The extract below is from a book written by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot tiled 'The Island of Avalon' concerning the fraudulent works composed by Henry Blois.
You can also see the new 2019 updated website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6
You can also see the new 2019 updated website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6
Geffrei Gaimar and the L’estoire des Engles
It is worth noting at this stage, another
factor in appointing a later development of the Vulgate version than previously
thought by modern scholars. Briefly,
Geoffrey Gaimar claims to have written a version of the Brut based uponGeoffrey of Monmouth's HRB.
No copy of Gaimar's Brut, or, (as it is better known), L'Estoire des
Bretons has survived. This is simply
because it was never written. It is by no accident that Wace’s Roman de Brut is found along with all
four manuscripts of L'Estoire des Engles. I have maintained that Wace’s Roman de Brut was written by Henry Blois to spread his HRB to a
wider audience in the French Vernacular on the continent. Wace’s Roman de Brut was combined with a
manuscript i.e. together with L'Estoire des Engles and distributed by
Henry Blois when Gaimar had already completed the L'Estoire des Engles. Most commentators believe Gaimar’s Roman de Breton did not survive as it
was outclassed by Wace’s work and thus it was transposed to be replaced with a
superior work. This view is largely based on the fact that L’Estoire des Engles is notand artful work. Gaimar wrote L’Estoire des Engles and Henry then
interpolated it with a few Arthurian insertions after Gaimar’s death. However,
the point of this was so that the epilogue could state what it does about the
source material of HRB. The point of this is so that Walter is implicated….just
as the HRB states, and Henry’s authorship is hidden and ‘Geoffrey’ becomes
merely a translator not inventor of HRB’s contents. The creation of ‘Gaimar’s’
epilogue is Henry Blois’ main purpose behind impersonating Gaimar. ‘Gaimar’s’
epilogue provides an erroneous conflationary and misleading provenance for HRB.
The epilogue could not carry out its function unless L’Estoire des Bretons was supposedly to have been ‘apparently’
written by Gaimar. Without the proposition that Gaimar wrote the L’Estoire des Bretons, how would the
‘good book’ be mentioned? It is for this reason all four copies of Gaimar’s
genuine work, interpolated slightly by Henry, have another of Henry’s works
attached; Wace’s Roman de Brut. It is entirely wrong to think the L’Estoire des Bretons ever existed.
It was
again an extremely clever ploy by Henry Blois. Gaimar’s statements in the
epilogue ostensibly are employed to mislead, which ultimately only corroborate
the proposition of the fraudulent source book when put under scrutiny. This is
especially evident when we consider there are no dedications in the First
Variant except where Robert’s name is added subsequently to a copy and there is
certainly no mention of Walter. The proposition, by ‘Geoffrey’, that Walter
supplied his source book only becomes relevant to Henry Blois at the advent of
the publication of Vulgate and its prophecies…. as more people scrutinized the
appearance of a supposed translation of a history found in an old book and of
course the Prophecies.
At the
time the First Variant was employed in 1144, Robert of Gloucester was still
alive and therefore no dedication could be used. However his name is in one
copy of the First Variant as it was probably employed in 1149 just after his
death. It may however be a later correction. Anyway, Gaimar’s epilogue was
concocted and employed to establish certain corroborations of statements made
in the Vulgate HRB, thereby adding the credence of what was maintained by a
third party author. ‘Gaimar’s’ epilogue provides independent witness to
‘Geoffrey’s’ statement concerning the mythical book obtained from Walter. The
intention was to show that a book from which Vulgate HRB was supposedly
translated actually existed. The book did not exist. Most scholars realize that
the Historia is a composite and could
not be a translation of an old book. Keller has Walter as the inventor of the
First Variant to rationalize this position. Logically, Walter could hardly give
any book to the invented persona of Geoffrey of Monmouth and far less when he
is dead at the advent of the Vulgate edition. Ingeniously, Gaimar’s witness
fraudulently establishes Robert of Gloucester as having had this historical narrative adapted and translated in accordance with
the books belonging to the Welsh.
Henry Blois might have known Walter, but we
should not forget that Henry signed six or seven charters as Galfridus Artur and the bishop of Asaph
while in the scriptorium at Oxford in 1153, two years after Walter had died.
Walter’s name was upon the charters, but in all probability Walter and Henry
had previously met as Stephen visited Oxford castle at various times as a base
in the changing fortunes of the Anarchy. Henry Blois only employed Walter as a
‘decoy’ for providing the source of his history after Walter’s death and only in
the Vulgate version. Logically, he must have known Walter had died and it was
safe to use his name. The reason Henry Blois went to such an elaborate extent
in laying a false trail is that people were looking for Geoffrey of Monmouth
and starting to ask where this man existed and how he got hold of the
information and where was this mysterious source book. This was especially
relevant also to Henry distancing himself from composition and authorship of
the prophecies which incited rebellion against Henry II. The reason the modern
reader knows nothing of this (and it is not recorded) is that…. by the time any
of these fictions (like the contemporaneity of Caradoc mentioned in the
colophon), Walter and his mysterious book…. and the erroneous dedicatees, came
to be inquired about by skeptics, they could not be verified. Henry’s ploy of
backdating made it appear as if the Vulgate HRB had been published at least 15
years earlier in 1138-9. Quite simply any avenue of enquiry could not be made
because all supposed witnesses were now dead.
We know the First Variant gradually
circulated with no dedication or mention of Alexander or Walter. It was only after Walter’s death in 1151 that
Henry would have needed to have found a solution to the growing question of how
‘Geoffrey’ had an account of history at variance to Roman annals and how his
history varied from Gildas’s diatribe and Bede’s history.
As I have maintained, with the gradual
proliferation of the First Variant with such as Alfred of Beverley commenting
on HRB, it seems fair to posit that in 1153, while at Wallingford, and at the
time the Treaty of Winchester was agreed…. that Henry visited Oxford to
scribble Gaufridus’ signature on charters found in the scriptorium picked at
random. He also came up with the idea of a Geoffrey from ‘Monmouth’ based on
Ralph of Monmouth as we covered earlier. Henry also at this same time portrayed
the progression of an aspiring man dutifully flattering patrons and exasperated
at his lack of promotion waiting to become a bishop. The only real problem with
this scenario is that if ‘Geoffrey’ really were complaining to Robert de
Chesney in VM for further reward than that which had been given earlier by
Alexander, (and VM was supposedly written in 1155), Geoffrey is already a
bishop and dead. So, Geoffrey would
hardly be seeking a better reward as is posited in the prologue of VM.
