Anyone who wishes to know
the truth about some of the greatest mysteries that still exist today should
read this blog.
The story is complicated but will show the
reader where the body of Jesus is to be found.
The unfolding of the story to find the truth
involves the Grail stories and information from old texts that were at
Glastonbury abbey, but it consists of factual evidence. If you have ever
wondered if the resurrection was a reality then this is the blog for you.
The Roman Catholic church has
a completely different account from that suggested here but the rumours that
Joseph of Arimathea is buried at Glastonbury are only half truths. The Author
of this blog knows where there are three bodies: the body of King Arthur, The
body of Jesus and the body of Joseph of Arimathea. Unfortunately the owners of
the Island where these bodies are preserved in an old tin vault have refused
any co-operation with the author so I will leave it up to the reader to make
his own appraisal of the facts presented here. The island of Avalon is revealed,
but what it contains is part of the biggest treasure hunt since the uncovering
of Tutankhamen.
Let us start with a brief
synopsis and then start the quest to find the Island of Avalon which the reader
will be shocked to learn is not in Glastonbury, but on the South coast of Devon
at the Island called Burgh Island. What and why the island contains these three
bodies and the cache of treasure buried by the Templars, will only be
understood by reading this entire blog.
In the Dark Ages, after
the death of King Arthur, a monk known as Melkin, (who could well have been the
famous Merlin), left for posterity a riddle or prophecy that exposed the burial
site of Joseph of Arimathea. This location known as the Island of Avalon has
long been thought to exist at Glastonbury abbey. The Island of Avalon has been
associated with the tor because monks at Glastonbury needed the association
with Joseph to attract pilgrims. The myth that Glastonbury tor is somehow
connected or even synonymous with the Island of Avalon is probably down to a
man called Henry Blois.
The author of this blog has deciphered the meaning behind the riddle known as Melkin's prophecy, upon which the mythical status of Glastonbury is founded and how it came to be associated with Joseph of Arimathea's burial site. The monks riddle which clearly indicates with pinpoint accuracy the whereabouts of the resting place of King Arthur and Joseph of Arimathea in the Island of Avalon, is evidently not at Glastonbury. The strange thing is that the geometric puzzle left by Melkin describes directions that are derived from the Ley line system built by Neolithic man.
The author of this blog has deciphered the meaning behind the riddle known as Melkin's prophecy, upon which the mythical status of Glastonbury is founded and how it came to be associated with Joseph of Arimathea's burial site. The monks riddle which clearly indicates with pinpoint accuracy the whereabouts of the resting place of King Arthur and Joseph of Arimathea in the Island of Avalon, is evidently not at Glastonbury. The strange thing is that the geometric puzzle left by Melkin describes directions that are derived from the Ley line system built by Neolithic man.
This Blog describes how
this huge display of geometrical precision across the British landscape was
understood and known to exist as late as late the 1300’s. Also, the presence of
the St. Michael Ley line was known about by Melkin in the sixth century. An
array of churches were built upon this ancient system to point out to posterity
the location of the tomb of Jesus by the Templars and also to mark the spot
where they had buried their treasure.
This secret location is
called the Island of Avalon and the same monk Melkin visited this island which
is now called Burgh Island, at the death of Britain’s famous King Arthur. Here
he found arcane information from the Temple in Jerusalem that was brought to
England by Joseph of Arimathea. This information with an account of the first
Christians arrival with Mary Magdalene was written in a book composed by Melkin
giving account of the time from the arrival of these early Christians, up until
the time of King Arthur. This book became known as 'The Grail book', that found
its way to France when Melkin established an early hermitage on Mont- St
-Michel in Normandy. This book then through the troubadour family of the counts
of Pitou and Aquitaine gave rise to the wide array of Grail stories. A close
family connection in the person of Henry Blois or as many knew him as
Monseigneur Blois became the Master Blehis that was Abbot of Glastonbury and
was the first to expound from the French Grail literature and know of the
English tradition that existed at Glastonbury. It was Henry of Blois that also
left the clue at Glastonbury regarding the burial site of Joseph of Arimathea.
This came into the possesion of Father William Good and it confirms Melkin's
directions to the Island of Avalon or the Island of Sarras of the Grail
romances.
‘And did those feet’, a
book by Michael Goldsworthy, clearly shows that the body of Jesus is in fact
buried with Joseph of Arimathea within this island in Devon. It used to be
known as the fabled Island of Ictis and contains within it an ancient tin vault
that became the tomb for both of them, but it had originally been used to store
tin ingots. The confirmation of the whereabouts of this tomb is given by
precise geometrical instructions upon the British landscape. These instructions
left in the obtuse Latin puzzle by the monk Melkin, once deciphered, lead us to
the grave site. The islands position, if the reader is in any doubt, is also
verified by the clue given to the Jesuit priest, Father Good, who lived in the
sixteenth century and deposited this vital information in the English college
in Rome. Father Good however was unaware of the significance of the clue he was
given concerning how Joseph of Arimathea was 'Carefully' hidden in Montacute.
The Templars in the middle
ages were aware of the location of this tomb and deposited their treasure in
the same tomb on Christmas day 1307. However, they removed one item from the
sepulchre within the island which because science has been unable to explain
its formation..... has been classed as a fake. This was what has now become
known as the Turin Shroud. The Turin Shroud in the monk’s Latin puzzle is
described perfectly six hundred years before it was shown in Lirey, so how
could it be a fake? This artefact said to exist in the tomb with Joseph due to
Melkin’s description..... by misunderstanding of the intended meaning of the
puzzle..... became known as the Holy Grail, especially by the subltle twists of
the prophecy's interpretation at Glastonbury. The reader will understand by
this blog that the Holy Grail is in fact something inestimably more valuable
and this blog sets out and explains what the Grail is and how the Grail stories
came about.
The body of Jesus, around
which the Turin Shroud was once wrapped, remained in the tin vault, steeped in
Cedar oil. This is the process by which the image on the Turin Shroud was
formed over a period of six hundred years until it was removed from the body
around 600AD and later removed from the Isle of Avalon. The Turin Shroud was
essentially formed within what became known as the Grail Arc, that is the
coffin of Jesus mentioned in the Grail Stories.
The reason this Island
which used to be called Ictis was chosen to house what is the holiest relic of
all..... is because it was not widely known about in the ancient world and kept
secret from the Romans. It was rumoured to exist through a report by one of the
first Greek explorers to Britain named Pytheas. Devon and Cornwall have a
history in the tin industry and it was from this island that tin was traded
with Joseph of Arimathea.... who, Cornish tradition has always maintained, was
a tin merchant and was accompanied on his trading missions by Jesus. Diodorus
gives us a clear description of this same island that Pytheas had named Ictis
or 'Fish Island' due to the vast quantities of pilchards caught off the Island.
This blog uncovers an ancient Biblical link to the Devon and Cornish peninsula
through a bloodline from the first born of Judah, one of the twelve sons of
Israel, called Zarah. It is from his heritage a line of Kings was born in the
South west of England known as the kings of Sarras which culminated with the
famous King Arthur.
King Arthur, Jesus and
Joseph of Arimathea are waiting to be unearhed on the Island today called Burgh
Island, but there is also with them, the Arc of the Covenant and the Templar
treasure. The blog traces these events pulling together a wide source of detail
linking the most powerful people in Europe such as Eleanor of Aquitaine, the
earliest tracable owner of the book of the Grail, written by Melkin.
Leonardo Da Vinci visited
this Island in the last three years of his life and left clues within four
paintings, that show the geographical and geological features of the Island, He
let the world know by his picture puzzle (rebus) in the Windsor Library, that
he was showing us a great mystery. He even went as far as to say he would show
where it is, in his two paintings of the Yarnwinder.
The amazing coincidences
that have brought this knowledge into the modern era can only be viewed as
having been determined by supernatural forces because this whole drama is
played out to specific times that are spoken of by the biblical prophets. The
implication and ramifications of the unearthing of this tomb will have
ramifications across the world as this blog uncovers the relationship between
this tomb’s unveiling and how it was predicted by the Prophets. It is also a
very strange event that while the world looks on, the olympic ceremony brings
the Island of Avalon and Blake's Jerusalem into popular Consciousness.
This Blog will offer
definitive answers upon such enquiries as:
What does a ley line have
to do with finding the body of Joseph of Arimathea and locating Avalon Where is
Jesus buried and why is his body still preserved? Who was Joseph of Arimathea
and where is he buried? What was his connection with the British Isles? Can we
find any truth in the legend that he was a tin merchant? As the uncle or father
of Jesus, what is the likelihood that he escorted him on occasion to the British
Isles? Did Jesus arrive in Cornwall and acquire much of his wisdom in the
British Isles? Why do the Gospel accounts differ about the disappearance of
body of Jesus, King of the Jews. How is it that the Island of Sarras off the coast of Southern
England where the Grail was brought to, take the name of Judah’s son and
natural heir called Zarah?
4] Where exactly is the fabled Island of Ictis and can we establish a relationship between this island, renowned in the ancient world as an exporter of tin, with Joseph of Arimathea? Why is it that Ictis has only now been located, when it has been in plain view of all researchers. Was there ever a connection between the island of Ictis and the Isle of Avalon, mentioned by the sixth century monk Melkin? How does Melkin know that the island of Ictis is the Avalon of the Grail Romances, and Arthurian legend?
Was the prophecy of Melkin
that tells of the whereabouts of Jesus’ tomb and that of Joseph of Arimathea
really a fake made in the thirteenth century as most scholars believe. If so
why does it plainly point to Avalon and Ictis. Did Melkin actually write a
prophecy or a riddle?
Where exactly does the
Glastonbury tradition get intertwined with these other questions regarding its
connection to Joseph of Arimathea and through the various Grail stories? Was
King Arthur’s body actually found in Glastonbury, or was it an elaborate hoax?
Who is responsible for the Glastonbury deception regarding the Isle of Avalon
and the didinterrement of Arthur. Who wrote the original Grail material that
became known as the matter of Britain. Who then translated this into French and
also understood the tradition that existed at Glastonbury.
What is the connection
between the Templar treasure and the Isle of Avalon. What is the meaning of the
Grail stories? What is the Grail and who does it serve? How did the Grail
become a vessel or chalice that holds the blood and sweat of Jesus?
What has the Grail
tradition to do with the Turin Shroud? How was it that Science was unable to
say how the image on the Turin Shroud was formed? Why can no one explain the
shrouds provenance or history prior to 1353 AD?
These topics initially seem to be so disparate and unconnected, that any relation between them appears scant and impossible to establish with any degree of certainty. However, it is the aim of this enquiry to show how inextricably linked these diverse questions are. It will show how the many pieces of a puzzle that have hitherto been unconnected, hidden, deliberately obscured, ignored, misunderstood, or even inadvertently lost over time..... can be resolved into one conclusive body of evidence.
This blog is heavy going as there is sometimes a need to repeat information already known to some readers, which to others, is necessary for a step by step, orderly account that leads to a revelation that will astound even the casual reader.
Whatever the readers
background or discipline, or by whatever chance you have been prompted to read
this blog, this examination of diverse material, seemingly unconnected,
actually disentangles a few mysteries and makes discoveries that will have
global ramifications.
There are many references
to old texts, but where scholastic endeavour has previously failed in the past
to piece together evidence, we hope that the reader will be enlightened by the
connections made in this Blog.
The best way of getting
the reader to understand everything as a whole as the evidence comes together
is to start with information that the reader will need to know to make their
own assessment of the evidence which leads to the discovery of Avalon and what
is buried on that Island. This information will seem random and unconnected for
the moment but will all piece together later in the blog
So lets start with the St
Michael's Ley Line.
It is called the St
Michael's Ley Line due to its features that are shown in figure 1. The point to
make here is, that it is doubtful that the churches that were built along the
line were all dedicated to St. Michael by coincidence.
There are many places
which are named after St. Michael that lie exactly upon its axis. Several
churches or chapels were built along the line from the early thirteen hundreds
onwards, with the St. Michael dedication. However other churches not on the St.
Michael ley line have a distinct relationship to this line. We will investigate
further, later on, as to why these chapels and churches seemed to have been
erected by organized design in such a short period of time.
Figure 1 Showing the St. Michael’s Ley Line.
. The probability that so
many sites occur by coincidence having the St. Michael name in one alignment
are small. We must assume that it is by design and we will discover why and by
whom these churches were built.
In the book the ‘Sun and
the Serpent’, Hamish Miller and Paul Broadhurst investigated the entire St.
Michael's Ley Line plotting its interwoven energy course, as it criss-crosses
the rhumb line. They did so by dowsing, but many skeptics feel that there is no
substance to this form of enquiry and dismiss the use of this technique.
However, we shall see shortly, that this line exists and is no figment of the
imagination but who put it there and what is its purpose?. Between 450-750AD a
monk lived named Melkin, who knew of the Ley lines existence and left us clues
in a Latin riddle that will lead us to the uncovering of this hidden tomb.
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 bif urcata iuxta
meridlanum angulum oratorii, 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 ejus 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.
Island of Avalon, coveting the pagans
in death, above all others (places) in the world for their entombment there, it
is honoured by the circle of portentous prophesy (Avebury) and in the future
will be adorned by those that give praise to the highest. The father’s pearl,
(Jesus) mighty in judgement (or virtuous through new wine), the noblest of
pagans, sleeps 104 miles from it (Avebury), by whom he recieved 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, (with powers
from on high, as from an adorable maiden, up high in Ictis is the tomb and
those dwelling there are at 13 degrees.) above which one can go at the
extremity of the verge, high up in Ictis to the place they abide to the south
at thirteen degrees.
The monk who wrote the
Latin riddle above knew what had certain knowledge of the presence of the Ley
network before any of the churches were built.
Certainly, this Monk
called Melkin who understood arcane knowledge and who knew of the St. Michael’s
Ley line long before it even had that appellation..... leads one to believe
that somehow these stone circles connect man to his future. This is in fact is
alluded to by Melkin in his prophecy.
Figure 1b Showing the
three stone circles in Cornwall called ‘The Hurlers’ situated on the Neolithic
St. Michael Ley line but this site has no monument to St. Michael. It is one of
the objectives of this enquiry to elucidate to the reader the
interconnectedness of what is potentially part of a huge ancient functioning
system and its relevance in the present era. Who was it in the modern era and
which organised body realised that some planned out design is still extant on
the British landscape? Did the later designers of the 1300s who built on top of
the very locations on which ancient man had built his design, know of its
function and have knowledge of its effect upon the inhabitants of Britain?
Figure 2 Showing Glastonbury Tor situated on the St. Michael Ley line, one of many Hill top St. Michael dedicated sites.
How had the misunderstood
two cruets ‘cruore’ of the Glastonbury monks invention, or the ‘duo fassula’
mentioned by the monk Melkin in the dark ages in his prophecy become synonymous
with the Grail. How did the ‘Duo Fassula’ which contained the blood and sweat
of Jesus, evolve into a vessel, gradatim or graal, made of gold and studded
with rare gems in the unfinished work of Chrétien de Troyes’s Perceval, or the
Conte du Graal around 1180. Where did Kyot or Walter Map source their material
but from the book of the Grail and who but Melkin knew of the same material
that was to become the source of Glastonbury legend? Melkin is attested to have
written about Arthur in books in Britain and as we know he left behind his
British prophecy concening Joseph of Arimathea. As the continuations and
re-working’s of the French romances proliferated, Melkin’s testimony which
provided the substance for the ‘book of the Grail’ met with similar material
that existed in Britain.
The genealogy of Joseph of Arimathea, including Arthur’s exploits mixed with material from what became known as the Gospel of Nicodemus, evolved into a fantastic array of medieval romances emanating from France, known as the ‘Matter of Britain’. These ‘Histoires’ centred upon the search for the Grail and gave account of its arrival in Britain with Joseph of Arimathea. We know that Melkin wrote a book on Arthur and his round table attested to by subsequent British Chroniclers and also Melkin’s prophecy concerning Joseph is found in John of Glastonbury’s Cronica. Both Arthur and Joseph are buried in Avalon or the French ‘Avaron’. Both British and French traditions seem to have emanated from a common source judging by the commonality of the material i.e Joseph, Arthur, the island of Avalon and the Grail’s connection to Jesus. This persistent theme portrays what was in the most part, historically based material. This becomes apparent later especially as we discover the links between the Island of Avalon, The Island of Sarras of the French romances and the Island of Ictis of Classical fame. These three islands are all one and the same going under different names, but let us inquire into how this Island is integrally linked with the Ley line system and how it becomes part of the St. Michael network of ‘Church Markers’.
