Eadmer’s letter
You can also see the new 2019 updated information at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
The following is an extract from a book titled the 'The Island of Avalon' by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot. The Two volume work shows that Henry Blois the Abbot of Glastonbury was responsible for some of the tracts which corroborate each other concerning the chivalric King Arthur such as Caradoc's life of Gildas and Geoffrey of Monmouth's HRB and some Grail stories which emanate from Master Blihos/Blehis.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B011NWHSR6
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B011NWHSR6
The dispute between Canterbury and
Glastonbury over the relics of St Dunstan.
We have arrived at this point demonstrating
Henry Blois to be the author of several tracts. The letter written to the
Glastonbury monks by Eadmer indicates at what an early stage Henry Blois can be
implicated in disseminating falsities. If we can read between the lines and
understand the motives, the letter corroborates what I have maintained through
this discourse about Henry’s ability to fabricate.
Henry Blois is a fabricator….
a person who has no qualms about bending the truth to suit an end. Henry Blois
is internally, vainly imperious, but ostensibly portrays an exterior of an
educated and outwardly balanced man who eventually fostered a persona of
venerable patron of the church in older age. In his
early days, before the Machiavellian dealings which secured the crown for his brother King Stephen,
Henry is presented as humble monk with time for the common man as William of
Malmesbury portrays him in the prologue to DA.... in the early stages of his
career.
It probably only took until 1135 until William of Malmesbury fully understood Henry’s
true nature. By this time the nonsense of this dispute over Dunstan’s relics
had probably passed, Henry Blois had moved on to greater ambitions
and more fantastic fabrications.
Henry Blois’ reputation diminished with the advent of the Anarchy, after
his management of affairs to ensure his brother’s crowning. When relating about
previous bishops of Winchester which had passed away, Henry of Huntingdon (another contemporary of Henry Blois) in
his letter to Walter (not Warin) comments: now
there sits in their place Henry, (of Blois), nephew of King Henry, who will be
a new kind of monster, composed part pure and part corrupt, I mean part monk
and part knight.”
I hope to show the reader that Eadmer’s ire
in his letter to Glastonbury is aimed at the young Henry Blois. Also that
William of Malmesbury’s strange stance on lambasting Osbern’s work is on
account of the pressure brought to bear by Henry Blois, who had instigated the
rumour concerning Dunstan’s translation from Canterbury.
William of Malmesbury, in Henry’s
employ and ensconced at Glastonbury, most probably knew that it was the young
enterprising abbot who had put about such rumours, but being a mere historian
could in no way implicate the new abbot and nephew of King Henry I and grandson of William the Conqueror..
The earliest and only written concocted
Glastonbury account of how the abbey came to possess the body of St Dunstan is
written in the interpolated part of William's De Antiquitates (DA).
Eadmer does not imply that the events of St Dunstan’s translation to
Glastonbury is written down anywhere. We can grasp fully the original account
of Glastonbury’s pretensions and the details of the concocted legend through
Eadmer’s refutation of the Glastonbury claim.
In fact, Eadmer implies the spreading of the Dunstan rumour is verbal
and he had never heard that anyone who
was there at the time has ever said or written anything concerning these
matters which you have put about… not a single word, spoken or written, that
any sane man could accept………..have you, pray, any writings to prove matters
stood thus?
Sir Archibald Campbell Lawrie[1]
claims Eadmer died in 1123 on the 13th, January. There is no
definitive evidence for this and most commentators put Eadmer’s death at 1126
at the earliest and more probably afterward as we shall see. However, no-one to
my knowledge has answered sufficiently why this rumour suddenly appeared which
spurred Eadmer’s sarcastic refutation by correspondence to the Glastonbury
monks. This letter to the Glastonbury monks in occasional indirect references
infers that Henry Blois could be the abbot at the time when the letter was
written. So (if I am correct in this analysis) Eadmer must have lived after
1126 when Henry joined the abbey.
My
proposition is that the person who established the rumour of Dunstan’s relics
at Glastonbury and provided the only written account of the Glastonbury
concoction in DA is the same man i.e. Henry Blois.(see the chapter on William of Malmesbury's DA). This proposition has not been posited
before because it has always been assumed that an interpolator after the fire at
Glastonbury is responsible for the insertion in DA. However, we know of the existence of another
interpolator who added to DA after Henry inserted his final interpolations
which constitute chapters 1 and 2 of DA. (His previous interpolations comprise for the most part, the first 34 chapters of DA). The later consolidator may or may not be
responsible for the T version of DA, but what is a certainty is that the amount
that the consolidator achieves is far less than Scott accounts to his efforts.
