The Prophecy of Melkin
http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6
Insula auallonis
auida funere paganorum, pre ceteris in orbe ad sepulturam eorum omnium sperulis
propheciae vaticinantibus decorata, & in futurum ornata erit altissimum
laudantibus. Abbadare, potens in Saphat, paganorum nobilissimus, cum centum et
quatuor milibus domiicionem ibi accepit. Inter quos ioseph de marmore, ab
Armathia nomine, cepit sompnum perpetuum; Et iacet in linea bifurcata iuxta
meridianum angulum oratori, cratibus praeparatis, super potentem adorandam
virginem, supradictis sperulatis locum habitantibus tredecim. Habet enim secum
Ioseph in sarcophago duo fassula alba& argentea, cruore prophete Jhesu
& sudore perimpleta. Cum reperietur eius sarcofagum, integrum illibatum in
futuris videbitur, & erit apertum toto orbi
terrarium. Ex tunc aqua, nec ros coeli insulam nobilissimam habitantibus
poterit deficere. Per multum tempus ante diem Judioialem in iosaphat
erunt aperta haec, & viventibus declarata.
The Isle of Avalon, greedy for the death of pagans,
more than the rest of the world, for the entombment of them all, decorated
beyond all others by the spheres of portentous prophecy. In the future, adorned
shall it be by them that praise the Most High. Abbadare mighty in Saphat,
noblest of pagans, has found sleep with 104 other knights there. Among these
Joseph of Arimathea has found perpetual sleep in a marble tomb, and he lies on
a two forked line next to the southern angle of an oratory, where wattle is
prepared above the mighty maiden and where the aforesaid Thirteen spheres rest.
Joseph has with him in his sarcophagus two vessels, white and silver, filled
with the blood and sweat of the prophet Jesus. When his tomb is discovered, it
will be seen whole and untouched and will be open to the whole world. From then
on those who dwell in that noble Island shall lack neither water nor the dew of
heaven. A long time before the Day of Judgment in Josaphat; open shall these
things be and told to the living.
Above is an acceptable translation of the cryptic
set of phrases making up Melkin’s Prophecy.
It foretells of the Island of Avalon, upon which, the discovery of
Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb will be found in the future.[1] It is commonly understood that the reference
to duo fassula means that two vessels
are to be found also in the tomb. It
refers to Judgement day in the future, so one assumes this is how it became
known as a prophecy. It was written by
a man who knew where a tomb was located on a specific island. He was not a
prophet but merely left a cryptic message for posterity in a set of instructions
which, if understood and followed, determine where the Island is located. What
seems to be a prophecy about events surrounding the discovery of the tomb is
more a prediction of the consequence of two bodies being discovered. It was
written by a man who knew what the tomb contained and it is not a fourteenth
century fake as considered by modern scholars. Rather it should be considered
as having accompanied the 601 AD charter to Glastonbury. In 2012 Kim Yale
discovered the meaning which was encoded in the prophecy in ‘Melkin’s Prophecy
Decoded’. I have used much of his material in this chapter.
John of Glastonbury replicated this prophecy in his
‘Conica’. The understanding today is that the prophecy, and Melkin himself, are
a fourteenth century invention i.e. a forgery. This theory is largely based
upon the fact that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Avalon is known to be fictitious and
it is considered that fraud was carried out at Glastonbury by Henry de Sully in
the production of King Arthur’s grave. This is entirely incorrect.... as Henry
Blois is responsible for the manufacture of King Arthur’s grave between the
pyramids as stated in DA.
When we consider the accuracy of the results and
when we follow the precise instructions of Melkin’s prophecy, modern scholarship’s
deduction is false based on an erroneous premise…. purely because of the
ignorance of certain modern scholars. This position however, has been taken by
so called experts who have no understanding that the prophecy is a cleverly
constructed riddle. Scholars have based their assumptions on the fact that
there was no previous tradition of Joseph at Glastonbury prior to the Great Fire in 1184. This position is
incorrect as we will cover on the chapter on DA. But, it would be accurate to say that there
was no stated tradition of Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury before Henry
Blois. His inception of Avalon in HRB was then later embellished into William
of Malmesbury’s DA. Henry Blois has substituted Insula Avallonis for Ineswitrin on the extant fragment of Melkin’s
prophecy to fit with his agenda which locates his fictitious Island of Avalon
at Glastonbury. As we shall see in
progression, Henry Blois is responsible for Glastonbury assuming the name of
Avalon by a confirmation found on the cross at Arthur’s disinterment which
leads us to believe that where Arthur’s remains were discovered is the
geographical Avalon mentioned in HRB.
Joseph of Arimathea, through Henry Blois’s interpolations in DA and
through the name change of the Island on which he is buried, became attached to
Glastonbury lore. The name of Ineswitrin was substituted for Avallonis on Melkin’s prophecy by Henry
Blois which falsely relates to Joseph’s tomb on Avalon…. simply because there
is no real geographical ‘Avallon’ except in Burgundy. It is thought Avalon’s
association with Glastonbury has only occurred since the discovery of Arthur in
1190-91. This position is hardly tenable
considering Insula Pomorum’s association with Glastonbury c.1156-7 (or as
scholars believe- 1155 when VM was written). Through spurious lore planted in
William of Malmesbury’s interpolated DA, which not only corroborates the
invention of Avalon in HRB and confirms Arthur’s association with Glastonbury
as posited in Life of Gildas (c.1139-40)….
it also confirms that Joseph came to Glastonbury, which I do not maintain as a
certainty.
It is impossible to determine which parts of DA
were interpolated at exactly what date. But, most of the first 34 chapters of
DA in the form we have them were written by Henry Blois. We can establish all
interpolation was done after William of Malmesbury’s death and some
interpolations were inserted before Henry’s death; and some are as early as
1144. The final summation or coalescing of Henry’s agendas are witnessed in the
interpolation which constitutes the first two chapters of DA. We can conclude
that it was written after Henry’s return from Clugny sometime after 1158….
after VM had been written at Clugny. As the reader will remember, Henry was
opining the 19 years of his brother’s reign in VM.
However, Joseph’s introduction and establishment
into Glastonbury lore comes in interpolated passages, which sets up a
historical scenario (or plausible background) for his sudden appearance in
lore. In reality, the only certainty is that Joseph is buried on Burgh Island
and may never have gone to Glastonbury. Joseph’s only verifiable connection
with Glastonbury was that the prophecy of Melkin, in which his name is
mentioned, was found at Glastonbury along with the 601 AD grant of Ineswitrin
while Henry was abbot. Joseph is introduced into DA as follows: While preaching in the region of the Franks,
as narrated by Freculf, Philip chose and ordained twelve disciples, whom he put
in charge of his beloved friend, Joseph of Arimathea, who buried the Lord. In
the sixty-third year of the Incarnation, and the fifteenth of the Assumption of
Mary, these missionaries arrived in Britain. They failed to convert the
barbarous King, but obtained the concession of a swampy and forest-girt island,
known to the natives as Iniswitrin.
What I should make clear is that the Prophecy of
Melkin did exist in the time of Henry Blois and he not only used it as
inspiration to create the mythical island where Arthur was taken in HRB, but
also used the same notion as found in the original Melkin prophecy of a body
being discovered in the future.... which caused Arthur’s momentous disinterment
after Henry’s death. Henry Blois had stated in DA where the planted grave site
of Guinevere and Arthur was situated. The Melkin prophecy’s greatest
contribution to the muses of Henry Blois was that the duo fassula in the prophecy was the template for the creation of
the Grail and hence its attachment to Joseph. The decoding of the prophecy
could easily be likened to what became known as the Quest for the Grail.
Some features at Glastonbury were purposefully made
to seem significant and were highlighted in DA as if they naturally correlated
to certain words written in Melkin’s prophecy. The idea behind this was that
Melkin’s prophecy, which foretold of Joseph’s tomb being uncovered, could only
now conceivably be understood to be situated at Glastonbury.
A peculiarly detailed description of the
construction of the church takes place to coincide with the ‘Wattle’ of
Melkin’s cratibus. The oratori of Melkin’s prophecy became
synonymous with the Old church. Melkin’s adorandam
virginem also was made to equate with the old church and its dedication to
the ‘Virgin Mary’. I shall cover the DA
and the Glastonbury interpolations in GR3 at length further on. But, we should
look upon the first 34 chapters of DA as having little to do with William of
Malmesbury. The following chapters in DA (35 onwards) are relatively
unadulterated and reflect Malmesbury’s true work.
Henry Blois had free rein in the DA to substantiate
his island of Avalon from HRB and establish its synonymy with the island upon
which Joseph was actually buried; the inspiration for which was taken from
Melkin’s prophecy. This is how Henry Blois brings Arthur’s Island, Joseph’s
burial island, and the new VM’s etymological Insula Pomorum…. all to be synonymous with Glastonbury. The VM’s
transformation of an island, which previously in HRB had merely been mythical
and without geographic position…. becomes identifiable with a location known
for its apples i.e. in Somerset. This
concocted aura which Henry created around Avalon was so that all his previous
propaganda coalesced and posterity is led to believe that its location was
synonymous with Glastonbury. This is where Henry manufactured a grave where the
bogus remains of King Arthur and Guinevere were going to be found.
Once the grave site was opened, Glastonbury was
confirmed as Avalon by the ‘leaden cross’…. contrived as an epitaph found in
the grave. Long after Henry Blois’ death, Avalon was deemed to be an old name
for Glastonbury. Most were convinced by corroborative interpolations which had
previously been inserted into DA. Henry, as we know, is associated with crosses
in a few accounts of chroniclers of that era.... so it is hardly surprising
that he uses this symbol upon which to confirm Avalon’s whereabouts and King
Arthur’s grave. As we shall discover when dealing with Eadmer’s letter…. the
inspiration for the production of ‘Leaden cross’ and its placement in Arthur’s
grave and what it accomplishes came from Henry Blois contention with Canterbury
as witnessed in Eadmer’s letter. Therein is a reference to a lead tablet being
described in St Dunstan’s grave. Henry uses his cross in the same way for proof
of King Arthur’s grave, as Canterbury had done proving Dunstan’s body was at
Canterbury…. in establishing as proof that the body was never moved to
Glastonbury.
At this point we should note how Henry Blois brings
Arthur’s Island, Joseph’s actual burial island and the VM’s etymological Insula Pomorum all to be synonymous with
Glastonbury. The VM transformation of an island in a location known for its
apples i.e. Somerset, was implied so that all Henry’s propaganda coalesced into
the firm location of Glastonbury. We know John of Glastonbury takes his
material from many sources and his rendition of the prophecy of Melkin is the
only rendition left to posterity. It has Henry’s own invention of Insula Avallonis replacing the original
Ineswirin, which was the island originally stated on the genuine Melkin
Prophecy. To highlight how Henry adapts his work from a previous standpoint
(agenda), we can witness that he is the one who attempts to bring his invention
of Avalon (from HRB) into line with his later post 1158 Joseph lore. In 1144 he had wished Ineswitrin to be
understood as synonymous with Glastonbury so as to substantiate the 601 charter
(which in effect establishes Glastonbury’s antiquity).
The
intention of Henry is achieved probably by his own later addition to a verse in
VM which aligns Glastonbury with Insula
Pomorum through Joseph. John of Glastonbury in his Cronica has an additional quote tacked onto the VM verse concerning
Insula Pomorum. What is clear is that
John of Glastonbury is quoting from an edition of VM which now makes
Glastonbury into New Jerusalem by association with Joseph. It seems fairly
obvious that this would have come from Henry’s hand originally as he is guilty
of the conversion of Avalon at Glastonbury.[2] It
is Henry who originally puts Joseph at Glastonbury by concocting the first two
chapters of DA (his last insertion into DA). John in chapter 2 of his Cronica repeats all Henry Blois’
propagandist bogus etymology found in either DA or Life of Gildas. He then goes on: From these facts, then, it is clear why it is considered an island and
why it is called both Avalon and Glastonbury. In praise of this Island a
certain poet sang: (Verses).‘The
island of Apples, which is called Fortunate, is truly named, for it brings
forth all things of its own accord. It needs no farmers to till the fields and
there is no cultivation save that which nature provides. It freely brings forth
fertile stalks and grapes and apples born of precious seed in its forests. The
earth nourishes all things as bounteous as tended land; one lives a hundred
years or more’.[3]This
is just as it is written in VM, but then John continues as if still quoting
from the ‘poet’ (an obvious reference to ‘Geoffrey’s’ VM):
‘This was the new Jerusalem, the faith’s refinement, a holy hill, celebrated as the ladder
of Heaven. He scarcely pays the penalty of hell who lies buried here’.
This later addition, one can be sure, was tied up
with Henry’s last agenda introducing the Joseph material into the first two
chapters of DA. ‘New Jerusalem’ is not a concept relative to King Arthur. Henry
is introducing the fact that Joseph is buried in Avalon and therefore we can
understand the change of name on the Melkin prophecy from Ineswitrin to
Avalon. Henry Blois’ interpolation
points out in DA that Arthur is buried at Glastonbury between the pyramids and
buried with his wife …. long before the discovery of Arthur’s grave (as does Perlesvaus). Obviously, John did not concoct this addition
himself, but is using as a source a copy of VM which is no longer extant and
which Henry had subsequently altered when introducing Joseph lore into DA.
Henry’s masterpiece of deception is in the transformation
of his own invented ‘locationless’ Avalon in First Variant and Vulgate HRB into
what the modern world now believes is the ancient island of Avalon…. now
situated at Glastonbury. There is only one man who could make all the
foundation blocks of his literary edifice combine…. while disguising his hand
under the name of William of Malmesbury, Geoffrey of Monmouth and Master Blehis
amongst others.
William of Malmesbury may have only produced one
copy of DA and presented it to Henry Blois for his approval as intonated in the
prelude and dedication of DA. DA was dedicated and given to Henry Blois while
Henry probably promised to make a copy for William of Malmesbury, but never
did. It is possible also, (which I will cover in more detail later), that Henry
obtained all of William of Malmesbury’s works after his death in 1143 from the
abbey of Malmesbury as he had recently installed his own choice of abbot there.
Therefore, DA, in either case (whether at Malmesbury or in his own possession)
was in Henry’s hands…. and he was free to reconstruct it as he wished: This island was at first called Yniswitrin
by the Britons but at length was named by the English, who had brought the land
under their yoke, Glastinbiry, either a translation into their language of its
previous name, or after Glasteing of whom we spoke above. It is also frequently
called the isle of Avalon, a name of which this is the origin. It was mentioned
above that Glasteing found his sow under an apple tree near the church. Because
he discovered on his arrival that apples were very rare in that region he named
the island Avallonie in his own language, that is ‘Apple island’, for avalla in
British is the same as poma in Latin. Or it was named after a certain Avalloc
who is said to have lived there with his daughters because of the solitude of
the spot.[4]
Henry Blois wrote the life of Gildas. It is plain when we investigate Caradoc’s history
in chapter 22 that he dies c.1130. What Henry Blois achieved writing Life of Gildas after Caradoc’s death in
his name and impersonating him by using his name as a known Welsh chronicler is
Arthur’s introduction to Glastonbury.
Just as Arthur was mentioned in other genuine saints’ lives such as the Vita Cadoci and the life of St Efflam.… the format of saints’ lives was mimicked
by the construction of Life of Gildas. Arthur appears in Vita Cadoci as uncontrolled and tyrannical and in other saints’
lives as rebellious. But in Life of Gildas he becomes slightly more
chivalric, akin to the Arthur of HRB. Arthur is brought into association with
Glastonbury through the abduction episode, but the manuscript’s initial intent
was to place Gildas at Glastonbury which in effect provides a date in antiquity
with which the abbey might be associated.
Henry finished the Life of Gildas in the same era as composing the Primary Historia (the precursor to HRB summarised
by Huntingdon). The spat between Glastonbury and Canterbury had existed before
Henry’s arrival in 1126, but was made worse by him personally as we shall cover
later when we look at Eadmer’s letter. However, the enmity grew personally
between Theobald of Bec and Henry from 1139 onward and the contention of the
whereabouts of Dunstan’s relics which encouraged the proof of the antiquity of
Glastonbury i.e. the writing of DA.... became of prime importance and thus was
followed by the further polemic concerning another of Henry Blois’domains found
in HRB. That concerned the antiquity of concerning Winchester. HRB establishes
a monastic institution at Winchester in the time of Constans.
As I have maintained, Henry inserted the last
sentence in Life of Gildas to fulfil
a separate agenda which convinced others the 601 charter was genuine by
locating the unknown whereabouts of Ineswitrin as being synonymous with
Glastonbury. (How could the Island of Witrin be an estate given to the ols
church on which it was situated?).
This
controversy which began as a contention of Antiquity through Osbern’s
accusation became a contention regarding primacy after William of Malmesbury
had died as Henry pursued his goal of metropolitan for the south west of
England. The final sentence in the Life of Gildas as we have covered,
establishes synonymy between Glastonbury and Ineswitrin: Glastonia was of old called Ynisgutrin, and is still called so by the
British inhabitants. Ynis in the British language is insula in Latin, and gutrin
(made of glass). But after the coming of the English and the expulsion of the
Britons, that is, the Welsh, it received a fresh name, Glastigberi, according
to the formation of the first name, that is English glass, Latin vitrum,
and beria a city; then Glastinberia,
that is, the City of Glass.
The 601 charter which refers to the Devonian Island
in William’s GR3 and DA is anciently dated and therefore, because the charter
can be produced and is ancient…. it becomes the ultimate proof of
antiquity. From that time forward (in
name alone) Yniswitrin is
trans-located to Glastonbury by ‘Caradoc’s’ etymological late addition as we
have discussed.
It is only much later after the composition of VM
that insula Avallonis and Insula Pomorum became synonymous with
Glastonbury through Henry’s various interpolations of the first 34 chapters of
William’s DA. From
different sources, DA is employed to corroborate and interlock the various
foundation blocks of Henry’s literary ‘edifice of illusion’ which focus’s
Glastonbury as Avalon. Henry’s agendas evolve during his life and therefore it
is made more difficult to see the relationships which make up the myth which
constitutes Glastonbury lore.
In
the past, it has been impossible to see the relationship between Ynis Witrin
and Avalon without the understanding that Henry is the author of HRB and his
involvement with the 601 charter. We then have to work out what relation
Ineswitrin has to the Island where Joseph of Arimathea’s body is buried. This
must be followed by uncovering the relationship between Glastonbury and the
Avalon of HRB and then follow how Melkin’s Joseph of Arimathea is related to
the chivalric Arthur from HRB in Grail literature. Finally, when we establish
how Grail literature brings together Joseph of Arimathea, Arthur and Avalon and
the Grail itself (which has its origin in the prophecy of Melkin as the duo fassula)…. we find that through
Henry’s continental family connections in Marie of Champagne, we arrive at the
reason Chrétien references Master Blehis
and Robert de Boron Blaise as the
fount from which information on the Grail originates. The pieces of a puzzle
must be placed in position and placed in relation to each other to build a
picture according to plan and therefore, we must, with much other evidence to
follow, look to the architect, Henry Blois.
This
is why the DA becomes so important in our investigation. We can also see
Henry’s work (rather than later interpolators) if we understand his agendas
more. Rather than accepting that the tracts covered so far are fraudulent, faux-historic or interpolated, (as
modern scholars accept)…. we should be looking at the reasoning behind why this
activity has taken place. From this, we
may determine when for instance Brut y
Brenhinedd was written…. as the Avalloc mentioned above in DA is Henry’s
work. This associates Avalloc and his daughters with Ynys Afallach and thereby; the sisters coincidental introduction on Insula Pomorum in the VM, where Henry is
seen to be linking Merlin to the Welsh Bardic tradition through Taliesin. Henry’s edifice is a web formed from his
authorial prowess and his changing circumstance; designed from a devious mind
which hid its identity from the public domain.
In later years, having stepped out of the role of
the all-powerful knight bishop, occupied with affairs of state while brother to
the King; Henry is reduced to employing his ingenuity and brilliance in the
formation of a literary edifice which constitutes a gratifying yet erroneous
rewrite of History which becomes what is now known as the Matter of Britain
I have digressed here just to show in a brief way
how it is that much of the corroborative evidences which substantiates
disparate material is established or coalesced in DA….. and this shows how
important DA was to Henry as a fundamental part of the evolving illusion he
composed. The DA locks many pieces of Henry’s jigsaw into place. It is at a later point in Henry’s life (post
1158) when his intended insurrection against Henry II had not transpired
(despite Henry Blois’ prophetical efforts), that he returned quietly to
England, reduced in his power, and not in favour…. and under suspicion by the
new King. It was under these circumstances that he started on his next great
authorial feat. Henry introduced Grail
literature into the public domain both on the continent and in Britain. This of
course is based on Melkin’s prophecy and we can see evidence of the existence
of the prophecy while Henry was alive by his endeavours to find Ineswitrin
which we shall get to shortly. So, it is Melkin’s prophecy which links the
Grail to Joseph and Henry’s concocted Grail stories which link to his
concoction of the Chivalric Arthur of HRB. This finally brings us back to the
subject in hand which is Joseph and his burial site on the Island of Avalon as
stated in the only version of Melkin’s Prophecy to reach posterity.
The only certain mention of the tomb of Joseph of
Arimathea existed with the set of instructions we find in the prophecy above.
These instructions are attested to have been written by a man called Melkin.
However, Montacute is posited as Joseph of Arimathea’s burial site also; this
information coming from Glastonbury but entirely separate from the prophecy
itself. Certainly, this is not by coincidence as Montacute concurs with part of
the instructional data elucidated from the solution to the cryptic prophecy. So,
whoever posited that Joseph was ‘carefully hidden’ in Montacute had a definite
knowledge of the solution to the Melkin prophecy and had decoded the prophecy….
or more probably....was responsible for constituting the prophecy of Melkin
i.e. Melkin himself. One can only
surmise differing scenarios; Melkin planted this as a referential clue which
would confirm the marking of the 104 mile line to Joseph’s tomb (as the line passes
through Montacute). In which case, the association of Joseph’s burial site with
Montacute must have been placed in a separate manuscript set apart from his
prophecy. The only other deduction might
have been that someone had decoded Melkin’s puzzle, but this is unlikely
because Henry Blois (as will become apparent) physically searched at Montacute
for the tomb of Joseph.
This search
must have been based on the information supplied which cryptically mentioned
Joseph’s ‘careful burial’ in connection with Montacute. Henry Blois does not
know where the Island of Ineswitrin is located which the Melkin prophecy
originally stated had Joseph’s remains buried on it, but Henry knows the island is real as it has
the same name (before he changed it) as that found in the 601 charter regarding
Ineswitrin. Another possibility is that when the tomb is eventually opened it
will be seen that the Turin cloth came from the tomb as posited by Kim Yale and
this would imply that previously in history, (but after the death of Henry
Blois), the tomb has been opened. Goldsworthy[5]
posited that it was the Templars who found the tomb by the connection that it
was the granddaughter of the last ‘grand master’ who first produced the Turin
cloth.
What will become clear is that the prophecy could
not be a fourteenth century invention because the data within the prophecy
itself, (which scholars could not unlock), in fact turns out to be a set of
instructions. These instructions to the location of Joseph’s tomb are so
precise that they identify Burgh Island (by measurement from two major
landmarks) as the old tin island of Ictis which links to Joseph by the tin
trade. Like the Dumnonian island of
Ineswitrin, Burgh Island is located in Devon, just as our ‘Island of White tin’
or Ineswitrin is named as a consequence of its association with the tin trade.
Once Henry Blois is understood to have found
Melkin’s work at Glastonbury, there seems to be three important pieces of this
work which he employed while building his own literary edifice of rewritten
history. Firstly, we may speculate that he based Merlin the prophet on Melkin[6]
having seen the prophecy and it may have been Henry Blois himself who termed it
‘Melkin’s prophecy’ as it is known today. I would assume the extract, as it
exists, came from a larger work and I am suggesting it was Henry who extracted
it and changed the name of Ineswitrin and substituted it with Insula Avallonis. Secondly, there is no
way that ‘Geoffrey’ is translating from an old book given him by Archdeacon
Walter in HRB and there is no island named Avalon before ‘Geoffrey’. Tatlock
has established that HRB is a composition made up of many sources by the author.
Not one scholar has ever recognised Henry Blois as author of HRB using
‘Geoffrey’ as a pen name. But, the idea for providing a semblance of an ancient
source book upon which he fabricated the HRB, may have been based upon Melkin’s
works. Melkin’s works may have been in a Brythonic tongue (if other works ever
existed) but certainly the prophecy was written by Melkin in Latin as its
obtuse directions would not have survived translation.