The genealogy of Joseph of Arimathea, including Arthur’s exploits mixed with material from what became known as the Gospel of Nicodemus, evolved into a fantastic array of medieval romances emanating from France, known as the ‘Matter of Britain’. These ‘Histoires’ centred upon the search for the Grail and gave account of its arrival in Britain with Joseph of Arimathea. We know that Melkin wrote a book on Arthur and his round table attested to by subsequent British Chroniclers and also Melkin’s prophecy concerning Joseph is found in John of Glastonbury’s Cronica. Both Arthur and Joseph are buried in Avalon or the French ‘Avaron’. Both British and French traditions seem to have emanated from a common source judging by the commonality of the material i.e Joseph, Arthur, the island of Avalon and the Grail’s connection to Jesus. This persistent theme portrays what was in the most part, historically based material. This becomes apparent later especially as we discover the links between the Island of Avalon, The Island of Sarras of the French romances and the Island of Ictis of Classical fame. These three islands are all one and the same going under different names, but let us inquire into how this Island is integrally linked with the Ley line system and how it becomes part of the St. Michael network of ‘Church Markers’.
It was Alfred Watkins, who first coined the phrase ‘Ley Line’ when he saw the interconnectedness of certain points upon the landscape and how they aligned with each other. John Michell even more recently made the connection between the names of the sites that had been dedicated to St. Michael that were also aligned. In a flash revelation, standing next to St. Michael's Burrow Mump, he could see a similar hill in the distance and topped with a similar church also dedicated to St. Michael. Melkin’s prophecy had related that Joseph of Arimathea was buried on a ‘bifurcated line’ and without Michell’s modern day re-discovery there could never be a line with which to ‘bifurcate’. The other directions given in Melkin’s prophecy are directional derived from this Line and without knowing of its existence the prophecy of Melkin would remain in history as a discarded jumbled tale or worse, the ruminations of a madman.
Mitchell’s discovery for the first time in the modern era brings to light the evidence that, there must be some kind of design along this line. This previous design was then built upon by the Templars demarcated by St. Michael Churches. If the overlay of churches or the previous Neolithic erections provide the source for that which is dowsable is uncertain as Broadhurst and Millers book shows that much of the dowsable energy is flowing through the altars of these more recent churches.
The odd thing about the
investigation into the St. Michael Ley line is the fact that many of these
sites are ‘stand-alone’ (i.e. somewhat removed, not urbanized, and for the most
part situated on a high promontory). Predominantly, these St. Michael dedicated
churches which make up part of the line and other “marker” dedicated churches,
seem to have been built between 1250-1380. The St. Michael hilltop church
feature exists with some frequency throughout the countryside of southern
England and France and on islands with surprising regularity. It is a strange
occurrence that a geographical feature should predispose the dedication of a
church and we should enquire as to why, suddenly in that era, were so many
sites dedicated to an Archangel.
It is peculiar that, in
the past, some of these relatively new hilltop St. Michael churches have been
purposefully allowed to crumble and it is possible that for some of them, any
trace of their existence was removed deliberately. This is evident in three
locations; specifically-Montacute atop St. Michael’s hill, Burgh Island in
Devon and Chapel Carn Brea at Land’s End.
Figure 3 Showing the St. Michael church Burrow Mump on the St. Michael Ley line.
Figure 4 Showing the Redruth Carn Brea which had a 13th century St. Michael chapel on it, latterly turned into a castle which lies exactly upon the rhumb line of the St. Michael Ley Line.
Figure 3 Showing the St. Michael church Burrow Mump on the St. Michael Ley line.
Figure 4 Showing the Redruth Carn Brea which had a 13th century St. Michael chapel on it, latterly turned into a castle which lies exactly upon the rhumb line of the St. Michael Ley Line.
St. Michael's Mount in
Cornwall, made famous because of its rumoured links with the island of Ictis
and thus its links to Joseph of Arimathea the tin merchant... stands in Mounts
Bay opposite Marazion in Cornwall. It is one of the objects of this enquiry to
show the reader how more than once St. Michael's Mount in Cornwall has been
mixed up with Burgh Island lying opposite Bigbury on Sea in Devon. This
tranquil Island stands as a sentinel, while the tides have ebbed and flowed
around it for centuries. This once also had a chapel on it dedicated to St.
Michael, which has left no trace of its presence through the passage of time
and is rumoured to have once been the site of a small monastery.
Melkin also in the Grail
literature speaks of this Island having a monastery on it and this was
reiterated by Henry of Blois who as we shall uncover wrote the Perlesvaus from
Melkin’s latin text. Melkin, who we shall discuss in detail shortly, wrote his
prophecy concerning the Isle of Avalon and Joseph of Arimathea who supposedly
brought the Grail to Britain. It would seem that Melkin is divulging
information which is hinting at a location where Joseph of Arimathea might be
buried and therefore, should we be looking for clues on a map.
Before we get to the
exactitude of Melkin’s geometric instructions that point out the tomb site let
us follow another line of investigation which will show us the island that
Melkin is pointing to as the same island that Joseph of Arimathea will have
visited as a Tin Merchant
The reason for trying to
accurately locate the island of Ictis is because we know that it was engaged in
the tin trade. If we can establish Ictis as a definitive location today, then
we will see how this Island confirms the directions given in Melkin’s prophecy.
We know that sometime after the Roman invasion of Britain that Joseph of
Arimathea was a tin merchant as the Cornish traditions have maintained.
Researchers over the last
2000 years have tried to find the location of the fabled ‘Island of Ictis’.
There has been much written and incredible ingenuity used by scholars and
commentators alike, to fit facts as they see them, to agree with their own
preference for the location of Ictis. It would appear that for all this effort
in the modern era, no one has definitively managed to locate it. The references
about Ictis came from many different sources, Greek and Roman over a period of
approximately 400 years, but recent commentators have not been able to see the
pertinent facts that were related, in perspective.
This search for the Island
of Ictis originated due to a Greek named Pytheas, who made a journey by sea,
circa 325 BC and wrote a Chronicle of his voyage, which no longer exists. He
mentioned the island in his journals and left quite specific references to it,
the most pertinent being that it dried out at low tide and was located in
southern England; hence its permanent association with St Michael’s Mount, just
south of Marazion in Cornwall. It is because of Pytheas’s notoriety and the
fact that his original writings no longer exist, that over time, references
from other ancient chroniclers that mention his journey and his description of
the island and its environs have become garbled.... some of the chroniclers
simply disbelieving much that he related.
Courtesy of James and Jade
Figure 9 Showing St
Michael’s Mount, Marazion, and the rocky foreshore, on which the foreign
trading vessels were supposed to land at all states of the tide.
Pytheas was an astronomer
and a geographer, who may have been the first Greek to visit and write about
the Atlantic coast of Europe and the British Isles. It is a shame that his main
work, which was called ‘On the Ocean’ is no longer extant, but we know
something of his travels through the other Greek historian called Polybius, who
lived around 200 BC. Timaeus even mentions Ictis before Polybius while other
ancient writers who mention Pytheas’ voyage are Posidonius, Diodorus Siculus
and Strabo, who all wrote before the birth of Jesus.
Strabo relates that
Dicaearchus who died about 285BC did not trust the stories of Pytheas but we
shall see his mistrust was not fair.
Diodorus, who gives a good
description of the island and its trade, (much of which can be ascertained to
be from Pytheas’ original eye witness description) also tells how large cart
loads of tin were brought to the island . Diodorus is also seen to be quoting
from Posidonius, while Pliny on the subject of Ictis, who wrote circa 50 AD is
also quoting from Timaeus (contemporaneous with Pytheas) and not directly from
Pytheas.
It is evident that over
the period of four hundred years when these Greek and Roman historians were
recounting Pytheas’ exploits, mostly second or third hand, an inaccurate
account has been passed down about an island that traded tin with a name called
‘Ictis’ that existed in southern Britain. The effect has been like that of
Chinese whispers around a single dinner table without the added difficulty of
translating Greek into Latin and we can witness how different the message from
the first to the last may be distorted. Pytheas’s voyage was intended partly as
a commercial venture looking for opportunities in trade with his own city
Marseille and the other part scientific. Pytheas was long before Galileo in
attempting to assert that the earth was round and this proof was known by the
ancient world. This proof could only be arrived at by taking sightings of the
sun at different latitudes and as Pytheas proceeded North, he observed the
change in the length of daylight and he observes “the midnight sun,” confirming
he went far up to what he called Thule, which presumably is confirmed by later
chroniclers as Iceland.
There is mention of a
passage that he made, said to be six days long and this could be one going
north to Scotland but many commentators think that he only went up the eastern
side of Britain but this would deny his having described the shape of Britain
as triangular. The lost interpretation of the six days could even be an account
of the journey to reach southern England from Marseille. Some ancient writers
seem to give it as a quote from the ‘Britains’ about the distance to travel to
Ictis to procure tin. The ‘six days inwards’ (introrsus) related by Timæus, and
quoted by Pliny, says, that this Mictis or Ictis, “was six days sail inwards
from Britain” and given as a direction supposedly by the Britons to Pytheas on
his arrival in Belerion, has led most Ictis investigators astray and was
obviously related out of context, as much of the other information has been.
Pliny’s quotation of
Timaeus ’six days sail inland from Britain, there is an island called Mictis in
which white lead is found, and to this island the Britons come in boats of
Osier covered with sewn hides’ could be a confusion of the six days in which it
would take to get from Lands’ end to northern Scotland averaging 70-90 miles a
day if indeed Pytheas went up the western side of Britain with no mention of
Ireland. Some commentators seemingly assuming that because the tin is known to
come from Cornwall and thus the Britons starting place...... it somehow
confirms a six day passage up to Thanet and implys Thanet as being synonymous
with Ictis.
Diodorus’ quotation of
Posidonius who travelled in Britain around 80BC describes the metal workers of
Belerion carrying their tin to a certain Island called Ictis which acted as a
great trading post for merchants. This quote coupled with the fact that the
Isle of Wight's Latin name ‘Vectis’ being similar to ‘Ictis’, has also led to
more confusion as much trade was known to take place from this area. Some
commentators have assumed the Six days inwards can be applied to the journey
along the Southern coast from where Pytheas initially made contact with the
inhabitants of the Southern tip of Belerion, all the way to Thanet in Kent,
another possible candidate for Ictis, as Kent is mentioned in his Journal.
Pytheas as a ships
navigator had mastered the use of the "Gnomon," an instrument similar
to the hexante or Sextant as it is known today. This instrument was used by
Phoenician and Greek navigators since very early times and Pytheas used it to
calculate the latitude of Massalia, which he found to be 43' 11' N, almost
matching the exact figure of 43' 18'N for where Marseilles lies today. It was a
committee of merchants from Marseilles that engaged the services of Pytheas to
undergoe his voyage of discovery. He was a renowned mathematician of that city,
who was already famous for his measurement of the declination of the ecliptic,
and for the calculation of the latitude of that city, by a method which he had
recently invented of comparing the height of the gnomon or pillar with the
length of the solstitial shadow. Many of the ancient writers disbelieved Pytheas’
account of his journey and the distances involved and much interpolation,
interpretation and rationalisation of subsequent writers has meant that we are
now no longer sure of what has been related accurately.
It is 238 miles from the
mouth of the Gironde to Ushant, a leg of the trip that Pytheas records “as
three days away” by Strabo then one days sail to the Belerion coast. Pytheas
was averaging 79.3 miles a day. The four days, quoted by Diodorus from the
Gironde is indicating he had a quick passage from Ushant, probably sighting the
Lizard first only 89 miles away. It was hereabouts at an undisclosed landfall,
he made his enquiries to the ‘Britons’ about tin. Pytheas was probably told it
was two days further up channel, but Timaeus records that the Britons, said the
Tin would be available six days inwards in an island which they went to in
wicker framed boats covered with hide, these wicker boats probably only used
locally. It is only fifty five miles from the Lizard to Ictis and if Pytheas
did record that the journey in total was six days, Pytheas most probably sailed
along the coast for the last two days stopping overnight so that he did not
miss the island.
Timaeus recorded Pytheas
in Greek, then it was rendered by Pliny the Elder in Latin, influenced by other
previous references that were possibly interpolated nearly 300 years later.
This would not accord with the original detail given by Pytheas. It seems most
likely that, Pytheas’s intention was to give a meaningful reference of six days
in total to the Island of Ictis from the Gironde, detailing “inwards” up
channel from his present location. This seems to be the obvious solution but
this six day period may indeed be in reference to another part of his trip and
the context has been muddled. One can tell that Diodorus is not giving a
first-hand account but the ‘we are told’ reference from this next extracted
account is most probably referencing details given by Pytheas: Britain is
triangular in shape, similar to Sicily, but its sides are not equal. This island
stretches obliquely along the coast of Europe, to a point where it is least
distant from the mainland, we are told, is the promontory which men call
Cantium,(Kent) and this is around one hundred stades from the land, at the
place where the sea has its outlet,(The Dover Straits) whereas the second
promontory, known as Belerium, is said to be a voyage of four days from the
mainland. Is this the four days from the Gironde again, just mis-conveyed by
later chroniclers in the wrong context?
The shape of the tin
ingots described as ‘Astragali’ in Diodorus’s account seems to have been
confused because vertebrae bone or knucklebone were used as gaming dice and
went by that name. The shape of any discovered tin ingots from Devon and
Cornwall neither resemble cubes or the knucklebone shape. There is little
credibility that can be given to this hypothesis. These moulded convex and bun
shaped ingots in different sizes would fit into wooden framed skin covered
boats called coracles. The shape of the Ingots would be bun shaped (like those
found at the head of the river Erm) with no hard corners for a few reasons and
it is to this shape from which we can assume the term ‘astralagi’ refers.
Naturally moulded tin
ingot formed in any convenient dried rock pool next to a river where
cassiterite would be mined, would be the first. Consequently, a hemispheroid
that would not tear the animal skins of the local traders that transported the
ingots to Ictis in their coracles is the second. There would be no need to
schampher or to soften the flat surface edges of the convex shape due to
‘surface tension’ of the liquid tin as the mould cooled. By natural design,
flat on one side and convex on the other, seem to be the shape of the majority
of existing examples including the recent find of the ingot cargo in the Erm
mouth which we will discuss shortly. This shape would make them ideal to fit
between the wooden framing of any coracle and present a completely flat
interior for its occupants, following the curve of the boat. This would avoid
point and weight loading of any part of the skin. The exterior of the Astragali
would always present to the skin face a surface unlikely to rip or damage and
be kept in place by the surrounding wooden framing. By placing and packing the
Astragali as a removable floor the traders would be spreading the weight
throughout the coracle while at the same time creating ballast at a low centre
of gravity. This would be the optimum means of transport at sea to avoid the
cargo becoming loose during passage. The shape of the Astragali over time, was
probably standardised by popular agreement and by convenience to both
transporter and smelter..... in moulds eroded by rain or river used by early
‘Tinners’.... hence all the different sizes, but the shape for shipping being a
convenient element. The third reason as C.F.C Hawkes points out, can be deduced
from Diodorus’s description of the ingots passage to the mouth of the river
Rhone by horse or mule , a passage of about thirty days ‘on foot’. The ingots
would be better shaped for saddle bags on these pack horses. The optimum size
of the ingots would have evolved by feedback from the pilots of coracles.
The shape of the ingots
probably evolved from lighting fires over dried out rock pools conveniently
found everywhere next to the river, from which the Cassiterite was panned by
the Bronze Age Tinners and this shape turned out to be the most practical for
early sea transport.
It is not even clear
whether Pytheas when he refers to coracles is referring to the foreign traders.
This seems unlikely but seems to refer to the suppliers from the different
river mouths transporting their tin to Ictis along the coast to the central
agency. Certainly this would have been the easiest way to get ingots from areas
downstream of the rivers running from southern Dartmoor to convey them to
ictis. The river Avon however, the effluent from which exits by the trading
post of Ictis is a different story, as the Tin came down by cart from Dartmoor
as witnessed by Diodorus’ description of Pytheas’ eye witness account as we
shall establish later.
It becomes evident that
Diodorous when he writes, ‘and a peculiar thing occurs concerning islands near,
lying between Europe and Britain. For at high tides, the passage between being
flooded, they appear as islands, but at low tide, the sea recedes and much
space being exposed again dry, they are seen to be peninsulas’; has completely
misled those investigators looking for the fabled island of Ictis.