Scott, the authority on DA, is unaware of the interpolations inserted by Henry Blois and
concludes a much later coalescing of DA. So, it is not silly to speculate that
an intermediary consolidator after Henry’s death (or even another redactor
before the scribe of T) has expanded upon Henry’s initial interpolation in DA.
Certainly at least one interpolator writes after the fire in 1184.
The legend of the translation of Dunstan
would be easier to maintain or concoct after the fire if there were initial
evidence backing up the claim supposedly written by ‘William of Mamesbury’ (found in the interpolation in DA). One
would then only have to ‘re-find’ the grave site as the later redactor achieves
in the post 1184 account of the Dunstan exhumation which constitute chapters 24
and 25 of DA. Let it be understood that St Dunstan's relics were never moved from Canterbury.
There are many reasons for positing Henry’s
involvement in propagating the translation rumour. Let us see if the evidence
drawn from not only William of Malmesbury but from the narrative of Eadmer’s
letter implicates Henry Blois.
Eadmer admired William and knew him as a
friend. William’s obvious avoidance of
this story rather than its inclusion or rebuttal in his own VD, tells us that
he was aware of the story. It should be clear that William’s refusal to
compromise his integrity by going along with the rumoured Dunstan translation
from Canterbury was the main impetus (alongside the abbey’s proof of antiquity)
for writing DA. This is made plain in the prologue of DA.
William in the prologue of DA, refers to the
‘original plan’, which was to counter the most consequential of Osbern’s errors;
which stated that Dunstan was the first Abbot at Glastonbury. There is no doubt
that the Glastonbury church stood long before Augustine’s arrival and William
makes this plain in the prologue to VD I: In
fact, Glastonbury passed under the sway of the church long before St Patrick,
who died in AD 472, while Dunstan saw the light of day in AD 925. Incidentally,
there is no indication that William’s VD I or II were interpolated.
So the ‘original plan’ or intent mentioned in
the prologue of DA was not only to counteract Osbern’s inaccuracy, but also to
show that by merit of age, Glastonbury had greater cause for celebration and
respect. Age of an ecclesiastical house generally established primacy, but because Augustine was a Roman
envoy, Canterbury was conferred with that honour. This was obviously an ongoing dispute over
time when Henry arrived, and involved nearly every religious house as it defined
the ecclesiastical pecking order.
Anyway, William’s curious snipes at Osbern’s work in the two prologues
to VD in conjunction with certain statements in the prologue to DA indicate
that there is some political manoeuvrings going on. I believe the cause of most
of it is in deference to Henry Blois.
Henry Blois arrived at Glastonbury in 1126.
He may have arrived back with his uncle from Normandy after settling
differences with the princes of France. Huntingdon has King Henry’s return date
at September 1126, when he was accompanied back to England by the recently
widowed Empress Matilda.
One can imagine a young abbot, around 25 years of
age, eager to impress his uncle by contributing knight’s service and funds to
the royal coffers, sorting out what once was a very rich institution at the
time of Doomsday. One action would be to gain advantage of
Glastonbury’s association with its most famous son Dunstan, enhancing the visits to Glastonbury by
pilgrims and increasing the alms they brought.
Henry has a penchant for crosses and understands the power they have over Christians. It seems by inference of the image of the redeemer, he sets one up at Glastonbury specifically relating to Dunstan as we can gather from Eadmer: If you listen to my advice, you will remove those bones which you have loaded onto the image of our Redeemer, before He is Himself angry with you. It is sufficient that He be honoured for Himself and there is no need to keep up holiness on Him through dead men's bones or otherwise.
Henry has a penchant for crosses and understands the power they have over Christians. It seems by inference of the image of the redeemer, he sets one up at Glastonbury specifically relating to Dunstan as we can gather from Eadmer: If you listen to my advice, you will remove those bones which you have loaded onto the image of our Redeemer, before He is Himself angry with you. It is sufficient that He be honoured for Himself and there is no need to keep up holiness on Him through dead men's bones or otherwise.
Henry attested in his own libellus that he set about regaining misappropriated lands which had been taken by
previous bad practises by former abbots. He also re-gained lands previously
belonging to Glastonbury which had been gifted in reward by his former
relatives as past Kings.