Henry Blois is the initial instigator of Grail
literature in Britain and on the continent. But it is Henry Blois who
associates Arthur with Joseph in Grail material. Material on Arthur, as Bale
and Pits imply, in a book thought to have been written by Melkin i.e. the book titled ‘De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda’ was
obviously written by Henry Blois…. and this is where John of Glastonbury may
have got some of his material from. Why, if there is no basis to connect Arthur to
Melkin, have Pits and Bale associated Melkin’s name with Arthur? It is more
likely that Henry Blois impersonated Melkin and composed the book Leland refers
to.
However, let us return to the prophecy itself: Kim
Yale explains the prophecy by interpreting the translation so that the intended
instructions are revealed from the first part of the convoluted Latin
puzzle: Island of Avalon, coveting the pagans in death, above all others in the
world they are honoured for their entombment there before the circle of
portentous prophesy (Avebury). In the future (the island) will be adorned by
those that give praise to the highest. The father’s pearl, (Jesus) mighty in
judgement the noblest of pagans (Jews), sleeps 104 miles from it (Avebury), by
whom he received interment by the sea from Joseph named from Arimathea, and has
taken his eternal rest there, and he lies on a line that is two forked between
that and a meridian, in an angle on a coastal Tor, in a crater, that was
already prepared…. and above is where one prays which one can go at the
extremity of the verge;[7]
high up in Ictis is the place they abide to the south at thirteen degrees.
A conventional translation of the second half of
the prophecy is as follows: Amid these Joseph in marble
named from Arimathea has found perpetual sleep and he lies on a two-forked line
next the south corner of an oratory fashioned of wattles for the adoring of a
mighty Virgin.
In his sarcophagus are two cruets, white and silver filled with the blood and
sweat of the Prophet Jesus. When his sarcophagus shall be found entire and
intact in time to come, it shall be seen and shall be exposed to the whole
world. From that day forward water, nor
the dew of heaven shall fail the dwellers in that ancient isle for a long while
before the day of judgment in Josaphat. Fully uncovered shall these things be
and declared to living men.
The above implies that Joseph of Arimathea is
buried somewhere in relation to the church of the Virgin at Glastonbury. This is due to the manoeuvrings of Henry
Blois initially; but monks at Glastonbury have expanded upon Henry’s initial
impetus by inventing further material after his death. This now makes it
impossible not to believe that Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb is intricately linked
by proximity to the church at Glastonbury.
Modern
scholars have tended to discount Melkin for several reasons. The first and most
obvious is that they do not understand that Melkin’s prophecy was intended as a
riddle. The prophecy’s main raison d’etre
was to indicate that Joseph of Arimathea was on an island called Ineswitrin
and preserve this information into posterity. The problem is that the prophecy
(now changed) starts: Insula Avallonis.
Modern scholars have understood that HRB is a concoction. So, they have also
deduced that the island of Avalon (which was never heard of before HRB) is an
island of make believe…. existing in its first reference in a book which is
known to be a composite concoction of a faux-
history. Researchers have never contemplated that the island name of Ineswitrin
was substituted on the prophecy for the manufactured name Insula Avallonis by Henry Blois. The reason for the invention of a
puzzle by Melkin was so that the Island and the contents it secreted would not
be discovered, until such time as indicated in the puzzle itself.
One
must assume that there would be no point in constructing a riddle which hides
the location of an island if the monks at Glastonbury knew where it was. The exception
to this is, if certain monks knew what the island contained and were guarding
its secret at a point during the Saxon invasion. The most obvious solution to
me would be that after an attack on the monastery which existed on Burgh
Island, Melkin signed the island over to the monks at Glastonbury. Possibly
certain monks were privy (like Worgrez who did not pass on the secret
information). Yet, the works of Melkin or just the prophecy itself were found
at Glastonbury, so the likelihood is that they were delivered at the time the
601 charter was signed as indicated by the personal reference (‘I,
Bishop Maworn, drew up this deed. I, Worgrez, Abbot of the same place set my
hand thereto’). If Melkin was
the King who was donating the Island, we then have to work out why he would
invent a puzzle which in effect secreted the location yet stipulated the name
on the charter. The simple answer is that under pressure from the Saxon
invasion, the island was donated to the pre-West Saxon house of Glastonbury and
the coded message was constructed in case an abbot like Worgrez was unable to
convey his secret about what was contained on the island or where it was
located. However, what someone knew or
did not know at that period becomes irrelevant over the five hundred year time
span which elapsed…. in which Melkin’s work gathered dust at Glastonbury….
until William of Malmesbury found it (as he did the 601 charter) and Henry
Blois started reading Melkin’s words.
Certainly,
someone back in 601AD knew of the secret contents of the tomb within the island
and constructed the geometry to form Melkin’s puzzle. A set of instructional
and directional data were created and incorporated into what appears to be a
prophecy written by a madman. It in fact indicates with alarming accuracy, the
location of the island on which it states that Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb is to
be found.
The
startling fact is that there are only two references to where the body of
Joseph of Arimathea might be buried. Both places could only have been posited
by someone who had knowledge of the meaning behind the puzzle. One of the
locations is on an Island as we have covered, but another place where Joseph is
rumoured to be ‘carefully buried’ is in Montacute. The only way Henry Blois
could have had foreknowledge of Montacute as being connected with the tomb of
Joseph is if the name were given as a partial solution to the puzzle. Thus, in
effect, Montacute is a marker point or even a conformational clue to a point on
the intended 104 nautical mile line posterity is instructed to draw on a map.
This is stipulated by the geometry of Melkin’s riddle once the riddle is
understood.
Therefore,
some other manuscript named Montacute separately. This could only have been
written by Melkin or someone who has knowledge of the 104 mile line we are
instructed to construct in order to locate the Island. This might indicate that
Melkin had other works at Glastonbury.... as Montacute is not mentioned in the
prophecy itself. Any person who had not decoded the geometric line which is 104
miles long (i.e. by scribing it on a map of southern Britain), would not know it went through Montacute with
such precision.
Henry
Blois had been averted to the connection between Joseph’s burial place and
Montacute and went in search of the tomb. This same information regarding
Joseph and Montacute which was available to Henry Blois was passed down through
generations at Glastonbury until the time of Father William Good in the era of the dissolution of the
monasteries.
Modern
scholars should re-consider (before consigning Melkin to fraudulent invention)
and ask how it is that the only two locations relevant to Joseph’s burial place
were both on manuscripts found at Glastonbury and both feature in the solution
to Melkin’s riddle. They are both on the line, which, when constructed,
indicates Burgh Island in Devon…. exactly 104 nautical miles from Avebury
(sphaerula/circle) as intended by the puzzle. How is it that a key pointer to
the solution (the hill of Montacute) is known before the fourteenth century if
the prophecy is a forgery? We shall cover the Montacute search by Henry Blois
shortly.
The
real problem is that too much spurious and contradictory information has been
written about Melkin by James Carley. He and other commentators who believe his
analysis and pretence of ‘expertise and scholarship’ concerning Melkin’s
existence (and the content of his prophecy) should reconsider the speculative
pronouncements on which their notoriety exists.
Further,
it is alarming that those who profess to be knowledgeable about Glastonburyana,
Arthuriana and Grail literature, having been mentored and submersed in this
material for years have barely mentioned Henry Blois’ name. One must assume the reason for Carley’s denial
of the validity of Melkin and his prophecy is because he does not recognise
Henry Blois’ hand in Grail literature or his fraud in the composition of HRB
and his interpolations into the first 34 chapters of DA. Carley has followers
such as sub-deacon Paul Ashdown,
who also pronounces on a subject he does not understand. I must point out most
emphatically, Melkin never mentions Glastonbury as suggested by both ‘experts’.
Subdeacon Ashdown has this to say on the subject: The enigmatic ‘Prophecy of Melkin’, included in the Chronica of the
monk John ‘of Glastonbury’ (John Sheen) of 1342, which built upon the work of
William of Malmesbury and Adam of Domerham. The previously unheard-of character
of Melkin, who was ‘before Merlin,’ is presented in the same vaticinatory pseudo-Welsh
tradition as the Arthurian seer (Merlin) as imagined by Geoffrey of Monmouth,
and the Latin is therefore deliberately
cryptic. Here we read for the first time of the burial of Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, in
a hidden tomb which will be revealed at a millennial future time before the Day
of Judgement. He lies (as I have argued elsewhere) in a folded linen shroud,
probably to be identified with that of Christ, and with two vessels containing
(presumably one of each) Christ’s blood and sweat’. The ‘bad archaeologist’[8] is
singing from the same hymn sheet: The idea of a body being buried in a split garment rather than
in a split line seems to make more sense to me. Those ignorant of the meaning of Melkin’s in linea bifurcata seem to have an obsession
with finding meaning behind the prophecy which they ironically determine is a
fake.
Paul Ashdown
continues to regurgitate the speculative concoctions of Prof. James Carley: This rigmarole may well incorporate older
elements but, in the form in which we have it, is datable to the aftermath of
Edward I’s visit through the inclusion of the figure of Abbadare. As first
suggested in 1981 by James Carley, he is to be identified with Baybars (in
Arabic al-Malik al-Zahir Rukn al-Din Baybars al-Bunduqdari), Sultan of Egypt
and Syria, Edward’s formidable adversary during the Ninth Crusade, who had
captured the fortress of Safed, Melkin’s ‘Saphat,’ (and with it the Galilee)
from the Templars in 1266, and died of poisoning in July 1277, in the year
before Edward’s visit to Glastonbury. I have argued elsewhere that Melkin’s
reference originated in some satirical lay which had consigned the deceased
Baybars and his paladins to one of the alternative Mediterranean, Oriental or
Antipodean locations of an Avalon which has here been repatriated, along (uncomprehendingly) with the Sultan, to
its British origin.
Included among the sleeping ‘pagans’ (i.e. in contemporary usage, Muslims),
perhaps because of his status as a
wealthy Jew,[9]
is Joseph of Arimathea. Although ‘Melkin’ is the oldest source to tell of his burial at Glastonbury, his tomb’s
exact location is clearly regarded as an occult secret. It seems most
unlikely that John Sheen was himself the author of the Melkin doggerel. Indeed,
he seems to have been the first to confuse the mysterious linea bifurcata, which I have
interpreted as a shroud, with some kind of esoteric line in church or churchyard.
Carley
is of course the source for the piffle about Baybars, but the ludicrous notion of Ashdown’s is even more
ridiculous. Most accuse JG of the prophecy’s fabrication, but if John Sheen was
the author of the Melkin prophecy (as some scholars profess), why accuse Sheen
of confusion over his own interpretation of linea
bifurcate. John correctly understands it relevant to determining where the
grave is. Ashdown’s interpretation of a
‘shroud’ from a ‘bifurcated line’, found in an obviously geometrically
encrypted puzzle, with measurements of length and angle, is totally preposterous.
It is not worthy of consideration as it is passed off as learned deduction.
John Sheen is exactly correct in recognising the line geometrically as an
esoteric line and it is only through the contortions of Henry Blois and his
interpolations into DA and GR3 (B version) that Sheen believes the linea bifurcata finds relevance with the
old church.
The
fact that William of Malmesbury did not mention Melkin is best explained by
William’s distrust of fables. Why is it incumbent upon William of Malmesbury to
include what he does not understand? If he had seen Melkin’s work and any
mention of Joseph of Arimathea, he probably would have simply dismissed it. Any
evidence he might have seen would have been written 500 years before his time.
Perhaps there were no other works of Melkin…. but Bale and Pits attest there
were. But given the title of one concerning the round table (De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda)…. I
suggest Henry is culpable of writing under Melkin’s name. In any case, William
of Malmesbury probably would have discounted any mention of Joseph as mere
fabrication, even if Iniswitrin was on the original prophecy and he had seen it
with that name written thereon.
It was the 601 charter alone which proved
antiquity. The proof of antiquity for the Abbey was William of Malmesbury’s
directive in the composition of DA as the title suggests. To William, the
Melkin Prophecy was meaningless. There were saints and their relics at every
religious house as it was good for business, but if William had seen Joseph of
Arimathea’s name in connection with Britain (or Glastonbury) it would have been
discounted. As we shall discover further on, it was not even William of Malmesbury
who posited St. Philip as the apostle across the channel as witnessed in GR3
and DA.
The important key to unlocking Melkin’s riddle is
the ‘bifurcated line’. The bifurcated line is where we are informed Joseph’s
tomb lies, but there has to be two lines for one to bifurcate the other. It is the line which bifurcates the ‘Michael
line’ which Melkin wants us to find and construct on a map. The point at which
it bifurcates at Avebury is the solution of Melkin’s puzzle. The only line or
marker that Melkin could guarantee would not be destroyed over millenia and
would always exist.... is the alignment now known as the St. Michael line which runs across southern England.
As Melkin’s intention was to provide a key, he used
the ‘bifurcated line’ and its bifurcation point as a starting place from which
a separate line would divide (at thirteen degrees) and act as a ‘pointer’ 104
miles long to Burgh Island in Devon. The ancient alignment of the Michael line
is the starting line, without which, the rest of the instructions in the
prophecy could not be understood. The Michael line is made up of landscape
features which include Avebury stone circle, Glastonbury tor, Burrow Mump, and
the Hurlers, to name a few.[10]
We can understand the reference to a sperula
which obviates the word ‘Sphaerula’ or circle and which pertains to Avebury
stone circle, where the bifurcation occurs. These are immovable reference
points on the British landscape which constitute a straight line that would not
move overtime.
The Michael line, or as Melkin refers to it, ‘the
English Meridium’ (Meridium Anglum)
acts as Melkin’s line which we are instructed to bifurcate. It is from within
this prehistoric stone circle that Melkin directs us to Burgh island by way of
completing the instruction…. and drawing the line 104 miles long. Those
scholars who believe that this nautical mile measurement could not be made or
understood in 600 AD by Melkin.... must forget that Pytheas could only arrive
at deducing the Latitude of Marseille (which he did quite accurately) by using
the nautical mile measurement.
There are just two numerical instructions. One is
that we are to draw a line 104 miles long which bifurcates the original line
within the Spherula (of Avebury). The angle at which the line is to be divided or bifurcated is thirteen
degrees and this is Melkin’s other numerical instruction. If we carry out the
instructions on a map, the line we are instructed to create coincidentally goes
through ‘Devises.’ More pertinently, but definitely not coincidentally, it goes
through Montacute…. a marker hill just like Glastonbury tor and Burrow Mump. At
the end of the line stretching from Avebury to the coast, which is at thirteen
degrees to the Michael line…. exactly 104 nautical miles away is the Island of
Ictis better known as Burgh Island or the Ineswitrin upon which Melkin says are
the remains of Joseph of Arimathea and the enigmatic Grail (duo fassula).
With precision, (to the yard) the line Melkin has
helped us construct, leads to Burgh Island which we have already identified as
Ineswitrin. The bifurcation angle between his unmovable line and the one we are
instructed to draw on a map is 13 degrees. The reader can construct the same
line drawing as I have on Google Earth. Don’t forget that Melkin’s measurement
of 104 is in nautical miles.
Now, it would be silly to insist that Burgh Island
has nothing to do with Joseph of Arimathea or Melkin without explaining the
coincidence that this line runs right through Montacute the place where ‘Father
Good’ cryptically writes that Joseph of Arimathea is ‘carefully hidden’. No
doubt, scholars will insist that the only two places mentioned as the resting
place for Joseph of Arimathea, which are both precisely on the line Melkin is
instructing us to create, is just a coincidence.
If we
ignore their pronouncements, this would then allow the fact that Henry Blois
knew of the clue regarding Montacute which prompted his search of the hill
evidenced by the production of De
Inventione.[11] This would then reasonably negate the notion
that the persona and prophecy of Melkin are a fourteenth century forgery. No commentator has previously understood that
Henry Blois had based his Montacute search for the relics of Joseph of
Arimathea on evidence which must have been provided by Melkin. This evidence or
false lead which implicates Montacute as Joseph’s burial site was only meant as
a confirmation point on the line. Unless the prophecy is decoded, Henry Blois
could not know this, so he assumed Montacute might be the Island he was looking
for. Henry’s discovery of the ‘Holy Cross of Waltham’ will be covered in
chapter 18. However in a brief aside, it
seems likely Henry had been to the south west (in Devon) also looking for this
mysterious Island of Ineswitrin. Just to re-iterate…. Melkin’s original
prophecy was about Ineswitrin and it was Henry who substituted its name for Insula Avallonis on the copy of the
prophecy that JG has copied into his Cronica. Henry Blois, also fully
comprehended, that Ineswitrin was not at Glastonbury, because he is the one
responsible for the propaganda, which in fact trans-located the Island not only
into Avalon…. but its location to Glastonbury as an estate of that island. He
knew that Ineswitrin was in Devon as it was donated by a Dumnonian King in the
601 charter…. blatantly deducible by the provenance of the donator. Since Devon
and Cornwall were once known collectively as Dumnonia, it will not come as a
surprise that Looe Island which had a
small Celtic chapel on it would have appeared as a possible location to which
the prophecy applied when Henry was looking for Ineswitrin.
Not surprisingly then, Looe island was appropriated by Glastonbury in Henry Blois’ tenure
before 1144 when it appeared in a list of the abbeys possessions. This recently
acquired possession is also referred to later in a confirmation of
Glastonbury’s possession by pope Lucius II. Pope Lucius II just happened to be
the friendliest pope toward Henry Blois. It was pope Lucius who granted Henry
metropolitan status to Winchester. The ownership of Looe island by Glastonbury
was important as it appears again in another papal confirmation in 1168; again
while Henry was alive.[12]
It does not take a genius to work out that
there was little territorial interest in Cornwall before the Norman Conquest
and up to the point in 1144 when Henry claims a piece of the mainland opposite Looe Island in the parish of Talland….
and both the island and the mainland area were then referred to by the name
Lammana. Henry thought Ineswitrin was Looe
Island as he associated the Ineswitrin as pertaining to the Dumnonian king
as stated on the charter. We know Henry was looking for Joseph’s remains by his
search at Montecute.
It
would not be wise to rule out the possibility that Henry’s real interest in
Looe Island was connected to finding the relics of Joseph of Arimathea. In fact
the Island is still connected to Joseph of Arimathea in local legend where it
is said the Island was called Lammana and Jesus was put on a beach nearby to
play while Joseph of Arimathea was with him.
The map above
shows the ‘bifurcated line’ where it divides within Avebury stone circle and
runs through Montacute at an angle of 13 degrees to the Michael line for 104
nautical miles to Burgh Island.
Melkin
indicates that posterity would find the island where Joseph is buried 104
nautical miles from Avebury where Burgh Island is situated. Burgh Island just
happens to fit Diodorus’ corrupted rendition of Pytheas’ description of Ictis,
in that it has a tidal sand bar and in practical terms is situated centrally to
the biggest deposit of tin in Britain and therefore was the ideal place from
which to export.
Melkin
was known as a geometer, but until now we have had no proof of his existence;
the encrypted geometrical instructions given by his puzzle lends credence to
those who attested that he was a geometer and to his very existence. So, let us
take a closer look by breaking down Melkin’s obtuse Latin prophecy sentence by
sentence as Kim Yale indicated:
Insula Aualonis avida funere
paganorum: The island of Avalon, as I have posited, was
named by Henry Blois in place of the original name of Ineswitrin. It is on this
Island which Melkin tells us Joseph of Arimathea is buried. Melkin’s Ineswitrin
provides Henry Blois with the inspiration of a mystical island upon which
Arthur is last seen alive…. and a locus from which the re-emergence of Arthur
is to come. Some commentators[13]
assume Arthur is buried on Burgh Island because ‘Geoffrey’ wove the mythical
island into the storyline of HRB and was understood as Arthur’s last known
location. Since both Avalon and Chivalric Arthur are both imaginary ‘make
believe’…. Arthur cannot be on Burgh Island. To be clear, the name of Avallonis has nothing to do with Melkin.
It seems relatively certain that Henry had no idea of the location of the
Devonian island of Ineswitrin even though he had been as near as Plympton as
witnessed in GS, and even nearer if I am correct about Salcombe (Salgoem) and
‘Geoffrey’s’ Saltus Geomagog (which
is said to be near Totnes), where the Giant is thrown over a cliff by Corineus,
which we covered earlier.
However, Melkin’s word Avida means ‘coveting’ so the sense is ‘coveting the pagans in
their death’ in reference to the island. Paganorum
cryptically refers to a Jew; as Abbadare
was King of the Jews the noblest of pagans and Joseph was presumably one
also. Carley’s notion of Paganorum having connection to Muslim
Baybars we can dismiss as irrelevant.
pre ceteris in orbe ad sepulturam eorum omnium:
The phrase is usually translated as: ‘At the burial of them all, will be
decorated beyond the others in the world’ The more probable sense would be that
those buried on the island are honoured above all others in the world.
sperulis prophecie uaticinantibus
decorate: This phrase has been understood only in
‘gobbledegook’ as connected with prophesying and soothsaying circles by most
translators. The meaning is quite clear in conjunction with the other
instructions in the prophecy and refers to Avebury stone circle as the
bifurcation point. The word is used twice in the prophecy; once as ‘sperulis’, as in this instance; and
once as ‘sperulatis’. Both of them
convey meaning through Sphaerula. However, sperulatis
in the second instance refers to the symbol for degrees i.e. a small circle
after the number. Since it is a small circle it is written in the diminutive
form, but by degrees it actually refers to the acute angle of 13° at Avebury
formed by drawing the line which goes through Montacute relative to the Michael
line.
et in futurum ornate erit
altissimum laudantibus: The sentence gives the sense
that when Joseph's tomb is discovered, the Island of Avalon will be arrayed by
the mass of new converts, giving praise to God. This sense concurs with the
final part of the prophecy which indicates that Joseph's sepulchre will be
opened to the whole world, giving an impression that the island will become a
pilgrimage.
Abbadare,
potens in Saphat, paganorum nobilissimus: Abbadare,
mighty in judgement, most noble of the pagans. The name Abbadare, has given rise to speculation about the word’s provenance
and meaning, but it has to be a reference to Jesus, meaning “The father's
pearl”. The rationale behind Melkin using this appellation is by combining Abba meaning father and Dar meaning pearl in Aramaic, and
Hebrew. That Abbadare should be found with Joseph in the sepulchre is yet to be
discussed, but as the Grail literature suggests something connected with Jesus
is buried with Joseph. It is only the commonly misinterpreted understanding of
the duo fassula which makes us think
it is a vessel of some sort. The denial of the Roman church of Chapter 29 of
the Acts of the Apostles and the silencing of the tales of the Britons may well
have a basis in truth before and after Augustine’s arrival. Similar to the journey of the Holy family in
Maurus’ account, we can assume Joseph leaves Jerusalem, and arrives at
Ineswitrin (Ictis) after having sailed on from Marseilles, to an island
familiar to him, taking with him what Henry Blois later interprets as sang réal.
This is carried inside an ark or box by some Grail accounts. The Grail romances
which refer to the Grail as an object metaphorically refer to some artefact
connected to Jesus. As the reader will be aware, the word ‘Abbadare’ would have been used by Melkin to avoid direct reference
to ‘Jesus's body’. This would avoid an adverse reaction of heresy, whereby the
prophecy itself might be destroyed leaving no knowledge of the island to
posterity.
cum
centum et quatuor milibus domiicionem ibi accepit:
…cum centum
et quatuor translates ‘with one hundred and four’. Milibus is actually
cryptically referring to ‘miles’ employing the measurement of nautical miles.
The reader will remember the unit of nautical miles (because of the only
divisible unit of measurement) correlates to a sixtieth of a degree; this same
unit having been employed by the ancients. The nautical ‘knot’ only came into
use in 1630 AD…. but the ancients had sub divided the globe into degrees of a
circle reckoned on the immutable laws of Geometry. The numerical division i.e.
60 nautical miles to one degree is defined by the circumference of the earth
and the 90 degrees which make up the four quadrants of the earth which
correlate to the 360 degrees which make up a circle. This unit of measurement
of one nautical mile as a sixtieth of a degree had evidently been calculated by
Pytheas’s calculations in Latitude[14]
and the fact that Phoenicians found their way to Ictis in Herodotus’ time and
perhaps even in Solomon’s.