The word “near” when
referring to neighbouring islands has made it impossible to find a relative
location on the South West coast of Devon and Cornwall. The most probable
explanation of this confusion.... which leads to an impossible location to
match its description…… is that it is a combination of Pytheas’ original eye
witness account combined with that of a later trader who gives account of
passing the Channel Islands. Upon setting out from the French coast in the
morning, would see islands before dark while passing the Channel Islands, then
probably having slept through the night one would arrive at another island next
to the coast…… could be an explanation, but it is more likely that it is a
mixture of two accounts.
Ictis is a single Island
of Pytheas’ account but was misconstrued by Diodorus and other chroniclers from
eyewitness accounts of traders that obviously were referring to the Channel
Islands and this reference to other islands being ‘near’ is a later
interpolation and misunderstanding of Pytheas’ account. Alternatively, a
passenger not accustomed to navigation, the sea or the speed at which a boat
travels, might lead him to believe those other islands to be in close proximity
to the one at which he has arrived if they travelled through the night.
It is highly probable that
Diodorous is relating directly from Pytheas the detail concerning the island
drying out, but then inserts his own information narrated to him from one of
the overland traders who might have made the voyage to Ictis or even heard of
an account or seen the Channel Islands. Diodorus as a Greek Sicilian from
Mediterranean waters is already struggling with the concept of ‘tides’ and in
his narration he deems the whole notion as “peculiar”. So having made this
error and misunderstood that Ictis is situated “near” other islands, these other
islands then in the same ‘peculiar tide’, become plural peninsulas’ in the
narrative. To find such a location on the British South West promontory ‘near
Britain’ would be impossible. However one might view the confusion of the
plurality of Islands, we know that Pytheas is talking of a singular Island
called Ictis to which wagons cross over when the tide recedes.
However, with the many
garbled references let us stick to the account in Diodorus’s ‘Bibliotheca
Historica’ for the moment and see what he has to say in the following passage
relating to the Island of Ictis and the British tin trade;
“We shall give an account
of the British institutions, and other peculiar features, when we come to
Cæsar’s expedition undertaken against them, but we will now discuss of the tin
produced there. The inhabitants who dwell near the promontory of Britain, known
as Belerium, are remarkably hospitable; and, from their intercourse with other
peoples merchants, they are civilized in their mode of life. These people prepare
the tin, in an ingenious way, quarrying the ground from which it is produced,
and which, though rocky, has fissures containing ore; and having extracted the
supply of ore, they cleanse and purify it, and when they have melted it into
tin ingots, they carry it to a certain island, which lies off Britain, and is
called Ictis. At the ebbing of the tide, the space between this island and the
mainland is left dry and then they can convey the tin in large quantities over
to the island on their wagons. A peculiar circumstance happens with regard to
the neighbouring islands, which lie between Europe and Britain, for at flood
tide, the intermediate space being filled up, they appear as islands; but at
ebb tide, the sea recedes, and leaves a large extent of dry land, and at that
time, they look like peninsulas. Hence the merchants buy the tin from the
natives, on Ictis and carry it over into Gaul (Galatia); and in the end after
travelling through Gaul on foot about a thirty days journey, they bring their
wares on horses to the mouth of the river Rhone.”
Mount Batten in Plymouth,
a peninsula just off Cattwater, has been posited as a possible contender for
Ictis, but it doesn't dry out at low tide and it could never have been kept
secret as Strabo relates and one can see geologically it has never been
separated by tidal flow.... or insular, to fit with Pytheas’ description. The
source of the Plym is at Plymhead, on the high open moorland of Dartmoor and the river from Higher Hartor to Cadover Bridge which
has concentrated evidence of early settlement including burial mounds and
Bronze Age hut circles.... would possibly put Mount Batten as a contender for
Ictis, if indeed it had dried out at low tide to where carts could cross, as
related by in the original description by Pytheas. The strip of land leading to
Mount Batten was splashed on a high tide before the modern breakwater was built
but this hardly results in the description of an island. Even though there is a
small natural harbour.... why, one must ask was the tin taken to the island
that Pytheas witnessed, but for the insular protection and the ease of landing
and then loading a vessel.... both of these conveniently found at Burgh island.
Pytheas correctly
estimated the circumference of Great Britain as 4000 miles and also knew the
distance that he had sailed from Marseille to be 1050 instead of the actual
distance of 1120, so he was accurate in his own estimations and figures. His
account would have been without error because he experienced it, unlike later
second hand accounts, some of which were written by chroniclers that thought
his exploits and observations not credible and actively set out to discredit
him.
The Belerion mentioned by
Pytheas is most likely defined as the southern promontory of Great Britain
probably commencing with Salcombe in South Devon, stretching all the way down
to Lands’ End. This ‘promontory’ clearly depicted on a map geographically
adheres to Pytheas’ description. More rationally we can understand his
definition as the start of the south west peninsula or ‘promontory’ as a
description derived by a Navigator. There is also the fact that the name of
Belerion tends to suggest the area defined by a people and that same area would
then latterly become known as Dumnonia which included both Devon and Cornwall.
By Pytheas’ understanding, he was explaining the area south of Salcombe and
describing Belerion as such, being defined by a people ‘the natives of this
promontory area’ more than the norm, being ’friendly to strangers’; a trait
still evident in the modern era.
Just west of the entrance
into Salcombe estuary, about 2.5 miles west of ‘Bolt tail’, there lies a small
island called Burgh Island which fits Pytheas’s description exactly. Bolt head
and Bolt tail (probably derived from Bel) being easily recognisable from miles
out to sea with its prominent plateau like formation.... would
make landfall at Ictis for
any early trader relatively simple ‘eyeball navigation’. If one considers that,
to navigate in these tidal currents that relentlessly flow, (sometimes in
opposing directions on the outskirts of the channel on the same contrary
tide)…… it makes navigation hazardous. Once having passed the Channel Islands
on a trip from the French coast or from a departure point further west, the
navigator is open to the vagaries of the current and weather.
The first compasses were
made of lodestone, a naturally-magnetized ore of iron. Ancient people found
that if a lodestone was suspended so it could turn freely, it would always
point in the same direction toward the magnetic pole. These were later adapted
as compasses made of iron needles, magnetized by stroking them with a
lodestone. It is highly probable that the early navigators that were plying
their trade in tin, even before Pytheas made his voyage, used these lodestones
to locate the escarpment of Bolt head and Bolt Tail. There is an old mine at
the base of Bolt head known as Easton’s mine in which Mundic is found (an
oxidisation of pyrites).... while the unfortunate miner had hoped to find
Copper. These lodes of Pyrites crystals are found throughout the whole cliff
and there are several well documented accounts of Ship’s compasses being ‘swung
off’ by the mass of Iron rich lodes found in the headland. The Captain of the
Herzogin Cecilie fell afoul of this phenomena by hitting the Ham stone....
while the ancients may have used this to their advantage in conjunction with a
swinging lodestone.
Copyright The Francis
Frith Collection
Figure 10 Showing the
Island of Ictis as it appeared in 1918 but relatively unchanged since Pytheas
first visited.
Pytheas was one of the
first people to give a report of Stonehenge while he visited the British Isles
and took measurements of the Sun’s declination in Britain at different points
in the year to further his astronomical studies. He was also probably one of
the first Greeks to give an account of the tidal activity which he had learnt
(from the Britons), was caused by the moon, the tide of course being virtually
non-existent in Mediterranean waters. This was 1800 years before Galileo was
taken to task in asserting that the world was round. Galileo was denounced at
the Roman Inquisition in 1615 AD by the Catholic Church, which condemned
heliocentrism (the idea that the world was a globe) as ‘false and contrary to
Scripture’. This does seem quite extraordinary when the Sun and Moon are
obviously round and this knowledge had existed for nearly two thousand years.
Some of the ancient
writers like Diodorus do not even mention Pytheas by name, but refer to his
comments alone. Pliny, who is using Timaeus as a source says, “there is an
island named Mictis where tin is found, and to which the Britains cross”. He
uses the word ‘proveniat’ which commentators have assumed as meaning that Tin
was actually mined at Ictis but the real meaning is ‘provend’ as a supplier
which matches the concept of ‘Emporium’ which many translators chroniclers and
commentators have misunderstood. The reasoning behind this choice of word is
very misleading, since there was no tin mined at the island, just stored there,
(large quantities of tin being transferred to the island by cart)..... this
point being of great importance as the reader will become aware shortly. The
‘crossing’, mentioned by most chroniclers is in reference to the sandbar or
causeway evidenced today at Burgh island, but Pliny who obviously never went to
the island, implying a large stretch of land to be crossed.
Diodorus writes also that
tin is brought to the island of Ictis, where there is an Emporium, literally
being translated as a ‘marketplace or agency’ and this is the definition which
defines the role of Ictis.
Polybius was probably a
source to Strabo for some details concerning Ictis and Strabo relates that an
Emporium on the Island of Corbulo at the mouth of the river Loire was associated
with the Island of Ictis, so here again the real picture is made more difficult
to identify Ictis. Strabo also infers that Ictis, and Corbulo are different
names for the same island, so there is much confusion as the Chinese whisper
effect has confused its location. Possibly, Strabo never saw a copy of Pytheas
and sourced most of his material from Polybius. Diodorus on the other hand
seems to have read Timaeus, sourced from Pytheas’ original, which Polybius
seems to have read also. It would appear that Strabo did not read Pytheas first
hand, (or he would not have referred to Polybius) and is probably accountable
for much of the Chinese whispers effect.
Pliny calls the island,
Mictis, mictim or mictin which indicates that he has translated directly from
Timaeus, changing the case ending from the Greek at different times, but he was
struggling to make the distinction between Cassiteris and Ictis because he
actually writes “INSULAM MICTIM,”. Other writers such as Suetonius have
actually referred to the island as Vectis, which has obviously led to confusion
with the Isle of Wight which was known in the Roman world as Vectis and used to
be pronounced ‘ouectis’ which obviously sounds similar to Ictis.
It would appear taking
into account archaeological evidence of early tin production that one would
need to look for an island somewhere between Salcombe and Lands’ End that dries
out at low tide and becomes a peninsula. We should ignore the information about
Ictis having been surrounded by other islands close by, as there is no such
location near a tidal Island peninsula. We should account it as later
misunderstanding of a muddled confusion from a second or third hand account
concerning the Channel Islands. Other considerations to achieve a practical
location for Ictis should consider navigational ease or constraints and
overland transportation; for by Pytheas’ account, these were large consignments
of tin being moved. It would appear therefore, that the story as a whole has
become a confused interpretation over the years comprised of rationalisations
and interpolations of the original account.
Diodorus relates that
Ictis was dry at low water and “the natives conveyed to it wagons, in which
were large quantities of tin”. This and the fact that the Island is connected
by a causeway at low tide, across which these wagons convey the tin are the
essential facts relayed by Pytheas himself.
The fact that large
quantities of tin at this stage in 350BC and more specifically before that, was
produced in Devon can be seen archeologically. It makes little practical sense
to think that the Isle of Wight or Hengistbury point or Thanet is even a viable
candidate for the island of Ictis.
The quantities mentioned
and the heavy transport loads involved from Dartmoor as far as the Isle of
Wight over 100 miles away should exclude any further mention being given as a
credible location for Ictis even given the transport risks of such a valuable
commodity. The problem with all the previous possible candidates for the Island
of Ictis is that scholars or researchers have always used information
selectively to support their own views on the location. It is known that tin
mining had first started in between the Erm and Avon estuary in the early
British Bronze Age. There is ample archaeological evidence to show that tin
streaming existed high up on the moors behind South Brent at Shipley Bridge on
the Avon, at least to 1600BC and probably beyond.
Figure 10a Showing the tin
Valley of the Avon, high above Ictis on Southern Dartmoor.
Old style tin streaming
between these two rivers was the main industry in pre historic times, due to
the geological formation of a river on each side of a central granite
escarpment. Tin is smelted from ‘cassiterite’, a mineral found in hydrothermal
veins in granite, which is what had been separated by constant erosion from the
Quartz, Mica and Feldspar that constitute the Granite.
This area just north of
the South Hams is where we find the earliest beginnings of what was to become a
global supplier of tin to the ancient world. The methods employed to extract
tin from Dartmoor followed a progression from streaming through open cast
mining to much later underground mining. Within ten miles from Ictis there are
extensive archaeological remains of these three phases of the industry, and
sites still exist that show the stages of processing that were necessary to
convert the ore to tin metal. The ordnance survey map provides a snapshot
showing the evolution from the early Bronze Age through to the 1300’s AD. The
once very extensive alluvial deposits of tin ore, which were the first deposits
to be mined in the two rivers…… once existed in lodes, that have been eroded ,
leaving the steep sided valleys; evidence the vast quantity of ore that must
originally have been gathered on the valley floor. The first occupants, just
panning the river beds due to cassiterite’s specific gravity, would have
sourced it all the way down the Erm and Avon Valleys.
The legendry island of
Ictis which is called ‘Burgh Island’ today, stands at the mouth of the Avon
River on the opposite shore to the small hamlet of Bantham. The Island of
Ictis, first heard of in the chronicles of the ancient writers, was probably
coined from the Greek ikhthys meaning fish, because up until recently Burgh
Island was renowned for the shoals of pilchards that congregated naturally
around it in Bigbury Bay. It seems that Pytheas referred to the Island as
ikhthys island or ‘fish island’ (as it was probably called back then by the
locals)…… and then later chroniclers termed it the Island of Ictis. The shoals
of pilchards in the bay were legendary well into the 18th century…… fishing
fleets said to have made catches of 12 million fish in a single day. The
pilchards were cured with salt and were either pressed for oil or shipped by
the barrel load to Europe. It seems extraordinary that the one Island described
by Pytheas as Fish Island and renowned for its huge shoals that sometimes
darkened the whole bay, would not be associated with the Greek word ikhthys……
also being the only tidal island on the southern promontory as described by
Pytheas…… and especially situated just 10 miles from the huge alluvial tin
deposits that existed on southern Dartmoor.
Tin was transported from
this small island over to France by French traders and further by international
traders such as the Phoenicians…… since around 1000 BC until around 30 BC. This
trade must have been seriously interfered with by Julius Caesar's expeditions
in 55 and 54 BC. The recent find of tin ingots at the mouth of the River Erm
2.5 miles distant, confirms Burgh Island as Ictis and its link with the tin
trade. In small area near Bantham that has recently been archaeologically
excavated, Amphorae were found and also other signs of active trade with France
and most probably Phoenician traders from an early era. In another recent
discovery on the Eastern shore at Wash Gully, 300 yards off the coast on the
approaches to the Salcombe estuary, divers recently uncovered 259 copper
ingots, a bronze leaf sword and 27 tin ingots. The wreck of an old trading
vessel found there, dates from around 900BC and measures 40ft long to
approximately 6ft wide and is constructed from timber planks. It is thought to
have been powered by a crew of 15 seamen with paddles, but it seems likely even
at this early stage, some form of ‘windage’ would have been employed in a fair
wind.
There is more physical
archaeological evidence along this small stretch of coast, between the mouth of
the river Erm and Salcombe, to add credibility to Burgh island being synonymous
with Ictis and its links with the Tin industry. The Archeological evidence
indicates that there was considerable trade in tin ore being shipped abroad
from an early period. Although the copper ingots of the Salcombe wreck are said
to have come from Europe; it does not necessarily indicate that the copper was
being imported. A craft of this size may have been on a scouting mission to
pick up ingots from Ictis, having heard of it as a tin depot from those further
along the coast or the tin ingots could have come from Ictis before it was
wrecked.
There is little evidence
to show anywhere on the promontory of Belerion that the actual smelting of
bronze took place to any industrial degree but it is possible that these copper
ingots found off Salcombe, could have been traded with the locals for the rarer
commodity of tin. Although copper was mined to the south-west of Dartmoor,
these mines are of a much later date than the wreck in question. The ‘Blow
Houses’ found up behind the Avon dam are part of the tin smelting process and
were probably only used as such and not employed to make bronze and these were
of a much later date.
Strabo relates the fact
that the people who control the Island of Ictis took great pains to hide the
business of the island from Roman vessels seen on that part of the coast. It is
probable that the early wagoneers who brought the tin down through Loddiswell
to the Island of Ictis for sale, could no longer keep secret their route down
from Dartmoor after the Romans arrived and this may have been the root cause of
the eventual end of the islands monopoly as the place of primary export.