Logically, he must have started the poem at least a year previously to
accomplish the task before 1155. We know by use of the Variant in Wace’s
versified version that Henry had started the vernacular version of the Roman de Brut before 1155 and completed
it once Vulgate was a finished composition.
Henry finally signs ‘Geoffrey’s’ name on the
treaty of Winchester as the bishop of Asaph. At what date this was done we
cannot say as the treaty was probably in Henry’s keeping at Winchester and the
signature may have been added long afterward. What is sure is that no
‘Geoffrey’ witnessed the signing of the treaty and no other Bishop ever met
Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Hammer’s First Variant gives the name Galfridus Arturus Monemutensis only in
the Colophon. This runs contrary to my theory that the Monmouth appellation is
late. This would however most likely be a later correction or insertion. It
seems to me that Ralph of Monmouth’s name inspired Henry to change from Gaufridus Arthur to Geoffrey of Monmouth
in 1153 when Duke Henry, King Stephen and Henry Blois met at Oxford castle.
However, back to Gaimar. The late
interpolation into Gaimar’s work is determined by the fact that the book of
Oxford is mentioned. The mention of Walter is definitely a part of Henry’s
device that could only be employed after 1151 when Walter had died. A clear motive is seen in Henry Blois’
impostor of Gaimar. Pressure mounted on Henry Blois and he tried to distance
himself from authorship of HRB yet maintain its credibility. It must certainly
have been known that his name was linked to the Historia as he had presented it as evidence in Rome and doubtless
could be connected to its proliferation and copying.
L'Estoire
des Engles or
the ‘History of the English people’, was written by Gaimar originally.
Essentially, until Henry Blois got his hands on it…. it was the ASC in poetic
form which also could be said to have more insight toward the northern regions
i.e. written by someone in the North of England.
L'Estoire
des Engles was
certainly (but only slightly) interpolated with Arthurian lore by Henry Blois.
The fact that Belinus is mentioned…. we know that Gaimar has been interpolated
by someone concerned with corroborating part of ‘Geoffrey’s’ bogus history. On
this point, modern scholars have suggested that both Gaimar and Geoffrey were
working from the same sources. This position is only tenable if we believe the
veracity of what is stated in the epilogue in that Gaimar actually composed L’estoire des Breton. He did not!!!
This
is what we are supposed to believe when some interpolations into Gaimar’s
original L'Estoire des Engles refer to Arthuriana. The reason Henry has
lighted upon Gaimar’s work for a front, to implant his propaganda, is that
Gaimar has (to an extent) versified the ASC for Lady Constance…. and therefore
could be accountable as having produced a poetical rendition of Walter’s book.
This is the implication we are led to believe by the reference to L’estoire des Bretons. Let there be no
mistaking…. before any reference to Walter was made in the Vulgate HRB, Walter
was already dead. So, the Primary Historia that spawned EAW and in
the First Variant, there is no Walter mentioned as both these were composed
while Walter was alive. Walter’s book was called upon as a dramatic prop,
employed to give the air of authenticity to ‘Geoffrey’s’ source material, but
more importantly to distance the author of HRB from the accusation of having
fabricated it from his own imagination.
Originally
Gaimar wrote his adaptation of ASC as a chronicle in octosyllabic rhymed
couplets and he opens with a brief mention of King Arthur whose actions affect
the plot of the interpolated tale of Havelok the Dane. Basically, the first 3,500 lines are translations
out of a variant text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and subsequent
portions are a mix of more of Henry’s fantastic invention and Gaimar’s genuine
work. Henry’s guile is unsurpassed here (and
we know what is on his mind) as the opening lines declare: Heretofore in the former
book, if you remember it, you have heard how perfectly Constantine held the
dominion after Arthur…
Why
would we not remember it if, as the epilogue makes out, Gaimar is writing a
continuous history from Troy to William Rufus. What Henry Blois has cleverly
done in the epilogue is infer firstly that Gaimar wrote L’estoire des Bretons and that the Trojan epic and the Arthuriana
were in other works used by Gaimar. But by mentioning the ‘good book of Oxford’
he shoots himself in the foot and provides a proof positive for those that are
not gullible, because we know that Gaimar’s testimony must be after Walter
died. Walter does not feature in the earlier First Variant. The whole farce is
initially concocted in the Vulgate…. therefore, we can definitively say
Gaimar’s epilogue was composed not only after Walter’s death but subsequent
also to his name’s inclusion in the Vulgate.
L’estorie de
Wincestre was the copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which
supposedly Gaimar used and refers to in the text. It is not wildly speculative
to assume that Henry had placed that book chained in Winchester and
interpolated it with Arthurian lore and this is the reason we are led to
believe that ‘Gaimar’ lends credence to it as an independent source. In effect,
creating the aura that what the ‘Winchester book’ contained was genuine. Also,
one can speculate that the ploy was also meant to show that this book was at
Winchester before Henry became bishop.
What needs to be understood is Henry’s vast wealth
and influence over many disparate scriptoriums. This enabled him to have
interpolated copies run off by various monks in differing locations where no
cause for suspicion was involved in a wealthy bishop requesting a copy be made
of a certain manuscript. No one scriptorium aware of what others under Henry’s
instruction were up to. These did his bidding and became the main way he was
able to propagate HRB through the monastic system and disseminate through his
contacts at court.
As long as we know Gaimar’s testimony in the
epilogue is a fake, there is nothing to say that the name Geoffrey of Monmouth
even existed before 1153 or the Vulgate (unless in a corrected copy). In 1153
Gervaise was 12 years old, so his testimony regarding the Bishop of Asaph is
hardly reliable and Henry Blois might have planted evidence of Geoffrey’s
consecration by Theobald while Theobald was out of the country, temporarily
banished by Stephen. The most powerful prelate in the land could plant any
evidence he wanted anywhere in the church records system.
Henry
Blois, posing as Gaimar, makes out that the L'Estoire des Bretons and L’estoire des Engles were commissioned
by Constance, wife of Ralph Fitz-Gilbert, a Lincolnshire landowner using a
manuscript obtained from Robert of Gloucester. Scholars have assumed therefore,
it was written 1134-36 as Henry Ist does not appear (by what is stated) to be
alive. One of the points of constructing the Gaimar epilogue pantomime is to
pre-date the publishing of the Vulgate before its discovery at Bec, where
obviously, Henry Blois had been in early 1138.
Gaimar is the original writer of L’estoire des Engles and probably did have a connection to Ralph Fitz-Gilbert who also had a wife called
Constance. Henry’s gambit is always to stay aligned with what might seem the
truth. He relies totally on obfuscation.
