subject knowas the Matter of Britain and since he himself likens himself to Cicero on the Meusan plates, I believe he has far surpassed him in leaving the world a body of Literature. For a man that played such a pivotal role in state affairs, we have only have a few inconsequential notes that were written by him to the pope; one in 1139 and the other in 1160 and a few other random letters along with his Libellus. Is it not strange that a man of such attested literary skill and who accounts the authorship of books higher than all material wealth and art, should only leave behind his simplistic Libellus?  Yet Henry in his own mind surpassed the greatest author of the ancient world!

 It is no wonder Henry did not include the Melkin prophecy in DA. Instead of the conventional theory about the advent of Joseph material at Glastonbury being derived from the continent in the thirteenth century, it must be accepted that Joseph’s name was in DA at Henry’s death. But, given that it was Henry Blois who attached the spurious name of his invented Avalon to a genuine geometrical prophecy.... it could only be Henry Blois who included and coalesced the Joseph lore in the first two chapters of DA. The Grail material was planted in continental soil until Grail material met with its insular forebear which were the germs of Glastonburyalia, De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda, and the Glastonbury Perlesvaus, in the years following Henry’s death.

William of Malmesbury's Enquiry into the Antiquity of the Church of Glastonbury is a work which many commentators have accused him of putting together carelessly. He is often accused of a piece of work which flatters the vanity of the Glastonbury monks because of some of the beneficial lore posited in both GR3 and DA.  The accusation is that William had for a time taken up his abode in their house and therefore compromised himself by recording puerile history while he ate their bread. This is unfair, because he vigourously maintained his integrity as an historian as seen after DA was finished in his record of the unfolding events during Anarchy known as HN.

His integrity can be understood from the prologue of DA. William had probably never heard of Avalon as it was not named in the Primary Historia (even if William had read that book), but certainly, William never envisaged Ineswitrin being synonymous with Glastonbury. The denunciation of William is furthered by the discovery of a tenth-century list of the English abbots of Glastonbury, which cannot be reconciled with William’s list in the DA.  In chapter 71 we should understand that the first two named abbots St Patrick and St Benignus are Henry inventions and certainly do not cover the period until William names Worgret, the abbot named on the 601 AD charter.

Eadmer who also wrote a Life of Dunstan, based mostly on author B’s work, had accused Glastonbury of having no written evidence of Dunstan’s interment and William had not provided it in his VSD, but a suitable story of translation in the time of the Danish invasion was produced in DA, but is not the work of William. Otherwise mention of  the translation would have been in William’s VSD 1 & II. This shows William kept his integrity and the DA account is partially by Henry followed by a further interpolator.

Pope Eleutherius had sent un-named disciples to Lucius who was not a King of Britain. These ‘Doctors’ were named by the bishop of Winchester as author of the  HRB and they were then posited as the founders at Glastonbury. As we know Rudborne insists Phagan and Deruvian were responsible for the foundation of the old minster at Winchester. They are named for the first time in the First Variant as Faganus and Duvianus and then written into DA as the named disciples and renovators of an existing church…. which obviously follows a previously posited disciplic/apostolic foundation put forward in pursuit of Metropolitan status. Henry Blois, while composing the First Variant edition of HRB  named Faganus and Duvianus  as the disciples Pope Eleutherius had sent by taking their names from the annals of Winchester and grafting them onto the episode found in Liber Pontificalis…. which Bede had wrongly interpreted.  Not forgetting as we discussed earlier the high biblical tone of the First Variant was specifically toned toward a papal audience and its early mention of Winchester as an existing monastic house in King Arthur's era as a credible history of Winchester.

 The First Variant HRB (modelled on the Primary Historia) was written at Winchester and hence Pagan and Duvian’s first appearance was in THE FFV of HRB as named individuals: Unto Coillas born one single son whose name was Lucius, who, upon the death of his father, had succeeded to the crown of the Kingdom, and did so closely imitate to his father in all good works that he was held by all to be another Coill. Natheless, being minded that his ending should surpass his beginning, he despatched his letters unto Pope Eleutherius beseeching that from him he might receive Christianity. For the miracles that were wrought by the young recruits of Christ's army in divers lands had lifted all clouds from his mind, and panting with love of the true faith, his pious petition was allowed to take effect, forasmuch as the blessed Pontiff, finding that his devotion was such, sent unto him two most religious doctors, Pagan and Duvian, who, preaching unto him the Incarnation of the Word of God, did wash him in holy baptism and converted him unto Christ.[71]

To disguise his authorship, Henry in the various tracts which he wrote, often changes the names of persona slightly. The first mention of Lucius and his letter to Eleutherius is in the Catalogus Felicianus, a version of the Liber Pontificalis created in the 6th century. The Liber Pontificalis, says that Lucius as King sent a letter to Pope Eleutherius to be made a Christian. The story became widespread after it was repeated in the 8th century by Bede and is found in ASC, but Collingwood and Myers belief is correct in saying that the myth is derived from a misreading of the Liber Pontificalis. They state that this belief rests on an error in the Liber Pontificalis confusing the name of Britain and Britium in Mesopotamia.

The main point to consider, mistake or not, is that ‘Geoffrey’ believed Bede.... and thus went onto name Eleutherius’s envoys as Phagan and Deruvian. This is vital to the understanding of how ‘Geoffrey’ capitalized on Bede’s mistake and ultimately is responsible for the connection of Phagan and Deruvian to Eleutherius. In reality this relationship at no time existed in reality.  King Lucius as presented in HRB is entirely fictitious.

  Nennius also has the same episode, but also derived from Bede: After the birth of Christ, one hundred and sixty-seven years, King Lucius, with all the chiefs of the British people, received baptism, in consequence of a legation sent by the Roman emperors and pope Evaristus. A marginal note in the Arundel MS. adds, "He is wrong, because the first year of Evaristus was A.D. 79, whereas the first year of Eleutherius, whom he ought to have named, was A.D. 161."

Bede’s mistake was not purposeful, yet chroniclers followed the mistake until Henry designs a myth around it for his own ends…. and commentators, seeing so many corroborative loose ends, have had to accept the occurrence as credible history. This position has been augmented and made easier to maintain by the obvious presence of an early insular Celtic church in Britain. It is for this reason we should believe Joseph of Arimathea’s relics lie in Dumnonia!!!!!

Rudborne, while writing his Historia Major on the Old Minster at Winchester, compiled from the old annals, would doubtfully suggest Phagan and Deruvian’s names in connection with the consecration of the old Minster, had he not seen their names there in connection with its foundation.

It is not silly to suggest Henry had originally included their names in the First Variant HRB so that it might be later discovered that they were the founders of Winchester and thus it would be an added boon to his request to make Winchester a metropolitan (especially if the St Patrick charter was proffered as evidence in 1149 on which their names were seen) and their names were also found in DA. Don’t forget at this stage, no-one knew anything about the author of  the Primary Historia or First Variant…. no trail of ‘Geoffrey’s’ existence had been laid. Gaufridus Arthur was his only anonymous title.

It should not be forgotten that the interpolations into DA as Henry left the work  at his death and the construction of the First Variant (in which Phagan and Deruvian were added because they were not mentioned in the Bec edition) were both composed at Winchester by Henry.