Melkin was attested as a geometer and astrologer and
is now vindicated as one. He is perfectly capable of measuring the distance
from Avebury to Burgh Island, but could only be certain of the transference of
this measurement to posterity in the immutability of what constitutes a
nautical mile i.e. one sixtieth of a degree.
Some translators have inserted the word ‘Knight’s’
from the Latin word ‘Militus’ with
the assumption that it refers to ‘the others’ that are said to be buried in
Avalon. Other translators have opted for implanting the word “saints”, assuming
a scribal error for 104 as a measurement across the landscape in nautical
miles. Some commentators, while not replacing the number, have assumed that a
mistake has been made and that Melkin is referring to the 144 thousand saints
in the Book of Revelation 7:4, 14:1 & 14:3.
This misrepresentation has been highlighted by
later interpolators as in the case of Capgraves ‘Nova Legenda Angliae’, which renders the sense of Melkin’s words
to ‘milia dormientium accepit’ which
refers to Joseph who has 104,000 sleeping with him.
This nautical mile measurement is precisely 104
miles (to within a yard) from the Cove stone in Avebury to the entrance of the
tunnel on Burgh Island. The figure below
shows the line Melkin requires us to draw on the map which Kim Yale called the
Joseph Line. The 'Joseph line' drawn from Avebury to Burgh Island passes
directly over St. Michael’s Montacute. Montacute acts as a marker on the line
which we are instructed to create. It is
no coincidence that Montacute is on the hypothetical line (until constructed)
where the body of Joseph is ‘carefully hidden’ and is confirmed by Father
William Good. Henry Blois knew this information.
The
Joseph line forms the acute angle of 13° at Avebury with the Michael line and
runs through the castle at Devises and then through Mons Acutus (Montacute). It
is 104 nautical miles to Burgh Island from Avebury.
domiicionem
ibi accepit: most
translators render ‘took his sleep there’ or ‘received his rest there’. This
sense of the sentence has been mistranslated as “Abbadare, powerful in judgement, the most noble of the pagans took his
sleep there with 104 thousand”.‘Abbadare’ appears to be taking his rest
with 104,000 others if Mille is
employed instead of Milibus;
especially when the first words of the next sentence are ‘inter quos’ which translates as ‘among whom’. The meaning which
Melkin is conveying is that Joseph and Jesus (both) are taking their rest
there.
Inter
quos ioseph de marmore, ab Armathia nomine, cepit sompnum perpetuum:
The usual translation of
the sentence is 'among these Joseph of Arimathea received eternal slumber in a
marble tomb'. In the previous set of words Melkin used ‘domicionem ibi
accepit’ and now he is using ‘cepit sompnum perpetuum’ immediately
afterwards. Melkin has devised a riddle in which he speaks of two people once
the meaning is understood. ‘Jesus received his rest there’ and ‘Joseph named
from Arimathea took his perpetual sleep there’. The word ‘Inter’ by most
translators is rendered ’among’, but this is a riddle we are deciphering…. and
Melkin’s meaning is derived from‘interrare’;
to put in the earth, bury.
‘Inter
quos’ is translated as ‘among whom’ but here Melkin is
using a play on words and his meaning is ‘to inter’ or ‘interred with whom’
which infers two people. The implication of this is that it now establishes 'Abbadare' as another separate subject
in the tomb and the translation infers 'Abbadare',
’interred with whom is Joseph, named from Arimathea taking his eternal slumber
by the sea'. ‘Marmor’ translates as a marble stone or as ’the sea’. Small wave
motion in calm water gives the impression of marble, hence the expression, ‘a
marbled sea’. It was said that King
Arthur, when he was fictitiously found, was ‘not in a marble tomb’.[15]
This point was possibly made to distinguish it from Joseph’s tomb which was
commonly thought (because of the word Marmor in the Melikin prophecy) to be
marble and which might have been in the same grave yard at Glastonbury.
However, the sentence that Gerald of Wales wrote which has the beginning
missing in the manuscript reads: [The
beginning of the sentence is lost.] . . . had proposed, thus Arthur's body was
discovered not in a marble tomb, not cut from rock or Parian stone, as was
fitting for so distinguished a King, but rather in wood, in oak that was
hollowed out for this purpose….
It just seems an odd coincidence to mention marble
or stone when there are so few examples of sixth century sepulchers from which
Giraldus might be comparing. It is
possible Giraldus is making reference to marble to compare with the other
notable person of Joseph…. who is supposed to be in the same graveyard and
understood to be in a marble tomb as indicated in the prophecy. If this were
the case, Gerald who died in 1223, (if that was his implication) would show
that the prophecy would not be John of Glastonbury’s invention. But there are
many more definitive ways which show the prophecy pre-existed John which we
shall come to.
Henry Blois was patron to Gerald and some of the
points made by Gerald about Arthur may indeed have been informed by Henry
himself. However, I shall cover what Gerald has to say on Arthur’s disinterment
shortly, because this may have a bearing on his relationship (as patron) with
Henry Blois, even though the unearthing took place 20 years after Henry’s
death. Gerald however, does not mention Joseph of Arimathea and gets his
Glatonburyana concerning Avalon and Ineswitrin straight from the rewritten DA.
It is mainly because Gerald does not mention Joseph that modern scholars
believe Joseph’s name is interpolated into the DA much later. The scholar’s
assumption is not entirely tenable if we assume Gerald is only interested in
Arthur i.e. not concerned with what he presumes is some concocted fable in
order to increase alms.
Bale understands Joseph being buried in a Marble
tomb when he renders the phrase as 'somnum
sub marmore coepit'. However, one twist that has not been considered is
that 'Joseph de marmore' could be a
reference to Melkin's understanding of Joseph of the sea as in 'sea trader'.
However, the more likely translation, given the islands location…. and in
reference to Abbadare is:‘by whom he received interment by the sea
from Joseph named from Arimathea’. The repetition of ‘dormicionem’ as referring to Abbadare,
then being immediately followed by ‘sopnum
perpetuum’, referring directly to Joseph of Arimathea, indicates that Abbadare and Joseph are two different
entities…. especially since the ‘mighty in Judgement’ is referring to Jesus.
Melkin has set out to misdirect his readers with the double meaning of ‘inter’,
informing us that Jesus has received his rest there. This he has done by not
offending Christian sensibilities.
Et
iacet in linea bifurcata iuxta meridianum angulum oratori:
This sentence is most frequently quoted in reference to Melkin’s prophecy, the
usual translation being: ‘and he lies on
a two forked line next to the southern corner of the oratory’. William of
Worcester who measured and described the abbey church at Glastonbury c.1478 has
grasped that 'in linea bifurcata' is
part of a geometrical instruction, designed to indicate the grave site. Monks
at Glastonbury have continued the tradition of concocting seemingly plausible
evidence that infers the ‘Line’ applies to directions within the abbey grounds
centred on the old church: 'and opposite
the second window (of the lady chapel) on the south side there are in the
cemetery two stone crosses hallowed, where the bones of King Arthur were
buried, where 'in linea bifurcata' lies Joseph’ etc.
Most
commentators have previously suspected the line referred to is an indicator to
where the tomb is located. Henry’s misdirection has been built upon the word
‘oratori’ linked with ‘adorandam virginem’. It is upon these words and words
like ‘wattle’ that the Glastonbury deception was based. These inventions helped
the eventual translocation of the Devonian Island to Glastonbury. We will never
know which words have been altered or inserted but we can conclude Henry
changed Ineswitrin for Avalon and we can also deduce that the numerical
instructional data was not tampered with…. and nor were the obtuse words like sperula and bifurcata which are central to the decoding of meaning.
Nowadays, Glastonbury is considered as Avalon and
the 'linea bifurcata' that supposedly
gave directions from the oratory, has now become a ‘folded linen cloth’ in
which Joseph is buried,[16]
because modern commentators are still trying to find sense in the prophecy. It
is shameful that certain modern commentators have misinterpreted the original
purport of 'linea bifurcata'. It is
no longer accounted as anything to do with a directional instruction. It is
those same commentators who deny the existence of Melkin and deem his prophecy
a fake. If it was a fake, why waste time inventing convoluted solutions that
don’t augment the position for which the doubters say the prophecy was
concocted. If linea bifurcata really alluded to a cloth, one would think that if
the prophecy were a late concoction designed to convince us that Joseph is
specifically at Glastonbury Abbey; an exacting, more persuasive and less
obscure set of words might have been written. If we try to put the prophecy in
terms of a fourteenth century forgery it would be an impossible coincidence
that there just happens to be a line on the English landscape which bifurcates
into another line at a point within a circle, at the exact angle and length
provided in the prophecy. Not only does this line go over Montacute, but its
total length defined as 104 miles stops/terminates on an island…. and this by
any interpretation is what the puzzle is designed to do (locate the island).
The puzzle starts with and points out as its subject ‘the island’ where Joseph
of Arimathea is buried. The probability of this puzzle being invented by a
fourteenth century monk at Glastonbury is as idiotic as those experts who still
maintain the prophecy is a fake.
Some modern commentators have used the most
imaginative ways of trying to understand the meaning of 'bifurcata'. The most
far-fetched is derived from a meaning of 'in linea' as linen and 'bifurcata' as
folded to give a folded linen cloth.
Scholars have been duped into believing Glastonbury
is Avalon, therefore, there is no further requirement to seek directions to
Avalon or so the logic goes. One can then understand their supposition that
Joseph is described as 'lying in linen' and lies somewhere in the abbey
grounds. But, what then becomes of the rest of the riddle. What is the point of
the extraneous words such as Sperulatis (degrees), Sperula (Avebury circle)
Tredicim (thirteen), cum centum et quatuor (104), Milibus (miles) or even more
to the point Abbadare.
No early
commentator has even posited Joseph ‘lying in linen’ and it seems our modern
experts get more outrageous testing the bounds of their own credibility. Since
John of Glastonbury, it was understood 'where' Joseph lay i.e. in Avalon. It is
only in the modern era such ridiculous notions exist where a ‘bifurcated line’
has no relevance to geometry.
The
linea bifurcata was the crux of
Melkin’s instructions and the Glastonbury establishment needed to establish a link
with their oratori. Hence, we get the
versions of concocted measurements from the ‘Old Church’ from a randomly placed
pillar on the site of the old church…. to mislead the gullible into thinking
Melkin’s ‘line’ is connected with a church supposedly founded by Joseph.
Therefore, posterity is led to believe, Joseph’s sepulchre must be within the
Abbey grounds. All this, mostly brought
about by interpolations into DA.
However, we could,
like modern scholarship, ignore Melkin’s puzzle, but coincidence cannot
outweigh the bounds of probability. Is it probable that an invented set of
words supposedly concocted in the fourteenth century can now be understood with
alarming accuracy as a set of instructions, which, when put into action, form
on a map of southern Britain and indicate a line which locates the Island of
Avalon (Ineswitrin)…. which coincidentally falls upon an island in Devon? To
believe that this is a coincidence or conclude the geometry is irrelevant would
have to be considered as ‘studied ignorance’. The fact that this geometric
coincidence coincides with a charter found at Glastonbury concerning Ineswitrin
donated by a Devonian King, and…. taking into consideration the implications of
a genuine etymology that this was an island named ‘White Tin,’…. might be more
than a rational mind can accept as coincidence. A further improbable chance
occurs in that: this same Island fits a description given by Diodorus of an Island
in the ancient world which ‘provended’ tin. Coincidence then leads us to the
legend of Joseph visiting Britain as a tin merchant and his name being
connected with the same island by the solution to Melkin’s puzzle indicating
his sepulchre is upon it.
The final glory of the ‘bifurcated line’ was
brought to the fore in the bogus directions given on the illustrious brass
plate, with the helpful reminder ‘lest we should forget’. The implication from
the plaque is that we should not question that Glastonbury was any other place
but Melkin’s Avalon. From ‘Meridianum’, most commentators have
derived ‘Southern angle’ from Melkin's text. The word ‘meridianum’ conveys the
sense of a plotted line like a meridian and this was surely Melkin’s intention.
It is also worth noting that ‘meridianum
anglum’ could be translated as an ‘English Meridian’; surely a pun not lost
on Melkin. Melkin is referring to the angle at 13 degrees to the St. Michael
line and this is why the strange inclusion of the second ‘habitantibus’ becomes a split word of habit antibus, ‘residing opposite’ the 13 degree angle formed
within Avebury. The oratori is a small chapel of prayer and fits conveniently the
description of the wattle church. Whether the old church was ever wattle is
debatable considering the efforts gone to by Henry Blois to have words coincide
with features in the prophecy…. which is evident in my exposition of
interpolations into GR3 and DA. We will never know in this instance if the word
‘oratory’ was added to comply with ‘cratibus’
or perhaps ‘cratibus’ was originally
written to intend ‘crater’ implying hole or void in the ground and the Oratory
was on Burgh Island. To my mind, too much is made of the construction of the
old church in Malmesbury’s work and smacks of ‘the lady protesting too much’.
The wattle construction becomes too insistent with comments about its rude
construction: The church of which we are
speaking, from its antiquity called by the Angles, by way of distinction,
‘Ealde Chirche,' that is, the ‘Old Church,’ of wattle-work, at firsts savoured
somewhat of heavenly sanctity even from its very foundation, and exhaled it over
the whole country; claiming superior reverence, though the structure was mean.
There may have been
further interpolation in providing a rationalisation of why the ‘wattled’ could
not be seen and was ‘covered’:
and the tradition of our ancestors has handed down, that the companion of his
labours, Paulinus, who was Bishop of Rochester after being archbishop of York,
covered the church built as we have before observed, of wattle-work with a
covering of boards.
We know the directional
data has not been changed as the accuracy is too improbable to be random. But
one can speculate about other interpretations: some other words as ‘ora tor’
could be a possible word split. We might speculate that one solution would be
that the Latin word ‘ora’ and ‘tor’ from ‘torus’ were split. ‘Ora’ translates
as ‘the border or coast of a country; particularly the sea coast or maritime
district’. The word ‘tor’ from the Latin ‘torus’ meaning ‘a knoll or high mound
of earth’. Maybe Melkin gives the real sense of where Joseph's body lay i.e. an
island resembling ‘a Tor by the coast’ or ‘Tor by the sea’.
Most commentators have assumed cratibus applies directly to the
oratory as its construction method, but what is the relevant meaning of ‘Cratibus
preparatis’? If Burgh island was the Ictis of old, based on Diodorus’s
description, and ‘large quantities of tin’ were taken to the island; the
community of tinners would have to keep the cache of ingots safe, hence the
‘prepared cave’ hewed out long ago…. that applies to the tomb and not to the
wattle construction of a church at Glastonbury. Is Melkin using the term ‘Crater’ to describe
a cave or cavern or ‘hole in the ground’ which was ‘pre-prepared’ which refers
to the Ictis repository? These are high definition micro directions not macro
geographical instructions which locate the island by way of data transferred to
a map. In other words, once the island is located, we are told that Joseph is
in a ‘Crater’ which was pre-prepared or ‘dug out’ long ago.
In the scenario
where Glastonbury is concerned…. the ‘preparatis’
is hard to rationalise as pertinent to ‘wattle preparation’. Wattle by
definition is a preparation. Without the
storage area on the Devonian island, the functionality of Ictis and its
description as an Emporium would be redundant; so, more likely, it refers to
the crater rather than a reference to
the production or preparation of wattle.
super
potentem adorandam uirginem supradictis sperulatis locum habitantibus tredecim:
This is a difficult part of the prophecy,
especially to find relevant meaning to a situation in Glastonbury. If we accept
that the prophecy is a puzzle to be de-ciphered, we should try to be inventive
in our interpretation…. as so far, there is little which complies with Glastonbury. We cannot be sure however, that Henry Blois
has not tampered with any of the words. It does seem even after Henry’s death,
the Glastonbury monk craft is complying with the wording of the Prophecy…. not
vice versa.
If the prophecy was a fake it would be more plainly
understood. Because it is genuine, it is obtuse and carries out the function it
was designed for. ‘Super’, translates
as above, upward or on high and ‘potentem’,as mighty or powerful. ‘Adorandam’meaning adorable could be
split into ad orandam we could be
looking at the word orandam, meaning
‘to pray to’. Virginem;derived from
‘Virga’ is a reference to the Virgin Mary to most commentators. ‘adorandam virginem’ therefore renders
“adorable virgin or maiden”. One idea is that these may be local instructions
to the entrance of the vault, giving its relation in the local vicinity to the
crater in relation to where an old chapel used to be situated on the Island
If we split
‘adorandam’ into ‘ad orandam’ it
renders‘in prayer’The English word ‘verge’
has the same derivative root of
virga. If one interprets this word string ‘super potentem adorandam uirginem supradictis’ as a whole, whilst
splitting ‘supradictis’ into ‘supra ad ictis’, we get the sense‘up
where one prays at the verge high up on Ictis’.
This may be too contrived, but still more credible than Muslims and
Baybars being in anyway connected to the prophecy.
Supradictis
translates normally as ‘aforementioned’ and seemingly refers to sperulatis but sperulatis is
different from the previously mentioned sperulis.
Is Melkin referring
to the ‘aforementioned sperulis’ in
the early part of the prophecy or is he splitting the word ‘supra-ad-ictis’; informing us that Joseph and Jesus are ‘high up
in Ictis’?
However, this also appears contrived and does
presuppose Melkin knew the island was once called Ictis.
One might conclude that if this information
concerning Joseph was passed down to Melkin 600 years after the fact, there
would have to be some form of writing explaining why this island was chosen by
Joseph. One cannot be sure what Melkin wrote in the manuscripts found at
Glastonbury (if there were any) for Henry Blois to use as inspiration for his
Grail literature. Perhaps he used the prophecy alone.[17]
Another consideration is how Joseph’s name got confused as the ‘authority’ in
the ‘High History of the Grail’ and
also became misunderstood as the narrator. One might imagine that the authority
for the story of the holy relics reaching Britain stems from Joseph himself.
Some commentators assume the name refers to Josephus[18]
the historian in the ‘High History of the
Grail’; the authority upon which the tale rests. It is unlikely Josephus,
had any involvement with the Perlesvaus from which the High History is derived
In
brief, the ‘High History of the Grail’
or Perlesvaus was in its original form written by Henry Blois. It says that the
origins for all the Grail material came from the Island of Avalon. We know that
Avalon is a Henry Blois invention, hence anything connected with the Grail,
Joseph or Arthur on Avalon.... post-dates Henry. Our expert on this subject
James Carley reckons: ‘that there must be
some sort of relationship between the Grail romance Perlesvaus and Glastonbury
Abbey has long been recognised; the colophon itself informs readers that the
work is nothing more than a translation into French of a Latin original found
at Avalon/Glastonbury’.[19]
Most commentators have assumed that the reference
in the ‘High History of the Grail’ to the book having its source in the Island
of Avalon indicates the writer of the Perlesvaus transcribed it from there.
Henry Blois is the inventor of the name Avalon and abbot of Glastonbury.
Scholars just need to accept a fraud on a large scale and that Henry Blois
committed it. It is not too far-fetched to assume Henry Blois wrote the
Perlesvaus colophon (just as he did Gaimar’s epilogue and the colophon in HRB….
to misdirect) and implied that his French translation was from a Latin
original….. written by himself and left at Glastonbury. Henry Blois invents
Avalon in HRB but in VM converts Insula
Pomorum to equate with it and Glastonbury in DA. DA confirms the illusion
of Glastonbury in antiquity being synonymous with the island of Avalon.
Carley makes misguided assumptions that whoever
wrote the Perlesvaus ‘Glastonbury’ edition must have made a trip to England to
know about King Arthur’s disinterment. The assumption is based upon what the
author supposedly sees and therefore the geographical references to
Glastonbury.[20]
Allusions in the colophon of Perlesvaus to Arthur’s disinterment is not an a priori which can presume a date for
composition of Perlesvaus after Arthur’s disinterment.
Modern
scholarships assumption is that the Arthur and Guinevere reference in the
Perlesvaus colophon refers to an already transpired disinterment of King Arthur
at Glastonbury. The Colophon does not imply that, but scholars for generations
have been cloned to believe this chronology of events. They have forced the
pieces of the jigsaw to fit their own theory and ‘assumed’ chronology.[21] The reference in the Colophon rather takes
the form of a statement of fact…. from
someone who knows where the bodies are and who has planted Guinevere’s lock
of hair along with bones which supposedly were Arthur’s in Avalon. This person knows where both bodies lie in a
manufactured gravesite.
Obviously in DA, Henry deliberately points out the
whereabouts so that in time (after his death) some monk in the future reading
DA, like Henry de Sully,[22]
knows where to find the body between the two pyramids. Don’t forget, both
‘chivalric Arthur’ and ‘Avalon’ are both inventions in HRB by Henry Blois
posing as Geoffrey. By Gerald’s account the location of the grave was known
prior to the disinterment. Also according to Gerald’s account we can deduce
Henry Blois must have told King Henry II also…. and possibly intonated the
depth of the grave.
Since Nitze and
Jenkins found seven manuscripts containing parts or the complete Perlesvaus,
two more fragments have turned up. Modern scholarship has determined they are
all linked with the north-eastern part of France. Rather they all emanate from
Henry Blois. The
Brussels manuscript (BR) and the Paris manuscript (P) contain a passage found
in the ‘Wells’ fragment (We), but the (We) fragment is more closely related to
the Oxford manuscript (o); although it is not a direct copy. The 14th century
Welsh text of the Perlesvaus (W) is closely linked to the early printed
editions of 1516 and 1523 (BL). However BL and W are linked to the Oxford
manuscript. All seem to derive from a common source. Since Potvin’s (BL) was
found in France at a late date, there is nothing to deny that it too originated
from an early Glastonbury version in England. This would enable us to suggest
an English source which would have been the source used by John of Glastonbury. If this English source was
separate from a version created by Henry in France, this would explain the
commonality of all the versions seeming to originate in France. This assumption was based on the diction and
style of writing, so, one could posit Henry as the originator of a British and
French source. It would also explain how in the variations, the pseudonym of
Henry Blois appears as Master Blehis. It answers the conundrum of how John of
Glastonbury had an early copy of the Perlesvaus from which to construct his
synthesis of all previous lore up to the time he wrote his Cronica. A comparison of the Welsh text with the Wells text,
establishes that the Wells text cannot be the direct source for the Welsh one.
However, the Welsh version and the printed editions are a subgroup of the same
family from which the Oxford and the Wells version are derived e.g. our primary
British source, (as long as we allow BL originated in Britain). We know that
the Wells version can be dated to the first half of the 14th century and was
written in Britain. Analysis of the Wells fragment indicates that the original
scribe was Anglo-Norman.
Carley suggests the providence of the Wells
fragment appearing ‘less than 10 miles
from Glastonbury Abbey makes it desirable to reconsider the thorny question of
the relationship between Perlesvaus and Glastonbury’. In other words it is
time to consider who might be the common denominator. Henry Blois has not been
considered (even though the likeness of his name is said to be the authorial
provenance), because of the assumption regarding the dating…. based on the
colophon and the mention of Avalon. The presumption of the use of the name
Avalon only being known at Glastonbury after the disinterment of Arthur is
based on another erroneous scholastic assumption. Scholarship, spuriously has
deduced that it was Henry de Sully who manufactured the gravesite. Henry Blois
is adept in creating illusion. The reader concludes that the Latin text of
Perlesvaus is ancient from which we now have the French. Especially poignant,
as we progress through this quagmire of evidence and join these three
previously disconnected genres of study…. we find that Henry Blois has planted
a grave of Arthur at Glastonbury. We must therefore
take into account that we find the same notion in steering posterity to a
conclusion that Arthur and Guinevere were to be found in the tomb at
Glastonbury (Avalon in Perlesvaus) as indicated in DA long before they were
discovered.
L'auteur du Haut Livre du Graal affirme même que son texte est copié d'un
manuscrit latin qui a été trouvé en l’Isle d’Avalon en une sainte meson de
religion qui siét au chief des Mares Aventurex, la oli rois Artuz e la roïne
gisent.
'The author of the High Book
of the Grail even claims that his text is copied from a Latin manuscript which
was found in the Isle of Avalon in a house of holy religion which sits atop
hazardous bog-lands where King Arthur and Queen Guenievre lie'.
The first
observation is that the colophon does not insist or intonate that Arthur and
Guinevere have been found. The author knows that they ‘lie’ at Glastonbury.