Henry capitalises on the known association of Dunstan at Glastonbury by claiming his relics rest there. In the scenario I believe transpired, Henry puts about a story which adds credence to such a claim and an explanation of how the circumstances transpired that St Dunstan's a relics are fortuitously found at Glastonbury. Author B’s account of the life of Dunstan relates his early saintly life at Glastonbury and certainly a Dunstan tradition existed at Glastonbury. All Henry did was capitalise on an asset through tradition. Eadmer in his letter makes it clear that when he himself visited Glastonbury, no translation myth existed. In fact Eadmer states that Glastonbury monks were known to pay their respects to Dunstan at Canterbury only in the recent past.
Henry capitalises on the known association of Dunstan at Glastonbury by claiming his relics rest there. In the scenario I believe transpired, Henry puts about a story which adds credence to such a claim and an explanation of how the circumstances transpired that St Dunstan's a relics are fortuitously found at Glastonbury. Author B’s account of the life of Dunstan relates his early saintly life at Glastonbury and certainly a Dunstan tradition existed at Glastonbury. All Henry did was capitalise on an asset through tradition. Eadmer in his letter makes it clear that when he himself visited Glastonbury, no translation myth existed. In fact Eadmer states that Glastonbury monks were known to pay their respects to Dunstan at Canterbury only in the recent past.
One of William of Malmesbury’s efforts being
half Norman and half English was to preserve for posterity the deeds of the
English saints. Yet William definitely
knew of this rumour and who had started it and for what reason. William of
Malmesbury’s GR states: I have followed
the true law of the historian, and have set down nothing but what I have learnt
from trustworthy report or written source. Moreover, be that as it may, I have
this private satisfaction, by God's help, that I have set in order the unbroken
cause of English history, and am since Bede the only man so to do, or at any
rate the first. If anyone therefore as I already here suggested, has a mind to
follow me in writing on this subject, let him give me the credit for the
collection of the facts and make his own selection from the material.
William was already there at the abbey when
Henry Blois arrived, having been employed by the Monks prior to Henry’s arrival
to write the lives of Indract and Patrick (St Benignus was never written[2]).
It appears the monks had already approved (corrected) these lives prior to
Henry’s arrival. It seems of little advantage, except from someone who wishes to
capitalise on Glastonbury’s association with Dunstan, to engage another
investigation into the Life of Dunstan. Author B,
Adelard, Osbern, (an old English author also) and Eadmer himself had already
re-ploughed Dunstan’s biographic field with little fresh to add without
invention.
My proposition is that Henry wanted William of
Malmesbury to paint a version not from the angle which glorifies Canterbury’s
association with Dunstan (as Osbern and Eadmer had done), but to provide a
picture which implies a greater attachment by Dunstan as a ‘former pupil’ to
Glastonbury. Diplomatically, Henry persuaded William to embark on the biography
hoping that he would be convinced by ‘oral’ tradition at Glastonbury by
implying that previous biographers had underperformed (this was the point of William's VD). It is not silly to suspect that Henry Blois
was intending to plant evidence (concerning Dunstan) in the chest of papers
from which William was to glean the information for DA. However, Henry did not bank on William’s
probity (or their close acquaintance).... or Eadmer’s tenacity and assurance that
Dunstan’s bones never left Canterbury.
In VD I in the prologue, William
diplomatically states that the reason for writing (and him earning his next commission): Most holy Fathers, in the celebration of
the love and honour of your most blessed father Dunstan our pious zeal strives to compete with the whole of
England. And it may be that ours is the greater glory in this contest,
seeing that we love as a former pupil one whom they look up to as a saint and
an Archbishop. So it is that we can join love to our reverence yielding in neither to those of Canterbury,
who boast that they once had him as their primate. Hence it has come about
that, for all our diligence in looking out writings concerning his life, we are sad that they do not come up to your
expectation. For we have found that the old lives lack polish, and the new
reliability. So we have reasonably enough been to that extent saddened: for
rustic writings give no pleasure, and it
is shaming to repeat things that lack of firm basis in truth. 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 the blessed Dunstan; he is often
either mistaken in his views or biased in his judgement.
My speculation is that while Henry was
putting these rumours about, he also wished to influence William so that
William would attest Dunstan’s translation as part of history. The tensions
surrounding William’s unwillingness to co-operate on this score are evident in the prologue
to DA (but his aim in DA is a proof of antiquity).