‘Emporium’ indicates that Ictis acted as a market, which indicates some sort of
central agency, trading post or even monopoly from which the tin was traded.
This would make sense practically, understanding that a trading vessel would
not want to wait around for the tin to be brought down from the various tin
streamers upon the moors. This leads to a natural conclusion that Ictis
maintained some sort of vault or storage area from which tin was dispersed as
trading vessels arrived. This would also concur with the ‘wagon loads’ of
Pytheas eye witness account. vessels arriving from abroad, could expedite their
business by landing and loading on the sand causeway and if the winds were
fair, return home without a long wait in the anchorage at Bantham.
In the early days when
coracles were used, the pilot of a small trading vessel would take rest in
Bantham behind the duned promontory. He would sail across to Burgh Island, dry
out on the sand at low tide while loading, securing and making ship shape his
cargo of tin ‘Astragali’, to be floated off at high tide for the return voyage.
It would seem also that Pytheas had a sound vessel but it is quite possible
that his reference to coracles only refers to vessels engaged in the tin trade
bringing tin to the Island of Ictis from local river mouths or even as far as
from tin bearing Cornish river beds.
It may be that Pliny
quoting Timaeus ‘to which the Britons cross in boats of osier covered with
stitched hides’……is an account originating from Pytheas when he initially asked
the Britons where the Island that sells tin might be found. The reason for
positing such an assertion is that I believe that the merchants of Marseille
commissioned Pytheas’ voyage because they had witnessed a substance known now
as British Glass (which was a by-product of smelting) that was said to have
come from the island that sold tin. It is thought that Pytheas went in search
of Amber which is a fossilised resin but the nearest thing in the ancient world
to describe British Glass.
Modern construction such
as clincker that used bronze nails was known at the time of Pytheas’s visit,
but we can speculate that most of the cross channel trade in tin would have
taken place in vessels built of wood and animal skins to ensure the vessel
remained watertight…… this as a natural progression from framed coracles.
There is evidence in
France of bronze foundries that may have built upon a long standing trade with
Ictis such as Villedieu-les-Poêles just inland from the Contentin coast not far
from Mont-Saint-Michel. Villedieu-les-Poêles was established on a reputation
stemming back to pre-Roman times and was one such foundry that eventually
became one of the biggest in France in the medieval era smelting bronze for
church bells across Europe. This trade being established through the mainland
harbours such as those at St. Père-sur-Mer, Genets and Avranches and St Malo.
One can assume therefore that most of the bronze was founded in Europe as
copper became more plentiful from European mines.
It becomes apparent that
Ictis acted as the main tin agent for the western peninsular of England,
declining from around 50BC until its closure, but until that point, miners upon
Dartmoor would have found it very difficult to deliver as demand dictated,
without an agency on the shore to deal with the comings and goings of foreign
vessels. There is no question that the tin was traded with Europe, the Greek
historian Herodotus in the 5th century B.C, referring to the tin trade as
occurring in the "Isles of the West" and others said to be Phoenician
saying the trade existed long before that. Biblical records recording the use
of tin as far back as the coming out of Egypt with Moses, Tubal-Cain the
instructor of every artificer in works of brass and Iron, and the building of
the first Temple.
Ictis’ central agency,
originally determined by geographical convenience; dissolved, as the industry
changed or as the Romans search for the tin Island became ever closer to
discovery. This island contains what probably can be likened to one of the
first banks to ever exist. As such it would allow the miners to bring their tin
down from the moors when they wished and the foreign traders to purchase their
ingots …… then up anchor when the wind and tide were in their favour. The
production of tin involved much labour and its use in conjunction with copper
created a metal of great value. Late in Ictis’ history, with the emerging Roman
Empire trying to get their hands on as much tin as possible, it proved
necessary, in its final century of trading, to conceal the active trade of the
island.
Strabo relates: ‘Now in
former times it was the Phoenicians alone who carried on this commerce for they
kept the voyage a secret from everyone else. At one time when the Romans were
closely pursuing a certain Phoenician ship-captain in order that they too might
uncover the tin markets in question, jealously guarding the secret, the
ship-captain drove his ship on purpose off its course into shoal water; and
after he had lured his pursuer into the same ruin, he himself escaped by a
piece of wreckage and received from the State the value of the cargo and what
he had lost. Still, by trying many times, the Romans learned all about the
voyage.’
It seems in the end, the
location of Ictis was never actually discovered and Cornwall in general became
known as the Cassiterides, Diodorus saying “if I am deceived, I would say, with
Herodotus, that I am not acquainted with the Cassiterides.” meaning as a set of
Islands, given as ten in number where tin is produced. This would, as we have
discussed…… seem to be a later confusion with the Channel Islands and outlying
rocks.
Posidonius in his account
of the tin-trade, says that metal was dug up ‘among the barbarians beyond
Lusitania, and in the islands called Cassiterides,’ and he added that it was
also found in Britain, and transported to Marseilles. Pomponius Mela relates
that ‘Among the Celtici are several islands, all called by the single name of
Cassiterides, because they abound in tin.’ Strabo, writing about the year 10
AD, is in no way sure of the location of the Cassiterides or the islands on the
coast of Spain and seems to think the tin-islands are distant to Britain
causing confusion with the Scilly Isles or indicating some knowledge or rumour
about the Azores and says ‘Northwards and opposite to the Artabri are the
islands called the Cassiterides, situated in the high seas, somewhere about the
same latitude as Britain.’ And then goes on to say that ‘The islands are ten in
number’. Pliny, who was Procurator of Spain writing just after Strabo reverts
back to the old statement, that ‘opposite to Celtiberia are a number of
islands, which the Greeks called Cassiterides, because of their abundance of
tin.’
Ictis by this time was no
longer operational but its location to the Romans was unknown surely because by
this time the legendry island that had ceased operation was now understood to
be a bunch of islands that produced tin on them…… a non existant location.
Publius Crassus visited the northern coast of Spain and he was supposed to have
found the way to the Cassiterides, because Strabo says ‘As soon as he landed
there, he saw that the mines were worked at a very slight depth, and that the natives
were peaceable and employing themselves of their own accord in navigation: so
he taught the voyage to all that were willing, although it was longer than the
voyage to Britain. Thus much about Spain, and the islands lying in front of
it.’
What Crassus had found is
not certain but if it were on the British coast by this time the steady
migration of tinners moving south after the closure of Ictis would have been
inevitable, so maybe he witnessed ‘shamelling’ down in Cornwall. Certainly to
that part of the peninsula would have been further than most cross channel
routes from France and he may have assumed Cornwall to be further out into the
ocean and disconnected from Britain especially if having travelled from Spain.
Festus Avienus who wrote around 400AD perpetuates the myth that Islands exist
somewhere out in the channel or off southern Britain by regurgitating the
accounts of previous chroniclers: ‘Beneath this promontory spreads the vast
Oestrymnian gulf, in which rise out of the sea the Oestrymnides islands,
scattered with wide intervals, rich in metal of tin and lead. The people are
proud, clever, and active, and all engaged in incessant cares of commerce. They
furrow the wide rough strait, and the ocean abounding in sea-monsters, with a
new species of boat. For they know not how to frame keels with pine or maple,
as others use, nor to construct their curved barks with fir, but strange to
say, they always equip their vessels with skins joined together, and often
traverse the salt sea in a hide of leather. It is two days' sail from hence to
the Sacred Island, as the ancients called it’ and goes on to say, ‘near to this
again is the broad island of Albion.’
Much of this information
coming from chroniclers such as Pliny who believed it to be a fable of the
Greeks, that the tin was fetched from " islands in the Atlantic," and
carried there in the "wicker-boats sewn round with hides."
Polybius is the authority
for letting us know that Ictis and Corbelo were in fact in later days kept
secret from the Romans saying that no one in the city could tell the Romans
anything worth mentioning about the north and also that nothing could be
learned from the merchants of Narbonne, or of the City of Corbelo, which was
said to have been a flourishing place in the age of Pytheas and who Strabo
mixes up with Ictis.
Foreigners were warned of
the danger of all attempts to interfere with the Carthaginian commerce.
Strabo tells us of a
Phoenician trading vessel whose captain on its return voyage from the “Tin
Isles”, while being followed by a Roman vessel which kept him in sight and
being unable to elude it; duly steered into the shallows, which caused the
sinking of both vessels on a shoal. This endeavour as we saw in the passage
earlier was to maintain the secrecy of the location of Ictis.
Now there would be no
point in this deed unless of course he was seen heading to seaward from the
proximity of Ictis and this indicates that he must have been fully laden
because he was on a return journey and therefore probably slower than normal.
If overhauled and captured it would be difficult to explain the inconsistency
of being laden with ingots in close proximity to an island…… and the Roman
captain working out that this was the island that his countrymen had searched
for. If the Phoenician were somewhat distant however from the island and
captured, he could say Ictis was at any location, but to be seen heading to
seaward departing what looks to be a Lee shore and in close proximity to an
island, would surely have made a Roman captain suspicious if he had indeed
survived to tell the tale or captured the captain with his cargo.
Figure 10b Showing the
white water at the head of the river Erm caused by West Mary’s rocks which the
Phonecian pilot ran his vessel onto and the proximity of these rocks to the
Fabled Island of Ictis situated in Bigbury Bay.
The captain of the
Phoenician vessel, whose own life was preserved, was rewarded by his countryman
or the agency on the island for managing to maintain the secrecy of the island
which begs the question; was Ictis’ agency or monopoly set up by merchants from
Tyre and Sidon but we shall deal with this question later when we learn that
Ictis is in fact the Island of Sarras from the Grail stories and so named after
Zarrah Judah’s son and firstborn heir.
It seems very strange that
a trading vessel laden with a cargo of tin ingots, having just left the coast
would fall upon Mary's rocks at the mouth of the Erm estuary. Assuming we have
located Ictis, (as Melkin later confirms), it would seem extraordinary as an
explanation for the find of a cache of ingots, that a boat would set out in
foul conditions after having loaded a cargo, only to fall prey to rocks on the
next river mouth over from where one had just set sail.
A captain could always
return to where he knew was navigable. It seems highly likely that the boat
carrying the wrecked ingots recently discovered at the mouth of the Erm was the
very Phoenician vessel narrated by Strabo, while there was reported evidence of
another wrecked vessel of a similar age that had sunk close by. Interesting is
the fact that it was his countrymen that recompensed him not only for his
vessel but the value of his cargo. This would lead us to believe by Strabo’s
report that this island was held in such high esteem by the Phoenicians as a
central agency and as such, probably kept secret its whereabouts, to monopolise
the supply of tin to the ancient world. Logically, because of the cluster of
ingots found at the mouth of the Erm with a matching account to explain their
presence in such close proximity to Ictis; it should predispose the enquirer to
consider the reasons for such an unlikely find. It must be that the Island was
trying to remain unexposed to Roman discovery and takeover as Strabo indicates.
This alone should confirm that the identity of Ictis is synonymous with Burgh
Island without the information that Melkin later provides us with as an
unequivocally identification.
It was the community at
Folly Hill just above Bigbury on Sea which operated Ictis as a storehouse and
mart for tin due to its close proximity for loading while beached, as opposed
to there having been a community that has left archaeological evidence of
dwelling on the Island itself.
The prevailing wind in
Bigbury bay is south west most of the time but if one were heading out into the
channel, one would leave Ictis on a starboard tack heading toward the hill fort
on Bolt tail. If no look outs had warned an unsuspecting captain and he met a
Roman vessel heading north west sailing under Bolt Tail, the two vessels would
be virtually on top of each other before they sighted each other. Our brave
Phonecian captain chose to ‘go about’ and ‘reach’ past Ictis and lead his
pursuer to the mouth of the Erm. For the Roman to follow the Phonecian onto the
rocks would mean that as Strabo related, he was unable to shake off his
pursuer. The Roman captain, immediately on the the Phoenician’s stern, thinking
he was heading into the navigable waters of a river mouth, would be left no
time to take evasive action, sailing off the wind into the river mouth. In fact
he was probably so close having ‘run him down’ across the bay, that the last
thing he saw was the vessel ahead, founder on the rocks before he heard the
bottom of his own vessel disintegrate. It seems highly probable that the
Phoenician captain might have thought he would clear the reef while leading his
pursuer (with a deeper draught) onto it. It was a chance he was willing to take
and his decision would have been dependant on the tide at the time of the pursuit
but in the interests of protecting the whereabouts of the then undiscovered
‘Tin Emporium’ he courageously sacrificed his vessel. The Tin ingots are all
that remain, but they are situated only 2.5 miles away from Ictis. Of course
the only evidence that would remain from such an incident would be the
narrative itself and the cache of tin ingots after a period of approximately
2100 years. The fact that this story was still circulating at the time Strabo
wrote is a good indication of the degree of fame in which the Phonecian captain
was regarded.
Caesar himself bears
witness that the Veniti at this time who were also engaged in tin export from
Ictis in the Roman era ‘were the most powerfull seafaring people who exact
tribute from such merchants as sail on that sea’ meaning the channel. The enemy
i.e. the Veniti, he says ‘had great advantage over us in their shipping; the
keels of their ships were flatter than ours, consequently more convenient for
the shallows and low tides; their forecastles were very high; their poops were
contrived so as to endure the roughness of the sea; the hull of their vessels
were built of impenetrable oak; the banks for the oars were beams of a foot
square ,fastened at each end, with iron pins an inch thick. Instead of cables for
their anchors they made use of iron chains and had hides for their sails,
either because they wanted linen and were ignorant of its use or what is more
likely, they thought linen sails not strong enough to endure their boisterous
seas and tempestuous winds and to carry vessels of such considerable burden.
The ease of access into
the small tidal basin of Bantham would have been considerably easier to
navigate in days gone by, before the dam at the head of the River Avon was
constructed. It is plain to see from a seaward perspective, how small trading
vessels having once turned the corner at the mouth of the Avon, find shelter in
a small anchorage and remain hidden as long as they were not seen entering the
harbour.
Figure 11 showing the
anchorage at Bantham
From seaward, the approach
to the river mouth looks like a ‘lee shore’ which no sailor would want to
approach unless he had prior knowledge of the passage between the waves leading
to a haven behind the spit. From a seaward perspective, a passing vessel would
only see the cliffs in the background and never assume the tidal river turned
tightly to starboard behind Bantham dunes. Due to the fact that the entrance is
not wide, the entrance is disguised from seaward as a breaking shoreline at
nearly all states of the tide as shown in figure 12, but a clear entrance is
visible in the photograph viewed from the top of the Island of Ictis.
Figure 12 showing the
approaches to mouth of the river Avon.
For this reason and
because of the brave acts of one Phonecian captain, Ictis has remained elusive.
If the Romans had discovered it, the modern world would have known its
whereabouts. In the early days of Ictis, if the weather was foul and the tide
ebbing, a small trading vessel could find sanctuary and dry out on the beach in
the lee of the sand causeway with enough shelter found in the lee of the island
itself. When the tide flooded, a small vessel would ease up to the anchorage in
Bantham. In 1864, during the drainage of the marsh around the Buckland stream
at Bantham, it was noticed that cart loads of bone were recovered which
confirms a large camp that was known to exist there in Roman times and
indicates that Ictis had become redundant before the camp was established as
later writers would not still refer to the fabled Island.
Phoenicians and Veniti
alike traded with these friendly people for centuries. It was only due to the
longevity of tin streaming and the expertise that was built up due to this
trade over such a long period that their reputation and pre-eminence continued
until the Roman era. The ‘tinners’ themselves, would have been content in the
knowledge that, through the agency the best price was realised and the
‘tinners’ did not find it necessary to undercut the value of their labour by
competing with one another.
Bronze age ‘tinners’
started to mine eluvial deposits for tin as alluvial deposits started to
dwindle and this caused a gradual edging northward over the centuries up to
Tavistock, Ashburton and Chagford. Much of the evidence of the earliest tinners
upon southern Dartmoor that originated on the Avon, and the Erm but later
encorporated the river Yealm and some of the tributaries of the Tamar, Plym and
river Dart have had their archaeological evidence of tin streaming from the
early British bronze age removed by subsequent workings. The Bronze Age axe
head found on Mothecombe beach dated to around 1600BC is evidence of very early
tin production for the Erm and Avon valleys and also adds credence to Ictis’
subsequent establishment.