There is nothing to say that this was not written by Henry before the discovery
of their grave. Henry Blois had not only planted, but left directions toward
the gravesite in chapter 31 of DA: but I omit it from fear of
being tedious. I pass over Arthur, famous King of the Britons, buried with his
wife in the monks Cemetery between two pyramids, and many other leaders of the
Britons.
We shall cover this point later in the chapter on
DA, but obviously if Henry Blois wrote this and planted the body of Arthur, it
is hardly surprising we find Gerald’s eye witness testimony that he saw
Guinevere’s lock of hair. It becomes obvious who must have planted it there in
progression of the evidence put forward here in this exposé. Gerald actually
states that the cross has Guinevere’s name on it and DA states Arthur is buried
with his wife. Both the leaden cross and what was written in DA is provided by
Henry Blois. We get back to the most obvious point which shows that this
reference precedes the disinterment as no other incidents about the
disinterment were mentioned in DA, How could they be, Henry Blois the
interpolator was not present and nor was the scribe who wrote the anecdote
above. It is the same person!!!
There is no evidence which runs contrary to my
position which is that 20-30 years prior to Arthur’s discovery Henry Blois
manufactured a gravesite. It makes no sense for scholars to insist the
composition of Perlesvaus post-dated the disinterment of Arthur. It
is worth noting also, how intently the Old Church[23]
was being focused on as being synonymous with the Grail chapel (upon which the
Grail chapel was modelled). Yet the supposed Island on which that Chapel was
supposed to exist is the tor (‘atop’ in the colophon) a mile or so away. Henry
Blois, as he does in the St Patrick Charter, is using both the St Michael
church on the Hill as part of the same establishment as below at the abbey and
interrelates them both. The fact that the DA avers that the wattle church was
renovated and covered in lead (in the first 34 chapters of DA which is known to
be interpolated) should of course alert scholarship to the possible
coincidental authorship of Perlesvaus and to the dating of the interpolations
in DA.
The Cove stone within Avebury stone circle is where
the bifurcation or fork occurs between the Michael line and the Joseph line at
13 degrees. The line extends for 104 nautical miles from this stone to within 1
yard of the entrance to the tunnel on Burgh Island.
Most translators have rendered the translation of sperulatis locum habitantibus tredecim ‘where
the aforesaid 13 spheres rest’. The word ‘sperulatis’ has in this case been
employed cryptically as a relevant part of the instructional material. Without decoding it’s meaning (as
pertaining to ‘degrees’) the direction of 13° just becomes a random number of
13, lost along with the 104 in the meaningless riddle.
The original use of the word is ‘sperulis’, from
which we derived sphere/circle at the beginning of the prophecy, related to the
stone circle of Avebury. Melkin gives
the impression he is referring back to ‘sperulis’ by employing the word
“aforementioned” trying to convince the reader that the two words ‘sperulis’
and ‘sperulatis’ have one and the same meaning. However his use of the word for
the second time has the same sense as in circle or sphere, but is employed
differently as a diminutive form. This small circle is the symbol for degrees
i.e. 13°…. the symbol being a small circle °.
We know we are dealing with geometric instructions.
Otherwise the prophecy is meaningless if it pertained to the abbey grounds at
Glastonbury. In the contortions of previous interpretations at Glastonbury of
Melkin’s prophecy no commentator, scholar or monk has tried (in their
ingenuity) to weave the number 13 into any bogus directions in connection to
the bifurcated line and the old church. In other words they can find no
relevance to its meaning.
Melkin’s ingenuity has prevented the ‘13’ ever been
associated with the enumerated angle at the point of bifurcation. The essence
of the prophecy is indecipherable if the initial line which runs across Britain
is believed to be in some way relative to where the old church was situated.
This misrepresentation was cleverly depicted by the bogus directions on the
twelfth or thirteenth century bronze plaque.
The word
locum is rendered as ‘where’ by most commentators, but this same word also
translates as ‘tomb or sepulchre’ in Ainsworth. Locum generally understood by translators as locus, refers to a place such as the location or place being
discussed.
The word
habitantibus means to ‘dwell’ or ‘abide’, and seems very out of place in
this sentence. We could speculate
that if ‘habit’ and ‘antibus’ were split….the sense of
‘dwelling opposite’ the 13 degree angle might be feasable. It is only because ‘habitantibus’ is unusual, especially
in this section of the directional part of the prophecy, that it would seem
that the word needs to be split. Some commentators have contrived the sense as
the thirteen sperulatis actually
‘dwelling’. The reader can see how
accurate Melkin has been…. and by carrying out a simple trigonometric
calculation the precise angle of 12.838568 degrees, which is only 9 ‘seconds’
out.
The
prophecy is a puzzle to be unlocked, not a piece of prose designed to highlight
Joseph’s presence at the Abbey. From the Latin below we can only hope to make
sense by applying not only directions on the landscape but topographical detail
as well, so a few liberties have been taken in trying to make an overall sense
of what Melkin intended by:
Et iacet in linea bifurcata
iuxta meridianum angulum oratori, cratibus praeparatis, super potentem
adorandam virginem, supradictis sperulatis locum habitantibus tredecim.
‘Both
lie in a bifurcated meridian line in a pre-prepared cave near a chapel that is
above it; where one prays at the verge high up in Ictis. In a tomb they reside opposite a thirteen
degree angle’.
Or
Both
lie on a bifurcated line which is at an angle to a meridian in a previously
readied crater up at the verge near where on prays up high in Ictis in a place
opposite at 13 degrees they dwell.
Or
Both
lie in a bifurcated line in a tor by the sea above in a prepared crater in a
tomb above which is the mighty adorable virgin and they dwell opposite an angle
of thirteen degrees on a meridian.
Or
Both
lie on a line that is two forked between that and a meridian, in an angle on a
coastal Tor, in a crater, that was already prepared and above is where one
prays which one can go at the extremity of the verge, high up in Ictis is the
place they abide at thirteen degrees.
In
the caption above we can see the 13° formed between the Michael line and the
Joseph line which ‘bifurcate’ inside the ‘sphaerula’ at Avebury at the Cove
stone.
Habet enim secum Ioseph in
sarcophago duo fassula alba & argentea, cruore prophete Jhesu & sudore
perimpleta is usually translated as ‘Joseph has with him in the sarcophagus two vessels, white and
silver, filled with the blood and sweat of the Prophet Jesus’.
It
is wholly down to the interpretation Melkin’s prophecy that the ‘duo fassula’ becomes synonymous with the
Holy Grail. Over time, the importance of the prophecy has transformed the duo fassula to become equatable with the
two jugs on the heraldic shield of Glastonbury. The Glastonbury establishment
has attempted to concur with as many features in Melkin’s prophecy such as
constructing the bronze plaque with its spurious directions.
Lagorio
and Carley have assumed the Melkin prophecy is mimicking the vessel of the
Grail having found its provenance from the continent. This assumption is
incorrect. Henry Blois was inspired by what he thought were vessels in the
prophecy. Glastonbury is conforming to the prophecy not an invented prophecy
conforming to any existent tradition at Glastonbury.
The
implication is that in the sarcophagus or tomb, Joseph has with him two
‘fassula’. Why would someone in the thirteenth or fourteenth century invent two
vessels along with words like sperula
and sperulatis that have no bearing
on the church at Glastonbury? Why invent two numbers like 13 and 104? As I have pointed out, ‘thirteen’ is not
even utilised as part of any existing lore which tries to equate the number’s
relevance to the old church, with a measurement or direction. Why, if the
prophecy is an invention based upon continental Grail literature, would the
supposed fraudster and inventor of the prophecy of Melkin go to the effort of
finding an explanation that the 104 is a misprint for 144 and then apply it as
referring to saints from the book of Revelation?
It
is not difficult to see that the institution of Glastonbury is complying with
the prophecy in an effort to find common features, which are then made to
appear as pertaining to a fictitious burial site at Glastonbury relative to the
church. If this were an exercise in writing a prophecy that conformed to
features found at Glastonbury…. even I could have made my intended fraud easier
to be understood. It would be simpler to omit what appear to be random numbers
and terms (such as sperulatis) which
are hard to equate with any prospective burial site at Glastonbury. The
prophecy does not fulfil the proposed intention for which scholars have
insisted the prophecy was fabricated. It truly would be the most startling
coincidence that someone could invent a prophecy which coincidentally directs
by its data to an island unintentionally. This is the intention of the prophecy
as it starts with the word insula…. but
obviously in its original form pertained to Ineswitrin
not Avallonis.
It
would also be an amazing coincidence that all the pertinent information
supplied in the prophecy without leaving out one piece of data (which is
supposedly redundant data), formulates a solution of a line on a map (entirely
relevant) which located an island in Devon. This island coincidentally might
have been Ictis. A further coincidence would be that Joseph of Arimathea by way
of association with the tin trade is also indicated to be buried on the Island
thought to be Ictis and yet found to be the same Island by deciphering Melkin’s
riddle in which he is specifically mentioned. A truly remarkable set of
coincidences 800 years after the prophecy’s supposed invention by John of
Glastonbury. Yet if we are to follow our expert’s analysis of why the prophecy
was invented; what was the point of the prophecy’s invention, as Joseph’s body
has still not been located at Glastonbury?
Ironically
what may have prevented a falsified find of Joseph’s remains was the fact that
Glastonbury monks were unable to produce something so sacred as the blood and
sweat of the Lord Jesus.
The Prophecy leads the reader by way of purposeful
design to believe that the ‘duo fassula’ holds
two liquids, blood and sweat. So from
the Latin ‘vas’ a vase, or ‘vascula’ a vessel…. commentators have
assumed the word ‘vassula’ as the container
of a liquid.
A ‘fasciola’ however, is a bandage and a ‘fasceola’ is a swaddling cloth or a
cloth swathe.Albatranslates as
‘white’ and more commonly refers to a ‘white cloth’. This might imply that if
the body of Jesus is found with the body of Joseph as the prophecy implies,
Melkin might be inferring a white grave cloth. Could this be the Turin Shroud
of which there was mention in all four Gospels?
Argentea
generallytranslates as ‘of silver’. It also has
another meaning of plated (as in silver plated) but also means ‘overlaid’. Is this the heart of
Melkin’s message which really shows who it is that Joseph brought to England
and the proof?
Cruore
from ‘Cruor’,
translates as blood.The Glastonbury
‘cruets’ as vessels or as Father Good referred to them as golden ampullae are purely derived from word
association from the Latin word for blood,
‘cruore’ which led to ‘cruet’.This is another case of Glastonbury
conforming to the prophecy and not the prophecy conforming to lore at
Glastonbury.
Some people have chosen to translate as ‘two cruets’, leaving out the word ‘fassula’ as the vessel. They have
mistakenly represented the blood supposedly contained in the vessel as the
vessel itself, which held the blood.Again one must wonder why such contortions
took place if the prophecy were a late invention. In no way are the two beer
jugs as represented in the Glastonbury Arms in anyway representative of the
Grail…. if Glastonbury monk craft were following an established Grail
tradition. Rather, Glastonbury is seen to be doing its best to conform to
features in the Prophecy. Why, if ‘monk craft’ were mimicking a Grail tradition
does it stray from the singular Grail? It is Henry Blois who consolidates his
misinterpretation of the duo fassula
into the Grail cup of the last Supper and from where Robert de Boron gets his
idea of the vessel used at the ‘last supper’. Henry Blois as a serial
‘conflator’ adapted a couple of ‘Vessels’ into a singular Grail, based on the
cup from the last supper. The prophecy predates his expansion of the idea
through his muses. Henry’s interpretation of duo fassula is the singular primordial germ of the icon of Grail
Literature.
Sudore
translates as sweat or travail. Melkin’s real intention is that the enigmatic ‘duo fassula’ is a doubled swathe or
breast cloth from ‘fasciola’. The
swathing cloth, is a ‘doubled’- ‘duo’, white
cloth covered in sweat and blood from Jesus, (overlaid, from ‘argentea’, as one would overlay an
image with silver). If Geoffroi de
Charney who was the first to exhibit the Turin Shroud, had removed it from the
tomb it would explain its sudden appearance in the 1350’s.[24]
Perimpletahas
always provided the word for‘full’, in the context of‘filled with the blood and
sweat’ by most commentators on the prophecy. Perimpleta is not a word in its own right that has meaning, so one
can conclude it must be part of the riddle to be solved.It can be made up from ‘per – impleta’, coming from the verb 'impleo' which means 'I fill up’. 'per-' is a common Latin prefix for emphasis,
i.e.'completely’. 'Pleta' comes from 'pleo' which
simply means 'I fill'. So, if Melkin is not giving misdirection by association
and there are not two vessels alongside Joseph in the tomb, I would suggest
another way of looking at Melkin’s riddle.
'Peri' is
a word meaning 'around' and is usual as a prefix meaning enclosing, as in the
word ‘perimeter’. ‘Pleta’ giving, ‘I plait’ in English, meaning to fold
or as the definition gives, "to bend cloth back over itself”.Melkin has a
message to convey, otherwise why include it in the prophecy? Is he implying
that Jesus is in an ‘enclosed fold’ or ‘enclosed in a fold’?The breakdown of
the word appears to imply the Turin Shroud is the article that Melkin is
describing. This would mean the tomb on Burgh Island has been discovered
already by the Templars.[25]
Is Melkin informing the world that a ‘doubled grave cloth, covered with blood
and sweat from the prophet was folded over Jesus and was present in the tomb
when he wrote?
Habet enim secum Ioseph in
sarcophago duo fassula alba& argentea, cruore prophete Jhesu & sudore
perimpleta:‘Joseph has with him in the sarcophagus a doubled white swaddling
cloth covered with the blood and sweat of the prophet Jesus that was folded
around him’. We could speculate that Joseph has with him in
the tomb a doubled white folded cloth that was laid over the prophet Jesus and
outlined by his sweat and blood.The Koran refers to Jesus as the prophete
Jhesu. Melkin by naming Jesus is also hinting at the person behind the Abbadare enigma.
Cum reperietur eius
sarchofagum integrum illibatum, in futuris videbitur et erit apertum toto orbi
terranum: The translations of this sentence appear for the
most part as: ‘Once his sarcophagus is
discovered, it will be seen whole and untouched and then open to the whole
world’. Another way of translating the above could be: ‘With the discovery of his tomb, which will be whole and undefiled,
from thenceforth it will be viewed and open to the entire world’. The word integrumtranslating as ‘entire or whole’
is in reference to the body of Jesus being preserved by cedar oil in the Grail
Ark as has been explained by Kim Yale and Michael Goldsworthy.
Ex
tunc nec aqua nec ros celi insulam nobilissimam habitantibus poterit
deficere.‘from then on, those who dwell in that noble island will lack neither
water nor the dew of heaven’. Melkin starts the
sentence ‘ex tunc’ or literally ‘from that time’, indicating the expectation of
change at the point of time when the tomb is unveiled. The insulam nobilissimamtranslating as ‘noble Island’ is where Henry
Blois got the idea for having Arthur brought to an island and then extended it
to where he would come from as part of the ‘Briton hope’.
Per multum tempus ante diem Judioialem in iosaphat erunt aperta haec, & viventibus
declarata:Most translations of this passage differ only
slightly: ‘for a long time before the day
of judgement in Josaphat, these things will be openly declared to the living’.
With
modern scholarship freely admitting to large scale fraud at Glastonbury abbey,
it is extraordinary how accepting they are of an unsolved mystery. Does
scholarship really think that the prolific inter-relationship of Arthuriana,
Glastonburyana and the Grail edifice just happened randomly i.e. formed,
following on from what ‘Geoffrey’ (based at Oxford) wrote of King Arthur? Did not the King Arthur story suddenly appear
in the exact era that Henry Blois was abbot of Glastonbury, Bishop of
Winchester, Legate to the pope and brother to the King. Yet, not one
commentator has even discussed Henry Blois as instigator or author of Life of Gildas because they think Caradoc
was a contemporary of Geoffrey’s. Few have even mentioned Henry’s name in
connection with the three genres…. the man who avowed that the greatest worth
(more than riches) was that of the art of authorship; the man who compared
himself to Cicero.[26]
Authorship was the aspiration to which Henry Blois accounted great worth. Are
we really to believe a man who held such thoughts, even to the extent of
revealing his passion on his self composed epitaph on the Meusan plates, only
left the dull record of his deeds at Glastonbury?
There
is no concise position on the Prophecy of Melkin by experts. Supposed academics
would not recognise Ictis if it had a sign on it…. or equate Joseph of
Arimathea’s tin trading connections in association with it. Most archaeologists
dig up ancient detritus and have never heard of Ictis. They have no idea of the
practicalities of navigation in antiquity or seamanship. Scholars who study medieval literature, such
as ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB, know that it has little historical accuracy and yet it
pretended to be an accurate historical record. If they do not accept
‘Geoffrey’s’ history and recognise fraud; why accept naïvely the fraud of a
created persona?
Nothing is known about the man who wrote the
most popular blockbuster in the medieval era and what is known about him is as
dubious as the contents of HRB. The fact that scholars have accepted Henry
Blois’ scribble of Galfridus Artur on a few charters around Oxford and the fact
that a totally bogus Bishop of Asaph signs alongside Henry Blois on the Treaty
of Winchester.... has convinced them of ‘Geoffrey’s’ real existence.
Historians have combed through works
which provide the basis for Glastonburyana knowing they are full of forgeries.
Few commentators have been looking for the architect; the common denominator,
who combines Arthurian material in HRB and continental Grail literature and
connects them to Glastonbury. Modern research should focus on which manuscripts
provide essential building blocks for Henry’s edifice and whether or not these
manuscripts were fraudulently written by the most prolific author in the 12th
century and the person responsible for the largest interpolative fraud in DA.
If scholars had recognised the perpetrator in Henry Blois, rational deductions
could be made…. such as Master Blehis, Blaise, Bliho-Bleheris, having a similar
name to Monseigneur Blois in Grail literature....or the coincidence of the glorification
of Winchester in HRB.... and Henry’s connection with the metropolitan request.
If there was any intellectual merit to the term ‘medieval scholarship’ they
should have deduced Henry Blois was behind the creation of Avalon as well. Because of this lack of vision, Joseph lore
has been discounted and is thought to have arrived at Glastonbury from France.
Melkin’s prophecy has been suspect because of a flawed chronology in assuming
Arthur and Joseph and Avalon were not interpolated into DA until after Arthur’s
disinterment. At least, where Avalon and Arthur are concerned, Gerald even
contradicts this spurious assumption of modern scholars. Typically medieval
scholars have chosen to ignore Giraldus, the only eyewitness account. Again, we
shall deal with Gerald’s evidence later.
The
main stumbling block to the discovery of Joseph’s tomb is the intransigence of
the proprietor of Burgh Island to allow a radar imaging sensor to be pulled
over the tomb and tunnel. Of course, she has taken advice from the very people
I have described above, especially the ‘experts’ at Exeter University and the
Devon Archaeological society. The real problem is that the present owner of
Burgh Island is Jewish. If one does not
believe in Jesus one is hardly going to concede that He or his uncle are
entombed 50ft below the surface of the Island, especially when experts tell her
Melkin did not exist and have no idea what the prophecy indicates.
Armitage
Robinson first implies Melkin’s prophecy to be fake following the evidence
based upon the apparent late emergence of Joseph of Arimathea mentioned in
manuscripts. Margret Murray, contrives a Coptic origin for Melkin’s prophecy
and Aelred Watkin thinks it could be oriental in origin.[27]
He goes on to say ‘It could be a tour de
force of monastic forgery. It is either the earliest or latest link in the
chain that connects Joseph of Arimathea with Glastonbury. It is either of great
or of almost no significance….’ I am
no scholar, but this does not sound as if Watkin has formed any useful opinion
and is sitting on the fence. However, I would rather Watkin’s prevarication
than Carley’s pretence of authority concerning the prophecy which has mis-directed
a generation of cloned medievalist ‘experts.’
Let
me state for the record: Melkin’s prophecy is of the greatest significance, but
it is Henry Blois who connects Joseph of Arimathea with Glastonbury by changing
the name on the prophecy to Insula Avallonis.
The prophecy is the earliest link which connects Joseph to an object (the duo fassula) which is related to Jesus….
and which Joseph brought to a tin island called Ineswitrin, now called Burgh
Island. Joseph did this to avoid the Jews of Jerusalem who had in effect
condemned his son to death. He brought the body of his son to an Island he had
traded with (in the past) which had been shut down as an operating tin mart by
the Roman occupation.
Bale
and Pits posit that Melkin wrote a book titled ‘De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda’. Why they would do this if no
book existed, we can only speculate. However, this was long after ‘Geoffrey’
and no volume has come to light. My view is that this book (judging by its
title) was written by Henry Blois. The chances are that John of Glastonbury
derived certain extracts from this book, corroborating HRB’s fictions such as
Arviragus’ role in history.
The
chivalric round table (mensa rotunda)
where all around it are equal is Henry’s own expansion on his HRB when posing
as Wace. He impersonates the real Wace, for the most part versifying the First
Variant version. Henry Blois’ Roman de Brut made sure the HRB with
minor expansions was written in his own vernacular. Thus, the tales of Arthur
spread quickly across the continent. Wace, (impersonated by Henry Blois) claims
he was not the source of the ‘round table’, yet coincidentally no-one can date
its manufacture accurately or when it happens to turn up at Winchester or the
source for its appearance in Wace.
The
HRB written in Latin before the Roman de
Brut could only be understood by the educated clergy and courtiers.
‘Wace’s’ version made HRB more accessible. The fact that the ‘round table’ is
associated with Winchester is another indicator of Henry’s stamp of authorship.
What convinces me most is the fact that in 1155.... Henry is publishing the
Vulgate HRB (or at least the latest version of prophecies) and yet ‘Wace’ says
he wrote the Roman de Brut in
1155. In reality, he must have started
it at least two years previously, hence the reason why the first half of Wace’s
poem is derived from the First Variant version.[28] Scholarship is still in the dark as to why
‘Wace’ started with First Variant and finished Roman de Brut with Vulgate as a template. It is not improbable that
Henry Blois commissioned the Winchester Round table. The story that it was
built by Cornish carpenters is of a later date, but it could well date from
1170-1200. There is no definitive expert opinion which could deny this date as
a speculation.... as there are so few samples with which to compare the
dendrology.
Robert
de Boron’s Merlin creates the round
table in imitation of the table of the Last Supper and of Joseph of Arimathea's
Holy Grail table. The fact that nothing is known of ‘Robert’ except that he
comes from the village of Boron just north west of Clugny, not far from Autun
and Langres should make us suspicious that Robert’s knowledge of the Grail, and
Avalon and Joseph is derived from Henry Blois…. an uncle to the main Grail
propagators court at Champagne and Troyes.
What
is known of Robert’s life comes from Joseph d'Arimathe where he applies
to himself the title of meisters, just as ‘Geoffrey’ was magister, but later he uses the title messires
meaning Knight. At the end
of the Joseph d'Arimathe poem, he mentions being in the service of
Gautier of Mont Belyal. Henry Blois just loves to portray a persona; but like
Gaimar and Geoffrey (and Wace), what we are led to believe about the author’s
persona in reality is usually based in some sort of identifiable and plausible
reality. However, Le Gentil’s misguided
assumption is that the mention of ‘Avalon’ shows that ‘Robert de Boron
supposedly wrote Joseph d'Arimathe after 1191, when the monks at
Glastonbury claimed to have discovered King Arthur. This a priori is so misguided but endemic in modern scholarship. The
general theory held by modern scholars is that Avalon appeared along with
fabricated Joseph of Arimathea lore at Glastonbury…. only after the discovery
of Arthur’s grave. This unfounded premise is the fault line which squews every
theory which is based on this chronology. It is a huge assumption when all the
evidence is collated as we shall cover…. especially as to the location of Arthur’s
grave at Glastonbury between the pyramids. This was known before the unearthing
as is made plain by Gerald.
Until
it is accepted that most interpolations in DA were made by Henry Blois, there
will be misinterpretation; like a defective gene passed down to the next
generation of Arthurian scholars. This misconception has been mainly
promulgated by Lagorio and Carley and Crick.