When metropolitan status was not an issue in 1138 when Henry composed the Primary Historia (because he was Archbishop of Canterbury in waiting), there was absolutely no need for Phagan and Deruvian's names to be included in the First Variant and there was no benefit in composing the St Patrick charter. 

We hear in DA that: at the bidding of Eleutherius, therefore, two very holy men, the preachers Phagan and Deruvian’s came to Britain, as the Charter of St. Patrick and the Deeds of the Britons[72]attest. Proclaiming the word of life, they cleansed the King and his people at the sacred font in 166 AD. They then travelled through the realm of Britain preaching and baptising until, penetrating like Moses the lawgiver into the very heart of the wilderness, they came to the island of Avalon where, with God’s guidance, they found an old church built by the hands of the Disciples of Christ….

It is not by coincidence that both the authorities appealed to i.e. the Charter of St Patrick and The Deeds of the Britons (HRB) were both authored by Henry. Interestingly, the last line of VM, Henry actually refers to his HRB as Gesta Britonum rather than the History of the kings of Britain. The DA then continues….So when Saints Phagan and Deruvian discovered that Oratory… and the point of this is to establish that in Phagan and Deruvian’s era an ‘Oratori’ existed.

In any reference prior to DA or to the production of St Patrick’s charter, allusion to the ecclesiastical house at Glastonbury was as a church or old Church.... and we can see the reasoning behind DA’s use of the word interchangeably with ‘old Church’ is to coincide with the Oratori of Melkin’s prophecy…. and this is possibly why the oratory on the ‘tor’ is implied in the St Patrick Charter.

In the same section entitled: How the Saints Phagan and Deruvian converted the Britons to the faith and came to the island of Avalon, the DA continues:

they loved that place before all others and, in memory of the first twelve, chose twelve of their own companions whom with the consent of King Lucius, they established on that Island. These twelve stayed there in separate dwellings, like anchorites, in the very places which the first twelve had originally inhabited. Yet they used to gather together frequently in the old church in order to celebrate divine worship more devoutly. Just as the three pagan Kings had formally granted the island with its appurtenances to the first twelve disciples of Christ, so Phagan and Deruvian obtained confirmation of the same from King Lucius this for their twelve companions and the others who should follow them in the future. Thus many successors always in twelves, dwelt on that island throughout the course of many years until the arrival of St Patrick, the apostle of the Irish. To the church that they found there these holy neophytes added another oratory made of stone, which they dedicated to Christ and the holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

 So it was by the work of these men that the old church of St Mary at Glastonbury was restored, as trustworthy history has continued to repeat throughout the succeeding ages. There are also letters worthy of belief to be found at St Edmunds to this effect: ‘the hands of other men did not make the church at Glastonbury, but the very disciples of Christ, namely those sent by St Philip the apostle built it’. Nor is this inconsistent with the truth, as was set down before, because if the apostle Philip preached to the Gauls, as Freculph says in chapter four of his second book, it can be believed that he also cast the seeds of the Word across the ocean.

Whether or not such letters existed is not in question as William makes the point in VD 1[73] about a pre-existence to Dunstan’s abbacy countering Osbern’s position in saying: But how great the store Edmund set by Glastonbury from that day on is too well-known to require my narration to publish it abroad.  As we have covered, it was stated by author B: the first neophytes of Catholic law discovered an ancient church, built by no human skill as though prepared by heaven for the salvation of mankind. So, William’s reference to a well-known tradition in VD 1 regarding Edmund and Glastonbury are now in DA, letters existing at St Edmund’s whereby proof is to be found that what was probably some reference to author B’s wording is now twisted from built by no human skill to…… the very disciples of Christ, namely those sent by St Philip the apostle built it’. We can now see how Henry distorts the facts from seeming references made by William, from tentative positions to positively polemically motivated statements.

This is an object example of how Henry devises his craft. Supposedly, if William had reasoned in GR3 that if the apostle Philip preached to the Gauls, as Freculph says, it can be believed that he also cast the seeds of the Word across the channel. 

This does not mention Joseph.... but the ninth century bishop of Lisieux had also written that St Philip sent a mission from Gaul to England ‘to bring thither the good news of the world of life and to preach the incarnation of Jesus Christ’. This too is based on Freculphus’ history. But, it is Dunstan’s biographer author B who recorded his belief that the earliest church at Glastonbury had not been built by men but had been fashioned in heaven..... and there is only one disciple which Henry has in mind when he adds the single word 'restaurata' and makes Phagan and Deruvian the restorers, (not the builders), of the 'Old Church', as this implies Joseph as founder.  This concoction connects back to his first disciplic agenda for Metropolitan status in 1144 where Joseph is obviously not named. 

Henry’s agenda had shifted from an earlier proof of antiquity through the disciples presence at Glastonbury posited by his interpolations in William’s GR3 and DA to the later charter of St Patrick which involved Phagan and Deruvian through William’s reference to Eleutherius.

The two earlier polemics are consolidated in chapters 1 & 2 of DA to highlight Joseph’s foundation which is part of Henry’s post 1158 second agenda when he had undertaken to bring Joseph lore as propaganda in verse on the continent. (This later was mixed and connected to Arthuriana an the Grail).  However, the outcome is that the church is established by the actual disciples of Christ through ‘William’s’ words and it is no longer a matter of opinion but fact…. that in 167AD a church existed as witnessed in DA.

Another consideration regarding Henry's influence at Glastonbury is the cult of St Mary. Both ‘Geoffrey’ and Nennius before him claimed that Arthur had gone into battle with an image of the Virgin on his shield, ‘which forced him to think perpetually of her’.

Melkin’s adorandam virginem is, I believe, the main cause for this sudden arising of the Marian cult in the time of Henry Blois. It is not without coincidence that in the third chapter of DA it is claimed that during Blois’ time as abbot, one of his monks visited the abbey of St Denis in the Ile-de-France where he was reportedly asked if Glastonbury’s ‘ancient church of the perpetual Virgin and compassionate mother’ was still standing; to which the monk replied ‘it is’.

This is another piece of Henry’s guile, as he is the instigator of this passage and clearly shows that he knew the impact that the DA would have after his death. I suggest, it is the Melkin allusion of Virginem adorandam which fixes the St Mary cult at Glastonbury and it was just fortuitous that Nennius had such an applicable anecdote which could coalesce both Arthurian and Joseph legends to the Old Church.

It was probably Henry who commissioned a statue of the Virgin for the Old Church as an image of ‘Our Lady’ is first mentioned during his abbacy when Henry provided funds to keep a candle ‘perpetually burning’ before the image.  It was Henry who fostered devotion to the Virgin by presenting his abbey with a number of St Mary relics i.e. ‘some of blessed Mary’s milk and some of her hair and part of her sepulchre. Also fragments of the very garments of that same blessed Mother of God. 

It was Henry who instigated the monks to observe all the principal festivals of St Mary[74] and as we have covered, left funds for the upkeep of an 8lb candle to burn in St Mary’s Church on all the principal feasts. The stone church in Henry’s day was dedicated to Peter and Paul but someone is attempting to have us believe that in the Phagan and Deruvian era, the wooden Church which the neophytes ‘restored’ was dedicated to St Mary: To the church that they found there these holy neophytes added another oratory made of stone, which they dedicated to Christ and the holy Apostles Peter and Paul. So it was by the work of these men that the old church of St Mary at Glastonbury was restored…..