What is not so clear is William’s change of attitude to Osbern’s work since completing GR in 1125. It can only be the result of a recent development and it seems to be down to the arrival of the new abbot. William had praised Osbern for his work as a hagiographer and liturgist in GR: I would gladly add more facts…. about this great man (Dunstan) but I am restrained by Osbern, precentor of Canterbury, who has written his life with Roman elegance, being second to none in our time as a stylist as well as leading the field without dispute in music.[3]
What is not so clear is William’s change of attitude to Osbern’s work since completing GR in 1125. It can only be the result of a recent development and it seems to be down to the arrival of the new abbot. William had praised Osbern for his work as a hagiographer and liturgist in GR: I would gladly add more facts…. about this great man (Dunstan) but I am restrained by Osbern, precentor of Canterbury, who has written his life with Roman elegance, being second to none in our time as a stylist as well as leading the field without dispute in music.[3]
William’s unwillingness to substantiate what
he knew to be untrue, had to be balanced with his ‘anxiety to win your favour’ and his way out of this diplomatic
mess. William, as confrater at Glastonbury, decided a course of action to mitigate
this embarrassing situation and to distance his work on St Dunstan from Eadmer's work by
making almost no use of material from Eadmer’s life of Dunstan.
In this way he did not contradict or diminish his friends work. William, in VD, made no specific reference to it for this reason. But, contrarily, William ostensibly defends Glastonbury against Canterbury by using the deceased Osbern’s work as he pillories most of Osbern’s erroneous assertions.... in an attempt to appear on side with the Glastonbury monks. William saw this as a way out. He could corroborate Glastonbury’s historical antiquity by seeming to counteract the false statements of the Canterbury precentor, without having to fully compromise his integrity by substantiating what he knew to be false. This is made plain in his accusation against Osbern concerning prophecy: But what he (Dunstan) foretold I do not presume to say, for I find nothing in old books. As I have said before, whoever claims to tell of the feats of saints, but goes beyond what has been written in the past, is surely of unsound mind.[4]
In this way he did not contradict or diminish his friends work. William, in VD, made no specific reference to it for this reason. But, contrarily, William ostensibly defends Glastonbury against Canterbury by using the deceased Osbern’s work as he pillories most of Osbern’s erroneous assertions.... in an attempt to appear on side with the Glastonbury monks. William saw this as a way out. He could corroborate Glastonbury’s historical antiquity by seeming to counteract the false statements of the Canterbury precentor, without having to fully compromise his integrity by substantiating what he knew to be false. This is made plain in his accusation against Osbern concerning prophecy: But what he (Dunstan) foretold I do not presume to say, for I find nothing in old books. As I have said before, whoever claims to tell of the feats of saints, but goes beyond what has been written in the past, is surely of unsound mind.[4]
It was in Osbern’s work that the gross
accusation of Glastonbury’s recent foundation was made which relates back to
the primacy issue and pecking order of Clergy and religious houses. William had misunderstood that he was
expected not only to counter this false accusation (that Dunstan was the first
abbot), but also to authenticate the Dunstan translation rumour started by
Henry Blois. This initially was Henry Blois’ intention in commissioning
VD. But William on the other hand had
understood the ‘original plan’ was to write a better version of Dunstan’s life,
while at the same time expounding upon the abbey’s antiquity.
As soon as Henry Blois understood that William was not the person to embellish the translation rumour he had started, Henry and the Glastonbury monks commissioned DA. William went on to finish his first commission demonstrating to his fellow monks he was vehemently against Osbern’s original slight of their abbey.
However, William’s reasons for writing VD1 are different from Henry Blois’s because Henry could not explicitly ask William to propagate a fabrication: it was because you had taken offence at such mistakes (of Osbern) that you appealed to me to display the obedience our confraternity demands, and to give a new description of the saints doings, using (as it were) the press of my labours to remove the lees of untruth and strain out a purified version of the facts. So that I could do this with more assurance you showed me writings, both in Latin and in English, that you had found in an ancient chest of yours.
As soon as Henry Blois understood that William was not the person to embellish the translation rumour he had started, Henry and the Glastonbury monks commissioned DA. William went on to finish his first commission demonstrating to his fellow monks he was vehemently against Osbern’s original slight of their abbey.
However, William’s reasons for writing VD1 are different from Henry Blois’s because Henry could not explicitly ask William to propagate a fabrication: it was because you had taken offence at such mistakes (of Osbern) that you appealed to me to display the obedience our confraternity demands, and to give a new description of the saints doings, using (as it were) the press of my labours to remove the lees of untruth and strain out a purified version of the facts. So that I could do this with more assurance you showed me writings, both in Latin and in English, that you had found in an ancient chest of yours.