Henry,
if he did not author both Robert’s Merlin
and Joseph d'Arimathe, he is
certainly the source which we shall cover in part III. To be clearer, Henry
impersonated Wace, and interpolated Gaimar’s L’estoire des Bretons after
1155 by inserting the epilogue. Henry’s
inspiration for the Island of Avalon (not the name) derives from the prophecy
of Melkin. By Henry’s own propaganda,
Avalon was purposefully being steered toward geographical location. Arthur’s
island from HRB was brought into close association with Glastonbury. This
proposition is evident in the transformation which is made in VM as early as
1155-7. Obviously, Henry had nothing to do with the actual unearthing of Arthur
at Glastonbury, but assuredly he is the instigator. Henry, we can speculate,
based on Gerald’s evidence instructs Henry II and also points out where Arthur
is buried between the pyramids in DA. We can speculate that Henry Blois
informed King Henry where the body he had planted 10 years before his death
would be found when King Henry came to visit Henry Blois the day before he
died. Coincidentally, the reader will understand how the monks in 1191 used
Henry’s search at Montacute for Joseph, recorded in De Inventione, as a
template to the unearthing of Arthur in the abbey grounds. The similarities
between Adam of Damerham’s description and that found in Henry’s concocted De
inventione are strikingly similar. I think that Adam has confused the two
accounts to a degree. We may assume the Montacute dig took place c.1144 at the
same time Looe Island was procured. Henry was looking for Ineswitrin.
Henry
Blois had no intention of unearthing the body of King Arthur in his own
lifetime. He just laid the seeds for the future so that both Grail literature
and HRB which spoke of Avalon became where Arthur was to be eventually found….
at Glastonbury. While HRB was spread on the continent through ‘Wace’s’ work,
the audience were being primed with Henry’s latter agenda….the offshoots of
Grail literature. This propagation of early oral grail stories transpired for
most of the decade of the 1160’s.
It is
silly to believe that Henry de Sully would produce a cross and promote
Glastonbury as Avalon and more incredible that the entire population of England
supposedly accepted the evidence of the cross alone…. and from thenceforth
Glastonbury was synonymous with Avalon.
The
DA had many allusions to Arthur…. Life of
Gildas placed Arthur at Glastonbury. Grail literature mentioned Avalon long
before the discovery of Arthur’s body and all knew Avalon was in the west. Avalon’s island location surrounded by apples
in VM (under its other name as Insula
Pomorum) leaves little scope for imagining it might be anywhere else….
considering Arthur was at Glastonbury in the kidnap episode and Arthur was last
seen at the Island of Avalon (according to ‘Geoffrey’). It is the conglomeration
of these factors (along with the Leaden cross) which brought the ready
acceptance that Glastonbury was Avalon in 1191 when the body was exposed. To
believe Avalon had not been pre-ordained at Glastonbury by Henry’s propaganda
before the disinterment and then readily accepted at the time Arthur was
uncovered…. we just have to look at Gerald’s testimony.[29]
This
manufactured unearthing accompanied by the Leaden cross is the very act that
cements all Henry’s efforts. Here lies buried
King Arthur in the Isle of Avalon. Avalon, from that moment onward, certainly
became synonymous with Glastonbury. But, the major groundwork had been
accomplished already by Henry’s interpolative efforts in the first 34 chapters
of DA.
Obviously,
William of Malmesbury only mentions Arthur in passing just enough to comment on
the oral ‘hope of the Britons’. Even
though Henry employed various means in DA to make us believe that William was
well acquainted with the name Avalon, William had no idea Avalon was
commensurate with Glastonbury and the name is not in GR. William’s words in
GR: this is the Arthur, concerning whom
the idle tales of the Britons rave wildly even today; a man certainly worthy to
be celebrated not in foolish dreams of deceitful fables but in truthful
history.
Another reason modern
scholars deny the historical Melkin is because Bede does not mention Melkin. Bede, c.673–735 was an English monk
at a Northumbrian monastery in modern Jarrow and even though the monastery had
a good library, he would not have read Melkin’s works as they only existed at
Glastonbury…. if any other manuscript apart from the prophecy and the 601
charter existed…. if indeed Melkin was the King of Devon. The best speculative
proposition might be that the volumes mentioned by John Pits and Bale (if they
existed) may have been authored and deposited at Glastonbury by Henry Blois.
Certainly a manuscript existed at Glastonbury from which Melkin’s prophecy was
extracted which had been adulterated.
John Leland says he saw
fragments of Melkin’s work, even a ‘volume
of great antiquity’. As a guest of Abbot Whiting, Leland went right through
the library at Glastonbury. He says he took notes from an ancient fragment of
Melkin’s Historia and divulged
certain facts about Melkin not found in the Prophecy. He says Melkin was born
in Wales, and that he wrote a Historiola
de Rebus Britannicis in prophecy form. Is this maybe the template for
Merlin? Is HRB’s bogus assertion that itself is a translation based on Walter’s
book derived by notion of Henry Blois having seen some manuscript of
Melkin’s. Bale, Capgrave, Hardyng and
Pits either give the titles of the books, supposedly written by him or
incidental added information. The three books which John Pits cites, as having
been written by Melkin, are the, ‘De
antiquitatibus Britannicis’, ‘De gestis Britannorum’ and ‘De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda’. Any
one of these three could have contained the Melkin prophecy cited in the Cronica by John of Glastonbury. Even
without the solution to his prophecy which witnesses an intelligent design, the
evidence points to the existence of a real person in antiquity. Whoever Carley
thinks the fraudster is…. ‘Melkin’ has produced a coincidental set of numbers
and clues which by transformation of the data provided, transcribe to create a
line onto a map and pin point an Island in Devon. Another reason for
discounting Bede’s authority in connection with omitting reference to Melkin
can be explained in what William divulges in his GR. ‘Nay, they even report, that he (Bede) went
to Rome for the purpose either of personally asserting that his writings were
consistent with the doctrines of the church; or of correcting them by
apostolical authority, should they be found repugnant thereto’. What is a
near certainty is that the Roman church, whether at an early stage (evidenced
by the exclusion of Acts 29), or even later, after Augustine’s arrival in
Britain…. eradicated any rumour of Joseph (and possibly Jesus) in Britain and
stamped it out. The only residue nowadays is the Cornish legend. Bede may have been censored by the Roman
Church on what he says regarding any tradition found in Britain. These rumours
as Augustine found in Britain when he arrived relates to the Britons: "who
preferred their own traditions before all the churches in the world", could only mean one thing. These traditions, if they
incorporated the Uncle of Jesus, throw up primacy issues with Rome’s
self-professed monopoly on Christianity; especially, if any substance were
found in the rumours and allowed to foment, regarding the supposed British
traditions. Since Melkin’s works probably came to Glastonbury at the time the
grant was dated, (601AD), it is doubtful if Bede, far away in Jarrow, had even
heard of Melkin. One can be sure though, that the Templars knew something that
threatened Rome’s monopoly on
Christianity.
The fallacious Glastonbury
legacy has been exacerbated in the modern era by the scholastic community’s
inability to find its way through the smoke of Glastonbury literature and Grail
legend. Almost as a heredity defect re-occurs in later generations; false
premises and a priori positions are
handed down from mentor to pupil; one scholar cites another assuming the same
erroneous premises and no solution is discovered or progress made to unravel
the Matter of Britain.
Carley states: My mentor for many years has been Valerie M.
Lagorio, a fine and imaginative Arthurian scholar, one whose articles on the
evolution of the Joseph of Arimathea legend must be regarded as definitive.
It is clear that I am annoyed at the complacency of modern scholars. Neither
Carley’s nor Lagorio’s views are definitive. Carley’s presiding authority over
Glastonburyana is obviously an extension of having found a niche on which to do
his dissertation. This, of course was his erudite work on John’s cronica. To compose a thesis on this
work alone takes a vast amount of peripheral study by which he has become our
present day expert. It is a known fact that he assumes an air of the foremost
authority on the goings on at Glastonbury. It is also known that he does not
accept contrary opinions that do not dovetail with his own views. Lagorio, similarly grew out of her dissertation
which traced the development of the Joseph of Arimathea legend. Their views are
neither definitive nor wholly correct. The impression one gets is that of
entitlement over the whole domain of Arthurian scholarship.
The DA is a minefield unless
one understands why DA was interpolated and by whom and Scott’s book[30]
has helpful insights. Few have deigned
to even scratch the surface of what is and is not interpolation. In a haughty critique of John Scott’s
translation of the DA (referring to it as ‘uninspired’) Carley lauds his mentor
as the superior knowledge and fount…. from which, he has obviously followed and
accepted all her views, concerning the Joseph tradition at Glastonbury: Modern
Scholars have examined the process of accretion which led to this connection
and Valerie M. Lagorio, in particular has given a masterful analysis in her
study on “The evolving legend of St Joseph at Glastonbury”.
Lagorio’s
views have shaped Carley’s and Lagorio’s view is: As a consequence of the Arthurian affiliation, the abbey some fifty
years later incorporated St Joseph of Arimathea into the legend of its
foundation. The figure (referring to the disinterment) of course is plucked
out of thin air based on her own deduced but erroneous account of events which
transpired in the twelfth century concerning Glastonbury and the emergence of
Grail literature. The fact is that Joseph and Avalon were established by Henry
Blois in DA before 1171. Lagorio’s and Carley’s assumption (followed by Scott)
is that after Chrétien mentions the Grail or Robert de Boron had written Joseph d’Arimathie…. a Joseph tradition
was incorporated at Glastonbury, upon which, Melkin’s Prophecy (supposedly much
later) imitated the Grail by the invention of the duo fassula. This viewpoint
is the reverse of how events transpired in that…. the Grail (duo fassula) is the essence of Melkin’s
Prophecy and the Melkin prophecy was most emphatically extant in Henry Blois’
era.
Their
assumption is largely based upon the fact that Joseph is not mentioned in the
St Patrick charter and their assumption is that the whole charter was written
during the contretemps with the bishop of Bath.
This chronology is incorrect. The charter of St Patrick was written by
Henry Blois himself, probably just before his second attempt at gaining
metropolitan status for Winchester in 1149; as I will show in the chapter on
the DA.
There
would be no Grail tradition without a ‘duo
fassula’ ….and there would be no tradition of Joseph (except the found in
Cornwall) without Melkin’s Prophecy. There would be no Avalon without the
genuine prophecy’s instructions (which point to Ineswitrin in Devon) which in
turn became the basis for Insula
Avallonis in Henry’s HRB. The name Avallon is based on the Burgundian town,
just as Karitia and Autun and Langres are all cited by Henry’s personal
knowledge of them. As I shall elucidate, Joseph and chapters 1&2 were
written into DA before the death of Henry Blois…. regardless of Lagorio’s or
Carley’s inaccurate chronology of events at Glastonbury.
Lagorio’s
view is that: to date, no-one has traced
his slowly evolving legend, or tried to assess the many factors which promoted
the successful joining of Joseph the saint with Arthur, the Hero King, in the
hallowed grounds of Glastonbury.[31]
The
real problem is that everyone has accepted her conclusions thereafter. Without
establishing Henry Blois as author of HRB…. she is in no position to assess the many factors which promoted the
successful joining of Joseph the saint with Arthur.
Until
Henry Blois’ fraud or at least his hidden authorship is accepted, no-one will
ever contemplate or understand the link between the three genres i.e.
Geoffrey’s Arthurian work in HRB and the Vita
Merlini, Glastonburyana (embodied in Life
of Gildas, DA and GR3 version B), and Grail Romance. Until an intransigent
scholastic community recognise they have been duped and Joseph’s entire legend
(as we know it) is based upon the Melkin prophecy.... scholarship is
blindfolded. Silly pronouncements such
as Carley’s assessment of the prophecy of Melkin will prevent scholastic
advancement. Lagorio has no solution as
to how the Joseph legend arrived at Glastonbury believing it transpired through
a ‘fortuitous convergence of factors’. Where does she think the ‘extant legends of the abbey’s origins’ came from…. if not from
DA. Every commentator recognises fraud
in DA, but the assumptions of Lagorio are misguided without recognising the
early fraud of Henry.
Lagorio’s misunderstanding is based upon the
assumption that any mention of Arthur in DA follows the discovery of his bones
and that Joseph lore at Glastonbury is a later insertion: With this record of prosperity, Glastonbury had little need to enhance
its Glory with Arthur’s counterpart, Joseph of Arimathea. Yet around 1250 the
monks quietly incorporated Joseph into their founding legend, possibly succumbing to the fortuitous convergence of
factors supporting such a claim: the impact of traditional belief in
Britain’s conversion to Christianity by an apostle; Joseph’s legendary status
as an apostle and missionary; extant legends of the abbeys origins; and the Arthurian Grail cycle, which proclaimed
Joseph as the apostle of Britain.
Who put out the propaganda supporting such a claim? Firstly, Henry
Blois is the originator of the Arthurian Grail cycle as explained in part III.
When we cover the DA in detail, it becomes clear that the bulk of the first 34
chapters of DA have been written by Henry Blois.
Ferdinand
Lot (a relation of mine) dismisses Glastonbury legend as nothing more than
invented by a conclave of Falsehood meaning monk-craft. Lot wrongly confirms
scholarship’s viewpoint that the fraud evident in DA was carried out over a
long period of time after the discovery of Arthur’s body and by many monks. The
scholastic viewpoint excludes the truth behind Henry’s inventions. The Grail as
an icon and the book which Henry must have written, (referred to as ‘Sanctum
Graal’), was based on the duo fassula from
the prophecy. The Grail itself derives its name from the interpretation of the
prophecy. The ‘holy blood’, contained in one of the supposed vessels, was
interpreted as sang real. Logically,
if there is no truth behind the chivalric Arthur character found in HRB and his
deeds are subsequently encompassed in a body of literature which involves
Joseph of Arimathea and the Grail (and this is connected to Glastonbury lore), and
we know the DA was presented to Henry Blois…. then it becomes fairly obvious
that the common denominator (once the originator of the Grail stories is
accepted as Master Blehis) is Henry…. who is also ‘Geoffrey.’
The
first step to any understanding of the Matter
of Britain is to contemplate that Melkin’s prophecy existed at Glastonbury
in Henry Blois’ era. It is similar to Wisdom…. one cannot possess it without a
certain knowledge of God (thus fear). Once one can understand that the island,
about which the prophecy speaks, is the template of a non-geographically
located Avalon…. transferred by Henry’s muses from a real island (Ineswitrin) to
a mythical island presented in HRB…. one can then understand why it was and who
changed the name of the island on the Melkin prophecy. The emblem of the Grail should be recognised
as having been derived (again by Henry’s muses) from the duo fassula through ‘Master Blehis’ and the inspiration of Robert
de Boron. Robert’s knowledge of Joseph existed through Henry’s knowledge. Henry
was Robert’s ‘Blaise’ and any knowledge of Joseph which Robert had…. came
originally from Henry’s inventions which were based on the Prophecy of Melkin.
The
glorification of Glastonbury as Avalon takes place after Henry’s return from
Clugny in 1158. Glastonbury is never mentioned in HRB which only highlights the
author’s connection in that Arthur had already been associated to Glastonbury
by himself in writing the Life of Gildas.
Henry could not betray his authorship of Vulgate HRB, especially now the
prophecies were updated…. otherwise, he would then be implicated for inciting
rebellion among the Celts through his prophecies.
Winchester
is however glorified in his earlier work in First Variant and it ultimately led
to Henry obtaining metropolitan status for Winchester in 1144. Winchester is
mentioned more than any other place except London in HRB. We may speculate as
to why Henry did this. Firstly, Winchester was the main city in southern
England in the Saxon era and secondly after the Primary Historia was written, the second redaction (the First
Variant) featured Winchester with early monasticism. This ploy indicated it was
a religious house long before the Roman usurpation of primacy at Canterbury.
This of course is tied up with the effort to gain metropolitan status for
Winchester.
Glastonbury
was going to be glorified through Henry’s invention of Grail stories concerning
Joseph and through the planting of Arthur’s body to be discovered in the
future.
Someone has constructed the prophecy of Melkin to lead
us to Burgh Island and has surely set out to manifest the whereabouts of Joseph
of Arimathea's tomb, leaving specific and precise instructions within his
prophecy. It was not Henry Blois. It was someone who knew what ‘is’ on Burgh
Island.
If
Melkin had wished to spell out the location of Avalon (or more accurately
Ineswitrin) he would not have hidden his instructional data so cleverly and
cryptically. Without determining the start of the instructions (knowing what
the bifurcated line refers to), there is no way of finding the Island or
working out the solution to the puzzle. The island is the primary subject of
the prophecy and it is perfectly clear from the prophecy that the tomb of
Joseph is on the same island mentioned in the prophecy (changed name or
otherwise). Also, if Melkin had wanted us to understand immediately that Jesus
was buried alongside Joseph, he would not have referred to him as ‘Abbadare’. There is no doubt that
Melkin wanted someone in the future to understand this riddle…. otherwise there
would be little point in writing it. The clues in it are extraordinarily
accurate and precise and could not randomly fall into an order to indicate
Burgh Island by way of following instructions to draw a line on a map. Who
would employ a word like sperulatis
which has no meaning, unless it was intended as part of a puzzle? The Latin in
the prophecy is archaic and grammatically incorrect and who knows what single
word could have been added or subtracted. Because of the numerical accuracy of
the directional data, and the use of obtuse words, the prophecy is evidently
original and has not for the most part been changed. However, Melkin was
presented with a conundrum: how to carry into posterity the knowledge of a tomb
and what it contained without destroying the very vehicle of the Christian
religion by which the puzzle would be perpetuated.
Melkin's
puzzle relates to the finding of a tomb. The evidence of what is found within
will provide us with a different account of that which transpired immediately after
the crucifixion, which is currently found in the gospel accounts. The Grail
account subliminally supplies the story behind the events which put Joseph at
Burgh Island. That Joseph did come to Britain with an object (or two) is
evidenced by the criteria put forward in Melkin’s prophecy. When the tomb is
opened, what is found within will directly contradict Roman Catholic
eschatology.
However,
the Grail (which is the body of Jesus) will never be found without determining
the key to the instructions in the prophecy which is Melkin's linea bifurcate. Without this key, none
of the other directional clues have any relevance. Especially where, some
modern commentators are insisting that the linea
bifurcata is a 'folded linen', which is complete nonsense. Also the
scholastic community’s misunderstanding of the credibility of the unit of the
nautical mile (the 104 measurement) is based in ignorance, because Pytheas used
this same immutable unit defined by the circumference of planet Earth. Even the medieval chroniclers at Glastonbury
understood the prophecy related to a geometrical instruction; even though,
through bogus directions in geometrical terms in relation to the old church. It
is purely coincidental that Melkin's duo
fassula turns out in reality to be the burial shroud of Jesus, but this is
secondary to our present focus as Yale and Goldsworthy have provided an account
on the appearance of the shroud in the modern
era.
Linea bifurcata was surely understood as instructional or
directional by the writer of the late liturgical piece, prefixed by Hearne to
John of Glastonbury's chronicle. Any affiliation between the old church and the
bifurcated line’s bogus relevance to it could only exist after the fire in 1184,
indicating the position of the now burnt church. The bronze plaque is fairly irrelevant to our
inquiry regarding Henry Blois. However, after relating information about the line
from the pillar (with the bronze plate affixed), outside on the North, through
the point up to which the eastern end of the old church originally came, he
states: ‘near this line, according to
certain ancient writers lies St. Joseph with a great multitude of Saints’. It is also obvious that John of Glastonbury
had understood that the ‘Linea’ was a
directional instruction as he writes: ‘amongst
whom, Joseph also was buried, and placed (et positus) in linea bifurcate over
against the aforesaid oratory’.
Most
medieval commentators have assumed that Joseph was buried near the Old Church,
in the grounds of Glastonbury Abbey. The institution at Glastonbury Abbey has
proactively encouraged and propagated such a position to find relevance to the
church which had burnt. This is because of Henry’s propaganda in DA which
implied that Joseph had built the original. In Medieval times the 'linea bifurcata' was at least
understood to be part of a geometrical instruction which would point out the
location of the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea as it was intended. I should briefly indicate how our two
top authorities considered opinions have understood Melkin and more importantly
his prophecy.
Prof. Valerie M. Lagorio writes: ‘a mystifying prophecy had arrived to
Melkin, a pagan sage who supposedly lived before Merlin. In essence Melkin
stated that Joseph, together with two cruets holding the blood and sweat of
Jesus, was buried near the vestusa ecclesia; and that when his secret tomb was
found and opened, the ancient island of Britain would never again know
drought’.
She
goes on to say: ‘the full import of this
account rests less on the promise of future miracles than in the establishment
of Glastonbury as Joseph's and Arthur’s joint resting place’.
In The evolving legend of St Joseph of
Glastonbury, she states ‘there is a
very remote possibility that Joseph may have journeyed to the Glastonbury area
of Britain and preached the faith there’. She further concludes, ‘if Joseph did come to Britain then his
Glastonbury- accorded fame has a ring of poetic justice. Based on the known
facts, however, it is only in the late 15th century England that the legend of
St Joseph of Arimathea and Glastonbury came to full maturity’.
Firstly, Melkin did not mention cruets nor did he
state that Joseph was buried near the vestusa
ecclesia and
certainly did not mention drought.
Melkin’s words ‘At that time neither dew, nor
rain, will lack from that noble island’apply to spiritual refreshment, the same as
biblical references of the same nature; not to any metrological future
condition. I only mention this so that the reader can see that the purport of
the prophecy is lost on Lagorio.
Melkin
had no idea that Joseph’s resting place in the future would be at Glastonbury.
The fact that Joseph is thought to be at Glastonbury is entirely down to Henry
Blois. If Henry had not replaced the name Ineswitrin for Avalon on the original
prophecy, and used this name in HRB, it is doubtful if Arthur would ever have
been unveiled at Glastonbury either. The prophecy of Melkin was Henry’s
inspiration for the potential discovery of Arthur’s body in the future. The
major difference is that the Melkin prophecy foretold of Joseph’s sepulchre
being found and this gave Henry the idea to manufacture the grave of Arthur to
be found at a future date. One is bogus, the other real.
The
point is not whether Joseph might or might not have gone to Glastonbury, it is
the fact that Joseph is buried on an island…. and the man who knew this (as a
certainty) composed the prophecy. Lagorio has no understanding of the fraud of
Henry Blois and even denies Melkin’s existence.
Prof.
James P. Carley’s views are mainly unfounded and contradictory. Carley states: it was at roughly the period of Edward’s
visit that the prophecy of Melkin the Bard was concocted at Glastonbury.
Carley’s main reason for positing that Melkin's prophecy was a fraud is that he
believes, like his mentor, the prophecy was concocted as a consequence of the
Grail tradition. The opposite is in fact true. Henry based the Grail tradition
on Melkin’s knowledge of the whereabouts of the tomb and who was in it.
Carley’s ’wholly respectable holy blood
relic, historically unimpeachable, brought to England by Joseph of Arimathea’
is not fiction…. but is the basis of Grail literature first propagated by Henry
Blois. Melkin was the source material for Henry’s muses.
There is of course only one way to disprove
this standpoint and that would be to go to Burgh Island and enter the tomb
(which is now bricked up) with qualified archaeologists. Therein is the
problem. There is no crossover of expertise. No archaeologists are qualified to
assess the faulty views of medieval scholars. It is not their field of
expertise to divine whether or not such a tomb exists. Those who supposedly
have the expertise to advise archaeologists on the validity of the tomb’s
existence have discounted Melkin. Hence the unfortunate necessity of this book
written by an untutored retiree to confound modern scholar’s mis-conceptions.
The fact that someone has entered the tomb
since Melkin’s day is undisputable on two points. One is that the Turin shroud
mentioned by Melkin came from the tomb. This is clearly shown by Goldsworthy
and Yale. Secondly, the fact that some institution has tried its best to make
sure that the information concerning the marker point of Montacute on Melkin’s
line, (of which Father Good informed us), never reached the public domain. I
will explain this shortly, but it involves the destruction of Father Good’s
information in all but one of the copies of Maihew’s Trophea. We know that Arthur’s dis-internment was at a
fabricated grave site…. manufactured for posterity by Henry Blois and we know
also Joseph has never been found. Would it not be simpler to go to Burgh
Island, the place we are directed to by a real person in history…. who had
knowledge of what the tomb contains? Goldsworthy had tried to achieve this but
was told by the local coroner he could do nothing. The owner was advised by
experts that Melkin’s prophecy was a fraud. The determining factor which has
allowed the perpetuation of the Glastonbury fraud is the transposition of the
island to which Melkin refers…. to Henry’s ‘fabulation’ of Avalon at
Glastonbury. The only fraud bigger than this is the continuance of the Roman
Empire in the form of the oppressive Catholic Church... conning the gullible into
the belief by ‘confession’ in the atonement of their sins…. while their bishops
and priests are buggering choir boys.