Strangely enough, the authors of the Somerset Historical Essays comment on Phagan and Deruvian and highlight their suspicions. They, however, do not contemplate that by the time the DA came to Glastonbury after Henry had inserted his interpolations, William’s book was altered permanently with no original to compare against. It is certainly not as the Somerset Historical Essays suggest (along with Stubbs) that a comparison might be made with GR to find a sense of William’s original.  As we know, the GR text also received interpolations concerning Glastonburyalia, but we are told: The frequent repetitions in the text will at once suggest that it has passed through several stages of correction: and, in particular, the names of St Phagan and St Deruvian meet us so unnecessarily often, that we shall even begin to wonder whether they had any place at all in the original manuscript.[75] 

We know the cult of St Mary had a large following in France, but, Henry Blois, rarely in his propaganda includes a detail which has no consequence. The church was genuinely known as the ‘Old Church’, as stated on the 601 charter. We know Henry Blois has written the piece about the ‘restoration’ of the church so that his first ‘disciplic’ foundation and the Phagan and Deruvian foundation don’t contradict each other. The question is.... why is Henry keen to make this association that the dedication was to St Mary, excepting the obvious connection with the virginem adorandam in the Melkin prophecy and to coincide with Nennius’ allusion to Arthur’s shield, which would make Arthur’s association with Glastonbury seem all the more feasible.

King Ine was probably the first royal benefactor of the Kings of Wessex who built the stone church. This is where the recorded evidence begins with William in GR3: The charter of this donation was written in the year of our Lord's incarnation 725, the fourteenth of the indiction, in the presence of the King Ina, and of Berthwald, archbishop of Canterbury." What splendour he (Ina) added to the monastery, may be collected from the short treatise which I have written about its antiquities. Herein.is the 601 charter’s importance in the proof of antiquity.

Of course Henry Blois’ composition of the  Life of Gildas provides us with supposedly earlier accounts of the existence of a monastery at Glastonbury, but we know Caradoc’s account and the St Patrick charter are a Henry Blois concoction written after William’s DA. These are the tracts with which Henry hopes to establish an archaic provenance.

The gullible are made to think that William was aware of accounts beyond the 601 charter.  The illusion is that William seemingly approved of their content by including the whole of St Patrick’s charter in DA and also appearing to reference the etymology from Life of Gildas concerning Ineswitrin.

With the semblance that William had nonchalantly mentioned Gildas’ stay at Glastonbury in the Life of Gildas, one is obviously more inclined to believe in the truth of the kidnap of Guinevere and believe that Gildas acted with the abbot in finding a peaceable solution.  The fact that there is a King Melvas at Glastonbury and a Maheloas, a great baron, lord of the Isle of Voirre in Chrétien’s ‘Erec’, where Henry has influenced Chrétien de Troyes, is not coincidence. We hear for the first time in Caradoc’s Life of Gildas of the Isle of Glass etymology which of course both DA and John of Glastonbury expand upon. Master Blehis is the source for Chrétien de Troyes ,but we will be covering soon the relationships and influence of Marie of France and her sister Alix and their mother Eleanor in relation to Chrétien and Henry Blois in part III of this work

 Most of the confusion in Glastonburyalia is caused by the synthesis accomplished by Henry Blois in his late redaction of DA, because the one mind synthesising is the one mind which understands why the contradictions of the previous agendas exist.  But, because of the various tracts written under pseudonyms which tangentially corroborate each other, no scholar has found his way through the maze to find Henry Blois as the common author.

This task has been made harder by the seeming contradictions of position in DA which pertains to Henry’s agendas at separate times. Because of these contradictions, it seems as if a late consolidator has tried to rectify the discrepancies especially as some of the interpolations in DA appear to reference Henry in the past. This is why Scott advocates a consolidating interpolator which he assumes is responsible for interpolations which were actually carried out by Henry Blois himself.

The task has also been made more difficult because researchers have been unable to bring the three genres of ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB, Glastonburyalia, and Grail literature under one investigation and have tended to focus on only two genres and comment on their common material. The reason for this is that until one accepts the retro dating of Vulgate HRB (the interpolation into Orderic making the prophecies appear to have existed in Henry I’s time and the advent of the Primary Historia at Bec in 1139 being a different version than the 1155 Vulgate HRB)…. it is difficult to match the three genres chronologically.  Grail literature is always thought to have surfaced c.1180, even though we are told it had an earlier provenance from men with similar phonetically sounding names to Henry.

The difficulty unravelling what can only have come about by design has been exacerbated by the fraud of Henry’s backdating of HRB through the dedicatees and his composition of the colophon mentioning the historians (making us believe that Malmesbury is still alive). This has caused Arthurian material within HRB, to be thought of in terms of a different corpus, emanating by an entirely separate tradition of independent authorship, connected only by a distant Brythonic root. The main hindrance which has prevented scholars finding the truth is the mistaken presumption that any Arthuriana in DA was written after 1191 and the assumption that the perpetrator of the disinterment fraud is Henry de Sully.

Joseph material has never been taken in any way seriously as having any basis in history.  Scholars have thought of it in no other way but a thirteenth century invention purely because of Joseph’s localised tradition at Glastonbury having been wrongly accounted as having stemmed from continental literature.  It is fairly evident that De Inventione is propaganda invented by Henry Blois but one has to ask why is he looking for remains at Montacute. The answer lies in the fact that Henry Blois was appraised of the same fact that Father Good relates to us about Montacute. This can only lead to one conclusion given that the geometry is unequivocal in locating Burgh Island and that is the evidence must have come from Melkin. Therefore his prophecy existed in Henry's era. Any scholar who denies this and does not see that the Grail is built upon the icon of the duo fassula is like Lagorio mentoring Carley.... the blind leading the blind.

When Arthurian Glastonburyalia came into the public consciousness after Arthur was dug up in 1189-91, Joseph was essentially ignored. Arthur’s fame after the unearthing consigned a mere saint to obscurity in the popular culture of both plebeian and court society. Gerald was not concerned with a second rate Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury which virtually no-one else where the few at Glastonbury had heard the rumours. Even though Gerald had read DA Gerald’s interest lay in a Welsh Arthur from Caerleon who was buried in Avalon and it would be a tough illusion to convince the population that Henry de Sully had found Arthur at Avalon if there were no previous corroborative evidence. This is the brilliance of Henry Blois’ design.

 As is evident from the DA text above, someone is trying to square the various accounts of how it is that the twelve hides exist and never paid Geld. The twelve hides of Glastonbury probably had its origin in privileges granted to the abbots of Glastonbury in a succession of charters by Anglo-Saxon Kings of Wessex. A grant from Centwine (676–85) of six hides at Glastingai and a similar grant from Baldred, may together have made up the twelve hides which was the assessment of Glastonbury in 1066, and which already represented a privileged estate.

It is Henry’s clever manipulation which brings this mundane assessment corroborated in Doomesday into ancient lore by its attachment to Arviragus, masked in the confusion of history by the ridiculous notion: Thus many successors always in twelves, dwelt on that island throughout the course of many years until the arrival of St Patrick…. 