Even though William had previous affiliation
with Canterbury; Canterbury could hardly contradict the claim of antiquity as
Glastonbury was in truth more ancient: It
was an ancient place as I have said, going back well beyond his time; but
though it owes its first foundation to earlier benefactors, it is indebted to
Dunstan for its new pre-eminence.[5]
Just as a quick comment, to substantiate for
the reader that the interpolations in the first 34 chapters of DA were
fabricated…. if William had truly reached the conclusion of an apostolic
foundation after his researches at Glastonbury (as is commonly thought by
modern scholars), he would have stated it here…. as VD II is written after the
main body of DA i.e. the material which constitutes chapters 35 onwards…. which
is largely unadulterated.
In effect,William would not distress
Canterbury as long as he did not state that Dunstan’s relics were at
Glastonbury. However, Henry was the
proponent of the rumour and William came up short (as understood in the prologue of DA). He did not acquiesce to pressure from Henry by recording
as history what he knew was not true. It is on these grounds the composition of DA was
instigated (see chapter on DA). The carping nature of
William's criticism against Osbern can only be understood as wishing to appear
as angered as the rest of the monastic institution within which he mixed and ate his
bread.
The
accusations against Osbern were several, but above all was his assertion that
Dunstan was Glastonbury's first Abbot.
William took Osbern to task for exaggeration and his use of obviously
concocted speech as if Dunstan had spoken what was quoted. William also set out
to confound him on theological errors:
How heinously the chanter of Canterbury went astray in relating the life of our
father. For apart from a very few details in which he kept on the right track,
there are very many others-almost all in fact-where he confused the order of
miracles or strayed from the truth by diminishing or exaggerating events. In
particular following the practice of the rhetoricians, he often attributed to
speakers words which they might indeed have spoken in those circumstances-but
who, I ask you, could have passed them on to our day with all accuracy?
Scarcely, I repeat, scarcely has a slender report of events trickled through to
us; far less could I believe that words; which flew away the moment they were
spoken, could have been held on to. There is nothing of the sort in the old
writers following whose account I have
on your instructions roll back the miracles to their proper order and
corrected the details of events. I have added what is lacking, and cut out what
is superfluous. But I'm afraid it will be difficult to gain pardon for this
remark from the ill-disposed even though-to quote the opinion of a great orator[6]-I
should not be afraid to be called arrogant when I'm speaking the truth.[7]
If William really thought that there was any
truth in the rumour that Dunstan's body lay at Glastonbury, he would have said
so. William’s only way out of this compromising situation as Winterbottom and
Thompson suggest, was to propose a third book on Dunstan's posthumous miracles.
But for obvious reasons this never got written: … but a few things that have been preserved in writing will claim a
place in the following book.[8]
The question is: does the chronology and
scenario fit the statements made in the three prologues of VD 1&2 and DA?
Do the set of events correspond as I have set them out above? Do they coincide
as a reaction not only to Osborne but also take into account William’s reticence
to write into history Glastonbury's propaganda concerning Dunstan's burial there?
It seems fair to assume in 1127-8, it is hoped William can be brought on-board to express the view of the current newly invented Glastonbury polemic that Dunstan was translated at the time of the Danish incursion from Canterbury to Glastonbury. This does not happen for reasons explained above concerning William’s integrity. While William of Malmesbury was writing VD 1, it is realised by Henry Blois that William is not going to be cajoled, therefore, DA is envisaged as a compromise to overcome William’s moral rectitude in refusing to accept the translation rumour. The non-interpolated part of DA (chapter 35 onwards) not only confutes Osbern’s accusation, but establishes antiquity prior to Augustine by inclusion of the 601 charter which began William’s original DA. This in essence is the goal of DA, ‘the original plan’ i.e. a proof of antiquity confuting Osbern's erroneous accusation.
It seems fair to assume in 1127-8, it is hoped William can be brought on-board to express the view of the current newly invented Glastonbury polemic that Dunstan was translated at the time of the Danish incursion from Canterbury to Glastonbury. This does not happen for reasons explained above concerning William’s integrity. While William of Malmesbury was writing VD 1, it is realised by Henry Blois that William is not going to be cajoled, therefore, DA is envisaged as a compromise to overcome William’s moral rectitude in refusing to accept the translation rumour. The non-interpolated part of DA (chapter 35 onwards) not only confutes Osbern’s accusation, but establishes antiquity prior to Augustine by inclusion of the 601 charter which began William’s original DA. This in essence is the goal of DA, ‘the original plan’ i.e. a proof of antiquity confuting Osbern's erroneous accusation.