As pressure to find who had invented this work
of HRB increased, Henry saw a need to portray that Gaimar also wrote about
Brutus and Arthur prior to Huntingdon’s discovery. One can be sure that people
suspected Henry as author of HRB. Especially, since the prophetia foretold of one bishop’s wish….which was destined to come
true regarding a metropolitan; even though a sixth century prophet had foretold
it to a time when the audience could read an verify his words.
The
various individuals who are posited to have played a part in making the books
available to Gaimar is purely a devise employed by Henry Blois to achieve his
various goals by employing the mis-directional epilogue. No fewer than nine
contemporaries are named to set the scene:
Constance, wife of Ralf Fitz-Gilbert; Walter Espec of Helmsley; Robert,
Earl of Gloucester; Ralf Fitz-Gilbert of Lincolnshire; Walter, Archdeacon of
Oxford; King Henry Ist; Queen Adeliza of Louvain; David; and Nicholas de
Trailly. The four written sources Gaimar refers to are Walter Espec's book, the
‘Good book of Oxford’, the Winchester history, and an English book from
Washingborough; all mentioned for a specific reason polemically.
Walter Espec who lent Lady Constance some of the
books which supposedly Gaimar used, was the founder of the Abbeys of Kirkham,
Rievaulx, and Wardon, and is well known for his gallant conduct at the Battle
of the Standard in 1138. He was as an old man, High Sheriff of Yorkshire
and died and buried at Rievaulx Abbey in 1153 or 1155…. leaving no issue, as
his son was killed by a fall from his horse. Walter Espec’s three sisters
inherited his estates, of whom the second, Albreda, married Nicolas de Trailli,
and had four sons by him, Geoffrey, William, Nicholas, and Gilbert. The Nicolas
de Trailli appealed to by the poet is Albreda's husband a canon of York while Henry’s
Nephew was re-instated as Bishop. We should not forget that in all probability
Henry’s evolving First Variant arrived in York by way of Henry’s nephew and
this is how Alfred of Beverley obtained a copy. So, it is not by coincidence
that Henry weaves his twisted propaganda around landowners in the north who he
knows are dead using his usual retro-scenarios; as Gaimar probably mentions
them in his original as he was also from that area.
It is not coincidence that Walter Espec had just
died. It is not coincidence that Henry Blois uses Walter Espec’s name in
connection with Ralph and Lady Constance who had probably been the real patron
of Gaimar. It is also worth noting Henry Blois had previously met Walter Espec
when Henry Blois signed a charter with King Henry Ist granting permission to
build Rievaulx abbey.
Nicolas de Trailli is appealed to by Gaimar to
substantiate his claims about whether he is speaking the truth…. and in an
unusual manner. The truth is that Gaimar was commissioned by Lady Constance.
Why we should need to appeal to Nicolas de Trailli if it were really Gaimar
writing is not clear, but as a polemic authored by Henry it becomes evident.
One would think that Henry would hardly appeal to someone alive to substantiate
his cock and bull story. Henry, in fact, invents how Gaimar came upon his sources
(a most unusual declaration), so we can take it that Nicholas de Trailli was
dead already.
The only real scenario which fits is that Gaimar
did write a rendition of ASC in poetic octosyllabic. Henry then interpolated
Gaimar’s own work with Arthuriana and added an epilogue. He constructed it as
part of his devise to add credence to ‘Geoffrey’ having translated from
Walter’s book and also to backdate Gaimar’s work by affixing dates of known
personages of the generation before. The inter-dispersed interpolations also
had the added benefit of substantiating completely fictional people unheard of
before ‘Geoffrey’ invented them in HRB, such as Belinus.
Let us look at how Henry Blois wraps up Gaimar’s
original story by tacking on his disinformation in the epilogue: Let him who does not believe it go to
Winchester, there he will hear if this can be true. Here will I end about the
King (William Rufus). We can then witness what Henry establishes:
This history
caused to be translated by the gentle lady Constance commissioned Gaimar on it,
March and April, and all the twelve months, before he had translated about the
Kings.
Here, Henry is splicing into Gaimar’s original work
which may have mentioned March and April and combines this obfuscation with the
fact that he had written the L’estoire
des Bretons beforehand…. which as we will see was never written.[1]
He procured many
copies, English books and books on grammar, both in French and in Latin, before
he could come to the conclusion. If his lady had not helped him, he would never
have completed it. She sent to Helmsley for Walter Espec's book. Robert earl of
Gloucester had this historical narrative translated in accordance with the
books belonging to the Welsh which they had on the subject of the Kings of
Britain. Walter Espec requested this historical narrative, Earl Robert sent it
to him, and then Walter Espec lent it to Ralf Fitz-Gilbert; Lady Constance
borrowed it from her husband whom she loved dearly. Geoffrey Gaimar made a
written copy of this book, and added to it the supplementary material which the
Welsh had omitted, for he had previously obtained, be it rightfully or
wrongfully, the good book of Oxford which belonged to Archdeacon Walter, and
with this he made considerable improvements to his book; and this historical
narrative was improved by the Winchester History, and a certain book of Washingborough, in which he
found a written account of the Kings and of all the emperors who had dominion
over Rome and tribute from England, and of the Kings who had held these lands
of their lives and deeds, what happened to them and what deeds they performed,
how each one governed the land, which ones loved peace and which ones’ war.
Anyone willing to look into this book will be able to find there all this and
more, and let anyone who does not believe what I say ask Nicholas de Trailly.
One can only feel sorry for scholars who are so
naïve that they are taken in by what is so obviously designed to mislead and
substantiate what is not true.
One does not need an explanation to understand why
‘Gaimar’ mentions the book of Robert of Gloucester rather than mentioning by
whom the book was authored. The author Geoffrey of Monmouth is kept well out of
the picture and it is to the dedicatee that Walter Espec makes his request.
Modern scholars studying ‘Geoffrey’ do not understand that Henry Blois is
adeptly corroborating what ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ had written.
What Henry hopes to convey is that ‘Geoffrey’ had
written a book for Robert of Gloucester, but it was Gaimar who added to it that
which the Welsh had left out and to confuse us further…. it is Gaimar by his
own admission that also possessed Walter’s book. The main purpose is to prove
independently that a book from Oxford existed and probably to have us confuse
the provenance of that book between the Archdeacon Walter and Walter Espec. The
Gaimar epilogue is meant to confuse and has the desired effect. It obscures
rather than elucidates any useful meaning…. but the ‘seed’ is again
planted. To an unperceptive reader, the
book ‘Geoffrey’ translated from, is forever more thought to have existed in
reality…. adding credence to ‘Geoffrey’s’ claim. It is not by accident that
Gaimar’s supposed work L’Estoire des
Bretons is substituted by Wace’s, but our modern scholars are again duped.