The western side of
Dartmoor opening up probably after Ictis shut down, as tin from this side
traded out of Sutton harbour. Gradually over a period of 1600 years the whole
industry made a steady progression southwards into Cornwall but certainly the
beginnings of tin were from the rich alluvial grounds on Southern Dartmoor from
which the Ictis trade was born and for which the Island became famed in the
ancient world.
From the ancient writers,
to the modern researcher misinformation about the Island of Ictis has compounded
its elusiveness. One can see how the Cassitterides (the Tin Isles), from the
later Latin chroniclers, was mistaken for an island called Ictis which exported
tin and which was reported as being surrounded by other islands in close
proximity. Diodorus says of these “islands,” (using the plural,) that “they
appear islands” only at “high water” and that when the tide is out, the
intervening space is left dry, and “they are seen to be peninsulas”. This being
reported by the subsequent writers is understandable from a chronicler who has
never seen the French coast, the English coast or tides.
It is not difficult to
understand how one can get the detail between islands of the Channel Islands,
mixed up with the island that is the ‘Emporium’ that actually dries out at low
tide.
Confused accounts have
prevented researchers from noticing the only island from the Salcombe estuary
down to Lands’ End that would practically fit Pytheas’s description. It also
fits all the practical criteria of easy access to tin from ancient time, the
provision of a safe harbour and seclusion from pirates. The fact that it dries
out at low tide, (the one unequivocal clue we had), because Diodorus found the
concept strange and yet still included that detail in his narrative, is only
part of the confirmation. Diodorus at no stage intonated the Island was to be
found in Cornwall but by his definition of the Belerion promontory, his
southern promontory could start at Salcombe. In fact Diodorus has little idea
about Ictis and thinks the Tin Isles are off Spain. Tin also is found in many
regions of Iberia, but not found, however, on the surface of the earth, as
certain writers continually repeat in their histories, but mined out of the
ground and smelted in the same way as silver and gold are. For there are many
mines of tin in the country above Lusitania and on the islets which lie off
Iberia out in the ocean and are called because of that fact the Cassiterides.
Diodorus knows that tin is
mined in Spain and like Strabo, is dubious of Pytheas’ account which implies
the collection of alluvial and elluvial deposits. He also follows this last
extract with: And tin is brought in large quantities also from the island of
Britain to the opposite Gaul, where it is taken by merchants on horses through
the interior of Celtica both to the Massalians and to the city of Narbo, as it
is called. By following on with this account he is implying that the Island of
Ictis to which tin was transported…… now was to become islands where the tin
came from called the Cassiterides. There simply never were tin producing
Islands. Supporters of the St. Michael’s Mount location as Ictis also should
remember that it is not opposite Gaul as described above, whereas Burgh Island
not only has the confused Channel Islands in close proximity but also fits the
‘opposite Gaul’ account more accurately. Regardless of the fact that Diodorus
from Pytheas’ account records that the wagons conveyed the tin to the Island,
traders accounts recorded by chroniclers would have expressly confirmed that
Ictis is where one obtains tin, not where the tin came from before it was
transported for storage on the island.
From the early bronze age
in the south west, tin was an extremely scarce and valuable commodity due to
the amount of labour that it took to extract from alluvial ground or river bed
deposits before smelting. A large community of Bronze Age tinners existed in
the area around Shipley Bridge where the initial alluvial deposits would have
been plentiful and there is evidence that in the dry summer months they may
have controlled the river flow with a small dam so that working the river beds
was facilitated for short intervals. The dam may well have been used for fish
stock also. It is for this reason Ictis sprung up at the base of the Avon and Erm
rivers evolving into a trading post or market and then became the equivalent of
the local bank vault, storing tin ingots that had been mined in the area, these
very miners hewing out a storage area within the Island. This convenience of
location, gave easy access for the traders, instant payment for the ‘tinners’,
of the goods brought over by the continental traders and the first major tin
monopoly and marketplace for the tinners product.
Figure 12a showing the dam
wall at Shipley Bridge with protruding stones designed to anchor the cross
wall. These large stones were anchored into the side wall to create a fixing
point for the dam that is found next to the Bronze Age dwellings at Shipley
Bridge.
Old Cornish folklore tells
a story that 2000 years ago Jesus visited southern England in his early
childhood. The story goes that he accompanied his uncle, who was Joseph of
Arimathea, on many of his voyages to the British isles. The legend persists
that Joseph of Arimathea came to Britain on many occasions as a tin merchant.
It is not difficult to assume that if involved in the tin business he would
certainly pay a visit to Ictis even though it might have been in the throes of
closing down. The island of Ictis in his earlier visits was probably operating
as in its heyday but much of the activity during the course of his lifetime
would be in decline due to Roman interference. The ‘tinners’ upon Dartmoor had
predominantly supplied the ancient world with tin but the supplies ran thin as
demand increased. Mining methods were changing to cope with demand; Ictis’s
monopoly of the past was surpassed by ‘tinners’ disbursing and operating in
their own localities, making their own deals with foreign traders in many of
the estuaries and rivers along the southern coast. If Joseph of Arimathea owned
the island while in operation or subsequently bought the now defunct vault,
hewn within the island, that used to house all the tin, this would in part
explain the reference to the island being an ‘emporium’…… yet also provide a few
answers to the discrepancies in the burial accounts of Jesus. Of course today
everyone is ignorant of the storage area within the Island and its
functionality and it lays as yet undiscovered. What was the best kept secret of
the ancient world was now to become the best kept secret of the modern world.
The reader at this point
may wonder where we are going with all this but after our enquiry into the
prophecy of Melkin and the Grail legends these connections will be confirmed
and we will have to come back to the question of Ictis. If there is any truth
in what we are proposing, why would Joseph have the body of Jesus repatriated
back to England?
When the body of Jesus is
unveiled, it in no way detracts from his status or his mission or to what he
has accomplished through God’s divine plan during the last 2000 years. The only
people it would offend are those who believe the resurrection involves a body
physically lifting off the earth and leaving no trace, even though this
technically was the Ascension. It is for this very reason the ‘Grail’ has been
so many things except the body of Jesus, as this would not fit the reports of
the Ascension which Apostolic sources had assumed similar to Elijah's…… the
lack of a body perpetuating the belief in Ascension. It is also the reason for
the complicated and conflicting polemicism surrounding the discovery of the
empty tomb related by the Gospel writers.
How is it that so many
questions surround Jesus’s provenance at his arrival in Jerusalem to carry out
his mission? John the Baptist his own cousin was not familiar with him, yet the
inhabitants of Jerusalem knew his mother. They did not know Jesus on his
arrival because he had been away for some time and he was castigated for being
a Zerhite by being called a Nazarene. Most Bible scholars are aware that
Nazareth as a location or town did not exist and the first non-biblical source
to mention that town was by Sextus Julius Africanus, dated about 200 AD; the
first biblically connected reference being from the Church Father Origen,
around the same time. A Nazarene comes from the word ‘Nazir’ which actually
means an untrimmed vine, and refers to a Nazarite, a person with a conferred
status rather than hailing from a location called Nazareth which the Gospel
writers had rendered thus, due to their misunderstanding and scant biblical
reference. Thus Nathaniel is rendered as having remarked: "Can any good
thing proceed from Nazareth?" (John 1:46). There is no pre-Christian
mention of Nazareth and it would seem that the Gospel writers dealt with the
accusation of ‘Jesus the Nazarene’ as bestowing a place of origin.
However, Jesus would not
have learnt nor been able to challenge the Pharisees in their understanding of
the Law in Jerusalem, if indeed he had not received instruction elsewhere…… nor
was it by visiting Egypt, as is often thought. It was obvious who misunderstood
the Law by Jesus’s ability to confound the Jerusalem temples’ best accusers and
sophists who asked between themselves the provenance of his wisdom. The Jews
believing they had a monopoly on the interpretation of Law were deeply puzzled
by Jesus's interpretations asking: "How knoweth this man letters, having
never learned?" (John 7:15). Jesus had been away for most of his formative
years being schooled in the Law and what the prophets had predicted. The three
main reasons for thinking it was England is that the Grail stories, once
understood, show that his coffin was brought to England…… Melkin’s prophecy
emphatically states where the body is…… and Cornish tradition has always
maintained that he visited British shores.
Jesus was not negating the
Law by challenging it with new insight, but instead confirming and fulfilling
what the prophets had predicted and the Pharisees had misinterpreted.
Essentially the Law to the Jews or Pharisees in Jerusalem had become as the law
that lawyers rely on today. The law becomes corrupt…… and so it is today in our
courts, that no man can be sure that the truth will be upheld. Precedent,
previous case judgements upon which future judgements are decided, over time
has been so corrupted by those who profess to search for the truth, that
conscience and judgement in the courts has diverged so far that even common
sense does not prevail. The wise of Jerusalem were rendered incapable of such correct
understanding of the law by being subject to its corruption.
The Temple in Jerusalem at
that time was like an empty shell, the Ark of the Covenant, the life of the
temple, had been secreted by the Temple priests five hundred years earlier,
deep in the vaults, while being besieged by the Babylonian army at the first
captivity or even before that due to the Egyptians. Although the book of the
Law was re-discovered on the Jews release from captivity, and their return with
Ezra and Nehemiah, the Ark remained secreted and undiscovered.
After the crucifixion,
Joseph managed to obtain Jesus's body and supposedly collected his blood and
sweat into one or two receptacles and brought them with him to England. for all
the Grail’s multitudinous depictions, it is the connection with Jesus that is
the one unchanging theme. The vessel or vessels supposedly now lie with Joseph
of Arimathea in an undiscovered sepulchre on mainland Britain. This may not be
the whole truth but we will uncover the meaning of ‘duo fassula’ later as a
riddle for ‘duplico fasciola’ which is a direct description of the Shroud of
Turin being a doubled body cloth, which as we know today is full of the blood
and sweat of Jesus. What most scholars believe today is that Melkin’s prophecy
is a fraud but it is in fact what the mythical status of Glastonbury is founded
upon. Without the gradual fraudulent transference of Glastonbury into Avalon
maybe Gastonbury’s mythical status as the place where Joseph was laid to rest
may purely have been based upon his church there.
Was it this prophecy or
some other writings of Melkin that establishes the association with Joseph of
Arimathea. Glastonbury is certainly not the Avalon of Melkin’s prophecy as the
reader will become aware shortly especially when Melkin’s ‘adorandam virginem’
does not apply to the old church. Glastonbury acolytes have always assumed it
was this phrase which locates Avalon in Glastonbury because the chapel of the Virgin
Mary was located there. As we progress through the evidence it becomes clear
that Melkin’s prophecy applies to the old island of Ictis where Joseph chose to
bury his Son and he subsequently would be buried by members of his family as
recorded in the perlesvaus or High history of the Grail.
If we just follow the
dots, it's not so difficult to conceive that the Cornish legends have
substance. If Joseph of Arimathea was Jesus's uncle or father and was a rich
tin merchant who occasionally visited the South West of England, it would seem
natural to find a refuge after the crisis that had taken place in Jerusalem.
The refuge he sought was the fabled island of Ictis. It seems Joseph had
established a relationship with the people who controlled the island or more
probably bought it during his time as a tin merchant as it went into decline
after the Roman invasion. It is this island to which Melkin leads us to…… but
he calls it ‘Avallonis’ but he knows its name was Ictis.
Joseph after the murder of
his Nephew would wish to return to a part of the world where people were known
for their good nature. This should be understood also in terms of Joseph’s
recent enlightenment that his nephew or son was in fact the ‘Messiah’ which had
been spoken of by the prophets. However, there is always one continual thread
in the various sources from Baronius, Melkin, William of Malmesbury and John of
Glastonbury, to name but a few; and that is, that Joseph of Arimathea arrived
in Britain, whether on St. Philip's instructions, on his son’s shirt, on
Solomon’s ship or with Mary Magdalen. All this extraneous information can be
accounted as immaterial because all we need to accomplish is find his resting
place and all will be revealed. The enquiry of this book does uncover the
whereabouts of Joseph of Arimathea's resting place; however, there are several
more aspects to our enquiry that need to be considered first.
Joseph of Arimathea, who
acted as a father figure to Jesus, realised that Jesus had fulfilled much that
had been prophesied by the prophets of Israel and as the gospels relate, took
it upon himself to ask Pilate for Jesus’s body that he might take care of it.
Joseph of Arimathea returned to Britain having being fully converted by the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit with the benefit of having understood the truth
of the words that Jesus spoke in the temple and the relevance of his message.
He returned as one of the main disciples to proselytise the British Isles and
possibly sited the first church in the British Isles at Glastonbury.
Gildas circa.540 AD, the
earliest source for the arrival of Jesus’s message in Britain attests, that
Christianity first reached Britain when Tiberius was Emperor around 37AD. The
Glastonbury tradition gives Joseph building the first church circa 67AD and
both Tertullian 200 AD and Eusebius 280 AD, each confirm an early date for the
first Christian message reaching Britain. Tertullian states that:
“For in whom else have the people of the world trusted, except in Christ who has already come?...How then the varieties of Gentiles and the many borders of the Moors, all the boundaries of the Spaniards, and the various nations of the Gauls, and the regions of the Britons, inaccessible to the Romans, but subdued by the true Christ”.
“For in whom else have the people of the world trusted, except in Christ who has already come?...How then the varieties of Gentiles and the many borders of the Moors, all the boundaries of the Spaniards, and the various nations of the Gauls, and the regions of the Britons, inaccessible to the Romans, but subdued by the true Christ”.
The Cornish these days
cannot remember any of the words to continue the song that starts “Joseph was a
tin merchant”. This song has helped perpetuate the legend of Jesus in Cornwall
for 2000 years and more recently this same story has been brought into popular
consciousness by Blake’s anthem exposing the same legend at the opening
ceremony of the Olympics by portraying Blake’s Jerusalem. There is another song
associated with Joseph in Cornish tradition, which we know today as “I saw
three ships come sailing in”. Today it is a popular Christmas Carol, but many
in Cornwall seem to think it has associations with Joseph of Arimathea’s
voyages to the West Country but as we will uncover, this song stems from a
completely different tradition, which also was to become the world’s second
best kept secret.
Joseph of Arimathea and
his connection with the British Isles has been related by many people, but
there is none more responsible for putting him squarely in British history than
John of Glastonbury but some of Joseph of Arimathea’s spurious associations
with Glastonbury had already begun before he reiterated the prophecy of Melkin.
It is not by accident that
his opening lines about dispelling ‘doubts regarding the antiquity of the
church of Glastonbury….. is the reason for to the confusion that mistakes
Avalon with Glastonbury. If the church is not anciently connected, then the
church that Melkin’s prophecy supposedly refers to…… along with the ‘cratibus’
reference to its construction, is now voided…… even though William of
Malmesbury says it was covered with lead. It is essential that the antiquity of
the church be established, otherwise Avalon cannot be established as being
Glastonbury. This is essentially done through the church references in Melkin’s
prophecy, but also through tentative allusions to a chapel (the Grail chapel)
being dedicated to ‘Our Lady’ in the Perlesvaus but this shall be discussed at
length later.
John of Glastonbury is the
main consolidator of the Joseph legend and from his work in the ‘Cronica’, he
starts his treaties of St. Joseph of Arimathea, which he claims are taken from
a book which the Emperor Theodosius found in Pontius Pilate’s council chamber
in Jerusalem, and here he is quoted at length from a translation by David
Townsend from James P. Carley’s study of John of Glastonbury’s ‘Cronica’:
Matters
which admit doubt often deceive the reader; in order to dispel doubts regarding
the antiquity of the church of Glastonbury, therefore, we have added some
undisputed facts gathered from the ancient sayings of historians.
When
the Lord had been crucified and everything had been fulfilled, which had been
prophesied of him, Joseph of Arimathea, that noble Decurion, came to Pilate, as
the gospel story explains, asked for the body of Jesus, wrapped it when he had
received it in linen, and placed it in a monument in which no one had yet laid.