VD1 refers forward to the DA and both can be
seen to have been written simultaneously. William finishes VD1 quickly and
concentrates on the new task of DA: And
so I have made haste to obey your command, and in my anxiety to win your favour
and that of the saint, I have perhaps laid myself open to the teeth of
backbiters…. I have applied my pen to this topic simply to do you a favour.[9]
William continues to finish his second book of the life of Dunstan from the
birth of King Edgar taking up chronologically from where the VDI had left
off. VDII however, was written later than the main body of DA and refers back
to it: I have dealt in another work, as
well as God allowed me, with the antiquity of this most holy monastery at
Glastonbury in which I profess my heavenly service. If anyone is desirous of
reading about it, he will be able to find it elsewhere in my output.[10]
This indicates that DA took priority after
VDI was set aside while DA was researched and composed. Yet both books of the
VD were finished by the time William wrote the prologue to DA. By then Henry is
Bishop of Winchester.
William in VDII refers to GR as written some years ago: but anyone who cares to read of such matters may wish to look out the history of the English Kings, (GR) which I published some years back.[11] So, we may conclude VDI was started 1127-28, and DA 1128-29. When complete DA was presented to Henry anytime between 1129 and 1134-4 before Henry’s brother became King.
It seems that Henry Blois paid for the services of William in producing DA as the book was referred to him by the monks at Glastonbury; the implication being he was already bishop of Winchester and the single monograph copy rested with Henry Blois at Winchester.
William in VDII refers to GR as written some years ago: but anyone who cares to read of such matters may wish to look out the history of the English Kings, (GR) which I published some years back.[11] So, we may conclude VDI was started 1127-28, and DA 1128-29. When complete DA was presented to Henry anytime between 1129 and 1134-4 before Henry’s brother became King.
It seems that Henry Blois paid for the services of William in producing DA as the book was referred to him by the monks at Glastonbury; the implication being he was already bishop of Winchester and the single monograph copy rested with Henry Blois at Winchester.
With those events explained, I aim to show
that Eadmer was alive and the letter he wrote was written just after the new
abbot joined, because Eadmer inferred that it was a newly concocted story. I
believe Eadmer’s letter refers to the time of Henry’s arrival in 1126 and
was written in the three years before he went to Winchester.
One passage hints that William is referring to Eadmer as Osbern’s defender at Canterbury in what seems to be an ongoing theological debate which otherwise has no relevance to our inquiry: Now with the help of God's grace I shall try to clear up something I promised in a letter prefacing book one. For some people find fault with me for condemning the biographer of Dunstan because he said that the mother's womb swelled with the sacred unborn child.[12]
Winterbottom and Thompson posit that this might refer to Eadmer. However, there is far more pertinent information in the letter itself which implies that Eadmer must be writing his letter to Glastonbury after Henry’s arrival. The reason for labouring this point is to show from the outset, even before composing his pseudo-history which led to the Primary Historia (the pre-cursor of HRB), that Henry Blois was prone to fabricate tales.
I have included the whole of Eadmer’s letter in appendix 33. The letter is interesting in that Eadmer turns around the story which was supposed to glorify the fact that Dunstan’s remains were at Glastonbury into Glastonbury being a den of liars and grave robbers: There are some among you, recent members of your community, as I am aware, who claimed that your fathers of old were thieves and robbers.
One passage hints that William is referring to Eadmer as Osbern’s defender at Canterbury in what seems to be an ongoing theological debate which otherwise has no relevance to our inquiry: Now with the help of God's grace I shall try to clear up something I promised in a letter prefacing book one. For some people find fault with me for condemning the biographer of Dunstan because he said that the mother's womb swelled with the sacred unborn child.[12]
Winterbottom and Thompson posit that this might refer to Eadmer. However, there is far more pertinent information in the letter itself which implies that Eadmer must be writing his letter to Glastonbury after Henry’s arrival. The reason for labouring this point is to show from the outset, even before composing his pseudo-history which led to the Primary Historia (the pre-cursor of HRB), that Henry Blois was prone to fabricate tales.
I have included the whole of Eadmer’s letter in appendix 33. The letter is interesting in that Eadmer turns around the story which was supposed to glorify the fact that Dunstan’s remains were at Glastonbury into Glastonbury being a den of liars and grave robbers: There are some among you, recent members of your community, as I am aware, who claimed that your fathers of old were thieves and robbers.