  The Abbey of Glastonbury had a peculiar jurisdiction in the area around Glastonbury known as the Liberty of Twelve Hides. Here the King's courts had no authority and there is an example of a case begun before the King's Court at Westminster and handed on to the Abbot's court on account of the Liberty of the Twelve Hides.

Glastonbury was possibly the wealthiest monastic institution at the Norman invasion. Someone is attempting to have us believe the twelve hides stem back to Arviragus and Glastonbury’s sanctity has been in place since Joseph arrived. But, we should not forget (apart from a satirical poem by Juvenal) who first brings Arviragus to notice in British history…. he played no significant part in British history except that which is wholly fabricated by ‘Geoffrey’.

It becomes very difficult to maintain that Melkin was a fourteenth century invention once we understand that it was the Melkin prophecy which sparked Henry’s muses to develop some of the many facets of the Matter of Britain.  This, in no way makes the basis for the formation of the prophecy in the first place untrue. Scholars have assumed the opposite of that which transpired. The Melkin prophecy with its body of Joseph to be found in the future, its Grail like duo fassula and its island location, and its encrypted search which parallels the Grail quest are not the constituent parts which were fabricated by a thirteenth century composer of the prophecy…. but a template for the Matter of Britain.

Author B of the Life of St Dunstan writing c.1000 makes it plain that neither Ineswitrin nor Avalon were previous names of Glastonbury when referring to Dunstan’s Father: Now in Heorstan’s neighbourhood there was an island belonging to the Crown, the old English name for which was Glastonbury.

The modern consensus among scholars is that Glastonbury only became Avalon when Arthur was found there, (the Leaden cross confirming the location), but not one commentator has supplied an adequate reason why Glastonbury’s Henry de Sully should claim to unearth Arthur (at Glastonbury) unless of course it was understood beforehand that it was Avalon…. and where to look in the graveyard near the old church between the piramides.

The fraud would be too ‘incredible’ without a precursor which primed everyone to accept such a sudden revelation that Glastonbury used to be named Avalon.  Gerald recounts the conditions whereby the excavations were undertaken which I will cover in detail in a following chapter. There is only one person who could give the directions to locate the grave of Arthur which were in DA... and he is both the inventor of Avalon and Arthur.

The name Avalon is seemingly given so as to appear as an accepted fact in the postscript of St Patrick’s charter and chapters 1&2 of DA. Yet the information regarding where Arthur is buried is seemingly so inconsequential (matter of fact) it is nearly, but not quite, worthy of ‘omitting’ in DA. It would take a very opportune Henry de Sully to insist he had unearthed Arthur at Glastonbury without for instance Caradoc’s convenient episode linking Arthur to Glastonbury and without there being any previous cognition of Avalon as the former name of Glastonbury.  It is also evident that if the situation of Arthur’s gravesite were given by a late interpolator, why are there no other circumstances recorded about the disinterment in DA. I think that given the lock of hair and the gorilla skull having being covered also for the length of time since Henry Manufactured the grave was also what convinced people the gave site was genuine. (See the chapter on Giraldus Cambrensis)

William was employed to collate all the evidence of Glastonbury’s antiquity in a book. It was at this time Henry realised, not only did Glastonbury have an untraceable history, but so did insular Britain prior to Gildas, excepting the accounts of the Roman annals. Henry does not admit his history was initially intended for his uncle but contrives his resoning for composing HRB in the initial prologue of Vulgate HRB.  He infers, that Henry Blois had the idea to outshine the plodding yet honest history of the half Saxon from Malmesbury: Many a time in turning over in my own mind the many themes which might be subject-matter of a book, my thoughts would fall upon the plan of writing a history of the Kings of Britain.  

It is therefore, mightily fortuitous, that after considering the subject matter and then falling upon a plan to write a History of the Kings of Britain, that, lo and behold, ‘Geoffrey’s’ good friend Walter has a book, which only needs translating..... and by chance, the same subject matter that Henry/Geoffrey had decided to write about, was fully covered therein. How is that for convenience? One wonders if Crick sees how ludicrous such a proposition is. It seems fair to suggest Henry did not alter the form of his already started original work destined for Matilda or his Uncle which had so many queens in insular history, but either built upon a brief account of Arthur in the original version for his uncle or invented the whole section on Arthuriana based upon his time in Wales in 1136seeing the topography and  the ruins of Caerleon.

William’s method of construction of DA was to provide an informative chronological succession of abbots through old charters, endowments and account for land holdings as well as providing a backdrop for the abbey’s sanctity and its illustrious personages. He attempted to provide an unbroken line of Abbots from the oldest 601 charter by referencing all the information provided in the Liber Terrarum (which is no longer extant) and trawling existing documents provided by the monks.  Bede’s mention of Lucius’s act in appealing to Eleutherius is highlighted not by William but by Henry. Scott seems to think William had served Glastonbury well by identifying the builders of the Church as the missionaries sent by Eleutherius and thinks it was William who had speculated that the church had been founded by the disciples themselves. Quite ludicrous.

Most crucially, it was Henry who had stated in HRB that following the work of Pagan and Duvian the Pope set bishops where there had been flamens, and archbishops where there were archflamens. The seats of the archflamens were in the three noblest cities, in London, York and in Caerleon and this transpired supposedly long before Augustine’s Canterbury. The point being that the region which included Glastonbury (Leogria) in that era was not subject to Canterbury: Unto the Metropolitan of London Loegria and Cornwall were subject.[76] 

By the end of the thirteenth century the Monks at Abingdon had concocted a similar foundation myth based upon ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB (and Glastonbury’s) where Fagn and Divian on the same mission to Lucius had founded their abbey also. They even invented a legendary Irish monk Abbennus, the eponym of Mount Abbenus (much like Geoffrey love of eponyms) where their monastery now stands.

It is not silly to suggest that the most powerful prelate in the land at William’s death requested William’s later redactions of GR from the monks at Malmesbury and interpolated the Glastonburyana into GR3.  We should be aware of Stubbs observation concerning the renown of William at Malmesbury: With the exception indeed of the incidental references made by successive chroniclers, who borrowed from his history, there is nothing to be learned of him from extrinsic sources till the time of Leland, who indignantly observes, that even at Malmesbury, in his own monastery, they had nearly lost all remembrance of their brightest ornament.

Therefore, given the evidence above, it cannot be assumed that GR3 which contains insertions which run word for word with passages in the DA to have been written by William. Once we establish this and the reasoning behind the GR3 (B version) interpolations and Henry Blois’ ability to carry out interpolations….we should not accept the view that every addition in GR3 was made by William himself between the years 1135 and 1140. This view has been held for some time and used to suggest comparative accuracy in DA.

There is justification for not including the Prophecy of Melkin in DA. If one better understands how Henry Blois has maintained anonymity as the ‘ghost writer’ of many tracts, we can see that the prophecy in essence is central to the three main genres under scrutiny in this work and would tie them together implicating himself as author.

So, obeying his rule, he attaches certain icons to each other, appearing to be from entirely independent authors and leaves them separate for posterity to find. (see the chapter on the Meusan plaques for Henry's legacy to posterity in likening himself to Cicero)

As we have covered, Henry Blois, during his exile to Clugny, killed off Geoffrey of Monmouth in the same year he wrote VM. It is in VM we can see he has formed a plan concerning the conversion of Glastonbury into Avalon.[77] Only later, on his return to England, does he make more amendments to the DA with Joseph material…. once his first (metropolitan) agenda becomes obsolete/redundant.