At
Winchester, there obviously existed a book into which Henry Blois had
interpolated substantially.Henry is by means of the epilogue, (for the benefit
of the gullible), showing that in that book was new material which was
supposedly put in Gaimar’s L’estoire de
Bretons, which of course does not exist.
Don’t forget, L’estoire de Bretons
is thought to have the same contents as HRB. The existence of the
Winchester book, which was probably a vastly interpolated rendition of ASC,
also needed to be substantiated as having been chained in Winchester of old.
Hence, by total confusion ‘Gaimar’ who is purposely ante-dated by Henry Blois
to c.1136,[2]
is made to appear as if he is the instigator of the Vulgate book which has
drawn so much attention which Henry needed to deflect or risk being exposed.
Therefore, supposedly ‘Gaimar’ let it be known that the book of Oxford had
material that Robert of Gloucester’s book did not contain. Therefore, any
inquirer as to how the Primary Historia or
First Variant evolved into the Vulgate, without the accusation of fabrication,
is now appraised that ‘Gaimar’ made these additions.
The
Washingborough book is somehow meant to mislead us into thinking that
Geoffrey’s Vulgate, which has Alexander’s dedication in it, was in existence
while Alexander was Bishop of Lincoln. Washingborough is less than two miles
from Lincoln. It may be Henry’s intention that the book of the Merlin’s
prophecies is implied as having come from Washingborough as Alexander
supposedly possessed it and chose ‘Geoffrey’ to translate it. The fact that Ralph Fitz-Gilbert was
benefactor of Kirkstead abbey, to whom Earl Conan made a grant of land in
Washingborough between 1156-58, (the precise time which I assume Gaimar’s
original work was rehashed by Henry)…. may have some bearing on what was
intended. Conan as we know at this time was at odds with Henry II and Henry
Blois is specifically trying to incite rebellion through Conan and Cadwallader
in the prophecies. However, …from an
English book of Washingborough, wherein he found written of the Kings, and of
all the emperors who were lords of Rome and had tribute of England… hardly
sounds as if it is the book of prophecies supposedly translated for the Bishop
of Lincoln, but more along the lines of ‘Geoffrey’s’ pseudo-historia. Anyway, the passage about the various books in
Gaimar’s epilogue is intended to be unclear. Geffrei Gaimar cel livere escrit in line 6453 and then in 6460, Si en emendant son livere bien, just
adds to the purposeful obfuscation; so it becomes unclear who is translating or
adding to, or redacting, or who composed which book.
It would seem the real problem was that First
Variant version (except those versions corrected subsequently), had no
dedications in them and people were suspecting fraud when the Vulgate appeared.
One can be sure this was a concern, as some of the prophecies in the Vulgate
were seditious toward the new King. Why would Gaimar c.1136 have us refer to
Nicholas de Trailli when we could just ask Archdeacon Walter if a ‘good book’
ever existed…. or reference the ‘good book of Oxford’?
One would
have to be extremely silly, to accept without question Gaimar’s epilogue,
considering that which we have discussed previously concerning Archdeacon
Walter’s late appearance in the Vulgate Version. One should ask why Gaimar
appeals to Nicholas de Trailli. The probable answer is that the author (Henry
Blois), obtained his copy of Gaimar from Nicholas de Trailli. Gaimar’s epilogue was composed as a reaction
to the fact that the Vulgate HRB was published, so it cannot be early as
scholars presume…. as we know the Vulgate (with its prophecies) was published
in 1155. In reality, Walter would have been inundated with enquiries about the
‘good book of Oxford’ (ex-Brittania, ex-Brittany, ex-Briton or however one
wishes to be misled), if Walter’s name had existed in the First Variant.
The fact that Lady Constance borrowed the book from
her husband whom ‘she loved dearly’…. is inconsequential personal piffle meant
to deflect from the lie being propagated. The anecdotal comment is supposed to
induce us to believe some personal observation was made by Gaimar about Lady
Constance to indicate the epilogue was written by Gaimar himself. Whether we are supposed to believe that the
‘He’ in…. he had previously obtained, be
it rightfully or wrongfully, the good book of Oxford…. referred to Walter
Espec, Ralph Fitz Gilbert or even Gaimar is a moot point, for Gaimar’s
ambiguous reference is employed just to show an independent knew of the book
also. The point is, the ‘good book of Oxford’ becomes real by being referred to
by another writer…. or at least that is what we are being led to believe. Henry
even throws in a little subterfuge as to whether the book was obtained rightly
or wrongly. This supposedly adds narrative credibility to his concoction.
The epilogue continues: Now, says Gaimar, if he had a patron, he would go on to tell of King
Henry, for if he is willing to talk about the King even briefly and write an
adaptation of part of his life, he will be able to recount thousands of things
that David never had copied down, nor did the Queen from Louvain ever hold in
her hand any book recording this sort of material. She did have a large book
made however and the first verse of which she had embellished with musical
notation. David is a good narrative poet, and he composed good verse and
constructed his song well. Lady Constance owns a written copy of it, and she
often reads it in her chamber; and for the copy she gave a mark of silver burnt
and weighed.The material of which this book was composed has achieved some circulation
and reached several places. But as for the festivities that the King held, -
and still today Henry, that Christian man of blessed memory, ranks as the best
King that ever was, but as for the drinking and bouts of boasting, the courting
and the love affairs in which he carried on, David's book has hardly anything
to say.
‘Gaimar’s’ statement of intent to write about Henry
Ist followed by the immediate retraction of the intent is purely to show Henry
Blois knows of the book that David wrote. This in effect sets us in the era in
which the epilogue is supposed to have been written. People knew of David’s
book in Latin, so the point for Henry Blois to make was that Gaimar also, ‘long
ago’ i.e. in that period, had that same book of Oxford that ‘Geoffrey’ claims
to have had. The purpose of the seemingly irrelevant anecdote is all about
backdating.
The remarkable thing about Henry Blois is that he
slips into character so easily. We see this in the grovelling show of flattery
to Robert of Gloucester and Alexander, both of which in reality he disliked,
but Henry never loses sight of the fact that writers needed a patron. Henry
makes a pantomime of farce, pretending to be an equal of David (whoever David
is) seeming to be concerned with the petty things poets of his ilk should be
concerned about. I would hazard to guess that there was such a book written by
a certain David and Henry Blois knew of it and he makes a show of intimacy with
Lady Constance and affirms her bookishness by giving the ridiculous anecdote of
how much she paid for a copy. Who would not believe this is Gaimar writing? All
this is dressed up to convince us that the author of the epilogue is in reality
the person called Gaimar. Henry Blois, the author of the epilogue, pretends to
be concerned with what David wrote and ostensibly says that David should not
have left out the bits which truly would have been more interesting regarding
what he had written about Henry Ist. The whole is a ploy to convince
contemporaries and us in posterity that the epilogue was written by Gaimar.