Eadmer is making clear that by spreading
these lies, the Glastonbury establishment also implicate the former monks and
abbot as grave robbers and liars. Eadmer makes it a general accusation of
rumours emanating from Glastonbury: whose
name is unknown to those who put about the story….
The reason for me to implicate Henry is that he is a known fabricator of legends as we have seen as author of HRB creating the persona of Galfridus Artur to begin with and then inventing the nom de plume of Geoffrey from Monmouth. (see the chapter on the Oxford charters).
Again, Eadmer makes the point that the rumour is only a recent development: A hundred and more years have passed since they left this present life, those men whom these now claim to have been thieves and robbers. And now only at this late stage is such a grave reproach brought against them, and most unhappily they are now newly consigned to eternal punishment….
The reason for me to implicate Henry is that he is a known fabricator of legends as we have seen as author of HRB creating the persona of Galfridus Artur to begin with and then inventing the nom de plume of Geoffrey from Monmouth. (see the chapter on the Oxford charters).
Again, Eadmer makes the point that the rumour is only a recent development: A hundred and more years have passed since they left this present life, those men whom these now claim to have been thieves and robbers. And now only at this late stage is such a grave reproach brought against them, and most unhappily they are now newly consigned to eternal punishment….
Eadmer cannot accuse Henry directly, but makes
out that the modern youth of Glastonbury have invented this lie: But it is not we who says so; rather it is
their own modern brethren at Glastonbury. Assuredly we know for certain that
those men are not guilty of this sin. What does this matter to the fellows who
accuse their own brethren, nay, their own fathers, with such silly concocted
lies.
By modern
brethren read ‘recently joined.’ Eadmer almost says this must be a Norman
invention as an Englishman would have more respect for the relics and anyway
this sort of fabrication is more suited to the continentals: Your reverence must understand how, writing
this, I am confounded by such patent stupidity, worthy of everyone's scorn,
especially because it is said that these tales were made up by Englishman.
Alas, why did you not look overseas, where they have more experience, more
learning, and know better how to make up such stories? You could even have paid
someone to make up a plausible lie for you on a matter of such importance. So, the accusation is against someone of Norman descent.
It is poignant that Eadmer directs his
invective to the youth of the Abbey: So,
my lords and my brethren, to whom God has opened the means of understanding
matters of reason, bridal the wanton violence of your foolish young men who open their mouths only in order to seem to
know how to speak, on whatever the flightiness of their hearts lead them to,
thinking that they are something because others are innocent enough to listen
to what they say.
It seems rather poignant that when Eadmer
refers to how the body of Dunstan was miraculously taken from Canterbury, he is
full of sarcasm suggesting it might have to do with a disgraced abbot of
Glastonbury; when he knows perfectly well there were no monks from Glastonbury
who came to take up the body. I call him
former Abbot because as a general synod of the English church he was deposed of
his abbacy by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, and he was placed under such
confinement at Canterbury as fitted his position. The reference is designed
to cast a slur on Glastonbury and the fact that in the past there had been an
unscrupulous abbot and his deeds are recorded. The implication might be
understood to be directed at the present abbot continuing this tradition.
The point of discussing this was to show that
many details which were ‘put about’ by Glastonbury and recorded only in
Eadmer’s rebuttal letter are refuted mainly on the evidence of the Glastonbury
story not standing up to scrutiny. Most of these obvious flaws in the
Glastonbury concoction are left out of DA, where we know the reference exists in
the interpolated part of DA.
DA provides a general synopsis of the translation episode. It is a fact that, the translation did not take place. But, it is my opinion that Henry Blois re-iterated his initial concocted rumour which he had put about as a youth to increase alms revenue at the abbey. It was he himself who interpolated William’s work which we see in the interpolated chapter 23 of DA.
DA provides a general synopsis of the translation episode. It is a fact that, the translation did not take place. But, it is my opinion that Henry Blois re-iterated his initial concocted rumour which he had put about as a youth to increase alms revenue at the abbey. It was he himself who interpolated William’s work which we see in the interpolated chapter 23 of DA.
We can
assume this must be a later addition by Henry, as it was so easily confuted (earlier by Eadmer) and
would not have been in the first set of interpolations of DA in 1144. (see chapter on DA).