But the Jews, hearing that Joseph had buried the body of Jesus, sought to
arrest him, along with Nicodemus and the others who had defended him before
Pilate. When they had all hidden themselves, these two-that is Joseph and
Nicodemus, revealed themselves and asked the Jews,’ why are you aggrieved
against us because we have buried the body of Jesus? You have not done well
against a righteous man, nor have you considered what benefits he bestowed upon
us; instead you have crucified him and wounded him with a lance’. When the Jews
heard these words, Annas and Ciaphas seized Joseph, shut him up in a cell where
there was no window, sealed the door over the key, and posted guards to watch
over him. But Nicodemus they sent away free, since Joseph alone had requested
Jesus’ body and had been the principal instigator in his burial. Later, when
everyone had assembled, all through the Sabbath they considered, along with the
priests and Levites how they should kill Joseph. After the assembly had
gathered, the chief officials ordered, Annas and Ciaphas to present Joseph; but
when they opened the seals on the door they did not find him. Scouts were sent
out everywhere, and so Joseph was found in his own city, Arimathea. Hearing
this, the chief priests and all the people of the Jews rejoiced and glorified
the God of Israel because Joseph had been found whom they had shut up in a
cell. They then made a great assembly, at which the chief of the priests said,
’how can we bring Joseph to us and speak with him?’ They took up a piece of parchment
and wrote to Joseph, saying,’ peace be with you and yours. We see that we have
sinned against God and against you. Deign therefore, to come to your fathers
and your sons, for we have marvelled greatly over your assumption. Indeed, we
know that we have plotted evil counsel against you, and the Lord has freed you
from our evil council. Peace to you, Lord Joseph, honourable among all the
people’. And they chose seven men who were friends of Joseph and said to them,
’When you reach Joseph, greet him in peace and give him this letter.’ When the
men had reached him, they greeted him peaceably and gave him the letter. Joseph
read the letter and said, ’Blessed are you, O Lord my God, who have liberated
Israel, that he should not shed my blood. Blessed are you, O my God, who have
protected me under your wings.’ And Joseph kissed the men who had come to him
and took them into his house. The next day he climbed up on his ass and went
with them until they came to Jerusalem; and when all the Jews heard of it, they
ran to meet him, saying, ’Peace at your coming in, father.’ Joseph responded to
them, saying, ’Peace be with you all.’ And they all kissed him, and Nicodemus
received him into his house and made a banquet for him. The next day the Jews
all came together, and Annas and Ciaphas said to Joseph, ’Make confession to
the God of Israel, and reveal to us all that which you are asked. We quarrelled
with you because you buried the body of Jesus and shut you up in a cell on
account of the Sabbath; on the following day we sought you but did not find
you. Therefore, we were greatly astonished, and fear has held us even up until
now, when we have received you. Now that you are present, tell us before God,
what happened to you’ .Joseph answered them, saying, ’When you shut me up at
evening on the day of preparation, while I stood at my Sabbath prayers, the
house in which I was held was taken up in the middle of the night by four
angels, and I saw Jesus like a flash of light. I fell for fear onto the ground,
but, holding my hand; he lifted me up from the ground and covered me with the
scent of roses. As he wiped my face, he kissed me and said to me, “Do not fear,
Joseph; look upon me and see who I am.” I looked at him and said, “Rabbi
Elijah,” and he said to me, “I am not Elijah, but Jesus, whose body you
buried.” Then I said to him, “Show me the monument where I lay you.” And taking
my hand, he led me to the place where I buried him and showed me the linen
shroud and the face cloth in which I had wrapped his head. Then I recognised
that he was Jesus, and I adored him saying,’ “Blessed is he who comes in the
name of the Lord.” Then, holding my hand, he led me into my house in Arimathea
and said to me, “Peace be with you. Do not go out of your house until the 40th
day. I shall go to my disciples.” And when he had said these things, he
disappeared.’
After
all this, the noble Joseph of Arimathea, animated by an ardent faith, became
the disciple of blessed Philip the apostle, and, filled to overflowing with his
saving doctrine, was baptised by him, along with his son Josephes. Later he was
appointed guardian of the blessed ever virgin Mary by blessed John the apostle,
while John himself laboured at preaching to the Ephesians: Joseph was present
at the assumption of the same glorious virgin, along with blessed Philip and
his other disciples, and he preached incessantly through many lands the things
which he had heard and seen of the Lord Jesus Christ and his mother Mary;
finally, converting and baptising many, in the 15th year after the blessed
virgins assumption he came to Philip the apostle in Gaul, along with his son
Josephes, whom the Lord had earlier consecrated Bishop in the city of Sarras.
For when the disciples dispersed throughout the various parts of the world
after the Lord's Ascension; as Freculph bears witness in his second book, in
the fourth chapter; Philip came to the kingdom of the Franks to preach, and he
converted and baptised many into the faith of Christ. Since then, the holy
apostle wished to spread the word of God, he sent twelve of his disciples to
Britain to proclaim the good news of the Word of Life; over these he set his
dear friend, the aforesaid Joseph, who buried the Lord, along with his son
Josephes. More than 600 came with them, as is read in the book, called ‘the
holy Grail’ (Sanctum Graal), men as well as women, all of whom vowed that they
would abstain from their own spouses until they had come into the land
appointed to them. They all made a sham of their oath however, except for 150,
whom at the Lord's command crossed the sea upon Josephes’ shirt on Easter night
and landed in the morning. The others repented, and through Josephes’ prayers
on their behalf, a ship was sent by the Lord which King Solomon had artfully
constructed in his time and which endured all the way to the time of Christ.
That same day, they and the Duke of the Persians named Nasciens reached their
companions; Joseph had earlier baptised Nasciens in the city of Sarras, along
with the King of the city, whose name was Mordrain. The Lord later appeared to
Mordrain in a vision and showed him his pierced hands and feet and his side
wounded by the lance. Taking great pity upon him, the King said,’ O Lord my
God, who has dared to do such a thing to you? ’And the Lord answered,’ the
faithless King of North Wales has done these things to me, and he who has bound
in prison, my servant Joseph and his companions, who were preaching my name, in
his territories, and who has inhumanely denied them necessary sustenance. You
then, do not delay but hasten to those parts, girded with your sword, to avenge
my servants upon the tyrant and free them from their chains.’
The
King, then awoke and rejoiced in the Lord because of the vision revealed to
him, made disposition of the house and kingdom, began his journey with his army
and coming to the place by God's guidance, commanded the aforesaid King to
permit God’s servants to depart freely. But the Welsh King, altogether refusing
the command, indignantly ordered him to leave his land without delay. When King
Mordrain had heard this, he and the aforesaid Duke Nasciens came against him
with their army, and Nasciens killed the Welsh King in a battle of just
vengeance. Then King Mordrain went to the prison where the wicked King held
Joseph and his companions under arrest, led him thence in great joy, and told
him the vision which the Lord had revealed to him in order to free them. Then
all were filled with great joy and thanked the Lord mightily.
After
this Saint Joseph and his son Josephes and their 10 companions travelled
through Britain, where King Arviragus then reigned, in the 63rd year from the
Lord's incarnation, and they trustworthily preached the faith of Christ. But
the barbarian king and his nation, when they heard doctrines so new and
unusual, did not wish to exchange their ancestral traditions for better ways
and refused consent to their preaching. Since however they had come from afar,
and because of their evident modesty of life, Arviragus gave them for a
dwelling an island at the edge of his kingdom surrounded with forests, thickets
and swamps, which was called by the inhabitants Ynswytryn, that is ’the Glass
island’. Of this a poet has said, ‘The twelvefold band of men entered Avalon:
Joseph, flower of Arimathea, is their chief. Josephes, Joseph’s son, accompanies
his father. The right to Glastonbury is held by these and the other ten.’ When
the saints then, had lived in that desert for a short time, the Archangel
Gabriel admonished them in a vision to build a church in honour of the holy
Mother of God, the ever virgin Mary, in that place which heaven would show
them. Obeying the divine admonitions, they finished a Chapel, the circuit of
whose walls they completed with wattles, in the 31st year after the Lord's
passion, the fifteenth, as was noted, after the assumption of the glorious
Virgin, and the same year in fact, in which they had come to St Philip the
apostle in Gaul and had been sent by him to Britain. Though it was of unsightly
construction, it was adorned with the manifold power of God; and, since it was
the first church in the land, the son of God distinguished it by a fuller
dignity, dedicating it in his own presence in honour of his mother. And so
these 12 saints offered there, devout service to God and the blessed virgin,
freeing themselves up for fasting and prayers; and, in their necessities they
were revived by the assistance of the Virgin Mother of God. When the holiness
of their lives was discovered, two of the Kings, though pagans, Marius, the son
of King Arviragus, and Coel, son of Marius, granted them each a hide of land
and at the same time confirmed the gift. Thus, to this day, the 12 hides take
their names from them. When a few years had passed, these saints were led forth
from the workhouse of the body. Arthur was buried among those men and Joseph
and positioned on a bifurcated line next to the oratory mentioned before.
Consequently, he occupies the same place that was the lair of wild beasts,
which formerly was the dwelling place of saints, until it pleased the Blessed
Virgin to restore to her oratory as a monument of the faithful.
The consequences of such
writings have helped to maintain Glastonbury as Avalon, because in Avalon
according to Melkin the Holy Grail is buried alongside Joseph of Arimathea.
This twist of fate made it necessary to unearth King Arthur in Avalon,now at Glastonbury, but this was never the case. They are both
interred at Burgh Island and the evidence which clearly shows this follows.
The mythical exploits of
King Arthur and the legend of Joseph of Arimathea seem to have been perpetuated
by the Glastonbury establishment to concur with Grail romances and the writings
of Melkin, the monk who so little is known about is the source. The mythical
Island of Avalon has its presence interwoven into many forms of folklore,
whether it be the Grail Romances from France, Arthurian legend in Britain, or
even in association with Joseph of Arimathea. These stories have now been so
interwoven over time, that it is difficult to divine their original source and
many people today regard them as purely fictional. There is virtually no
consensus of opinion when it comes to the subject of King Arthur, but many also
think that he did live in a period between 450 and 650 A.D. and is an
historical figure.
The name Arthur is extremely
rare in Welsh writings as a Welsh name and as we will try to elucidate, King
Arthur's connections seem to be based upon a Cornish and Devonian background.
However, the Welsh, mainly through the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth and the
Triads spread his fame abroad from a Welsh perspective. Arthur is portrayed as
having battles against native Britons and as being the Pen-Dragon of a
consolidated force against the Saxon invaders. Arthur's Cornish heritage is
never very far, but the Welsh chroniclers by Celtic association appear to have
made him into a more national figure.
And
when Arthur heard that, he turned back with all that had survived of his army,
and succeeded by violence in landing on this Island in opposition to Medrawd.
And then there took place the Battle of Camlan between Arthur and Medrawd, and
was himself wounded to death. And from that (wound) he died, and was buried in
a hall on the Island of Afallach.
The one thing that can be
agreed upon is Arthur's association with the Isle of Avalon or Affalach, but it
is the term ‘Hall’ that seems out of place at the end of this last passage.
Does the vault that the miners hewed on Ictis resemble a chamber more
precisely? The cave under the Chapel in the Perlesvaus indicates we are on to
the right track.
It is worth pointing out regarding the dating
of Arthur that Lucius is fictional appearing first in Geoffrey of Monmouth's
‘Historia Regum Britanniae’. Lucius appears in later literature such as Thomas
Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, and the Alliterative Morte Arthure, and a Roman
Emperor defeated by King Arthur appears in French Arthurian literature and also
in the Vulgate Cycle. As we will cover, the source of this French material and
the British sources derive from one man, Melkin, but the French and British
literature was separated for a period of about 3-4 hundred years before the
wildly embellished French Grail romances met back up with the same traditions
that existed in Britain. Because these two sources were separated but concur
about Arthur living in a period of Roman and Saxon involvement we can assume
that without dating specifically, both sources are not based upon fiction but
more probably are the product of an historical account that has been
romanticized.
Again John of Glastonbury
is quoted here saying; ‘This
passage is found among the deeds of the Glorious King Arthur’: the book of the
deeds of the glorious King Arthur bears witness, that the noble decurion Joseph
of Arimathea came to Great Britain, which is now called England, along with his
son Josephes and many others, and that there they ended their lives. This is
found in the portion of the book dealing with the search carried out by the
companions of the round table for an illustrious knight called Lancelot du Lac,
that is, in the part of the book where a hermit explains to Gawain the mystery
of a fountain, which keeps changing taste and colour; in the same place it is
also written that the miracle will not end until a great lion comes whose neck
is bound in heavy chains. It is also reported practically at the beginning of
the quest for the vessel, which is there called the Holy Grail, where the White
Knight explains to Galahad, son of Lancelot, the mystery of a miraculous shield
which he enjoins him to carry and which no one else can bear, even for a day,
without grave loss.’
We must discover the
truths behind the fabric of the various tales, since the legends have stretched
over 2000 years. Accounts of King Arthur and associated Knights run
concurrently with Joseph of Arimathea who lived 500 years earlier, but also
involving Knights from the crusade era; shows that what might have been an
historical account has lost all chronology. The Troubadours of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries have embellished upon legend from the Dark ages and they
have distorted historical fact so that the time frames in which the stories are
related, only make less credible, what once was a true account. These might
include Mary Magdalene's passage through France , the arrival at Glastonbury of
Joseph of Arimathea, the legends of King Arthur and Merlin, all appearing in a
random time frame from the days of Joseph of Arimathea, coinciding with tales
of questing knights in search of an elusive Grail. All these combined to make a
wondrous source material for the artful troubadours seem to have involved
characters of courtly renown out of flattery.
However, Melkin the
Prophet from the British tradition, predicts the discovery of Joseph of
Arimathea’s tomb and how it will be found untouched, together with predictions
of visiting pilgrims on a global scale, due to the wondrous miracles done at
the Island of Avalon, all add to the aura of intrigue. Some of this material
however, can be accounted as esoteric and occult knowledge disseminated circa
600 -700AD, and relates in part, to true historical fact compiled by Melkin.
Melkin, who as we shall discover named the Island Avalon after what he had
witnessed there at the death of King Arthur also witnessed other astounding
revelations. His knowledge of the arrival of the early Christians was recorded
in ancient manuscripts and he transcribed this history including events that
had transpired in the intervening years up until Arthur’s death in what became
known as the book of the Grail.
Melkin’s prophesy, as we
shall uncover, is the root source for the perpetuation of the Joseph legend at
Glastonbury, but his other writings were to have an even greater effect. The
account that went to France (as an original Latin text) as the book of the
Grail, became the source information known as the ‘Matière de Bretagne’. The
body of material that the French refer to as ‘The Matter of Britain’ coincides
with subject matter and material contained in Melkin’s prophecy about Joseph,
which as we saw earlier, was written in almost untranslatable Latin, but is
most commonly translated thus:
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.
Although this prophecy
does not mention Glastonbury, much of the purport of the prophecy has been
conferred on Glastonbury. We will investigate how this has transpired later by
the conscious fraud of the Glastonbury monks as we find that Glastonbury has
associated itself with Melkin’s prophecy falsely and also fraudulently
uncovered the bones of King Arthur so that Glastonbury may be thought of as
being synonymous with Avalon.
Giraldus Cambrensis in
1194 AD records that the tomb of King Arthur was found in 1191 between two
"stone pyramids in the holy cemetery dedicated by St. Dunstan".
Giraldus is clearly referring to the two stone pyramids that were reported by
William of Malmesbury as being located a few feet from the old wattle church.
An inscribed lead cross was said to have been found in Arthur’s uncovered
grave, with the words Hic
iacet sepultus inclitus rex Arturius in insula Avalonia; ‘Here
lies interred King Arthur in the island of Avalon’. Clearly, by finding King
Arthur’s body which was reputed to be buried in the Isle of Avalon…… it would
naturally confirm the location of Avalon as Glastonbury especially if the body
were found at Glastonbury. Combining that with a corpse with an inscription
stating ‘here lies King Arthur’, would seem to eliminate all doubt. It is here
that Glastonbury has its biggest problem because once decoded, Melkin’s
geometrical instructions are part of a puzzle in the form of a Prophecy and
these actually lead to Burgh Island, the Avallonis to which Melkin is showing
us.
Although the prophecy, written by Melkin around the sixth to seventh century
was somewhat untranslatable; by implication, it was inferred in that text that
Joseph of Arimathea was buried in the Isle of Avalon. The Grail romances also
make the same claim for King Arthur, but even before they appeared, much of the
Arthurian and Joseph material was commonly known in folklore. Joseph from an
early time was renowned for building the first church at Glastonbury and was
acknowledged to have a connection with the tin trade in Cornwall. Arthur’s name
as a King that fought Saxons would have been widely known although not greatly
recorded except in manuscripts written by Melkin left in Britain.