If, as Scott suggests, there was a
consolidating author of DA c.1230, why did the said author not eradicate the
contradiction in foundation stories rather, than smoothing one into the other.
I would imagine the date is considered a point at which the list of abbots ends
in 1134 and the presumption that Joseph material is added in between this time
and 1247 by a consolidator.
Melkin’s works were found at Glastonbury by
Henry Blois and it is through his imposture, chicanery, guile, and craft and
skill and inventiveness as an author…. on which Glastonbury’s notoriety exists.
As the deception was subsequently believed and more extraneous lore was added
(such as the bronze plaque), the modern understanding of Glastonbury’s status
is that it ‘is’ Avalon.... the place where King Arthur was buried. Its lore is
built upon King Arthur by the man who composed HRB. It is also built upon the
appropriation of history which pertains to an island in Devon and the events
that transpired there after the crucifixion.
I will cover the search for Joseph at
Montacute shortly. However, in this next passage we can get a good idea of
Carley’s understanding of Melkin and how Carley gets the chronology and
reasoning about Glastonbury (the Montacute dig) and the prophecy muddled: these two excavations can ultimately, I
think, be linked with the figure of Joseph of Arimathea. After the stone cross
found in Arthur’s tomb identified Glastonbury as ‘insula Avallonia’, it was
only a matter of time before Joseph of Arimathea's name (taken in this context
out of the French Grail romances) came to be associated with Glastonbury and in
13th century additions to William of Malmesbury's De Antiquitates Glastonie
Ecclesie it is first stated that Joseph was the hitherto unknown apostle of
Christ who evangelised Britain and built the wattle church at Glastonbury. With
the Joseph legend came the Grail, which was transformed into an
ecclesiastically respectable relic, two cruets containing the blood and sweat
of Jesus. Ultimately Glastonbury produced writings by a Merlin like figure,
Melkin the Bard, which articulated in a rather cryptic prophetic form Joseph's role in early Glastonbury history.
In Melkin’s prophecy it is made quite clear that Joseph's place of burial is
unknown and that if the tomb is ever found great miracles will occur.
No matter how one understands the words of
Melkin’s prophecy, ‘Joseph’s role at Glastonbury’ is not implied and nor is
Glastonbury mentioned. This only comes by implication as subsequent monks,
historians or chroniclers have been duped by Henry’s fraud. Again, it is
Henry’s transformation of the genuine island of Ineswitrin by substituting its
name as Avalon and the bogus corroborative evidence supplied in DA (and the
Leaden cross) which forms Carley’s opinion. To state that Melkin had made it
clear that Joseph’s place of burial is unknown is quite ridiculous. The very
objective of the prophecy is to point out the location. The reader will
understand in the following extracts that Carley has virtually no fixed opinion
on Melkin. This is why it is so critical that he should not be accounted an
expert on the subject nor his opinions on Melkin should carry any weight.
Leland says that Melkin was anciently known
as one of the most famous and erudite of British writers and his later
obscurity was a result of the Saxon invasions. However, Leland mentions
Melkin’s belief that Joseph of Arimathea was buried at Glastonbury. Melkin does
not mention Glastonbury and nor has he gone to the trouble of creating a cipher
which obviously indicates an island in Devon…. if he believed Joseph was buried
at Glastonbury. This is Henry Blois’ propaganda which has translocated the
relics of Joseph to Glastonbury.
Both Carley and Leland are duped by Henry
Blois’ transformation and conflation between Avalon and Glastonbury. Leland
himself does not believe Joseph is buried at Glastonbury but more accurately
should have said that Melkin believes Joseph is buried in Avalon…. although
Melkin did not. Melkin knew as fact that
Joseph was buried on Ineswitrin and if Kim Yale is correct about the breakdown
of the word ‘supra ad ictis’ he may well have known the island was once called
Ictis. Carley goes on to say about the
prophecy: ‘its general sense however is
clear; Avalon has always been known as the burial place of pagans. Buried there
is Abbadare powerful in saphat, who sleeps there with 104,000, among whom was
Joseph from across the sea who lies ‘in linea bifurcata’ against the South
corner of the wattle church built by the 13 inhabitants of the place. Joseph
has with him in his coffin two silver cruets filled with the blood and sweat of
the Prophet Jesus’.
Carley informs us that Melkin is telling us
that the wattle church was built by the 13 inhabitants of the place. He then
goes on to say that Melkin’s prophecy defies exact translation and any
interpretation of it abounds with difficulty of every kind. ‘Whatever the origin of Melkin it is clear
that Glastonbury accepted the prophecy with gratitude though she never
pretended to have understood it.’ It
is clear that Carley does not know the origin of Melkin. Carley admits: The language of the prophecy, which was
probably put together in its present form in the 13th century, is singularly
obscure and defies precise translation.
It is startling to me, with these
pronouncements, that our present authority is so ready to discount Melkin.
Carley goes as far as saying regarding Melkin’s inclusion into John of
Glastonbury's Cronica:’as a historical
personage mentioned in the gospels and venerated as the local Saint and patron,
Joseph of Arimathea could well be expected to have left his remains at
Glastonbury; these would be relics worthy of the greatest veneration.
Interestingly though, Melkin’s prophecy is very vague on the issue’. The text states that he is buried at
Glastonbury: Et
iacet in linea bifurcata iuxta meridianum angulum oratorii, cratibus
praeparatis. But what this actually means has caused considerable confusion
(and certainly exercised the ingenuity of modern commentators).’
Melkin’s prophecy
is anything but vague. Carley’s eyes deceive him, for nowhere does the text
state that Joseph is buried at Glastonbury. (It is Henry’s propaganda which
makes the conversion). Lagorio also has the same problem. The text does however
locate an island, but it is not at Glastonbury and nor is Joseph of Arimathea’s
tomb. Carley’s opinion is formed by John's of Glastonbury’s Cronica when he interprets part of
Melkin’s prophecy, he states that: ‘Joseph
sepultus est et positus in linea bifurcara iuxta oratorium predictum’.'Joseph
is buried, and positioned in a line that bifurcates where the oratory was’.
Carley knows JG is
referring to Glastonbury but does not understand Melkin does not. This in
itself would be an odd assertion for John of Glastonbury, if (as some have
posited), he invented the prophecy himself. Where do the numbers 104 and 13 fit
in? Why include the elusive sperula? John can hardly be the person
who provides us with genuine instructions which locates an island 104 nautical
miles away by way of a line which bifurcates the Michael line at 13 sperulatis. Without the 13 degree angle,
even if one had knowledge of the Michael line, one would still need to know
where the bifurcation point occurs (in the sphaerula of Avebury). The angle at
which to extend the 104 mile line is vital to locating the island.
Logically, Carley would have us believe JG
interprets his own concocted prophecy…. and conveniently leaves out all the
irrelevant data which modern scholars choose to ignore also. The difficult
conundrum with which modern scholars are therefore presented is…. why include
spurious numerical values like 104 and 13 in the first place if the prophecy is
an invention to bolster the presence of Joseph at Glastonbury? The answer will
not be found in Abu
Adar al-Badr or Sultan Baibars or al Malik Adh Dhahir or the Syrian fortress of
Safad. The geometry of Melkin is unequivocal and has nothing to do with
Glastonbury. It marks an island in Devon, in England….not Syria.
Carley goes on to
explain how a certain R. Willis arrived at Linea
Bifurcate being interpreted and equated to a linen shirt through Linea=undergarment…. being divided by two flaps and Aelred Watkin
thinking it a corruption of ligno
bifurcato, the sense being that Joseph lies under a cross. Carley is also baffled by the bifurcated
line; again because of his focus at Glastonbury: ‘In none of these cases is there any indication that this line has
actually been located or that the site has been excavated. Presumably the monks
could find no burial site with which they could identify with Joseph. The
prophecy, however, suggests both that this site exists and that finding it is
an enterprise of occult meaning, which could be linked with the millennial
vision’.[32]
It
is gratifying (in this instance) that Carley concedes the site of Joseph’s
burial might exist based upon what the prophecy suggests. Until the prophecy is
decoded and one understands whose relics are with Joseph in the tomb, the
magnitude of the meaning is more than a ‘Millennial vision’.
To
imply that the line has not actually been located is incorrect. More
accurately, Carley has chosen to ignore Yale’s solution to the prophecy as this
would involve some backtracking and embarrassment from previous ridiculous
postulations. Let me state clearly that the line exists and that this line has actually been located …. the
evidence for it has been available for more than 20 years.[33] The ‘Michael line’, is an alignment running
across southern England. It is a line of alignment which has existed since the
Megalithic period. It is also known as the Beltane line and was certainly
aligned in Melkin’s era, same as it is today.
What
it is and why someone has adorned it with St Michael churches and similarly in
Montacute and on Burgh Island does not concern us for the present. What it does
indicate though, is sometime in the past, someone might have been aware of the
lines which Melkin refers to.
The
Michael line is the line that Melkin is showing us to bifurcate within the sperula at Avebury with a meridianum, at
13 degrees, and extend a line 104 nautical miles. The meridianum mentioned by Melkin indicates it is a line on a map.
Melkin
is not vague about where the body is buried. The prophecy does not reference
any part of the church at Glastonbury. From this we should be able to
understand that someone i.e. Henry Blois, has put much etymological effort into
the translocation of both HRB’s Avalon and the 601 charter’s Ineswitrin, to
seem as if they exist at the island of Glastonbury. This transformation was
aided by Insula Pomorum becoming
Arthur’s final resting place in VM. What we can determine is that Henry Blois’
efforts have paid off; for posterity has swallowed the illusion. The illusion
was facilitated also by author B’s reference to Glastonbury as an island
c.1000…. even if the Somerset levels were not flooded enough to isolate
Glastonbury as an island in the 12th century.
Carley maintains that: ‘The facts of the story- that is, that
Joseph's relics were never located-seem incontestable, although it is difficult
to understand why this is the case. Why would the later mediaeval community at
Glastonbury not undertake some sort of exhumation, the finds of which could be
associated with Joseph? Why did Melkin's prophecy put the unearthing of
Joseph's grave squarely within an apocalyptic tradition? Surely it would have
been more convenient to have physical relics on display to corroborate the
so-called ancient writings and to stand as an ecclesiastical parallel to the
Arthurian relics’.[34]
Carley asks the most sensible question: Why
did Melkin's prophecy put the unearthing of Joseph's grave squarely within an
apocalyptic tradition? When Joseph’s grave is opened it will be apocalyptic… the
unearthing will be nothing less than the eradication of the Roman Catholic lie
about a body vanishing into heaven. The Christian religion has no understanding
of the Prophets of Israel. Not even Henry Blois could unearth Joseph as they
did with Arthur after Henry’s death. No-one understood what constituted the duo fassula. We can see that Henry
Blois, when he relayed the Grail stories at the court of Champagne to Marie and
Alix in their original form, must have used the term sang réal. Henry
made the connection to the vessel (fassula) in the prophecy because of the
mention of the blood itself. We can safely conclude, later troubadours who had
heard his words must have heard reference to san Graal instead of Sang
Real or Holy blood, as Henry Blois himself assumed the prophecy to refer
to.
But, Henry still understood the
enigma of the duo fassula as a vessel
as is clear in Robert de Boron’s references…. even though in the interim
transition from oral to written word, it becomes a holy ‘Graal’ or san Graal, but still contains the blood
as is inferred in the prophecy. Henry understands it as a container and because
of this, links it to any container known to be associated with Jesus i.e.
either the cup of the last supper as Robert’s version indicates (or the
Magdalene foot bowl). Certainly, Helinand knows from whom the information came
but does not mention Melkin and has an idea of what the Grail consists of: ‘At this time
a certain marvellous vision was revealed by an angel to a certain hermit in
Britain concerning St. Joseph the noble decurion who deposed from the cross the
body of our Lord, as well as concerning the paten or dish in which our Lord
supped with his disciples, whereof the history was written out by the said
hermit and is called ‘Of The Graal’ (De Gradali).
Helinand was a minstrel who won the favour of
King Philip Augustus c.1180 (the same who is said to have provided the book to
Chrètien) who is the first to connect a British Monk with the Grail and the
history was written out by the British monk. We can only speculate, but since
we know the Graal is derived from Henry’s description of sang réal, I
conclude the British monk was not Melkin as Melkin knows what is in the tomb is
not un Graal. Evidence of a British
monk trying to influence people on the continent implying the ‘Grail book’ is
ancient, smacks of Henry’s propaganda. Now, it would not be a speculation too
far, that this insert into Helinand’s chronological history may have been
instigated originally by information left at Froidmont by Henry. Probability
suggests that Henry Blois is the connection especially in that we know Henry
commissioned many Tournai marble fonts and must have passed through this area.
Froidmont is very close to Tounai. It seems fair that knowledge of the Graal
may have been spoken of by a passing bishop of some renown who left a book
written by an ancient British monk (which just so happens to get to Philip
Augustus).The old book scenario is similar where we know it is Henry Blois who
pretends as ‘Geoffrey’ to be translating from an old book. It is this clever
dispersal of propaganda which constitutes the edifice known as the Matter of Britain.
Carley’s
reflections above are easily answered. It would have been difficult to fake the
Grail at Glastonbury. Who is going to be brave enough to forge an object on
which so much potential and mystery rests?
If someone was going to fake such a thing it would have been Henry Blois
as he has no regard for twisting the truth. It was easier and more propitious
to convince the world that his chivalric alter-ego had at one time existed by
creating a grave with old Gorilla bones and a lock of hair which pretended to
be relics of Arthur and Guinevere.
It
was probably Henry Blois who told Henry II where the body was as well as making
it seem as if William of Malmesbury had casually mentioned it in DA. Giraldus
relates a similar story of Henry II involvement. Henry Blois could have told
the King while Henry Blois was on his deathbed. We know Henry had
surreptitiously indicated the graves location between the pyramids in DA.
We
know that Henry II visited the old and blind dying bishop and was castigated by
him regarding Becket. There is also some possibility that the unearthing was
instigated by Eleanor of Aquitaine who may also have been privy to certain
information from the King or Henry Blois as she had just been released from
prison on Henry II’s death. At this time the French court and the court of
Champagne presided over by Eleanor’s two daughters Marie and Alix would have
been immersed in Arthuriana and Grail literature for twenty years since Henry
Blois’ death. They were both married to Henry Blois’ nephews. It is not so
silly to speculate that Eleanor had also heard all these stories while
imprisoned. We should not forget that Eleanor was mother-in-law, to two of
Henry Blois’ nephews and it is possible she may have been given books by Henry
Blois or by her daughters while imprisoned. Do not forget that this is a man
who went out of his way to rewrite history and to spread and propagandise his
fabrications on two continents using his connections.
The commonly accepted scenario
is that Henry de Sully fraudulently concocted the pantomime of Arthur’s
disinterment.Supposedly funds had dried up for the reconstruction of the abbey
since Henry II’s death. This may have been coincidental and opportune…. but
there is no way that Henry de Sully consummated Henry Blois’ Matter of Britain edifice by fabricating
a cross and confirming the historicity of Henry’s fiction. To carry out such a
fraud, one would need to pass some censure or scrutiny of those at the dig. One
might conclude the grave had lain dormant for some time. Adam’s witness of
curtains surrounding the dig is a confusion with the dig at Montacute which
Henry had turned into a ‘fairy tale’ now known as De Inventione.
Henry’s aim and reason for
laying bare the grave’s location in DA and also perhaps passing this
information to the King was so that, like Joseph’s tomb, it would be found in
the future. Henry had procured and moved enough relics in his time as bishop
and abbot of Glastonbury, to be sure that after his death the grave site would
be re-found…. 40 years after William had supposedly mentioned it casually in
DA. Once this set of circumstances is understood, it allows an earlier date for
Perlesvaus than that previously thought. We are no longer bound by contrived
chronologies which the scholastic community has deduced, such as…. there is no
mention of Avalon in DA until after Arthur’s disinterment. It now becomes
feasible in the time line to account Blihos Bliheris, or Master Blehis as the
provider of the information for Chrétien…. which had hitherto been discounted
due to the colophon in the Perlesvaus which refers to Arthur and Guinevere’s
grave at Glastonbury/Avalon. Scholarship, adhering to the assumed a priori that DA[35]
did not have this information inserted into it until after the unearthing of
the Arthur’s grave. This view is held erroneously, assuming DA was first
published c.1134…. and no interpolations were made until after Arthur’s bogus
exhumation. This in effect leaves a gap
of sixty years. If we can accept the fact that Henry Blois interpolated DA, who
died 1171…. as well as accepting that he had pointed out the place of Arthur’s
gravesite; it would mean that from the time it became public knowledge until
the disinterment in 1191, the gap would be 20-30 years since Arthur’s and
Guinevere’s ‘relics’ were interred in the grave yard undisturbed (assuming the
grave was manufactured post 1158). We should not forget that it is ‘Geoffrey’
who indicates Arthur’s association with Insula Pomorum c.1155-58.
Rather than the commonly accepted principle
upon which scholars reckon the unearthing took place, (funding for the abbey’s
reconstruction), we should think of it differently. Arthur’s gravesite was
known locally before the fire. We should not think of any reason for exhuming
him as the Glastonbury graveyard and church was packed with saints anyway. One
must not forget Henry’s propaganda concerning Arthur’s grave had only recently
been manufactured and was part of the fledgling Lore of the previous
generation. But, after the fire, as the new building arose, it was a
consideration, as Gerald relates…. to have Arthur’s body put in the new Church
on more sacred ground. We therefore now
have a gap of less than ten years from the fire and a good reason for making
Arthur a feature of the new Church. So, to assume Henry de Sully is the
instigator of the fraud is unfounded. Especially as the fabricator of the cross
must be Henry…. in essence, it establishes Henry’s Avalon at Glastonbury. We
already have witnessed this is his intention by creating Insula Pomorum in VM. We could speculate that all Henry de Sully is
doing is carrying out the time honoured ploy of reaping an increase in alms for
his church by increasing the prominence of Arthur within the new building.
Henry Blois finally fulfilled
the translocation of a fictional island by concurring with ‘Geoffrey’s’
assertion where Arthur was last witnessed to be. Miraculously the grave is
found and confirmed to be in Avalon.
Now, the reader is aware that
Melkin’s Ineswitrin has been replaced in Melkin’s prophecy with the name of
Henry Blois’ Avalon…. the disinterment of Arthur in effect has diluted somewhat
the problems of disinterring Joseph as he lies supposedly on a bifurcated line
‘undiscovered’ near the old church. But,
all are now convinced that since Arthur’s disinterment has proved Glastonbury
to be Avalon by that which is stated on the leaden cross…. all may now accept
that Joseph is buried there also, purely because of the the substitution of Ineswitrin for Avalon on
the Melkin prophecy. It is also confirmed by Henry’s propaganda which reached
Robert de Boron concerning Joseph and the magical vessel, that it too is
connected to the vaus d’Avaron in the
west, (En la terre vers Occident, Ki est
sauvage durement, En vaus d’Avaron) which could only be construed as
Glastonbury .
Carley is as much in the dark
as everyone else.[36] He asks the right questions: Abbadare, potens in Saphat, paganorum
nobilissimus, cum centum et quatuor milibus domiicionem ibi accepit: ‘This portion of the text has been almost
universally ignored or, in the case of Capgrave and Usher versions, deleted.
Why, for example is Abbadare buried with 104,000? Is this a mistake for the
144,000 of Revelations 7:4? And why is the pagan nature of the cemetery
stressed? There is no doubt that Glastonbury was once a pagan shrine, but what
does this reference mean in this context? Finally, just who is Abbadare and
where is Saphat’.
Abbadare is not
buried with 104,000, he is buried 104 nautical miles from the sperula and he lies on a bifurcated
line, the end of which coincidentally terminates on an island 104 miles from
the said circle of Avebury. There are two Jews on the Island not pagans. Abbadare is Jesus and Saphat is not a
place. It is excruciating that Saphat has become a place as Carley proceeds to
lead the next generation of medieval scholars astray. He pontificates further
with a pretence of diligent authority: Concerning
the context of these last two words, at least, I think I can provide some
suggestions. The first important point is that Abbadare is specifically called
a pagan. Secondly, the sound of his name clearly suggests an Arab source and
this of course ties in with the pagan epithet. Thirdly, later in the prophecy
there is a section with pagan and Arab (specifically Moslem) connotations:
Jesus at 1.11 is called the ‘Prophet Jesus’. Moreover, this very unusual term to
describe Jesus is used at
one other point in John's Cronica. In this passage John describes the
adventures of one Rainald of Marksbury who traveling to the holy land, was
captured by a certain sultan, and then was released after he obtained for the
sultan some of the soil from Glastonbury cemetery. The sultan at one point asks
Rainald; si haberet noticiam cuiusdam insule inter duos montes site ubi Ioseph
ab Arimathia nobilis decurio quiescit qui prophetam Ihesu assumpserat de cruce.
According to John, these events occurred when Michael de Beckery was sacristan
at Glastonbury Abbey, which was in the last quarter of the 13th century. That
the ‘Prophet Jesus’ of the Melkin prophecy contains an echo of the Rainald
adventure is in my opinion highly probable. Surely Melkin’s Abbadare is the garbled rendition of some pagan name
which Rainald (or another crusader) brought back with him from the East.
Moreover, the whole Rainald episode is concerned with the sanctity of the very
soil of the cemetery, since the sultan released Rainald only after the latter
had brought back some earth from this most sacred burial ground. The parallels
with Melkin’s statements about the pagans buried at Glastonbury because of its sanctity suggest that there is a strong tradition linking
the two episodes, that some eastern material has been absorbed into Glastonbury
lore.[37]
Melkin
did not make any statements about pagans buried at Glastonbury. Melkin’s Abbadare is not a garbled rendition of
Rainald or has any connection to the Rainald episode. The ‘garbled rendition’
is rather the explanation and improbable supposition of Carley’s.... rather
than the inaccuracy of Melkin’s instructions. Carley seems to think that: Abbadare is a latinized form of some name
like Abu Adar (used as a personal name) or perhaps a version of the relatively
common name al-Badr. Another possibility is that it is a transliteration of the
name of a Sultan Baibars (al Malik Adh Dhahir) who seized Safad from the
Templars in 1266- the interpretation would assume that Baibars was the Sultan
to whom Rainald refers.
Abbadare has
nothing to do with ‘al Malik Adh Dhahir’ or Safad or ‘Abu Adar’…. or the blind
leading the blind. The island is in England and the person in the tomb as far
as the prophecy is concerned is Joseph of Arimathea. Now, even if you were to
understand only that Joseph has something with him, we might just take a
moderate guess and come up with Jesus…. considering it is only in association
with Jesus we know anything of Joseph. Because Jesus is referred to as a
prophet (which he was) why should Carley’s convoluted suggestion have any
merit…. just because Jesus is referred to as a prophet. Jesus refers to himself as a prophet in
Mathew 13.57 and Mark 6.4 when some took offence at him: Then Jesus told them, ‘A prophet is honoured everywhere except in his
own hometown and among his own family’…. In Mathew 21.11 do not the crowds
say: ‘This is the prophet Jesus from
Nazareth of Galiee.’
Safad, Baibars, ‘al Malik Adh Dhahir’, ‘Abu Adar’ is pure
piffle dressed up as learnèd deduction by Carley. Carley goes on to say: the Arab connections are a means of providing a very probable identity
for the place rendered as Saphat. If the basis for this portion of the prophecy
is material which Rainald brought back from the Holy Land, then Saphat is
almost certainly a transcription of Safad, which was a major Templar
fortification in the Kingdom of Acre.
John
of Glastonbury (and every other sane person) thought the Melkin prophecy
related to Joseph of Arimathea and Avalon in England. To pronounce Melkin an
invention whilst positing this sort of nonsense does not commend scholarship.
Saphat is ‘judgement’ and the word refers to Jesus!!!! To think also that the
prophecy is a composition of tradition, or even a composite work of more than
one person…. we can dismiss as trite postulation. It would be hellishly clever
of different people, combining different material at different times, to hazard
upon random figures which generates precision geometry through a line which
bifurcates and terminates on an island (the subject of the prophecy).