Joseph was originally associated by the Melkin prophecy with Ineswitrin and the duo fassula and Joseph was also connected with a magical vessel.... and Avalon by Robert de Boron.

Arthur’s circle (i.e. the chivalric knights) is associated with the Grail by Chrétien. Arthur and Joseph are associated by the Grail and both connected to Glastonbury. It is a master-class in illusion, brought about by fraudulent authorship by the man who accounts authorship of more worth than any other facet of value normally placed on mammon…. and this by a man who accounts himself above Cicero who was arguably the greatest writer of all time in the ancient world.

Henry Blois is inventor of some of the best known fictitious personages in the history of Britain, Leir, Arviragus, Lucius, Phagan and Deruvian…. not to mention Merlin, but his chivalric Arthur was based upon a Celtic warlord as witnessed in the life of St Cadoc and the warlords friends were Kai and Beduerus.

 Contrary to the consensus held by modern scholarship, Joseph in Britain is not an invention and nor is the precision of the data found in the prophecy of Melkin inaccurate. Nor can the Melkin prophecy be accounted as a coincidentally accurate fraud; and therefore the assumption that Melkin never existed is misguided. The cipher was only recently unlocked by Kim Yale.

 Nor can the legends of the Cornish be ignored or the ancient Greek writers such as Timaeus and Latin writers such as Strabo or Diodorus which tell of Ictis. The most famous place in Britain is Avalon and the fact that it exists in myth at Glastonbury is not by chance, but by design and human intervention. As the reader now understands, it has been achieved by the substitution of the name Ineswitrin, the Briton name for Pytheas' Ictis.

Lagorio believes Joseph is an invented legend at Glastonbury, but does concede: According to one Celtic tradition, possibly preserved and transmitted orally, Joseph’s family held mining interests in south western Britain, thereby permitting him to combine business with evangelism. In slight substantiation of this belief, nothing historically certain is known of Joseph’s actions following the resurrection.[78]

If one insists the legend of Joseph reached maturity in the late fifteenth century and ignores what is evidently at the start in the oldest manuscript of DA unequivocally dated to 1247…. there can be little chance of recognising any truth behind the legend.  Lagorio has dismissed Melkin and taught others to do the same. In reference to assessing Joseph’s ‘heterogeneous’ career, as she brings to an end her exposé, she hopes that the reader might also concur ‘in the Acta Sanctorum’s sagacious, if ironic comment’: Therefore he who wishes to await Arthur’s return to England may also await the fulfilment of that which Melkin promised of Joseph. 

She simply has not understood that Arthur’s return was the Zeitgeist hope of the peasantry in the early twelfth century which Henry Blois eventually addressed by planting a bogus grave between the piramides at Glastonbury and cannot be likened to the geometrical encryption constructed by Melkin to point out the whereabouts of Joseph’s sepulchre. It has been the cloned nature of people who profess to be scholars which have prevented the discovery of Joseph of Arimathea's grave on Burgh Island.

Another example would be the interpretation of Islamic scholars who so frequently are the start of religious hatred in the modern world. Christian theologians are no better in that they have no understanding of the prophets of Israel and interpret their own resurrection which was never posited by the prophets or Jesus.  Would not the world be a better place without religion? The three major religions are at base value an interpretation of the prophets. Just imagine humanity’s self realisation when they understand at last that the words of the prophets are not confined to historical events but were spoken long ago so that mankind would understand that they had been spoken to by genuine prophets.... speaking not the words of men but the words of God.

---

[1] John Scott. The Early history of Glastonbury. Boydell press

[2] See chapter on Eadmer’s letter to the Monks at Glastonbury.

[3] Early history of Glastonbury, p.4-5

[4] William of Malmesbury, Saints lives. Winterbotton and Lapidge. Prologue to VSD vol1

[5] Caradoc of Llancarfan. J.S.P. Tatlock, Speculum, vol XIII P.145

[6] Not forgetting the subtle jibe: religion so flourishes in your time that miserable envy is ashamed to fabricate any falsehood about it.

[7] We have covered in the chapter on GR that most of the updated material on Glastonbury in version B of GR3 are interpolations connected to Henry’s case for apostolic foundation.

[8] John Scott’s chapter 83

[9] The author of the passage is obviously Henry Blois who’s understanding of the ‘duo fassula’ was a vessel containing royal blood or sang real. The author, by giving the date does not realise that the duo fassula is the Shroud which covers the body of Jesus. He does not understand the arrival of Joseph of Arimathea in Britain, also bringing the coffin of Jesus soon after the crucifixion. We can possibly assume that he thinks the Crucifixion took place in 23 AD and aligns the date with the 40 years of captivity as suggested in the Gospel of Nicodemus, or he is aligning his date with other events known to him concerning James and Philip’s movements…. or more likely, since it is mentioned twice: the 15th after the assumption of the glorious Virgin. However, the 63 AD is entirely spurious as Joseph would have arrived c. 35-37 AD to bring his son to be laid to rest in the disused but secreted ‘Ictis’ tin vault on Burgh Island.

[10] Alfred of Beverley’s and Henry of Huntingdon in his letter to Warin both refer to the early book as Historia Britonum’ before it became the Vulgate Historia Regnum Britanniae.

[11] It should not be forgotten that Leland saw Melkin’s prophecy in a work supposedly written by Melkin. We should also consider, rather than upholding the scholastic view, that the ‘round table’ was a Wace invention…. while understanding Melkin is said to have written De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda. It is from this work, I believe, John of Glastonbury procured not only the copy of the Melkin prophecy, but also much other insight which scholars claim came from continental Grail literature. It should rather be recognised that the round table is a Henry Blois invention (hence its appearance at Winchester), and the mention of the round table was in literature at Glastonbury put out as part of Henry’s authorial Arthurian edifice. Scholars need to recognise Arthur was connected to Glastonbury by Henry’s propaganda deposited in DA long before Arthur’s disinterment. Carta Henrici Regis Secundi Filii Matildis Imperatricis De Libertatibus Concessis Ecclesie Glaston. Volume 1, P 186. The Great Chartulary of Glastonbury Dom Aelred Watkin…… Baldredo, Ina, inclito Arthuro, Cuddredo et multis aliis regibus Christianis….

[12] Pope Eleutherius was indeed the thirteenth pope 174-189 AD

[13] We should not forget either that the inspiration for the leaden cross came from Eadmer’s testimony establishing Dunstan’s existence at Canterbury by the leaden tablet found in his grave.

[14] John Scott, The early history of Glastonbury. P.34

[15] John Scott, The early history of Glastonbury. P.29

[16]In Henry’s postulation that ‘Geoffrey’ had sourced his material from a mysterious book, we should be wary of the same ploy being used by Henry Blois a second time. It is a gambit by which Henry lends credence to the source of the Grail legend, seemingly having been derived from an ancient ‘Book of the Grail’. I do not deny the existence of a Grail book in that Chrétien says he has obtained one from Philip of Flanders (Henry’s cousin), but my conclusion is that it was written by Henry Blois. Certainly no book could have come from a realistic Avalon. The Intention is to connect the ‘duo fassula’ and Joseph found in the Prophecy of Melkin, also written in Latin and found at Glastonbury with the book of the Grail which supposedly came from a religious house where Arthur and Guinevere were buried. The idea is that we are to believe that the Grail book has its origins in the ecclesiastical system.