Melkin wrote his attested
book on ‘Arthur and the Round Table’ after Arthur’s death, (to have knowledge
that Arthur is buried in Avalon), but the fact that Joseph was known to be
buried in a place called Avalon before Melkin wrote…… we are not able to
establish, because as we will get to shortly, Melkin knew the Island used to be
called Ictis. However, the village on the river Avon which flows to Avalon, was
known as Aveton before the Norman conquest, but we have no reference as to when
it took this name……so the island does seem to have been named Avalon by Melkin.
This area was referred to as ‘Venn’ in the period between 700 and 1066 as seen
in a charter by Edward the Confessor but we will get to this later. Since the
location of Avalon remained a mystery to all except to the ‘illuminate’ within
the Templar organisation, we can only assume it was Melkin who named the Island
since he was the person who gives account of who is buried there and the
description of the surrounding landscape found in the French perlesvaus is
obviously taken from Melkin’s original accounts.
Whether or not Arthur was
widely acknowledged to be buried in the Isle of Avalon, prior to the
proliferation of the Grail material is unknown but seems probable based upon
the assumption that it was Melkin who is responsible for the source from which
Geoffrey of Monmouth proclaims Athur’s burial place.
We cannot be sure of the name of that Island at that date when Melkin wrote, but as will become clear that Melkin knew it was the old Ictis of the Greek and Latin chroniclers. He would hardly have created a puzzle naming the Island of Avallonis as the island in which Joseph and Arthur were buried, if the name of that Island had that particular appellation at that time. This would negate the purport of the riddle and for this reason we can assume that it was Melkin who is responsible for the name Avalon.
We cannot be sure of the name of that Island at that date when Melkin wrote, but as will become clear that Melkin knew it was the old Ictis of the Greek and Latin chroniclers. He would hardly have created a puzzle naming the Island of Avallonis as the island in which Joseph and Arthur were buried, if the name of that Island had that particular appellation at that time. This would negate the purport of the riddle and for this reason we can assume that it was Melkin who is responsible for the name Avalon.
By the twelfth century,
two of the greatest personages in ancient British history, Arthur and Joseph,
are confirmed to lie in the same location at Avalon. Glastonbury's reputation
however rested on rumour with neither tomb to exhibit, and proof was necessary
to encourage pilgrims to come to the Abbey.
William of Malmesbury and
Geoffrey of Monmouth in their respective writings as we have mentioned do not
make a connection between Avalon and Glastonbury, so evidently, at the time
that they wrote, no propaganda was yet employed in Glastonbury. Geoffrey of
Monmouth, Gildas and Nennius had all given an account of King Arthur and his
battles and there was generally a resurgence of interest in the British hero
that also brought fresh reminders of the Isle of Avalon into popular
consciousness at the advent and proliferation of the Grail materials arrival in
Britain.
It was circa 1190 A.D with a probable prior
seeding from Henry of Blois (an abbot of Glastonbury) that Glastonbury as an
institution came up with the idea to establish unequivocally the location of
the Isle of Avalon as Glastonbury.
It is from extracts in
William of Malmesbury’s ‘Gesta Regnum’ (copied into the margin), John of
Glastonbury and the Magna Tabula, that we hear of Melkin’s prophecy, which
speaks of the Isle of Avalon. The monks would have considered that if they were
to unearth Joseph of Arimathea, naturally there would have to be miracles, to
coincide with Melkin’s prophecy. The Prophecy foretells of this, but to produce
the ‘duo fassula’ (the vessel synonymous with the Holy Grail) might prove
difficult, because no-one was quite sure of its form. Even the Glastonbury
monks might have realised that a false representation of the Grail might be
sacrilege. The Monks however would be attuned to that part of the prophecy that
predicted ‘the whole world would be in attendance’ and this would be good for
the Abbey coffers. The fallacious assumption of some commentators today that
the Prophecy of Melkin is a 12th century fraud is based upon several erroneous
assumptions which we shall get to shortly.
The real practical problem
that Glastonbury Abbey had, if they were to fabricate a discovery of Joseph’s
tomb, was that they would have to reveal the Holy Grail to the world, known
then as the ‘duo fassula’ or the Graal and not even the monks were certain what
the Holy Grail consisted of, so there could be later catastrophic ramifications
if it then got discovered. If they unveiled Arthur however, the practical
problems of having to produce a Grail like object could be overcome. They would
still be able to confirm Glastonbury as the Isle of Avalon, conferring on their
Abbey, the even greater honour of having Joseph of Arimathea buried within
their grounds, even if he was never going to be located.
Leland, who was an early
writer partly responsible for the continuation of much of the Glastonbury
polemicism, states that he actually held the cross found at Arthur’s grave, in
his hands. However, as we shall find out, the fact that Leland had in his
possession such a cross in no way adds credibility to the ruse created by the
monks of Glastonbury that had already transpired. The monks at the abbey,
unveiling the tomb and producing a cross does not prove that Arthur himself was
buried there. After all, who in their right mind would stipulate on the cross
where the place was that it was going to be found in. Its sole purpose was to
locate Arthur in Avalon which vicariously locates Joseph there by their
eagerness in the epitaph to locate the tomb in the Isle of Avalon.
The pyramids however,
marking "King Arthur's Grave," are shown on a plan displayed at
Glastonbury Abbey today, which also indicates the site of the shrine to which
his remains and those of Guinevere’s were later relocated.
The Grail romances relate
that King Arthur, had troublesome relatives, the worst of whom was his sister
Morgan Le Fey, and his nephew Mordred. Arthur’s sister wanted his throne for
her lover, but Mordred, Arthur’s nephew, (or as some romances relate), his son,
by his other sister Morgawse, usurped Arthur’s throne while he was off battling
abroad. Arthur returned and suffered serious injuries in a battle with Mordred
to retake his throne, eventually killing Mordred, but King Arthur had been
fatally wounded in the fight for his kingdom. It is said that he was taken to
the Isle of Avalon where it was hoped that he would be healed from his wounds.
It must have been
understood by the originator of this material or more likely by the people
transferring Arthur for a specific reason, that the Island of Avalon must have
been a place on which miracles took place. This concurs with the perception
held by Melkin in his prophecy. What, it
must be asked, would convey sanctity to such a place except a connection with
Jesus or possibly Joseph of Arimathea? What the High History of the Grail does not
emphatically state is that the coffin of Jesus is on the Island, but it does
give every other hint that this is the case. Between the lines of the different
scenarios in the branches of the work, it becomes very clear that this is being
stated subliminally.
Arthur is said, as we have mentioned, to be
buried in the Isle of Avalon and that someday he would return to his people.
This brief prophetic suggestion was probably caused by the fact that no-one
knew what happened to him or where he had been taken and stems from rumour
created in the interim before Arthur was declared to be buried in Avalon by
Melkin. This rumour still existed to the time when Thomas Malory tells us that
'some men say in many parts of England that King Arthur is not dead, but had by
the will of our Lord Jesus into another place, and men say that he shall come
again, and shall win the Holy Crosse.'
The fact that a Grail source, originating supposedly in France and Melkin’s Prophecy from Britain, both confer on Avalon some miraculous status, would appear to suggest that there is a common understanding between these works. What exactly does it mean that Arthur would return to his people except that he was lost to them and no-one knew where his gravesite really was. When Joseph of Arimathea is uncovered, it will be discovered that Arthur is buried with him………then he will be returned to his people, but only one man could know of his whereabouts, the same person who says who else is buried also in the Island of Avalon, from having seen the tin vault and what it contained.
The fact that a Grail source, originating supposedly in France and Melkin’s Prophecy from Britain, both confer on Avalon some miraculous status, would appear to suggest that there is a common understanding between these works. What exactly does it mean that Arthur would return to his people except that he was lost to them and no-one knew where his gravesite really was. When Joseph of Arimathea is uncovered, it will be discovered that Arthur is buried with him………then he will be returned to his people, but only one man could know of his whereabouts, the same person who says who else is buried also in the Island of Avalon, from having seen the tin vault and what it contained.
Let us assume for the
moment that the Grail stories are based on elements of historical facts about
Arthur and not everything in the Grail stories is fabricated. Arthur, whose
reputed castle lay at Tintagel, would have been fighting near that location
with Mordred, having just returned from abroad, suggesting this last battle
took place down in Cornwall. Instead thinking of Glastonbury as an island, why
not go to the Isle of Avalon that is by the sea, as is attested in numerous
places in our investigation. We may have a glimpse that this could not apply to
Glastonbury but a real coastal island. Geoffrey of Monmouth says:
It
was there we took Arthur after the battle of Camlan where he had been wounded,
Barin thus was the steersman because of his knowledge of the seas and the stars
of heaven. With him at the tiller of the ship, we arrived there with the
prince; and Morgen received us with due honour. She put the king in her chamber
on a golden bed, uncovered his wound with her noble hand and looked long at it.
At length she said he could be cured if only he stayed with her a long while
and accepted her treatment. We therefore happily committed the king to her care
and spread our sails to favourable winds on our return journey.
The whole aura of the
Grail was that it was not just an object originally and what has made it hard
to identify is its duality. The Grail is the body of Jesus contained in the
Grail Ark and also the objective understanding of a heightened consciousness
that becomes aware of a divine plan. This sound incomprehensible at first, but
as we progress the reader will then understand why it has been so difficult to
pinpoint what the grail is in the past. It is the understanding of this divine
plan that explains the Grail’s appearance and disappearance and the Grail
castles construct becomes synonymous with the gradual steps to gnosis. Many
readers will think we are straying into the unreal at this point but if we can
produce the body of Jesus the rest of the evidence will fit into place.
A
un jor d'une Acenssion / Fu venuz de vers Carlion / Li rois Artus et tenu ot /
Cort molt riche a Camaalot / Si riche com au jor estut.
Upon a certain Ascension
Day having come from Caerleon, King Arthur had held a very magnificent court at
Camelot as befits such a day.
This is the common translation
that gives location to Camelot but here Chrétien de Troyes mentions it just in
passing……… as King Arthur holds court after having come from Carlion, which
according to Geoffrey of Monmouth was his main castle. However, Camelot
originated from this French source that Chretien used and only later was it
developed as a city of consequence and then as an alternative location to
Tintagel.
By Chrétien’s own
attestation, he is using a source for his romance, so let us assume this source
is called the ’Book of the Grail’ and this transliteration from ‘Shir ha Ma'a
lot’ to Camelot was either made by the previous authors translation from the
Latin to the French from which Chrétien was now using or it might just have
been fitted into the text due to Chrétien’s lack of understanding of how it
fits in.
It seems that the grail
has the element of quest attached to it which is part of its essence in the
search for it. It would appear that this (the ‘Shir ha Ma'a lot’ relationship
with the Grail) is the root of the element of quest that was weaved into the
romances. One gets the feeling from the haltering of Chrétien’s flow and the
change in direction of his story, that he is following an unclear plot that he
does not fully grasp.
There are only two people
who are eligible to have brought this depth of understanding to Britain
(especially being conveyed in Hebrew); either Jesus or Joseph of Arimathea.
This casual reference to Camaalot, translated from the original Latin Grail
book into French relates to the Ascension of the Temple. This also has been
confused with Ascension Day(instead of in manner ascending) by Chrétien and
then subsequently, it has metamorphosed into a mythical castle by other Grail
writers working from his work. Camelot subsequently became a city of
architectural beauty becoming fixed ( where the court existed) in Arthurian
literature, eventually having geographical reference……… and thus the birth of a
legendary city which was unable to be found.
Chrétien’s source
material, as the reader will see as we probe deeper, was written by Melkin in
his ‘Book of the Grail’ owned eventually by Eleanor of Aquitaine who was patron
to Chrétien. Through Eleanor’s Templar connections, the ‘Troubadours’
romanticised and extrapolated version upon version sometimes including the
names of courtly figures. With all the various Grail legends that originated
from a common source, the sense of original source material has become barely
recognisable. This propagation was carried out mainly by the courts of Europe
and the Templars that frequented them,but a body of ‘illuminati’ hiding within
the hierarchy of the order, who knew of the real truths that were held within
this book were responsible for erecting the St.Michael dedicated churches that
lead to the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
It seems highly unlikely
that a wounded King Arthur was laid out on a horse and cart and driven all the
way to Glastonbury after his fight with Mordred or Medrawd. It was said that
the death of Arthur was concealed for quite a time and a wild story was
diffused among the populace that he had withdrawn to some magical region, from
which, at a future crisis he would suddenly reappear. What is more likely is
that the legendary Island of Ictis which Joseph possibly owned and the Isle of
Avalon are one and the same place. Arthur was taken there, where all his
forbears had been anointed as kings, touched with the oil of the Grail Ark.
Arthur was cognisant of who was in the Grail ark and those that brought him
there were hoping for a miracle to cure his wounds. This assumption becomes all
the more credible if Arthur, who was genealogically related to Joseph, knew
that Jesus was buried in the same place as Joseph. Would not the island’s
proximity to Arthur’s battleground just 40 miles away, make it a more likely
resting place than Glastonbury? It is more plausible that Arthur was carried to
the Isle of Avalon (still living), in the hope of a miraculous recovery, where
lore had it, even prior to Melkin, that great miracles would be or had been
worked there.
This belief in the
miraculous, associated with the Island, was subsequently corroborated in
Melkin’s prophecy, although posited as happening at a future date when the
location is discovered. Certainly this secretive repair to the Island of Avalon
would explain the delay of Arthur’s death being published abroad and why is it
that such an illustrious figure was not known by William of Malmesbury to be
buried at Glastonbury?
Melkin was held in such
high regard by ancient writers as we are informed, but many say he lived prior
to Arthur and Merlin. Gildas may make reference to Melkin under another name
but this name could be confused with Merlin. As we shall see, if Melkin wrote
the ‘Book of the Grail’ from which the Grail writers and some Welsh material derived;
he would have been the one who supplied the information that Arthur was buried
in Avalon and it must follow that Melkin then lived after Arthur or latterly
contemporaneously, to record this information. Geoffrey of Monmouths’ writings
also relate much about Arthur, but this information would have come from
Melkin’s other writings that remained in Britain as opposed to the Book of the
Grail that went to France. By the last chapter the reader will understand that
the book of The Grail referred to by Helinand may indeed have been written in
France.
King Arthur’s tomb, stated
by both of the twelfth century historians, Ralph of Coggeshall and Giraldus
Cambrensis, and from the thirteenth century monk Adam of Domerham, is said to
have been found in 1191 in the old cemetery of the monastery at Glastonbury
with the leaden cross. Adam of Domerham even says that curtains may have
surrounded the site during the unearthing which smacks of a fraudulent
endeavour.
He was said to have been
found alone by Ralph of Coggeshall, Adam of Domerham and the aforementioned
Leland. He is said to have been found with Guinevere by Giraldus Cambrensis, a
Bishop alive at the time of the events, and with obvious intent to link Arthur
to Glastonbury:
The
memory of Arthur, the famous king of the Britons, is not to be suppressed,
forasmuch as of the excellent monastery of Glastonbury, of which he also was
the patron, he had been in his days, a principal benefactor and magnificent
benefactor, Histories much extol him : for, before all the churches of his
realm, he most loved and promoted, the church of the holy mother of God, Mary
of Glastonbury : whence, when the warlike man was alive, in the fore part of
his shield, he had caused to be painted the image of the blessed virgin ; that
internally, he might always have her, in the contest before his eyes, whose
feet also, when he was in the moment of engagement, he had accustomed to kiss
with the greatest devotion. His body however, which, as fantastic in the end
and as it were, by a spirit, translated to a great distance, neither to death
obnoxious, fables have been feigned in these our burying ground, hid very deep
in the earth in a hollow oak and marked with wonderful, and as it were,
miraculous tokens, was found and, into the church, with honour, translated, and
to a marble tomb decently commended : whence, also, a leaden cross, a stone
being put under it, not infixed on the upper part, as it is wont, ought to be,
rather in the lower part which we, also, have seen, for we have handled it, contained
these letters, not rising up and standing out, but more within, turned to the
stone :
‘Hic
iacet sepultus inclitus rex Arthurius in insula Avallonia cum uxore sua secunda
wenneveria’ -Here lies buried King Arthur in the Isle of Avalon with his second
wife Guinevere.
Figure 13. Showing the
cross found in king Arthur’s grave shown in the 1607 edition of Camden’s
Britannia. The inscription is not consistent with any known sixth century
script and experts place the lettering as tenth century and this does not
mention Guinevere.