If the false premise that Melkin’s prophecy is
an invention is maintained, it becomes easier to extrapolate nonsense regarding
it. I quote the expertise of Carley at length here: In this
section of the prophecy it seems clear, therefore, that we are dealing with a
tradition which was originally separate from the material about Joseph of
Arimathea and the Grail. Historically, both traditions must have been
formulated in their present form at approximately the same time, that is, in
the second half of the 13th century. The psychological reasons for the linking
are also easy to understand; both stand as traditions with occult and eastern
meanings, which could easily be associated with the general context of an
ancient prosthetic tradition. The possible astrological hints are the last
aspect of the prophecy which I wish to discuss. Bale and Pits (following him)
seem to assume that Melkin is making some sort of astrological reference in his
text. Bale, for example, describes Melkin as follows: astorum peritus ac geometer, non solum arcana somniorum
et cometarum eventus discutere atque planetarum dispsitiones demonstrare
solebat. The first possible suggestion of an astrological meaning comes in the
confusing phrase sperulis prophecie
vaticinatibus decorate. Spaerula as a diminutive of sphaera, does occur in the Vulgate Bible
where it seems to mean a small ball or sphere. Other specialised mediaeval
meaning of this word include knob, chape of a sheath, or incense receptacle.
But none of these seems to fit here. The word, moreover, occurs again later in
the prophecy: superadictis sperulatis locum habitantibus tredicim. Watkin
suggests in an unpublished note that in these contexts it might refer to a
whorl pattern of Celtic crosses in the cemetery at the old church of
Glastonbury. Alternatively he considers that it might describe some kind of
clothes or headgear that could produce the idea of a spiral. But these and
almost any other alternative translations do not explain why the sperulae are
prophesying, and why Avalon is the place with 13 sperulatis inhabitants.[38]
One wonders if Watkin also had a PhD[39]
to come up with the spiral or headgear idea.
The piffle which has been written by those who pretend to better inform
us is depressing in its pretension. The deciphering of Melkin’s cryptic
prophecy has been seen and witnessed by Carley and summarily dismissed…. and we
can see why: any other alternative translations do not explain why the
sperulae are prophesying, and why Avalon is the place with 13 sperulatis
inhabitants. Our expert Carley is a ‘distinguished
research professor’ B.A. (Victoria); M.A. (Dalhousie); Ph.D. (Toronto). So let us defer again to the authority on the subject of Melkin and
his expert analysis of the prophecy: Sphaera is itself the word normally
used to describe a heavenly body. In this context the diminutive spherula might
well be used to describe a small representation of a planet or constellation.
Certainly this interpretation would explain why the sperulae in this text could
be endowed with a prophetic function. This suggestion would also help to
explain why there were 13 ‘sphered’ habitantibus. The number quickly brings to
mind astrological associations and the hypothesis that these 13 are the signs
of the Zodiac with some planet, perhaps the sun at their centre seems very
feasible’. Feasible to whom? This is
astounding piffle, but it continues: It is also
important to note just what locus is being discussed in connection with the 13
sphered things. From my earlier discussion of Joseph's burial site and from the
mention of cratibus preparatis, I think it becomes clear that the reference is
to the original wattle church which was destroyed by fire in 1184. This
suggests that the prophecy contains at least one remnant of a much earlier
tradition. Moreover, the reference to the wattle church recalls a very peculiar
statement which William of Malmesbury made about the floor of the old church: Moreover in the pavement may
be remarked on every side stones designedly interlaid in triangles and squares,
and figured with lead, under which if I believe some sacred enigma to be
contained, I do no injustice to religion.
There
are no ‘13 sphered things’ and it is Henry Blois (as we shall see in the
chapters on GR and DA) who attempts to find a connection between ‘wattle’ and
the old church, which, we know was in wood when William wrote. Now, why would
the interpolator of GR3 and DA have us believe there is a connection to
‘wattle’ with the church? Do you think that it is because the prophecy is
extant in the interpolator’s day and it is the same interpolator who would have
us believe Glastonbury is synonymous with Avalon?
It
beggars belief that Lagorio and Carley both focus on the drought or lack of
water either in Britain or at Glastonbury and do not understand the intended
spiritual meaning behind the turn of events immediately following the future
discovery of the tomb of Joseph and Jesus.
The same metaphoric language pervades biblical prophecy, which, to a
certain extent, Melkin was mirroring.
After explaining that ros celi has something to do with the Rosicrucians, Carley then
goes on to conclude ‘at this time I am
unable to formulate any kind of exposition of the meaning of the climatic
promise of the prophecy, but I do contend that these esoteric parallels exist,
that the key to the prophecy is astrological, and that it is somehow linked with
the occult symbols which William saw on the old church floor’. Piffle
again!! The key to the prophecy is geometrical.
So let me state for the record, the prophecy
has nothing to do with William of Malmesbury’s observations. The prophecy has
no astrological or Eastern connection (except for Joseph and Jesus hailing from
there). The ‘Climatic promise’ however is a certainty. It is the purport of the
prophecy. The tomb has to be opened first and this is hardly likely to happen
if so called experts like Carley deny the existence of Melkin and the set of
instructions plainly evident in his prophecy.
The opening of the tomb on Burgh Island will bring about the ‘Climatic
promise’; but don’t expect rain!!! Religion is the new ‘race’ and we are
defined by it. Contemplate the discovery of a body which a third of the globe previously
thought had disappeared to heaven.
In
the Downside Review, Carley pretends
to elucidate further, but exposes that he has little understanding of the
prophecy. He expounds in an exposé called Melkin
the Bard and esoteric tradition at Glastonbury Abbey from which we can
observe his rather uncertain standpoint as to whether Melkin existed. We can
also witness his views as to ‘precisely
what sources and traditions stand behind the few extant lines supposedly written by this vates and Bard’….
Carley
proposes that: ‘Glastonbury Abbey, it
transpired, had its own Welsh bard, whose greatness rivalled Merlin's and who
pre-dated Merlin by a number of years’. The idiocy of this statement is
apparent in that Henry Blois’ or rather ‘Geoffrey’s’ Merlin was partly based on
Melkin. How can a fictitious character make up fictitious prophecies in what is
known to be a pseudo-history…. be called into relation with a historical person
who has encrypted geometry into what looks like a prophecy; a prophecy which
points out to posterity where Jopseph of Arimathea’s relics are deposited.
Carley
then goes on to say: ‘no modern scholar,
it seems to me, can seriously maintain that this discovery was altogether legitimate,
that there really was an ancient bard called Melkin in whose writings were
stored at Glastonbury’. It is here that the mud has to stick. No serious
scholar could maintain otherwise. There was an ancient bard. It is not as mad
as some of the previous statements to posit that Melkin may well have been the
donator of Ineswitrin as the Devonian King.
Referring
to John of Glastonbury's Cronica,
Carley makes the observation that: ‘John
does not claim to have rediscovered Melkin; in fact, he seems to assume that
his readers will have knowledge of this figure and that they can consult the
older text from which he is ostensibly quoting’. Henry’s version of DA was
followed by Adam of Damerham’s Historia
de Rebus gestis Glastoniensibus. John’s Cronica
followed Adam’s to recount and consolidate the propaganda started by Henry in
DA. William’s DA was impregnated and interpolated before Henry’ Blois’ death,
even though Melkin is not mentioned in it. Let us also remember that
Glastonbury is not mentioned in HRB and is the oldest church in England. If a
reader believed the content of HRB…. is he to assume Glastonbury did not
exist? To excuse this omission, positing
it was known as Avalon is ludicrous…. because Avalon did not exist before
Henry. If Melkin and the prophecy were
mentioned in DA most contemporaries would have connected Robert de Boron and
Chrétien’s work to Henry Blois considering Arthur was going to be unearthed at
some stage. At Henry’s death, Avalon was at Glastonbury according to his own
propaganda; the holy blood which is mentioned in the prophecy was the sang
réal, Joseph was connected to Avalon etc. etc. If Henry’s aim was to secret
his authorship, the inclusion of the Melkin prophecy in a book dedicated to him
would lay bare the rest of his fraud. In Henry’s lifetime, two separate
continental authors concur that Joseph did bring something to England and the
only tract which associates Joseph directly with Glastonbury and the Grail is
Perlesvaus…. yet Robert associates Avalon with Joseph and the Grail…. and
Chretien associated Arthur with the Grail.
Since
Henry is the instigator of the Grail stories, the inspiration for which was
derived from the works of Melkin at Glastonbury, it is hardly likely (since
William does not mention Melkin elsewhere) that Henry is likely to implicate
himself in the interpolative fraud by introducing into DA the material which
inspired his mythical Island into HRB or the duo fassula upon which the Grail was based. John’s attitude toward Melkin (as Carley
correctly points out), negates the proposition that John is the forger of the
prophecy. Adam does not mention Melkin. Henry either got rid of the works of
Melkin, so the source of his edifice would never be discovered…. or possibly
his works were destroyed in the fire.[40]
Luckily a copy of the prophecy survived, but we know by the island’s change of
name…. the prophecy has been doctored by Henry. So, one must conclude that some
of the works ascribed to Melkin (especially the Arthurian titles) have a Henry
Blois provenance.
In
consideration of all we have covered so far, it would be ignorant to assume
this next interpolation in DA were written by any other than Henry Blois.
Otherwise Adam and John would never have believed they were at Avalon and the
VM’s Insula Pomorum would have no
relevance to Glastonbury: This island was
at first called Yniswitrin by the Britons but at length was named by the
English, who had brought the land under their yoke, Glastinbiry, either a
translation into their language of its previous name, or after Glasteing of
whom we spoke above. It is also frequently called the isle of Avalon, a name of
which this is the origin. It was mentioned above that Glasteing found his sow
under an apple tree near the church. Because he discovered on his arrival that
apples were very rare in that region he named the island Avallonie in his own
language, that is ‘Apple island’, for avalla in British is the same as poma in
Latin. Or it was named after a certain Avalloc who is said to have lived there
with his daughters because of the solitude of the spot.[41]
Modern
scholars have, for the most part, dismissed John's quotation from Melkin as a
forgery, and the general assumption has been that John of Glastonbury was
responsible for the fraud. Carley goes on to say: ‘An examination of later medieval and renaissance citations of Melkin,
however, suggests that this dismissal of Melkin represents a very modern
attitude’. Carley and Lagorio’s dismissal of Melkin, being the main
proponents…. are the ‘modern attitude’. However, their views are based on
redundant misconceptions. Modern
scholarship has effectively delivered a character assassination on Melkin,
purely because they have no understanding of the prophecy. Yet, ‘up to the mid- eighteenth century, every
major compilation of British writers included a section on Melkin and his
work’. Without Melkin and Henry Blois, there would be a pitiful legend at
Glastonbury. Carley confirms that he has no understanding of the prophecy he is
purporting to elucidate upon: ‘Since it
is written as a prophecy, it is not surprising that the meaning is somewhat
obscure; what is confusing is just how garbled the actual syntax is, and how
altogether incomprehensible the allusions are’.
Carley
then states: Once again, the hypothesis
that it is a late forgery, consciously written as such, does not by any means
seem as obvious as scholars have suggested’.
For all Carley’s dubious hypotheses; it is not a forgery. Carley
tells us he will analyse both the text and allusions to Melkin by saying: ‘what I hope to establish is both the
considerable antiquity of portions of the prophecy and that the existing
fragment is only one item in a larger corpus of works ascribed to Melkin’.
The Prophecy as a whole (not portions of it) is from antiquity. The only part
definitively more recently forged is the name Avalon which was substituted for
Ineswitrin. In fact, the events the prophecy refers to transpired c.35AD. If Joseph was Jesus’ father (or uncle)….
Jesus was buried after the crucifixion on Joseph’s tin island and later
interred there himself. The nearest we can get to the antiquity of the prophecy
is in connection to the charter which is dated to 601AD which refers to the
same Island.
Carley
then goes on to give his interpretation of the prophecy in translation: In the translation which follows however, I
have tried to remain as safe as possible to the text itself since my purpose is
one of elucidating meaning rather than enhancing poetic value: The Isle of Avalon, greedy in
the burial of Pagans, above others in the world, decorated at the burial place
of all of them with vaticinatory little spheres of prophecy, and in future it
will be adorned with those who praise the most high. Abbadare, powerful in
Saphat, most noble of pagans, took his sleep there with 104,000. Amongst them
Joseph de Marmore, named ‘of Arimathea’, took everlasting sleep. And he lies on
a forked line close to the southern corner of the chapel with prepared wattle
above the powerful venerable maiden, the 13 aforesaid sphered things occupying
the place. For Joseph has with him in the tomb to white and silver vessels
filled with the blood and sweat of the prophet Jesus. When his tomb is found,
it will be seen whole and undefiled in the future, and will be open to all the
earth. From then on, neither water nor heavenly dew will be able to be lacking
with those who inhabit the most noble island. For a long time before the day of
judgement in Josaphat will these things the open and declare to the living.
Thus far Melkin.
After
much uncertainty on most issues in the prophecy, Carley excuses his untenable
rationalisations with the following conclusions: ‘There is a disease which attacks most scholars who deal with the
history of Glastonbury Abbey, a kind of galloping gullibility. This essay is
not, I hope a manifestation of early symptoms of this malady’. Carley’s are
less like early symptoms of a malady but rather a mortal sickness. He then goes
on to make his position less clear than positions explained previously:’ I am not suggesting that the Grail has
links with the Templars and Glastonbury (through Safad and the Red Cross
Knight), nor that this symbol is the key for resolving the secrets of the
universe, nor that this esoterica Abbadare came from the East to be buried at
Glastonbury, nor even that this esoteric alchemical exercise has any intrinsic metaphysical meaning. What I do suggest however is that Melkin’s prophecy is an example of a highly esoteric text laced
with occult information, and that itcontains hints of a consciously coded
secret which by the time of John of
Glastonbury had become altogether garbled. Equally important, this paper
suggests that the prophecy quoted by John is only one item in a large corpus of
works attributed to Melkin, although it is difficult to determine either the
number (from 1 to 3 according to various accounts) or the exact age of the
material. I think that what Leland has to say about Melkin and his works must
be taken as somewhat accurate’.
One
wonders why, if the prophecy is esoteric text laced with occult information,
and that it contains hints of a consciously coded secret, the solution to the
code is still ignored by Carley. Carley himself admits he is at a loss to what
it all means. This is the state of modern medieval scholarship where one is
bent on preserving reputation rather than uncovering the truth. Until scholarship catches up with Henry’s
clever façade involving the authorship of HRB and realises the two people first
known to propagate both Arthurian, Josephian and Grail related material i.e.
Robert de Boron and Chrétien de Troyes (both also supposedly come from the
Blois region and speak of things directly related to Glastonburyana), there
will be no discovery on Burgh Island.
The final summation of Carley states: When scholars determined that Joseph of
Arimathea was almost certainly created as the Glastonbury Saint through the transmutation of
the French Grail legends, then it
seemed equally clear that Melkin’s prophecy was forgery. This condition must in general terms still be accepted, since the prophecy in the form it
now stands certainly cannot predate the 13th century. But what my study shows is that the prophecy is at least as complex as
the earlier excavation (Arthur’s), that it cannot be dismissed as the
fabrication of a single author with a clear purpose of deception. It must, in fact, date from several
periods and include material from a
number of traditions. Melkin, too is no doubt a fabricated rather than historic
personality, but this
creation seems to involve complicated transmutations of older documents rather
than conscious forgery.
If
Melkin is not a historic personality, who is it that has devised the riddle
which so accurately locates an island in Devon 104 miles from the sphaerula at Avebury. How is it that an
Island even exists on the opposite end of the same 104 mile line which just
happened to bifurcate the only known line on the landscape at 13 degrees within
the circle indicated in the prophecy? This is an extraordinary coincidence that
the line falls (at its extension of 104 miles) on an Island in Devon….
especially when our expert has advised us that the Prophecy must, in fact, date from several periods and
include material from a number of traditions. That random material
translates onto a map which indicates an Island truly is a ‘fortuitous convergence of factors’!!!!! If one follows the supposition that French
Grail Literature is the cause of Joseph lore at Glastonbury, one will never
understand how Henry Blois built his literary edifice known as the Matter of Britain. There are so many
contradictory opinions in Carley’s output, it would have been more helpful to
remain silent than pontificate with a pretence to authority.[42]
William of
Worcester who measured and described the abbey church c.1478 at Glastonbury has
understood that 'in linea bifurcata' is
meant as part of a geometrical and measurable instruction: Et ex opposite secunde fenestre ex parte meridionali sunt in cimeterio
duo cruces lapidee concuate vbi ossa Arthuri regis recondebant vbi in linea
bifurcate iacet Josephus ab Arimathea….'and opposite the second window (of
the lady chapel) on the south side there are in the cemetery two stone crosses
hallowed, where the bones of King Arthur were buried, where 'in line bifurcata'
lies Joseph of Arimathea'.
The
bifurcated line presented problems and early propaganda concentrated rather on
the construction of the church to affect a compliant match to the prophecy.
This can be witnessed by the Perlesvaus versions that emanated from Henry Blois
where the ‘Old Church’ is made to coincide with the Grail chapel. These versions have the Grail chapel covered
with lead as it was in Henry’s day. In the Perlesvaus there is a: chapel nouvelemant faite, qui mout estoit
bele e riche; si estoit covert de plon… It would be silly to maintain that
the Perlesvaus is written by a continental, long after Henry’s death with the
occurrence of the 1184 fire at Glastonbury which burnt the church covered in
lead. Are we supposed to believe the
author of Perlesvaus is linking his story to Glastonbury by a church which has
burnt down? We know the author is fully acquainted with Avalon and Joseph. We
know that the author is acquainted with the fact that Guinevere and Arthur are
buried in Avalon…. and we know the story emanates from Master Blehis and a
certain Blihos Bleheris ‘knew the whole story’.
Let us take an intuitive guess who the author was and why he was
referencing a still existing old church (before the fire) and knows of Arthur’s
burial location before the disinterment in 1191.
By reversing the mistaken
assumptions of scholars which dictate that all things Arthurian in DA post-date
the discovery of Arthur’s grave, we now can realise Henry was the interpolator
of DA who indicated Arthur was buried in the ground at Glastonbury. Therefore,
mention of Guinevere and Arthur in the tomb together, (made plain in the
colophon of Perlesvaus), no longer determines (as scholars have previously
thought) that the Perlesvaus must have been written after Arthur’s
disinterment; because Henry (the writer of the colophon) knew what he had
placed in the manufactured gravesite. What this allows then is that Master
Blehis is now contemporary with Henry Blois. This then allows the person
attested to have propagated Grail legend who has a name like Monseigneur Blois,
Master Blehis, Maistre Blohis, Blihos Bliheris or Blaise. We should not forget either
that Giraldus Cambrensis’ latinised version of the name ‘Bledhericus’ is the
‘famosus ille fabulator’ who had lived "shortly before our time" i.e.
in the period 1160-1170.
In
the Melkin prophecy, the bifurcated line was important. Somehow, if the prophecy
was to be relevant to Glastonbury, the featured ‘line’ in the prophecy should
be presented as being directional in relation to the church or oratori which Henry Blois had linked to
Joseph in DA. This was the only object by which the ‘bifurcated line’ could
seem relevant…. as even the later Glastonbury acolytes understood ‘the line’ as
being instructional and directional toward the place where Joseph was buried.
The logic was that Joseph, having founded the church (through Henry’s
propaganda), must have been buried in it before it was burnt. The simplest solution was to concoct a sense
of directional relevance from the oratori
and the problem was overcome. We can conclude therefore, unlike the allusions
to wattle in the prophecy, which substantiated that the church was the same
intended place as that to which the prophecy referred….the bifurcated line
would have been more difficult to incorporate as part of Glastonbury lore until
long after the fire since the church was no longer visible. Therefore, Henry
makes it appear that the allusion to wattle was written by Malmesbury in both
GR3 and DA. At this time, there is no mention of the bifurcated line. Not even
Henry could simulate any relevance to the church with a bifurcated line and two
random numbers. This was left to a later generation of monk-craft (after the
fire) who implied the bifurcated line had relevance to the burnt down church.
They, however, chose to leave out the numerical information from the Melkin
prophecy. Thereafter, the implication was that the bifurcated line had
relevance to the church and pretended to point to its location.This cannot
logically stand the test of scrutiny as the reader is now cognisant that the
prophecy predated the fire (as Henry’s muses had used it as a template). So,
why the bifurcated line would be referencing the church or any point in it
where Joseph might be buried makes no sense. Surely it would have been obvious
before the fire if Joseph had ever been buried at Glastonbury. The bronze
plaque is later propaganda which does show the credibility and weight which was
given to the prophecy in trying to mimic aspects of its geometric data. What it
does show is that not even Henry could work out what the bifurcated line alluded
to.
The bronze plaque which
provides fictional relevance to Melkin’s prophecy.
The 31st year after the passion of the Lord twelve saints
among whom Joseph of Arimathea was the first, came here. They built in this
place that church, the first in the realm, which Christ in honour of his
mother, and a place for their burial, presently dedicated. St David Archbishop
of Menervia rested here. To whom the Lord when he was disposed to dedicate that
church appeared in sleep and recalled him from his purpose, also in token that
the same Lord had first dedicated that church with the cemetery: he pierced the
bishops hand with his finger, and that's pierced it appeared in the sight of
many on the morrow. Afterwards indeed the same Bishop as the Lord revealed, and
the number of saints in the same grew, added a chancel to the eastern part of
this church and consecrated it in honour of the Blessed virgin. The altar
whereof, of priceless sapphire, he marked the perpetual memory of these things.
‘and lest the site or size of the earliest church should come to be forgotten
by reason of such additions, this pillar is erected on a line extended
southward through the two Eastern Angles of the same church, and cutting off from it the chancel of the
aforesaid. And its length was sixty feet westward from that line; its width
twenty six feet; the distance of the centre of this pillar from the middle
point between the said angles, forty eight feet’.
The writer of the late liturgical
piece prefixed by Hearne to John of Glastonbury's Cronica continues Glastonbury’s propaganda. Melkin’s original 104
miles becomes the rationalised 144 thousand saints. After relating information
about the line from the pillar (with the bronze plate affixed) outside on the
North through the point up to which the eastern end of the old church
originally came, the writer states: ‘near
this line, according to certain ancient writers lies St. Joseph with a great
multitude of Saints’.
Father
Good states: This cross, moreover, had
been set up many years before to mark the length of the Chapel of the Blessed
Virgin, made by Saint Joseph with wattle. The length was measured by a straight
line from the centre of the cross to the side of the chancel afterwards built
of hewn stone, under which also there was of old, in a subterranean crypt the
Chapel of St Joseph. Outside, in the wall of this Chapel of the blessed virgin…
To the North of the Lady
Chapel stood a column (Father Good relating that it was a Cross) upon which a
bronze plate was attached. It was close
to the site where the pyramids used to be, the column foundations being
uncovered in 1921. The function of the bronze plaque affixed to the column was
propaganda but not Henry’s. However, it
confirms my point that the monks were complying with the prophecy not that they
invented the document. They are witnessed attempting to produce a satisfactory
relevance for the bifurcated line and hence the ‘cutting off’ allusion which
gives the appearance that it complies with some sort of understanding of the
word ‘bifurcate’. The bronze plate
related the vision of St. David, so that positioning of the Chapel added by
him, gave pertinence to Melkin’s line:
‘and lest the site or size of the earliest church should come to be forgotten
by reason of such additions, this pillar is erected on a line extended
southward through the two Eastern Angles of the same church, and cutting off
from it the chancel of the aforesaid. And its length was sixty feet westward
from that line; its width twenty six feet; the distance of the centre of this
pillar from the middle point between the said angles, forty eight feet’.
As we can see from the above
there is a direct attempt to make the bifurcated line relevant. In logic, from
the description above, the bifurcated line is only made relevant by its
associations with the new additions. And therefore if one were to believe the
wholly concocted pretention of Geometrical nonsense, one would have to believe
the prophecy is a late invention. However, even though the monks perfectly
understood the bifurcated line had relevance to instructional data (which
supposedly pointed out Joseph’s burial site); modern scholars, who insist the
prophecy is fake, now determine the linea
bifurcata relates to a linen cloth. One wonders therefore why they should
bother seeking any explanation for what they think is a fraud and deny the
medieval monks their interpretation of the bifurcated line as geometrically
relevant.
The existence of the column
still standing with the bronze plate in place can be traced back to the second
quarter of the 17th century, and relates the story of the arrival of Joseph of
Arimathea, the dedication of the original church by our Lord in person, and how
the church was built to honour his Virgin mother. The plaque seems to have
carried out its intended function as a propaganda instrument showing by
measurement the location of the old church.