[17] In his book ‘And Did Those Feet’ Goldsworthy had thought of King Arthur as an historical figure.  Efforts were made by Goldsworthy to obtain permission from the hoteliers on Burgh Island to show them where he thought a tunnel entrance existed to the sepulchre, but the Devon Archaeological Society and the owners of the Island took advice from experts who advised that Arthur could not be on the island on account of ‘Geoffrey’ having invented his persona.

[18] John Scott. The early history of Glastonbury, Boydell press.

[19]Mater Sanctorum dicta est, ab aliis Tumulus Sanctorum, Quam ab ipsis discipulis Domini edificatum et ab ipso Domino dedicatum primo fuisse venerabilis habet antiquorum auctoritas. Great Cartulary of Glastonbury p.186

[20] HRB IV, xvi 'Some King shalt thou lead captive, or from the draught-tree of his British chariot, headlong shall fall Arviragus’. Originally in Juvenal, Satire IV, .126-127,a satirical poem by Juvenal, in which a giant turbot presented to the Roman emperor Domitian (AD 81 – 96) is said to be an omen that "you will capture some King, or Arviragus will fall from his British chariot-pole".

[21] Carley. The Chronicle of Glastonbury abbey. P li.  The first official recognition of Joseph at Glastonbury is not recorded until John wrote his Cronica in the early 1340’s; what status the legend enjoyed before then, and when it was actually incorporated in DA is not clear. It is not clear because Carley refuses to believe Henry Blois could have interpolated DA or been responsible for Joseph lore at Glastonbury. This is largely based on the fact that Gerald does not mention Joseph's name. Why should Giraldus when he is commenting on Arthur’s disinterment? He does not mention St Patrick either…. so Carley has concluded the St Patrick charter is by a later interpolator also. Let me therefore make it clear. Joseph lore and the St Patrick charter were included in DA before Henry Blois’ death…. just as the Grail was taken to Avalon in Robert’s work long before Arthur was unearthed.

[22] The fact that Henry’s other greatest fiction of Arthur’s continental battle scene derives from the same area in the Blois region witnesses Henry’s source of inspiration is personal.

[23] It is not by accident that Henry Blois’ friend Bernard refers to Henry as a rival pope in his letter to pope Lucius II where he alludes to ‘vitis illa Wincestrie, immo ut vulgo canitur, vitis secunde Rome’

[24] Aelred Watkin would have us believe regarding Iniswitrin, Inis Gutrin, Isle of Glass, Avalon, Avallo etc:  At first sight these epithets may seem disparate, but there is one factor that is common to them all, namely a reference in some form or another to a Celtic underworld or beyond world, a magical abode of healing and of peace. Watkin is certainly right about the common factor but it has nothing to do with a Celtic underworld.

[25] The final paragraph in which we are assured are the genuine words of Caradoc in the Life of Gildas, we get the etymological convolution which is employed solely to make the Ineswitrin on the 601 charter credibly appear to pertain to the location of Glastonbury: Glastonia was of old called Ynisgutrin, and is still called so by the British inhabitants. Ynis in the British language is insula in Latin, and gutrin (made of glass). But after the coming of the English and the expulsion of the Britons, that is, the Welsh, it received a fresh name, Glastigberi, according to the formation of the first name, that is English glass, Latin vitrum, and beria a city; then Glastinberia, that is, the City of Glass.

[26] John Scott’s DA, P.188, note24

[27]This date is approximate for he records the burial of Eleanor, queen of Edward I, as taking place 27 December 1290. He says that after that event Abbot John was summoned by the King to the funeral of his mother, Eleanor of Provence, which was performed at Ambresbury on the festival of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, 8 September 1291

[28]I will discuss this point concerning Eleanor in the Chapter on Gerald of Wales.

[29]rather than to dwell in Kings' palaces

[30]HRB IV, viii. The name of the King's nephew was Hyreglas;  who in HRB X,v. just happens to be Hireglas of Periron the nephew of Bedevere. ‘Periron’, I conclude, is the river Parrett near Glastonbury upon which Henry built a mill . Henry Blois also also had a White horse, hence we see in a Merlin prophecy: An old man, moreover, snowy white, sitting upon a snow-white horse, shall turn aside the river of Pereiron and with a white wand shall measure out a mill thereon in HRB VII, iii.

[31]It is worth noting for those sceptics who deny there is an alignment of Churches along the St Michael Line i.e. the line which starts at Avebury and runs to St Michael’s mount in Cornwall, which Melkin directs us to bifurcate; that both Glastonbury tor and St Michael’s Mount were both dedicated to Michael already at the time of the Norman invasion. Henry Blois here, as the inventor of the St Patrick charter, re-iterates this fact. This is the alignment (meridianum Anglum) to which Melkin expects us to bifurcate within the circle of Avebury (sperula) at an angle of 13 degrees; and extend a line for 104 miles south (through Montacute) to locate an Island. 

[32] At the time (post 1158), when the substitution of the name was carried out on the Melkin Prophecy, it made no difference to Henry Blois as the establishment of Ineswitrin at Glastonbury had only had importance in establishing the 601 charter as authentic. It should not be forgotten that it was Henry Blois who established Arthur at Avalon using the Melkin prophecy as a template and also Henry was the person who first propagated the Joseph d’Arimathie legend on the continent before Robert de Boron.

[33] Robinson’s assumption is largely based on the mention of Wellias, which, as we have covered, could be a later interpolation (but could just as well be Henry providing the eponym for Wells nearby), and the fact that Robinson does not envisage Avalon as having been propagandised by Henry Blois, but he thinks it is established by the appearance at Glastonbury of the leaden cross.

[34] HRB IV, xx

[35]  In Nennius, it states that: After the birth of Christ, one hundred and sixty seven years, King Lucius with all the chiefs of the British people received baptism in consequence of a legation sent by the Roman emperors and Pope (Evaristus) Eleutherius.  This is obviously lifted from Bede’s mistaken identity of Lucius. Now, If we remember Henry’s penchant for purposefully changing the spelling of names to give the air of inaccuracy over time (because the first year of Evaristus was A.D. 79), and couple this with my suspicion of certain interpolations into Nennius….. one can only be very suspicious at the appearance of a Legate in 167 AD. Even though a Legatus is a general officer of the ancient Roman army drawn from among the senatorial class…. a Papal Legate is a messenger from the Holy See, which we know were not in operation in 167 AD.  However, we are still no clearer on the subject of interpolation in Nennius given Henry’s obvious attempts in HRB to have us believe Nennius’ work was written by Gildas.