Finally, the last part of the epilogue is as
follows: Now, says Gaimar, he passes it
over. But if he would take more trouble He could compose verses about the
fairest deeds (of Henry Ist ), namely the love affairs and the courting, the
hunting sports and the drinking, the festivities and the pomp and ceremony,
largesses and riches, the entourage of noble and valiant barons that the King
maintained, and the generous presents which he distributed. This is indeed the
sort of material that should be celebrated in poetry, with nothing omitted and
nothing passed over. I call on David, then, to continue his narrative if he so
wishes, and not leave it as it is, for if he was willing to compose a sequel,
he could greatly improve his book. And if he is unwilling to turn his mind to
this, I will go and fetch him myself and have him imprisoned; he will never
again get out of my custody until he has completed the song. Now we are at
peace / reconciled, and let us be glad. Gaimar's narrative goes [all the way]
from Troy as far as here; he began it at the point where Jason left in pursuit
of the [Golden] Fleece, and has now, at this present moment, brought it to a
close. God's blessing on us all! Amen.
The quite preposterous proposal that Gaimar is
going to fetch David and have him imprisoned is purely a device to ostensibly
provide contemporaneity with David. David obviously wrote for Adeliza who is
the Queen (from Louvain) and the author David is also now dead. That such a
book existed is provided by a description of its first verse. That Adeliza is
mentioned is to show that Gaimar’s work was on a par with David’s and thus
ostensibly back-dated contemporaneously. We know from Hildebert of Le Man’s
comments that Adeliza was only concerned with serious studies and histories.
Henry Blois’ guile should not be overlooked. The opening lines of Gaimar are a prime
example. Henry Blois refers to the book which in reality he has not written as
the livere bien devant and
purposefully misleads us…. because the statement that Iwain was made King of
Murray and Lothian does not tally with Geoffrey’s account in First Variant
version or Vulgate. The point is to convince us that a similar book to
Geoffrey’s with different content existed. In the last line of the epilogue he
says Gaimar's narrative goes from Troy as
far as here. Now, we know Henry’s devises are based largely on obfuscation
and confusion. So, here he has established that Gaimar is not the same author
as Geoffrey (in case any should suspect fraud) because the accounts contradict
each other. The reader should keep in
mind that the inventor of the whole Brutus history (because we are not
referring here to Nennius’ brief mention) is Henry Blois. So, Gaimar in reality could not have written
any book to do with a history from Troy without ‘Geoffrey’s’ Historia. It is from this knowledge we
can conclude that the sham of an early publication by Gaimar, (especially
concerning the epilogue), is as equally untenable as ‘Geoffrey’s’ fabricated
persona…. and ‘Geoffrey’s’ insistence that he used an old book from which he
has translated. Gaimar’s epilogue is a contrived fake which is tacked on to
Gaimar’s work by the artful author called Henry Blois. No wonder he equates
himself with Cicero!!
Modern
scholars will find this hard to accept, because it is still believed that
‘Geoffrey’ lived in reality and Walter had the 'exceeding ancient book in the British tongue' mentioned by him….
which Gaimar now seems to corroborate.
Most modern scholars have understood that ‘Geoffrey’ has concocted as a
compilation the whole HRB and they can even see that the prophecies are spliced
into it, but none have evaluated that Huntingdon’s EAW storyline is not the
same as the Vulgate HRB. Even with its very numerous and considerable variations,
it is still considered that the Bec Primary
Historia is the same as the Vulgate edition of HRB.
One wonders
how it is that scholarship has been so easily duped regarding the ‘good book of
Oxford’…. but where is ‘Geoffrey’ going to get a ‘book on the exile of the
Britons’ that neither Huntingdon nor Malmesbury has ever seen: Many of them betook them in a mighty fleet
unto Armorican Britain, so that the whole church of the two provinces, Loegria,
to wit, and Northumbria, was left desolate of all the convents of religious
therein. But of this will I tell the story elsewhere, when I come to translate
the Book of their Exile.[3]
Gaimar
gives the name of one of his sources as the History of Winchester. He tells us
that it is a volume of history, compiled on Aelfred's orders from information
furnished by monks and canons in various parts of England, and was chained up
like a church Bible in Winchester Cathedral. In reality there probably was a
book as described full of Henry’s propaganda…. but if Gaimar has a copy, why is
he telling us to go to Winchester to verify his history?
This
cannot be the volume known as the Annales
Wintonie, now in the British Museum which is of later date. But we may
speculate that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which Gaimar is referring us to, is
an interpolated copy of ASC and which obviously did not tally with any extant
copy which we now possess.
We can see Henry
Blois has scarfed in the interpolations into Gaimar’s text and it becomes
obvious that Gaimar is being used in the same way that Henry Blois had used
William of Malmesbury’s DA and GR. Whereas, Henry, while interpolating DA, is
fabricating material as a proof of antiquity for Glastonbury and to
substantiate his first and second agendas; in Gaimar’s work, he makes small
inconsequential changes in the main text that Gaimar has written. He
interpolates small inserted passages which corroborate some of his Arthurian
lore found in HRB. The real accomplishment however, is the epilogue concerning
Walter and his ‘good book’. Henry Blois did at first write a different epilogue
based upon lines Gaimar had written which we shall also cover here. There are
several parts in Gaimar’s text which mirror the fabricated HRB, but just to
highlight the method employed…. we will look at some of the more blatant
Arthuriana. The highlighted black print is indicating what was originally in
Gaimar’s work and one can see the passages flow if one takes out the insert. L’estoire des Engles starts with an
improvisation which gets right to the point of the introduction…. which is to
provide another source which backs up the phony Arthurian history created in
HRB.
Heretofore in the
former book,
If you remember
it,
You have heard how
perfectly
Constantine held
the dominion after Arthur;
And how Iwain was
made King
But afterwards he
fared right ill.
All their best
kindred died,
And the Saxons
spread themselves,
Who had come with
Cerdic,
From the Humber as
far as Caithness.
Modred the King
had given it to them.
So they seized,
and wholly occupied
The land which
once Hengist held.
This they claimed
as their heritage,
For Hengist was of
their lineage.