J. Blome on 10th June 1345, having obtained his royal permit, set out to
search for Joseph within the Glastonbury grounds. One of the reasons given for
the search was ‘because it is said in certain ancient writings that the body
was there buried’ a reference to Melkin’s Prophecy: in quibusdam Antiquis Scripturis dictur continere Corpus eius ibidem fuisse
Sepultrum.
For all Carley’s
pronouncements on Melkin the following is astounding: Whether or not John actually fabricated the prophecy- to which there is
no reference in GC for example- is not relevant here.[43]
Who wrote the prophecy is the
most consequential fact of all Glastonburyana lore. It is highly relevant to
establishing its veracity. If John flourished supposedly c.1400 where he says
he stops his history in the prologue or the earliest date for John’s Cronica could be 1375 (since it refers
to John Chinnock as postea abbas); or
even if we take the date when the Cronica
actually finishes which is 1342…. how is it that J. Blome is searching the
grounds on information obviously supplied by Melkin’s prophecy.... when Carley
is the main proponent in accusing John of fabricating the prophecy. If we
assume the Cronica was started in 1340 and finished in 1342 it is still astounding
Blome gets a royal writ on the grounds of a prophecy so newly invented. How is
it that Blome has a Royal writ to search…. especially if Melkin or his prophecy
were supposed to be fabricated? Are we to believe the royal writ was granted on
grounds of evidence supplied in Grail literature?
As I have stated, this transpired before the
reliable Leland, (not prone to exaggeration or invention), saw the original text
(of Henry’s with the name Avalon) of the Melkin prophecy and described it as an
Exemplarium Vetustatis.[44]
So, what Carley deems as not relevant becomes highly relevant in that; through Henry’s
interpolations in DA in chapters one and two and the existing knowledge of
Melkin’s prophecy, a search is carried out for Joseph’s remains before John
‘flourished’. Carley further states: Blome’s writ therefore, represents the first
witness to an awareness of Melkin outside Glastonbury. I can only stress
that Henry Blois’ search at Montacute was for Joseph…. and the only reason he
is looking there is because Melkin has connected Joseph’s burial place to
Montacute. Montacute sits on the line we
are led to construct. The 104 mile line is the essence of the Melkin prophecy
once constructed, as it defines which Island the relics of Joseph are on. Only
Melkin could know this and thus we have the product of this search at Montacute
in the fabricated De Inventione….
long before Bloom’s search.The royal writ is printed from the patent role in
Rymer’s Foedera:
The King to all of whom these presents shall come,
Greeting! John Blome of London has petitioned us that since (as he asserts) a
divine injunction has been laid on him as concerning the venerable body of the
noble decurion Joseph of Arimathea, which rests in Christ buried within the
bounds of the monastery of Glastonbury, and is to be revealed in these days to
the honour of God and the edification of many; to wit, that he should seek it
diligently until he find it; because it is said to be contained in certain
ancient writings that his body was there buried: We therefore, (if so it be)
desiring to pay, devout honour to this sepulchre, and to the relics of him who
performed such offices of religion and humanity to our Redeemer in His death,
taking down His body from the cross and laying it in his own new sepulchre; and
hoping for ourselves and all our realm a wealth of grace from the revelation
aforesaid; have conceded and licence given, so far as rests with us, to the
said John that he should have power to dig within the precinct of the said
monastery and seek for those precious relics according to the injunction and
the revelation made to him in the places where he shall see it to be most
suitable: provided, however, that this can be done without hurt to our beloved
leader in Christ the Abbot and convent of the said monastery and without
destruction of their church and houses there; and that for this purpose he have
the license and assent of the Abbot and convent themselves…..In testimony whereof and witness the King at Westminster on the 10th
day of June. By the King himself.
Evidently, the search was
instigated by the will of John himself as no grave containing Joseph was found.
As I have stated before; just as Henry never mentions Glastonbury in HRB, so he
never mentions Melkin or his prophecy in DA. It is also relevant that Henry
introduces a certain Maeldinus (Melchinus) in a bit role in VM for no
certain purpose, which suggests to readers also…. that his name is associated
with Insula Pomorum and therefore
Avalon. We know Melkin lived c.600 AD and his works
are attested by others. Leland visiting Glastonbury Abbey prior to the
‘Dissolution’ states: ‘while examining
(the chests in the library) in addition to many other exemplars of remarkable
antiquity, I found a fragment of Melkin’s Historia’.
Leland
states that Melkin was anciently known as one of the most famous and erudite of
British writers. Now if John Leland’s stated goal was ‘to make a search after England’s antiquities and peruse the libraries
of all Cathedrals, Abbies, Priories, Colleges and all places wherein records,
writings and secrets were reposed’, one
would think he was qualified to comment on Melkin’s fame and erudition in
Britain. Leland as a guest of Abbot Whiting perused the library at Glastonbury.
It is probable thatMelkin wrote a Historiola
de Rebus Britannicus. Leland also
states that Melkin flourished before Merlin, but misinterprets Melkin by
implying it was Melkin’s belief that Joseph of Arimathea was buried at
Glastonbury. Melkin obviously knows where Joseph is buried on the island of
Ineswitrin…. otherwise his cleverly constituted instructions would be
meaningless. So, contrary to what Leland asserts, Melkin does not imply Joseph
is at Glastonbury or Avalon. Leland has deduced this because of the change of
name on the prophecy.
John
Leland in his Assertio Arturii cited
Melkin from which he gives information from the extract he has seen stating
that he ‘celebrated the name of Gawain’ and that he ‘praised Arthur’;
information which is entirely independent of Melkin’s prophecy. It indicates
surely that Melkin has an Arthurian or even Grail affiliation independently of
what is normally considered the natural connection through the ‘duo fassula’ and Joseph. Logically, the
only person to promote chivalric Arthur is Henry Blois and here is our most
solid proof that Henry Blois is connected to Melkin[45]
and therefore he knew of Melkin’s prophecy. The book Leland is referring to is
a concoction associating Melkin and Arthur and most probably composed by Henry.
The fact that the chivalric Arthur is Henry Blois’ alter-ego and we know he has
used the prophecy to inspire parts of his work which constitute the Matter of Britain…. (with all the other
evidence put forward), it should convince the most ardent sceptic that the
prophecy existed in Henry Blois’ era.
The
references Leland cites are flimsy and must post date Henry’s invention of the
chivalric Arthur. It has been thought
that Leland’s testimony might be derived from a time when his mental capacity
was waning but the Assertio Arturii
was written a decade before Leland’s death in 1552 according to Carley,[46]
so it would seem as if somehow Leland is seeing a reference to a book authored
by Henry Blois under the name of Melkin.
Robert
de Boron’s magical vessel is the same as Chrétien’s Grail; both stem from Henry’s
knowledge of the prophecy which connects Joseph of Arimathea to the Grail and
the Isle of Avalon. Melkin’s affiliation with the Grail stories can only
transpire in two ways. Either Gawain, Arthur and the Grail (and therefore
Joseph) are connected through a genuine undiscovered manuscript of Melkin’s as
Bale and Pits seem to suggest regarding Arthur; or Leland is referencing a lost
work composed by Henry Blois impersonating Melkin, which refers to Blois’
chivalric Arthur. The most likely answer is that Henry’s Grail literature is
based on the Melkin prophecy and possibly other Melkin material now lost. The
reason we posit genuine material from Melkin is; how else could the geometric
clue of Montacute be known except it were provided by Melkin, the composer of
the puzzle itself?
The
probable solution, where all the pieces fit together, is the scenario that
Melkin witnessed the tomb on an island he called Ineswitrin or the information
about the tomb was handed down to him through generations, from the earliest
time of arrival of Joseph with the coffin of Jesus at the Island of Ictis
(known c.600 as Ineswitrin). It is also pertinent to remember that the clue of
Joseph being ‘carefully hidden’ in Montacute was extant in the time of Henry
Blois; otherwise we would not have the Holy Cross of Waltham concoction in De Inventione. Therefore, it seems fair
to posit, Henry used Melkin’s prophecy as an inspirationa source for Joseph
material which found two early outlets in Robert De Boron’s Joseph d’Arimathie and Perlesvaus. Henry
then tied in Merlin from HRB…. also witnessed by Robert. Ultimately the round
table which features in Robert’s work (which was made a reality at Winchester)
was originally initiated by Henry posing as Wace as early as 1156-7
John Bale, writing in 1548,
says that Melkin was a geometer as we have touched on already and an astronomer
specialising in Comets. Bale describes him: astorum peritus ac geometer, non
solum arcana somniorum et cometarum eventus discutere atque planetarum
dispositiones demonstrare solebat….. 'Not only skillful in astronomy and a
geometrician, but discusses the secrets of dreams, the events of comets and
demonstrates the disposition of the planets'.
The solution to his prophecy
testifies to Melkin’s skill as a geometer. It is common knowledge that one is
able to navigate by the heavenly bodies with the aid of an instrument which
measures between horizon and a heavenly body.
Distance over the earth’s surface can be determined between two places
with the aid of careful calculation taken at each place. The dismissal of Melkin’s measurement of 104
miles and the geometric precision which he employs to indicate Burgh Island at
13 degrees must now be accepted, given the talents that are attested to him. It
must be remembered that the unit of nautical miles is used
so that a unit of measurement correlates to a sixtieth of a degree; this same
unit having been employed by the ancients and by Pytheas’. This unit of
measurement is the only one Pytheas could use to determine the latitude at
Marseille. Melkin’s
prowess as a geometer is borne out also, if we take into account information
regarding Montacute as an accurate marker.[47]
Carley believes Bale may have derived the astronomer and geometer attribute for
Melkin from terminology in the prophecy. Carley does concede that: ‘it may indicate that he actually saw
material credited to Melkin which has since disappeared’. I think the latter is more likely as no
comets were alluded to in the prophecy. Bale, cites another work by Melkin
which he names as De Arthurii mensa
rotunda, which one would assume Leland had seen to divulge about Gawain;
although Leland does not mention this title. Is this a lost invention of Henry
Blois’ as it is he who invents the Round Table scenario firstly through Wace?
It is also in Robert’s story of Joseph and then in Robert’s Merlin,
where Merlin creates the Round Table in imitation of the table of the Last
Supper. This version probably has its roots with Henry The method of Dendrochronology by which the table is
dated slightly later has no other comparative example on which to date it and
so…. given a margin of error, could have been commissioned by Henry.
We
are told by Capgrave that Melkin lived just before the time of Merlin and King
Arthur circa 550AD. Pits in his ‘De illustribus
Britanniae scriptoribus’ circa 1620, describes him as an 'Avalonian', and
calls him a British bard, historian, and astronomer. He dates him with
assurance to 560 AD, within the reign of Malgocunus (Maelgwn). These anecdotes
are more probably rationalizations rather than facts. Leland however, calls
Melkin’s prophecy a ’fragment of history written by Melchinus an Avalonian’
which sounds as if Henry’s stamp is on this as Avalon is his invention. Nowhere
is Avalon heard of prior to ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB.
John
Pits cites three books written by Melkin: ‘De
antiquitatibus Britannicis’, ‘De gestis Britannorum’ and ‘De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda’. How
could all of these references be fictitious?
It would seem to me that the last title is…. but there was possibly
other Melkin material at Glastonbury. Henry Blois may have embellished it in
his usual fashion written under the name of Melkin.
Henry
Blois’ common authorship[48]
is also witnessed through a combination of written and oral transmission in the
‘Chapel ride’ scene from the Glastonbury Perlesvaus, Chrétien de Troyes and
Robert de Boron, where incidental detail is found common to all three. Robert
and Chrétien’s work is the means by which the Grail cycle developed, inspired
by the duo fassula of Melkin and tied
back in through Wace and Gaimar into the earlier HRB. But what is most
fascinating is that Henry must have entertained not only Marie and Alix, the
Count of Poitou, and Philip whilst incognito as the elusive Master Blihis. It
is Henry or his employee who stands in the court incognito as a troubadour and
spreads his Arthurian legacy through affiliations with the Grail.
[1]This theory was first discovered by Kim Yale and
Goldsworthy.
[2]Arthurian Literature XV edited by James P. Carley, Felicity Riddy. We find that
Watkin is on the trail to find out how it was that Avalon underwent a
transformation: What then of Avalon? The
author of the Vita Merlini stated that it was to the island of apples that
Arthur was taken; in 1138 Geoffrey of Monmouth had already said that Arthur was
taken to the Isle of Avalon to be healed (Incorrect.
In EAW this is not stated). Thus it is clear that by 1150 (incorrect) the isle of Avalon and the
isle of apples are considered to be identical, and here again we are on the
verge of the identification of Avalon with Glastonbury. Finally, the connexion
is made yet again when both Gerald of Wales and the interpolator of Malmesbury
derive Avallo or Avalloc……… It may seem odd that the mythical isle of the Vita
Merlini can be identified with an actual place. P.82.
One would think that if Watkin was witnessing
the ‘verge of identification of Avalon
with Glastonbury’ in this period, Watkin would enquire who the abbot of
Glastonbury was at that time and to whom was DA dedicated…. could he be the
interpolator? Who was the patron of Gerald? How possibly, in Perlesvaus, is the
chapel covered with lead etc. etc. The problem is endemic in Arthurian
scholarship. If one does not recognise
the evolution of HRB from Primary
Historia to First Variant to Vulgate and one insists that any interpolation
in DA is subsequent to Arthur’s supposed disinterment…. it is impossible to
understand Henry Blois as the author of the Matter
of Britain. Especially, when
Perlesvaus’ early date is denied, simply because the colophon which mentions
Avalon and King Arthur and his wife is assumed to be only rationally possible
after the disinterment. This assumption that Avalon only became synonymous with
Glastonbury after the bogus unearthing of Arthur is a huge erroneous deductive
presumption by modern scholars.
[3] The Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey. James. P.
Carley. p. 13
[4] John Scott,
DA. Ch.5
[5] Michael
Goldsworthy. And did those feet.
[6] I posit this
as his original Merlin Ambrosius from HRB not Merlin Sylvestris in VM, which
Henry is obviously witnessed to be conflating with the Welsh Myrrdin.
[7] See image 4
[8]Poof. Keith
Fitzpatrick-Mathews. Bad Archaeology.
[9]Melkin’s
prophecy is not connected in any way to Muslims. Abbadare, is one of the paganorum along with Joseph. Jesus is
the paganorum nobilissimus. There is
no ‘perhaps’ about the sleeping pagans…. It is Jesus and Joseph as ‘Jews’ to
which Melkin alludes.
[10]The Sun
and the Serpent.Paul
Broadhurst, Hamish Miller
[11]See chapter 18
[13] Goldsworthy. And did those feet. It is quite
ridiculous of Goldsworthy to posit that King Arthur is buried on Burgh Island.
If the chivalric Arthur of HRB is a composite and fabrication of Henry Blois’
‘Geoffrey’…. how can he have any remains? Goldsworthy’s premise is based on his
belief that Avalon was indeed an Island and was the subject of the original
Melkin Prophecy. Once we understand that Avallon is named after a Burgundian
town, the notion that Arthur’s connection to Avalon then becomes untenable….
except when we understand that the author of HRB is Henry Blois and the
inspiration for the mythical Island is Melkin’s prophecy…. which originally
referred to Iniswitrin, but was replaced by Insula
Avallonis
[16]This
misinterpretation of Melkin’s words stem possibly from Lord Fromes account
written to Henry V where…. describing a recent discovery: This Coffin was adorned
most excellently beyond the others, with linen cloth inside all over. I shall cover this later in the
chapter on Giraldus.
[17] It is plain
that the prophecy contains the main elements of Henry’s inspiration i.e. a body
to find in the future, the duo fassula
as the Grail, the quest or search element, and the mysterious island where he
situates King Arthur.
[19] Glastonbury
Abbey and Arthurian tradition p.309
[20]Carley bases his assumptions thus: ‘even if it does not seem necessary to
postulate a trip to England to account for the Glastonbury= Avalon= the place
of Arthurian burial equation, there are still the internal allusions to which
seemed to show a precise knowledge of the Glastonbury landscape. In the
Lancelot scene in particular we have an obvious evocation of Glastonbury Tor
(la Montaigne de la valee), the old church (chapel novelement faite…. covert de
plon), and Chalice Well (‘un fontaigne mout cler’ which flows ‘de la hautece de
la forest par devant la chapele’). Carley then concedes that it is not easy
to account for ‘the reference to the
stream flowing from the forest above past the chapel and here we may have at
least the Echo of some sort of verbal communication to the author of
Perlesvaus’. P.317
[21]Carley
quotes Carman: Until after the latest
year ever chosen by a reliable scholar
as the date of composition of the Perlesvaus, the exhumation of King Arthur is
not mentioned in any continental document, and Helinand of Froidmont actually
affirms that Arthur's grave has not been found. We just infer that the Perlesvaus, which alludes to this event must
have been written in England.
[22] Henry de
Sully who was abbot of Glastonbury and later became Bishop of Worcester in 1193
and is a different person from Henry Blois’ Nephew of the same name.
[23]Il cevaucha tant
qui lest venus a l’ avesprer en un grant valee,o il avoit forest e d’une parte
d’autre; e dure bien la valee grans lieus galoshes. Il esgarde a destre desor
la montagne de la valee, e voit un
chapel nouvellement faite, qui mout estoit bele e riche; si estoit covert de
plon, e avoit par desore deux croix, qui sembloient ester d’or. The
assumption that Arthur and Gawain go to Avalon and see Guinevere and the fact
that Guinevere was supposedly disinterred with Arthur at Glastonbury (when
added as a proof to what is avowed on the leaden cross), has led modern
scholars to believe that Glastonbury must be the location of Avalon. Carley
states that:‘both the internal passages
and the colophon make it abundantly clear that the author of Perlesvaus must
have had Glastonbury in mind when he described Avalon and that he must,
therefore, have heard about the famous Arthurian excavation of 1191. From this incontestable fact both Nitze and
Carman deduced that the author must have come to England himself to obtain news
of the discovery. It needs to be stated unequivocally: the author of the pre-cursor of Perlesvaus was
in England and most emphatically he had Glastonbury in mind. The author of the source of Perlesvaus is the
inventor of Avalon. Henry Blois created Arthur’s grave site and was not alive
at the excavation. What Carley avers as
incontestable because Nitze and Carmen made a false assumption is irrelevant. It
should rather be understood that Henry indicated where to find Arthur’s tomb in
DA before he died. The initial author of the contents found in Perlesvaus had
never heard about the famous Arthurian
excavation of the 1191…… he was the instigator of it 20-30 years before it
transpired!!!
[24] Goldsworthy. And Did Those Feet. His theory is that
the Templars discovered the tomb and removed the shroud. He does not however
note that if the Templars had found the tomb and had produced the shroud and
had knowledge of a body…. comment on the fact that it would be a good reason
for the pope (conspiring with King Philip) to give orders for all Templars to
be murdered on Friday 13th across Europe.
[25] If we
consider that the Michael line is shadowing an existing line demarcated by
monuments from the Neolithic era…. someone in the modern era has aligned the
churches which constitute the St Michael line. The wealth for such an endeavour
can only come from a wealthy institution.
[26] Ironically,
James Carley, the expert on affairs at Glastonbury and Athuriana says of Henry
Blois: Although he did not himself
produce any work of erudiction, he was a supporter of scholarship and was a
patron of two fine writers: William of Malmesbury and Gerald of Wales.
Glastonbury Abbey p.20. As an expert, one probably could not make a bigger
gaff, but scholarship’s naivety is endemic.
[27] Glastonbury
Abbey and the Arthurian tradition. P.26
[28] There is a
possibility that Harley MS 6358 reflects a state of composition in that it too
is split between a first Variant which ends with a Vulgate. Scholars assume
this is a result of two copyists but like Wace’s Roman de Brut formed similarly, it may reflect a transitional stage
from First Variant to Vulgate. What it probably reflects is that Henry Blois
was versifying HRB before 1155 and completed it after that date using the later
Vulgate version as a template. Harley MS 6358 may reflect Alfred of Beverley’s
source of the evolved First Variant.
[31] Valerie.M.
Lagorio. The evolving legend of St Joseph of Glastonbury.
[32] Carley. The
chronicle of Glastonbury abbey. P lvii
[34] James .P.
Carley . A Grave Event.
[35] Chapter 31. I Passover Arthur, famous King of the
Britons buried with his wife in the monks cemetery between the two pyramids.
[36] Cicero. No
one can speak well, unless he thoroughly understands his subject.
[37] Carley. The
Chronicle of Glastonbury abbey p. lviii
[38] Carley. The
Chronicle of Glastonbury abbey p.lix.
[39] Aelred Watkin
achieved a Double First in History, and was a
Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
[40] Adam of
Damerham relates that many books were destroyed by the fire.
[41] John Scott.
DA. Ch. 5
[42] Carley. The
Chronicle of Glastonbury abbey P. l, li. The
Grail itself might be heterodox and not an actual relic but the events
describing it (and especially the Arthurian connection) could all be interpreted as historical fact. Given both the
existence of this French material and the lacuna in Glastonbury tradition, it
became practically inevitable that Joseph’s name would be assimilated. In fact,
from Glastonbury’s perspective, the French tradition would have appeared almost inspired; it provided the missing
clue to Glastonbury history.
Now,
I wonder whose inspiration might have influenced the French tradition. Could it
be Master Blehis or even Bliho-Bliheris. Is there a clue anywhere? To posit that the Arthurian connection could
in any way be connected to Joseph (as possible historical fact) is silly…. and
an anachronism too far. Just imagine the inevitability of it all; the fortuitous convergence of factors which
assimilates Joseph at Glastonbury!!!
[43] Carley. The
chronicle of Glastonbury abbey. Xxvii.
[44]It is worth noting
here just how the scholastic world feeds from one generation to the next
expanding on erroneous theories which in the end make little sense. It is plain
Watkin has no more idea about the early provenance of Melkin’s prophecy than
Carley: Leland saw the original text of
this prophecy and described it as an exemplarium vetustatis and it is certainly
couched in a style that is antique, obscure and ungrammatical. Its general
sense, however, is clear: Avalon has always been known as the burial place of
pagans. Buried there is Abbadare powerful in saphat, who sleeps there with
104,000 among whom was Joseph from across the sea who lies in Linea bifurcate
against the south corner of the wattle church built by the thirteen inhabitants
of the place. Joseph has with him in his coffin two silver cruets filled with
the blood and sweat of the prophet Jesus.
The whole of this
is couched in terms which defy exact
translation and any interpretation of it abounds with difficulty of every
kind. Dr Margret Murray has made an ingenious plea for its Coptic origin;
others hold that it stems from Arabian astro-mythology, which Armitage Robinson
seems to imply that it was a fourteenth-century forger. Certainly it could be of Oriental origin and ancient in date. It could
be ancient but have been interpolated by the hand of a fourteenth-century
discoverer- perhaps John Bloom who in 1345 secured permission to search for the
body of St Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury. It is either of great or of
almost no, significance…. P 90. Arthurian Literature XV edited by James P. Carley, Felicity Riddy. The prophecy of Melkin is of
great significance and does NOT ‘defy exact translation’ and it IS ancient in
date. It would be equally helpful if our scholars in their ‘ingenious pleas’
had suggested Pinocchio
wrote it.
[45] In Leland’s Assertio Arturii, we are told that
Melkin named Glastonbury as Arthur’s burial place. We must assume then that
Henry Blois who manufactured the grave site of Arthur is writing under Melkin’s
name (Blome’s testimony bearing witness) and since we can conclude the round
table (which turns up at Winchester) is a Blois manufactured artefact…. we may
speculate his authorship of a work called De
Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda is also a fabricated text which was burnt in
the fire to which Leland has seen references.
[46] Justin .E.
Griffin. Glastonbury and the Grail. P.242
[47] In Carley’s
exposé on John’s Cronica he remarks: Why
the monks thought Joseph might be buried at Montacute has never been
established; but there is a strong parallel with Arthur’s exhumation and the
story of the finding of a miraculous cross at Montacute. P. lvii. If Carley would accept the solution to Melkin’s
Prophecy (which he denies has any veracity) he might just answer his own
question. Sadly he knows nothing of celestial navigation or Melkin’s ability to
define a line in nautical miles. It is a sad reflection on scholarship when the
dots need to be connected for them.
[48]Carley. The
Chronicle of Glastonbury abbey p.lx. It
is an odd irony that Carley waxes lyrical never connecting the dots of common
authorship: Like a new Brutus, Joseph
appealed to a deep seated national pride and has remained a part of the myth of
English greatness.
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