[36] The consensus of modern scholarship is that with the mention of Wellias as part of the narrative, the charter must be a product of the Savaric dispute.  The death of Robert of Lewes as Bishop of Bath is the root cause of future conflict where a good relation had always previously been maintained between Robert and Henry Blois.   Robert died in 1166 and Henry soon after in 1171.  Conventionally, the Glastonbury monastery, like most others, was subject to the diocese. After the death of the bishop of Bath the contention appeared. Robert of Lewes was indebted to Henry Blois for his position.  Robert worked with Henry for the benefit of Glastonbury. At the death of Henry Blois the interference started. For nearly fifty years it had been run under the auspices of the Bishop of Winchester and it was rich pickings for Savaric.

[37] HRB. IV, xix

[38] As we know, scholarship’s view is erroneous in its belief that First Variant followed Vulgate. It is also misguided in its view that Merlin and his prophecies were present in the copy of HRB found at Bec and it is a ridiculous assumption that any mention of Merlin and his prophecies were purposefully omitted by Huntingdon in EAW. (considering the two storylines to Stonehenge).

[39] Julia Crick, HRB, dissemination and reception in the later middle ages. P.17

[40] Crick p.18 also comments that ‘many copies were in circulation during Geoffrey’s lifetime’. It is ironic that even if Geoffrey had lived in reality, virtually no copies circulated until after 1155. The completion of the Vulgate version and introduction of the updated prophecies, where we witness the ‘sixth invading Ireland’ prophecy, was composed after 1155.

[41]All of this is prompted and inspired from Nennius’s boy Ambrose and the two serpents as witnessed in chapter 42 of Nennius

[42] Galfidus Arthur’s association with the Welsh is that Henry located Arthur’s utopian Caerleon there (and this is why Alfred of Beverley thinks he is a ‘Britannicus’). Also his association with Ralf in the Oxford charters…. having come from Monmouth. Only after these charters were tampered with, did ‘Geoffrey’ have his provenance from Monmouth written into the Vulgate.

[43]The question of Indulgences has been investigated by Dr. H. C. Lea in his work on Auricular Confession. The earliest grant which he can point to as indisputably genuine is that made by Urban II at the dedication of the church of St Nicholas at Angers in 1096 AD: it gave one month's relaxation of enjoined penance for the anniversary.  At the dedication of Cluny in 1132, Innocent II granted 40 days for the anniversary.  There is a grant by the papal legate, Peter of Cluny, to Westminster in 1121: this gave relaxation of 40 days of criminalia and a third of enjoined penance for minora to those who visited the church on the festival of the martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul. In Dr. Lea's list we find that in 1163 Alexander III, in dedicating S. Germain des Prés, granted a year on the actual occasion and 20 days for the anniversary. Henry saw the advantage of indulgences, but his grants provided by St Phagan and St Deruvian make these other genuine dispensations fade into insignificance with ten years. The indulgences would not have been present in DA when shown to papal authorities and must be part of the later consolidation.

[44] HRB, XI, iii

[45] It must not be forgotten that at this stage the Primary Historia was written by Galfridus Arthur initially, not Geoffrey of Monmouth who was miraculously to become Bishop of Asaph, but only after he had been consigned to death by Henry Blois.

[46] John of Hexam chap 22

[47] The early history of Glastonbury, p. 191 note 36

[48] Author B’s Junioris

[49]Rhygyvarch's Life of St David, A.W. Wade-Evans's  translation1923

[50] In Henry Blois’ Perlesvaus (derived from Master Blehis), we hear ‘coincidentally’ of the chapel nouvelemant faite, qui mout estoit bele e riche; si estoit covert de plon….

[51]An anonymous manuscript in the British Museum verifies that an altarpiece containing a large sapphire was among the items confiscated by Henry VIII during the dissolution of the monasteries in the mid-16th century. It does not seem too silly to suggest that the gem referred to (which Henry Blois had tried to buy at Waltham for 100 marks) is the stone by which St David’s altar became famous.  The gold-leafed wooden portion remains, but the sapphire is missing. It would have been easy enough to cover wood with gold leaf and the spurious find (by Henry himself) puts St David at Glastonbury…. which of course, Henry Blois as the interpolator, is trying to square with Rhygyvarch's Life of St David. Through Henry’s interpolation, Glastonbury now owns a consecrated altar upon which the patriarch of Jerusalem used to offer the body of our Lord. The implication is that the altar was constructed and after the miraculous find of a sapphire the two were put together which indicated to the gullible that St David had hidden the sapphire and thus we are allowed to believe this is Rhygyvarch's association of St David adding to the church. To complete the illusion, we are informed by Henry Blois that St David built the stone church but there was of course an already extant wattle church and therefore there is no contradiction to Rhygyvarch.

Saint David was unrecognized as a saint until he was canonized by Pope Callixtus II in 1123, most probably through the influence of Bishop Bernard. As a friend of Henry Blois,’ we find Bernard’s position regarding the metropolitan greatly aided through ‘Geoffrey’ / Henry Blois’ Merlin prophecies concerning St David’s.

[52] John Scott p.197.77

[53]We cannot know if Henry purposefully changed the name Avaron or if it was a later scribal error, but it is a madness to think that Glastonbury converted itself into Avalon and invented Joseph following Robert de Boron. This would imply that Robert de Boron is supposedly responsible for the Grail at Glastonbury. This truly would be a convergent set of fortuitous factors if we are in denial about the Melkin prophecy’s duo fassula being the template for the Grail. We would then have to deny the similarity of a body being found on Avalon just as Arthur was; and the coincidence that Joseph will be found in the future on Ineswitrin. Only a scholar would account the Melkin prophecy a fake and ignore the fact that the geometric instructions locate Burgh Island.  Until it is accepted that Henry named Avalon by substituting the name Ineswitrin on the prophecy with Insula Avallonis, and the name of Avalon and Arthur’s manufactured gravesite on the island (located ay Glastonbury) are a complete invention…. scholars will be confounded in solving the puzzle of how La Matière de Bretagne evolved from genuine events just after the crucifixion.

[54] Firstly, the argument does not hold because the date of the 601 charter predates the West Saxon take over of the abbey c.670. Secondly, even with Henry’s clever explanation of the change of name and re-donation…. it is impossible to donate an island to a church on which the church stands. Also it is purely logical that if Ineswitrin and five cassates represented the entire Island of Glastonbury (as we are led to believe by the spurious etymologies)…. why are only five cassates being donated if the charter really does apply to the whole Island of Witrin defined by the word Ines. The Island is obviously in Devon and is the present day Burgh Island which has the five cottages on it. (And a very ugly hotel)

[55] Interpolation into chapter 69 of DA.

[56] Logically, if William had been employed to highlight the antiquity of the Abbey, he is going to start with the most ancient piece of evidence…. which not only was dated, but also showed a church referred to at Glastonbury as already old at that date.