A later redactor has added to Henry’s explanation for the benefit of the abbey after the fire. As we have touched on already, Henry planted the supposed body of Arthur between the piramides at Glastonbury to be found in the future…. so one logically might assume the site of Dunstan’s grave was his doing also. We can therefore draw the conclusion that the translation of Dunstan account in DA is Henry’s work also…. and as I shall cover, extrapolated by a later interpolator after the fire. As we have covered, the inspiration for planting a body to be found in the future comes directly from Melkin’s prophecy.
A later redactor has added to Henry’s explanation for the benefit of the abbey after the fire. As we have touched on already, Henry planted the supposed body of Arthur between the piramides at Glastonbury to be found in the future…. so one logically might assume the site of Dunstan’s grave was his doing also. We can therefore draw the conclusion that the translation of Dunstan account in DA is Henry’s work also…. and as I shall cover, extrapolated by a later interpolator after the fire. As we have covered, the inspiration for planting a body to be found in the future comes directly from Melkin’s prophecy.
However, the idea for the leaden cross (found
in King Arthur’s grave) stating that Glastonbury is Avalon (by where it was unearthed) and that the body was
that of King Arthur’s..... was oddly enough initially inspired by Eadmer’s letter.
Eadmer in his confutation of the translation of Dunstan provides evidence of
the earlier movement of Dunstan’s relics when Eadmer was a boy at Canterbury: With it was found in inscription on a lead
tablet which clearly stated that there lay the body of St Dunstan, Archbishop
of Canterbury.
Henry Blois adapted the idea and used it for
his biggest deception. As a ploy, it is the proof positive that convinced the
world at Arthur’s disinterment; firstly, that the chivalric King Arthur existed, but
also that because he was buried at Glastonbury....Glastonbury was certainly the
old Isle Avalon.
Much like the composition of HRB can be traced to various sources (as clearly explained by Tatlock), we also see Henry’s inspiration from other sources, as the leaden cross is in reality one of the nucleic components of the Matter of Britain in defining Avalon at Glastonbury. Yet the reader is now aware (as we have covered) that the Island of Avalon in HRB was named after the Burgundian town in the region of Blois lands just as Arthur’s continental battle scene had been said to have taken place in the same region of Autun and Langres which of course Henry Blois knew well and all its topography.
Much like the composition of HRB can be traced to various sources (as clearly explained by Tatlock), we also see Henry’s inspiration from other sources, as the leaden cross is in reality one of the nucleic components of the Matter of Britain in defining Avalon at Glastonbury. Yet the reader is now aware (as we have covered) that the Island of Avalon in HRB was named after the Burgundian town in the region of Blois lands just as Arthur’s continental battle scene had been said to have taken place in the same region of Autun and Langres which of course Henry Blois knew well and all its topography.
Eadmer makes plain that his proof is
established by the lead tablet which states it was St Dunstan that lay in the
grave. Henry uses as inspiration from that example of proof the same format of buried inscription,
which showed Dunstan's relics remained at Canterbury by employing the leaden
cross in Arthur’s grave. But Henry changes history by implying his alter-ego was
buried in Avalon. (Don't forget 'Geoffrey's' Insula Pomorum could only be Glastonbury) From thenceforth the world has been duped…. yet the naïve are still fascinated at how it is
that there is a semblance of history which follows where ‘Geoffrey’ said Arthur
was last seen. The madness is that pontificators such as Carley (following in the footsteps of the errors made by Lagorio) remain utterly ignorant of the fact that Geoffrey of Monmouth is a nom de plume for Henry Blois... just as Master Blehis/Blohis, Bledhericus, Blihos Bleheris, Blaise, and the Bliocadran are all connected to the Grail Arthur and the Matter of Britain.
[1]Early Scottish
Charters, Prior to 1153. Sir Archibald Campbell Lawrie. Glasgow, 1910,
Published by James Maclehose and Sons, Glasgow, 1905, p 291
[2] As we shall
cover shortly, this myth was created to establish St Patrick at Glastonbury
rather than association relying on author B’s reference to Patrick.
[3] GR chap 149.3
[4] VD ii 35.2
[5] VD ii 10.3
[6] Cicero.
[7] VD ii
prologue
[8] VD ii 35. 2
[9] VD I prologue,
[10] VD II
prologue. This is the root cause of the matter
of Britain. Because DA was a book written for Glastonbury and delivered to
Henry Blois himself; no-one in Henry’s era got to see the DA (his output) in
the form that he left it. However, others did see it as it was used in the 1144
campaign to establish a metropolitan for Henry.
[11] VD II 15.4
[12] VD ii 35. 1
No comments:
Post a Comment