Behold the
occasion,
By which the
Britons came into great trouble,
So did the Scots
and Picts,
The Welsh and the
Cymri.
Such war the
outlandish folk made,
Britain came to
great grief.
The English every
day increased.
For they often
came from over sea.
Those from Saxony
and Almain
Joined their
company
For the sake of
Dan Hengist, their ancestor,
The others made
them lords.
Every-day as they
conquered
From the English,
they explored the land.
The land which
they went on conquering,
They Called it
England,
Behold a cause
By which Britain
lost its name.
And the nephews of
Arthur reigned,
Who warred against
the English.
But the Danes
hated them much.
Because of their
kindred, who had died
In the battles
which Arthur fought
Against Modret,
whom, he afterwards slew.
If that is true
that Gildas said
In the Geste, he
found written
That there were
two Kings formerly in Britain
When Constantine
was chief.
This Constantine
was the nephew of Arthur,
One of the Kings had for his name Adelbrit.
He was a rich man, also he was a Dane.
The other had for his name Edelsie.
His were Lincoln and Lindsey.
From the Humber to Rutland
The land was under his command.
Well she cared for me while she lived,
She brought me up. So said my mother,
I was the daughter of Grim, a companion of hers.
But it happened in
your land,
That King Arthur
came to conquer it,
For his tribute,
which they withheld from him,
With many men he
came to the land,
To King Gunter he
seemed an enemy,
Near the sea he
gave him battle,
Slain was King
Gunter,
And many knights
on both sides.
The land gave what
Arthur would.
But the queen, because of the war,
Could not remain in the land,
So she fled with the right heir.
You are he, as I believe
Dan Haveloc, the King's son.
Over the other folk in this land.
On account of his lord, who was dead,
By the power of
Arthur the strong;
Whom he had by
treason sent for,
And had given him
this country.
Because he was
treacherous and cruel,
Many took counsel
together,
That they should
never hold with him,
Nor take land of
him,
Until they knew of
the right heir,
The truth about
his life or death.
This King who then
was in the country,
Was the brother of
King Aschis
Who met his death
for Arthur
Where Modred did
him such wrong,
His name was Odulf the King;
Much was he hated by his Danes.
Afterwards Eadgar, his brother, reigned.
He held the land as an emperor.
In his time he bettered the land.
He had peace everywhere, there was no war.
He alone ruled over all the Kings,
And over the Scotch and the Welsh.
Never since Arthur
departed
Had any King such
power.
The King much loved Holy Church.
One can see these are simple insertions to the text
which serve no other purpose than to propagandise the Arthuriana maintained in
HRB and to appear as if Gildas bears witness to Arthur. We know the only place
this takes place is in Henry’s impersonation of Caradoc of Llancarfans’s
concocted Life of Gildas.
There is an earlier Gaimar epilogue in manuscripts
D&L which also show Henry’s hand and it is mainly identified with his
agenda in pursuit of Metropolitan status and backing up the authenticity of
fabrications found in HRB:
The men are
valiant in battle.
Corineus settled
it;
He who drove out
the giants.
Henry’s concern in the later epilogue is purely
defensive. The later epilogue is constructed ostensibly so that Gaimar appears
to know of the ‘good book of Oxford’. Thereby, ‘Geoffrey’ was not found to be
bearing false witness by insisting he had merely translated an old book; rather
than what many suspected had been fabricated.
I will tell of the
people there.
In Wales there are
many cities,
Which were highly
renowned,
As Caerwent and
Caerleon,
And the city of
Snowdon.
And there are five
bishoprics,
And a master
archbishopric.
Of these there are
none left
But three, of
which, I will tell you the sees.
One is at St.
David's,
Which before was
at Caerleon.
This was once the
archbishopric,
Now it is a poor
bishopric.
The other is
settled at Bangor.
Glamorgan is the
third.
They are not in
any city,
In consequence of
war they are deserted.
But still we know
well
That the bishop
has the pallium
Of St. David, as
he claimed it.
We know well he
went to Rome.
Now there is no
city left,
For all the
country is destroyed,
First by the
Saxons,
Then by the war of
the Britons;
On the other side,
since the French
Have defeated the
English
And conquered the
land
By fire, by
famine, and by war,
They have passed
the water of Severn,
And waged war on
the Welsh,
And spied out the
land.
They conquered
much of the land,
And set very
grievous laws on it;
For they drove out
the Welsh,
They settled in
the land;
They built many
castles there,
Which are right
good and fair.
But natheless
often times
Well have the
Welsh avenged themselves.
Many of our French
have they slain,
Some of our
castles they have taken;
Openly they go
about saying,
Fiercely they
threaten us,
That in the end
they will have all;
By means of Arthur
they will win it back;
And this land all
together
They will take
from the Latin folk,
They will give
back its name to the land,
They will call it
Britain again.
Now we will hold
our peace about the Welsh,
And speak of the
roads
Which were made in
this country.
King Belinus had
them made.
The first goes
from the east
Until it comes to
the west.
It crosses the
country.
Ikenild the road
is called.
The second,
according to the Saxons,
Ermingestreet
still we call it.
This road is well
known.
From the north it
goes straight to the south.
The third is far
famed.
Watlingstreet it
is called.
At Dover this road
begins.
Right at Chester
it ends.
It takes the
length of the land.
The fourth is very
wearisome.
This road is
called Foss.
It goes through
many cities.
It begins at
Totness,
And goes as far as
Caithness.
Seven hundred
leagues is it reckoned.
This road is far
famed.
Belinus who had
them made
Placed them in
great freedom.
Whoever was
outlawed
Should have his
peace on these roads.
We have described
to you the counties
Of the land, and
the bishoprics,
And the names of
the four roads
Now thus will we
leave it.
Here ends the
history of the English.
Realistically, St David’s was never a metropolitan[11]
and it was mainly Henry Blois’ friendship with Bernard which prompted the third
archflamen to be included in the First Variant as Bernard had the same aim as
Henry. It was entirely an invention that a metropolitan once existed at
Caerleon and this was introduced into Arthurian lore to show that in King
Arthur’s era metropolitans which had once stood, no longer existed. Hence,
Henry’s ploy was that both Winchester and St David’s should be reinstated. St
David’s on merit that it had been an Archbishopric previously, Winchester
because it had a monastery (as attested in HRB) long before Augustine’s
Canterbury was given the honour of primacy. Giraldus also took up the mantle
later after Bernard died.
This aside, we know that Belinus did not exist
historically. He is a fictional character re-invented here in Gaimar by Henry
Blois. As Tatlock suggests, his name is based upon a vassal of Henry Blois’
brother Count Theobald of Blois. There was also a fictional King Belinus in
Nennius at the time of Caesar (not mentioned in Roman annals) and so he too
might be ‘Geoffrey’s’ inspirational source.