[57]  GR vol ii p.403

[58] On September 23, 1149 Eugenius III consecrated Guido de Summa Bishop of Ostia. He died in 1151. It is more likely that the DA was shown at Rome between these dates with the St Patrick charter (copy). Even though the 601 charter was genuine it was given a rationalizing postscript in DA... .just as the St Patrick charter,

[59]William A Nitze, Glastonbury and the Holy Grail p.248. “The interesting passages bearing upon this subject have been conclusively discussed by Professor Baist and M. Lot (a relation of mine). On more than one occasion the former scholar has expressed the opinion that in the twelfth century Glastonbury witnessed the production of an ecclesiastical Arthur story which was based on the Perceval of Crestien, and which brought the latter romance into relation with the local legend of Joseph of Arimathea and his brethren as founders of Glastonbury Abbey.”  This of course would be the only explanation, if one does not implicate Henry Blois as the instigator of continental stories…. or accept him as the original author of the material contained in Perlesvaus. However, the basis for modern scholar’s conclusions rests upon the assumption that the discovery of Arthur is the product of an un-associated and concocted discovery by Henry De Sully. Scholars have not taken into account that where Arthur lay is pointed out in DA and the possibility it was also told to Henry II by Henry Blois on his deathbed. Most Scholars have followed Nitze’s conclusions and based their assessments on the fact (according to Logario) that Joseph does not feature in DA in 1171 (or 1191) and the Melkin prophecy is a fourteenth century fraud. King Henry II visited the dying bishop Henry Blois on August 6^th in 1171 after his return to England. Henry Blois predicted that the King would suffer much persecution for what he had allowed to happen to Becket. Two days later Henry Blois died. It is not silly to posit that Henry Blois told the King that an ancient bard had told him where to find King Arthur as the tomb's location was posited in DA, as Giraldus indicates: Indeed, there had been some evidence from the records that the body might be found there,

[60] Caradoc, Life of Gildas: Glastonia was of old called Ynisgutrin, and is still called so by the British inhabitants. Ynis in the British language is insula in Latin, and gutrin (made of glass).

[61] Crick writes a paper on ‘the Marshalling of Antiquity: Glastonbury’s Historical dossier’. This high sounding revelation starts with:  the use to which history was put by the monks of Glastonbury…nurturing a cult of venerability which was spurious in the extreme. Why they felt impelled to do this, what they thought they were doing, and how they tackled their task are questions which underlie the following paper.  The only thing spurious regarding Geoffrey of Monmouth or Crick’s knowledge of events at Glastonbury is her expertise. Crick attaches some sort of connection between Arthur being unearthed in 1191 with the state of the abbey at Henry Blois’s arrival. It is a certain fact that Henry Blois had not even thought of making Insula Avallonis commensurate with Glastonbury in 1126: The ultimate explanation for the historical and hagiographical creations of William of Malmesbury and Caradog of Llancarfan probably lies in reduced circumstances in which Henry of Blois found the monastery in the 1120’s when he came to be its abbot.

[62] Adam of Damerham relates that Richard I was captured by the Duke of Austria who gave his captive to the Emperor of Germany. Now, Savaric was a cousin of the Emperor and because of the King Richard’s importunity.... was suffered to grant him the Bishopric of Bath as well as the abbey of Glastonbury for his release from his chains.  Henry de Sully was summoned to Durrenstein and informed of the transition of Glastonbury to Savaric and Henry was elevated to the Bishopric of Worcester instead.

[63] Adam of Damerham says at the same time other saints were dug up such as the bones of St Patrick, St Indract.  Adam repeats Henry’s interpolation and confirmation of the story about Dunstan’s translation. This is also another proof that it was Henry who had started the rumour and wrote the account in DA for which Eadmer at the time said there was no written evidence. Naturally, William of Malmesbury does not mention the translation of Dunstan because he knows it is a recent fabricated rumour. So we can deduce soon after the fire Dunstan’s coffin was fabricated and our consolidator of DA adds this account after the fire.

[64] Arthurian Literature in the middle ages R.S Loomis p.67

[65] See Image 5

[66]Carley’s fatuous explanation of the numerical data is at least an attempt to find relevance: Buried there is Abbadare powerful in saphat, who sleeps there with 104,000 among whom was Joseph from across the sea who lies in Linea bifurcate against the south corner of the wattle church built by the thirteen inhabitants of the place.

[67] Yet the material concerning the many Queens of Briton was still left rather than re-composing or changing the chronology and story line of the original Pseudo-History as the back bone of what became the Primary Historia.

[68] Both the 601 charter and the Prophecy of Melkin both named Ineswitrin.

[69] William might have met Caradoc, but he was probably not at Glastonbury and had died c. 1129. (See chapter 22 on Caradoc). It is most probable that the Life of Gildas was written after Stephen came to the throne and before 1140 which, as we discussed, is determined by the date of construction of the cathedral at Modena which has the kidnap episode engraved upon it.

[70] The original plan to which William refers in the prologue of DA is to counter Osbern’s accusation which, (without lying about Dunstan’s relics in VD 1&2) he accomplishes by the various proofs in his unadulterated DA, especially by commencing DA with the 601 Charter.

[71] HRB, IV. xix

[72] In the VM we find the same reference by ‘Geoffrey’ to his own HRB: Therefore, ye Britons, give a wreath to Geoffrey of Monmouth.  He is indeed yours for once he sang of your battles and those of your chiefs, and he wrote a book called “The Deeds of the Britons”

[73] Life of Dunstan I, 15.5, William of Malmesbury’s Saints Lives, Winterbottom and Thompson.

[74]Just to show the convolutions which modern scholars have undergone adhering to certain misguided a prioris and how it seems that they are blind to the input of Henry Blois at Glastonbury and his influence on the Matter of Britain…. I will provide one extract from Watkin which should amuse the reader in its associations: We can then conceive of a story, apparently known at Glastonbury and probably lying behind the late twelfth-century de Boron’s Joseph d’Arimathie and its amplification in the Estoire del Saint Graal which brought the Grail-bearer to Glastonbury. But the medieval Glastonbury writers merely use this story to bring Joseph himself to Glastonbury; they never asserted that he brought the Grail. That is one line of approach, we may now suggest another. One of the vexed questions of hagiology is the story of the growth of the cult of St Mary Magdalen. There is first the process by which the martyrs Maria and Martha become identified with the sisters of Bethany and the confusion between Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalen, Martha and Lazarus in Provence and in Burgundy. At the moment it is impossible to say at what date Joseph of Arimathea is added to this group of Emigrants from the Holy Land. But the fact remains the cult of Lazarus has been traced back to the tenth century at Autun and, more recently still has been shown that Avalon was before Autun in the cult of Lazarus. But equally at Glastonbury we find evidence of an early cult of Lazarus. His festival occurs in a cotemporary addition to the tenth century Leofric missal and in a twelfth century Glastonbury collectarium. This festival is unknown in any other English calendars of these dates. Is it possible that here we come somewhere near to a clue to the introduction of the cult of Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, is it possible that legends connecting him with Avallon in Burgundy were transferred by a natural confusion to the isle of Avalon? At the moment this can be no more than a query, for no reference to an early cult of St Joseph at Avallon has yet been found. But it is interesting in this connexion to note that the Estoire del Saint Graal was written in Burgundy, that St Mary Magdalen is mentioned in an Eleventh century Glastonbury kalendar at Cambridge that the Hermitage mentioned in the Glastonbury version of Perlesvaus was dedicated to her…….Arthurian Literature XV edited by James P. Carley, Felicity Riddy. P.88

[75]SOMERSET HISTORICAL ESSAYS By J. Armitage Robinson

[76] HRB IV, xix

[77] Or even New Jerusalem at a later date as noted earlier in the additions to VM, quoted in John’s Cronica.

[78] Valerie. Lagorio. The evolving legend of St Joseph of Glastonbury.

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