Brennius the Gaulish invader of Rome however, is
based on historical fact and appears in Bede. Henry Blois as usual mixes fact
with fiction, so their conquest on Rome seemingly has a basis in history. Henry
Blois envisages Belinus as a great builder. After founding Caerleon, he has
Belinus as the builder of the Tower of London in the fourth century BC. The
Tower[12]
was instigated by Henry Blois’ Grandfather and Henry knows full well who built
it…. so, it is no wonder the same Belinus builds the roads in Britain. The
point is that Belinus is ‘Geoffrey’s’ invention. We know that the person who
envisages the great engineer Belinus in Gaimar’s earlier epilogue is one and
the same with the writer of HRB. Henry only later changes the epilogue to suit
the purpose at that time…. just as he added the last paragraph to Caradoc when
it suited his purpose. The Early epilogue corroborates his historicity in First
Variant and acts as corroborative evidence on the Metropolitan issues. The
latter epilogue acts as a confusion of sources, material and authors as to how
the Vulgate HRB might be found credible in its assertion that it is a
translation from an old book. The investigator into what has transpired here
should inquire how Wace’s Roman de Brut
is mirrored in a work supposedly to have been written by Gaimar and posited as
the unwritten L’estoire des Bretons….
which just happens to also use the same source as ‘Geoffrey’ in his
translation…. which supposedly constitutes Vulgate HRB. Modern scholarship’s understanding that
Wace’s Roman de Brut replaces the
unwritten L’estoire des Bretons on
literary merit and accompanies all the copies of Gaimar (because of this
fact),is naïve. It is Henry who put the two together and distributed the
manuscripts.
Henry loves to provide answers giving eponyms or
how things came into existence to amaze his readers. As I have maintained,
Henry Blois spent time in 1136, just after his brother was installed on the
throne, putting down rebellion in South Wales. This is where he gets his
knowledge to write concerning the topography and archaeology of Wales and what
would have been in GS (if the pages were not missing from the manuscript). But
his personal observations about castles in GS always stands out, as he himself
is a builder. It is no surprise then we
find in Gaimar’s first epilogue the observations found in GS: They built many castles there, which are
right good and fair.
Again the hope of the Britons is expressed in the
earlier epilogue:
Fiercely they
threaten us,
That in the end
they will have all;
By means of Arthur
they will win it back;
And this land all
together
They will take
from the Latin folk,
They will give
back its name to the land,
They will call it
Britain again.
One part of ‘Geoffrey’s’ pseudo-history which has
baffled scholars is why there is the flattering imperialism in Vulgate HRB
which appears to be toned down in the First Variant. For all ‘Geoffrey’s’ mad
claim to imperialism there is but one witness. It seems safe to speculate that
Haveloc the Dane was composed by Gaimar and Henry Blois just inserts small
interpolations so that the claims of conquering Denmark in HRB are conveniently
substantiated by an independent source or at least we are supposed to think
this. Again, we can see where the Blois Arthuriana is inserted into existing
text:
Haveloc was this King named.
And Cuaran is he called.
Therefore, I mean to tell you of him,
And recall his adventures,
Of which the Bretons made a lay.
They called it from his name
Both Haveloc and Cuaran,
Of his father I will tell first.
Gunter was his name, he was a Dane.
He held the land, he was King.
At the time that
Arthur reigned,
He crossed the sea
towards Denmark.
He would make the
land submit to him,
And have tribute
of the King.
With King Gunter
he fought.
And with the
Danes, and conquered.
The King himself
was killed.
And many others of the country.
Hodulf slew him by treason,
Who always had a felon heart.
When Arthur had
ended his war
Hodulf gave him all the land,
And the homage of his barons.
When he departed
with his Britons;
Some by constraint, some by fear,
Most of them served Hodulf.
Some there were who sought his ruin
By the advice of Sigar the Stallere,
Who was a good and rich man,
And well knew how to war.
He had the horn to keep
Which no one could sound
Unless he were right heir of the lineage,
Which was over the Danes by inheritance.
Before King Arthur
came.
Or had fought with
the Danes,
Gunter had his castle
On the sea shore, strong and fair.
Again, this last Arthurian reference is inserted
purely to back up what is written in HRB:
Who was lord over the Danes;
Hodulf slew him by treason,
Whoever had a felon heart.
King Arthur
enfeoffed Hodulf,
And gave him
Denmark.
Grim, our father, fled,
To save you he left his land.
Thy mother died at sea;
For our ship was attacked
By outlaws, who seized us.
Lastly, to show there is no end to the devices
which Henry employs, this next section is also found in L’estoire des Engles:
But by the
negligence of the Britons
It was set on fire
by sparrows,
Which carried fire
and sulphur into the town.
And set light to
many houses.
And the besiegers
who were outside
Made an assault
with great courage.
Then was this city
conquered,
And Gloucester was
taken.
As far as the
Severn they conquered all.
They killed all
the best Britons.
And from the sea,
to which they came,
As far as the
Severn, they took to themselves
All the country
and the Kingdom,
And they drove out
the Britons.
As we have discussed already the burning of the
castle at Cirencester and the sparrows is fabricated entirely by Henry after
having seen the fort burn in 1142 with his brother. Yet he mentions this in the
VM: This wolf will lay siege to Cirencester and
by means of sparrows raze its walls and houses to the ground. He will then set
off for France with a fleet, but will die by a King's spear.
Henry
also delights through Wace by giving the Sparewencestre
etymological rubbish. There is no stopping his muses of invention, but here we
have three tracts, Wace, Gaimar and VM…. all written by Henry Blois with this
story from personal experience.
Henry
has his ‘book at Winchester’ and in his interpolation into Gaimar, he concocts
a story of how this marvellous book which contained cross reference material to
Geoffrey’s HRB came to be found chained up at Winchester so that his faux
history could be ‘authenticated’:
The sixth Oswald,
the seventh Oswiu. 2315
But the land did
not go thus.
So that no man,
except by war,
Knew how went the
land.
Nor at that time
did anyone know
Who belonged to
each King.
But monks and
canons of abbeys,
Who wrote the
lives of Kings.
Each applied to
his companion
to show the true
account
Of the Kings; how
long each reigned,
How he was called;
how he died;
Who was killed,
and who deceased.
Who are preserved,
and who decayed.
And of the bishops
also
The clerks kept
record.
Chronicles, it is
called, a big book.
The English went
about collecting it.
Now it is thus
authenticated;
So that at
Winchester, in the cathedral,
There is the true
history of the Kings,
And their lives
and their memorials.
King Alfred had it
in his possession,
And had it bound
with a chain.
Who wished to
read, might well see it,
But not remove it
from its place.
The eighth King-
was named Ceawlin.
He had the West
Saxons with him.
This book of Chronicles, supposedly written by
clerics from around Britain in Alfred’s time, would have made a brilliant read.
It was obviously put together on the basis of ASC by Henry Blois and hereby
given credence in antiquity by Gaimar. Unfortunately, it is no longer extant,
but must have been vastly corroborative to the pseudo-history and Arthuriana
found in HRB.
We would be foolish to believe in Walter’s
knowledge of an old book which was given to Geoffrey. ‘Geoffrey’s’ work was
received and propagated in Wales and much of the phony corroborative evidence
for Henry Blois’ concoction of HRB, (like Geoffrey’s date of death etc.) is
established by interpolations in the Book
of Llandaff. Ironically, it is
suggested by modern scholars that Caradoc is suspected of helping substantiate
parts of Geoffrey’s HRB in the Book of
Llandaff, because they think he was a contemporary. Henry Blois obviously had Welsh monks known
to him in monastic houses. ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB would have to be the source of
chivalric Arthuriana in Wales rather than the any Welsh warlord Arthurian
tradition. Henry puts the final icing on the cake regarding ‘Geoffrey’s’ and
Walter’s relationship, so that every investigator to date has believed Henry’s
ruse. In the Welsh history known as Tysilio's Chronicle, (identified
ridiculously by Flinders Petrie as the source used by Geoffrey of Monmouth),
Henry Blois has a script written in Welsh which pretends to be written by Saint Tysilio, a Welsh bishop who died 640. At the end of the chronicle Walter
Archdeacon of Oxford supposedly writes: I, Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford,
translated this book from the Welsh into Latin, and in my old age have again
translated it from the Latin into Welsh.
The very concept is ludicrous…. of a man translating from Welsh into
Latin and then carrying out the same exercise in reverse. There would be no
point. As a fabrication, what Henry is establishing here is that Walter’s book
was first written in Welsh, (which of course we are led to believe or
understand to be the ancient Briton language)…. and therefore, could be the
book from which ‘Geoffrey’ is supposedly translating. Through this ruse we are made to believe that
‘Geoffrey’ did have an ancient book to translate from, since anecdotal HRB
material is found in the chronicle. Regardless of the futile act that Walter is
supposedly carrying out in old age, his name is now connected to the Vulgate
Version of HRB and corroborated from an exterior source; just as Henry portrays
through Gaimar’s epilogue. The illusion
has remained for nearly 900 years.
[1] The usual
rate for versifying was 3,000 to 5000 lines a year. Gaimar supposedly wrote
6,000 lines in the Fourteen months. As
we shall cover shortly, if Wace had genuinely finished his Roman de Brut in 1155 as stated it would mean he had started it in
around 1152-3 before Geoffrey was supposedly dead. Strangely in reality this is
true in part as Henry Blois commenced composing Roman de Brut using the First Variant version. After 1155, when the
Vulgate was complete, ‘Wace’ finishes off his versified HRB running mirroring
the contents with the Vulgate version. As we shall cover the Roman de Brut was probably published
c.1158-60 and again Henry is back dating.
[2] Henry Blois
makes it appear Gaimar is writing just after the death of King Henry I as La raine de Luvain Adeliza remarried William d’Aubigy in
September 1139. The intent is to ante-date Gaimar’s work to this period. We
know Archdeacon Walter in the Primary
Historia and also in the First Variant does not feature. Walter only
becomes necessary later when questions are being asked and herein is the reason
for the production of Gaimar’s charade by Henry Blois. The real intent of the
production of Gaimar’s work and the mention of Walter Espec and Robert duke of
Gloucester is to ostensibly provide evidence that both ‘Geoffrey’ and Gaimar
had accomplished their works before the Anarchy. The way this was done was to
show that Gaimar’s use of Geoffrey’s Historia
would have been in L’Estoire des Breton. In
other words Henry had already written the Roman
de Brut and to save duplicating ‘Wace’s’ Roman
de Brut again in another version called L’Estoire
des Breton by Gaimar….Roman de Brut was
merely substituted. Hence, Wace’s work in all four MSS of Gaimar. What we are
supposed to think is that it was Robert of Gloucester who deposited his
dedicated copy at Bec in 1137 when he left England. Huntingdon does not mention
his name in EAW and nor do the First Variant’s except for the Exeter MSS; and
as we have mentioned this is either a late insert by Henry or a later correction
or since it is a cut down version of the dedication; it may well be the first
to have a dedication. But it still would date after 1147. There were definitively no dedications before
1147….even in Alfred’s copy. However,
this is the very point Henry Blois is trying to make by saying in the most contived
fashion that his project took 14 months to compose and we are led to believe
have been written c.1136.
[3] HRB XI,x
[4]
Gaimar, L’estoire des Engles, 5. Wace
does not say that Muref and Loeneis were given to Iwain, but
Scotland (Brut, ii. 226). Geoffrey of Monmouth (ix.
9) says that Mureif was given to Urien, Iwain's father.
[5] Gaimar,
L’estoire des Engles, 30
[6] Gaimar,
L’estoire des Engles, 405
[7] Gaimar,
L’estoire des Engles, 510
[8] Gaimar,
L’estoire des Engles 3573
[9] Gaimar’s
Early epilogue ,123
[10] Gaimar,
L’estoire des Engles, 201
[11] We should
disregard Rhygyfarch’s Life of St David
as his allusion is not to metropolitan specifically, ’Saint David,
archbishop of all Britannia’.
[12] In the
prophecies Henry even refers to the three predecessors of Stephen: Thereafter shall a tree rise up above the
Tower of London, that thrusting forth three branches only shall overshadow all
the face of the whole island with the spreading breadth of the leaves thereof. Henry
knew the tower was built by William the Conqueror. We know from William of
Mamesbury’s GR where he tells of Edward the Confessor’s prophetic vision in
which a tree is split and symbolises the English royal house. Not by
coincidence…. so too does ‘Geoffrey’ have Merlin see the Norman royal house as
a spreading tree growing from the tower of London symbolising his Grandfather.
[13] Gaimar’s
earlier epilogue written by Henry.
[14] Gaimar,
Haveloc the Dane ,16
[15] Gaimar,
Haveloc the Dane, 597
[16] Gaimar,
L’estoire des Engles ,858
[17] Gaimar 2315
No comments:
Post a Comment