It certainly seems that Guinevere
was a later invention to concur with the High History but even if Arthur did
have two wives, why was there only one body found originally, as attested by
other witnesses. It was Geoffrey of Monmouth in his history of the Kings of
Britain who says that after the battle in Cornwall at river Camlann, Arthur was taken to Avalon
for the healing of his wounds. Geoffrey in no way indicates where the Isle of
Avalon is, and William of Malmesbury who wrote before him said Arthur’s resting
place was unknown. It would seem however he was aware that Arthur was buried in
Avalon, but did not know of the Islands location and this evidence negates
Glastonbury from being synonymous with Avalon until later.
It seems as if we can
ignore the witness of Giraldus Cambrensis as polemic, even if the monks had not
stated that they had re-buried two bodies; then in 1278 had them disinterred
again and put them on show with the two skulls for Edward I and Queen Eleanor
as those of Arthur and his Queen Guinevere. The bones were, after this showing,
then reinterred once more in a tomb in front of Glastonbury’s high altar.
The high altar was eventually broken up in the
dissolution of the monasteries and the bones are no longer to be found. The
monks set out to convey upon themselves the burial site of such an illustrious
figure, just as surely as they had done with their claims that Joseph of
Arimathea was buried somewhere within the Abbey grounds. The monks of course,
could only do this by laying claim to the fact that Glastonbury was an island
at one time and thus making more credible their claim with much contrived
ensuing etymology. Glastonbury’s tenuous association with Joseph of Arimathea
is shown by the very fact that the monks relied on the corroboration of this
ancient prophecy .i.e they had to turn Glastonbury tor into the Island which,
(as the subject of the prophecy) locates Joseph. The Church had to be made of
Wattle which we shall cover shortly and a line must be found at Glastonbury, so
the whole prophecy about the tomb being found on a bifurcated line sounded
convincing and that the prophecy was seen to apply to Glastonbury abbey.
The fact that the original
church may well have been dedicated to the Virgin Mary is of little doubt and
is surely the only genuine common parallel with the prophecy…… and may well
have been the one solid association upon which the monks were to base their
fraud……even though the ‘adorandam virginem’ part of the puzzle does not apply
to the virgin Mary, but gives specific directions on the island.
This all goes to show that
Glastonbury’s various attempts to mimic certain facts supplied in the prophecy
indicates clearly that it is the prophecy which would establish the
authority(to the monks) of an association with Joseph……… upon which the
Glastonbury myth is based.
It would be the prophecy
that would supply the credibility for their claim as Avalon if other pertinent
parts of the prophecy could also be made to marry with Glastonbury. This also
shows that the scholars who say that the prophecy was a later invention of the
12-13th century, designed originally to prove the existence of Joseph of
Arimathea within the abbey grounds makes little sense. Up until the present,
the prophecy has remained mute and largely meaningless so if this was their
intention,why not make it clearer. Now the riddle is decoded, it points to a
completely different island in Devon with established connections to Joseph of
Arimathea…… an amazing coincidence for a puzzle supposed to be an invention.
Not only that, but the Goegraphic description in some of the Branches only
highlight it was Burgh Island and the valleys south of Dartmoor they were
referring to.
Once Geoffrey of Monmouth
had written his Historia Regum Britanniae, King Arthur gained legendary status
and thus any association to him would have been beneficial to fraudulent monks
that were perpetrating these mistruths. The original intent however, was laying
claim to Joseph of Arimathea's relics, which of course had direct links to
Jesus himself. Much undue analysis as to whether the cross unearthed along with
Arthur’s remains is the genuine article or not seems completely out of place
like so much other scholastic endeavour when the unequivocal answer is revealed.
The pyramids at
Glastonbury between which King Arthur was purportedly entombed……… we should
hear what the Rev William Henry Parr Greswell (1848-1923) says of evidence
supplied by Sir H. Spelman (1562-1641):
‘On
one of the ancient stone pyramids that used to stand before the cemetery of the
monks at Glastonbury, the name of Bregden was inscribed and according to Sir H
Spelman, this Bregden gave a name to " Brentacnoll and Brentmersh,"
just as a certain Logdor or Legder, (possibly an ancient chief), gave the name
of Logderesburg or Legdersbeorg to that other ancient possession of Glastonbury
Abbey, known since the Norman Conquest as Montacute, (Mons Acutus). Both hills,
like the famous Glastonbury Tor itself so having, Montacute claimed a chapel or
church, dedicated to St. Michael, that conspicuous saint of seafaring men.’
One of the pyramids had
inscribed on it the names, Brent Knoll, Montacute together at Glastonbury in
association with St. Michael. How old was the inscription, how old were the
pyramids, and were the pyramids there before Joseph of Arimathea built his
first church? Certainly the step pyramids were both covered with the names of
Saxon Bishops and leaders from the seventh century, but these questions need to
be asked and answered in the context of the more recently discovered St.
Michael Ley Line but we shall get there shortly.
John of Breynton was Abbot
of Glastonbury from 1334 to 1342, and John of Glastonbury's Cronica suggests
that he proactively advanced the standing of the Abbey and opposed moves by the
Abbey of Wells to dominate over them. Breynton was the Abbot in charge of the
Abbey archives while Glastonbury was enjoying a new resurgence of interest in
Joseph of Arimathea, due mostly, to the proliferation of the Romance stories
and their own manipulation of the prophecy of Melkin so that it appeared to
apply to Glastonbury. The romances had revitalized much interest in Arthur,
which the monks previously and miraculously had found on the grounds of the
Abbey about 150 years before hand.
The next abbot Walter de
Monington took over in 1342 AD and he was known to have kept the Abbey in
profit, and continued during his time to carry out building projects on the
estate grounds to improve its status and establish its ecclesiastical precedence.
John of Glastonbury's Cronica was finished just as Monington arrived at the
Abbey as Abbot. It was due to the amalgamation of all the prior sources of John
of Glastonbury's Cronica, much of the content revolving around Joseph of
Arimathea's mission to Glastonbury, that in 1345 they applied for a Royal
permit, to search Glastonbury grounds to unearth the body of Joseph of
Arimathea. By this time the Glastonbury monks had begun to believe the
propaganda of earlier generations, but Joseph was not found.
From when the next Abbot
Chinnock arrived on the scene in 1375 until 1420, big changes happened at
Glastonbury. In 1382 Chinnock restored the ruined chapel in the cemetery and
re-dedicated it to St. Michael and St Joseph of Arimathea, also adorning the
Abbey with excerpts from John of Glastonbury's Cronica in the main church
encouraging those who came into the Abbey to read of the legend. Anything that
promoted the Abbey by associating it still further with Joseph of Arimathea was
acceptable. The end result of all this self-promotion of Glastonbury Abbey was
at last, to be independent of the See of Wells, and through their associations
with the illustrious Arthur and Joseph, the Abbey continued to gain primacy,
wealth, and pilgrims.
Figure 20 Showing the remains of Glastonbury Abbey and King Arthur’s supposed
resting place in the foreground marked by the plaque seen in figure 21.
The Abbey at last, through its own propaganda, had freed itself from the pressures of royal taxes, interference from other Bishops and neighbouring landlords by its saintly supremacy, and its immoderate claim to an array of holy relics, that had been uncovered since the disinterring of Arthur's grave. Realistically, over this period of time, the chroniclers of Glastonbury Abbey had set out to increase the prestige of their own monastic order and this was mainly established by erroneous “proofs” of their past associations. In 1497 William Whyche wrote a continuation of John's Cronica and since John of Glastonbury very rarely wrote in his own words but mostly extracted from other sources, it is probably from this that some of the misrepresentations to Melkin’s prophecy really happened, if indeed they had not happened earlier. We know that John of Glastonbury recorded faithfully what others had said, without too much interpretation, but we do not know if we have any other source for the prophecy and that other chroniclers did not use John as their source. It would seem by William Whyche’s lection,( his later interpretation in his own words), that much of the errors of interpretation and interpolation from Melkin’s prophecy became even more exacerbated. In effect the Abbey chroniclers by degree, changed the purport of Melkin’s prophecy, but what we cannot be certain about is whether it was Melkin’s intention that later generations were to be misled into thinking that Avalon was Glastonbury. If it was known in the sixth century that the church at Glastonbury was originally built by Joseph, then there is a possibility of Melkin’s conscious misdirection. However, as we have witnessed already this seems unlikely as early chroniclers saw no connection between the unknown location of Glastonbury and Avalon. William of Malmesbury witnessing in his time that no explicit records had survived on the subject and that it was, therefore, to no avail to speculate further regarding the Joseph Tradition.
After Chinnock died,
Richard Bere 1492-1524, built a shrine to Joseph and established the coat of
arms of Glastonbury; using Evelak’s shield as an associative emblem, becoming
Joseph’s shield, which depicted a green knotted cross with Golden jug like beer
vessels on each side of the cross on the shield, with drops of blood dripping
down. This even further established the association of Joseph of Arimathea with
Glastonbury, as it now became their heraldic shield and confirmed the Abbey's
relationship with Melkin’s prophecy in that these jugs were synonymous with the
‘duo fassula’.
Figure 19a, Sixteenth century Glass in the Chapel of St. John showing the arms
of Glastonbury depicting the green gnarled cross from the thorny bush that
sprung from Jacobs staff which grows at Glastonbury. The heraldic shield is
probably based upon Evalak's shield, but depicts the misinterpretation of the
'duo fassula' as vessels containing the blood of Christ and the blood is
depicted by the droplets
Basically John's entire
Cronica is put together extracting verbatim from other sources, but wherever
possible the Glastonbury establishment’s tentative connections with Arthur and
Joseph were portrayed as more substantial than the previous sources. John's
main sources for his Cronica were William of Malmesbury, Ranulph Higdon,
Giraldus Cambrensis and Adam of Domerham. Much of his early Glastonbury
regurgitation came from William’s ‘De Antiquitae Glastonie Ecclessie’ which was
written in 1130. It can be seen from William’s later work, how his
‘Antiquitaes’ was unscrupulously meddled with, by a considerable number of
interpolations by scribes from the Glastonbury institution. Little by little,
and at every turn, over time, a false belief was established that Joseph was
buried at Glastonbury.
In William of Malmesbury’s
Gesta Regnum, this later work just referred to, he says ‘the Britons would have come utterly
to nought but for their new king Ambrosius the sole survivor of the Romans, who
kept the Saxons in check through the notable efforts of warlike Arthur’.
Then he follows on by
saying ‘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’; John of Glastonbury seeing things in
a completely different light, promoted Arthur as being an integral part of
Glastonbury's history.
It was Adam of Dommerham
writing before John who gave the account of the annexation of Glastonbury Abbey
to the See of Wells by Bishop Savaric and told of the visitation to Glastonbury
in 1278, of Edward I, when the tomb of Arthur was opened for the second time
and his bones were reinterred to the high altar. John of Glastonbury used many
sources when on the trail of Joseph of Arimathea, and gave quotes from the
gospel of Nicodemus, the Vulgate cycle of the Arthurian romances, which
included Robert de Boron's Merlin, Lancelot, Le Mort d’Arthur, Le Queste del
Saint Grail, the Estoire and of course from Melkin. It is from the Estoire that
John tells us of Joseph's release from prison and of his arrival in Britain and
the gift of ‘Ynis witrin’ from Arviragus and of his building of the wattled
church 31 years after the crucifixion.
One can see with all the
various sources that provided the Joseph and Arthur material from which John
drew; that it was bound to throw up conflicting information. It becomes muddled
though when he himself had a hidden agenda. What few people realise is that
much of this information had been revealed by the Book of the Grail and had
been embellished and corrupted by the Grail writers in France, but the initial
source for that book had been Melkin. The real reason that much of this
distorted information had arrived in Glastonbury was due to a previous Abbot,
Henry Blois and we will see what a large part he played in this saga shortly.
John of Glastonbury also
used as source material Giraldus Cambrensis who wrote two books ‘ De Principis
Instructione’ c. 1193-9 and his ‘Speculum Ecclesiae’ of c. 1217 both from
which, John sourced his material. It was from Giraldus’s first book that we
hear of the original discovery in 1191 of Arthur's body, but then in his second
book 20 years later, he wrote a different version where he dates the incident
to the reign of Henry II, but the king had died in 1189. In Giraldus’s first
book he tells of King Arthur having had a special devotion to St. Mary of
Glastonbury, of whose church he was a generous patron and whose image he
painted on his shield and kissed its feet in the hour of battle, as was quoted
above, but prior to this time, there was no connection between Arthur and the
church at Glastonbury. The root cause again for this fabrication is Glastonbury
trying to gain an association between its church and Arthur, purely because of
the ‘adorandam virginem’ mentioned in Melkin’s prophecy and the association of
the chapel with ‘Our Lady’ which the perlesvaus had said was where the Grail
was stored. This chapel was of course on an island named Avalon and it was
Arthur’s disinterrement that makes Glastonbury credibly synonymous with Avalon.
When Giraldus talks of
Arthur's body he says ‘fanciful
tales were told and that his body was carried off by spirits to remote regions,
and was not subject to death but one day would return’. After
Arthur’s disappearance he is reiterating the old rumours regarding what had
happened to Arthur. How could such a famous figure have no burial site except
the one fabricated by the Monks. Giraldus goes on to say ‘in our times it was discovered buried
deep in the earth in a hollow oak between the two stone pyramids in the
cemetery of Glastonbury’ and then goes on to quote another
version of Arthur’s burial with Guinevere just because the High History says
she is buried in the same place as Arthur (no one paying too much attention
that they were in two sepate tombs in that versionas she was buried before him).
Giraldus says ’two
thirds of the sepulchre contained the bones of the King. The remainder, those
of his wife, were at his feet with a yellow lock of the Queen's hair that
turned to dust when touched by a monk’. He then adds credibility
for the find by saying that, the brethren had become aware of the tomb’s
location ‘from writings,
which they possessed’ and other information was gleaned from
letters carved on the pyramids and then again through visions and revelations
made to some of their order. But most of all, it was King Henry, who had
plainly told them the whole matter as he had heard it from ‘an ancient
historical poet of the Britons’. Giraldus is trying to infer that it connects
King Henry with Melkin and thereby Melkin’s prophecy (which relates to Joseph
only), but by the inference now associates Arthur. King Henry could of course
have read the Perlesvaus the earlier edition of the High History but the only
information in that is that; the tomb is
under the Chapel and this is not where they disinterred his body. However it
should not go un-noticed that Henry was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine and as
we shall see, she and her family were the owners of the Book of the Grail.
Giraldus continues on to
say ‘how's that deep down, 16
feet below the ground’, should they dig, ‘they would find a body not in a
marble tomb but in a hollow oak’. The reference here to a
marble tomb was in fact drawing attention to an association with the well-known
prophecy intonating ‘unlike Joseph’s tomb of marble’. The word ’Marmore’ for
marble from Melkin’s prophecy has a completely different meaning ‘by the sea’
as the reader will be made aware, when we investigate the prophecy more deeply.
The reason Giraldus offers for the secrecy of this tomb and the fact that it
was buried so deep, was apparently a desire to hide the body from Arthur’s old
enemies the Saxons. The rational reason for having to discover a body at such
depths is most probably a gambit by the monks, covering the fact that previous
searches for Joseph in the same place, had never uncovered Arthur.
Then again Giraldus,
establishes Avalon with Glastonbury for posterity by saying ‘Glastonia was
anciently called ‘Insula Avalonia’, for it is an island surrounded by marshes;
wherefore in the British language it is named ‘Inis Avalon’, that is to say
Island of Apples. Then he relates that Morganis, who was ruler of these parts
and who was allied to King Arthur by blood carried him there after the battle
of ‘Kemale’ for the healing
of his wounds and now the island is called ‘Glastonia’.
He also relates that the island had been called in the British tongue ‘Inis
Gutrin’ which is ‘Insula Vitrea’ which the Saxons who came after, changed its
name to ‘Glastingburi’ because ‘Glas’ in their language is the same as ‘vitrum’
and ‘buri’ is like ‘castrum’, so rendering, Glastonbury.
Giraldus adding further
evidence to substantiate the Glastonbury claim, then goes on to relate that
King Arthur’s bones were of ‘enormous size and his shinbone came some distance
above the knee of the tallest man in this place, his head was prodigiously
large and it had 10 wounds or more, all of which had healed up except one’,
which seemed to indicate Arthur’s death blow.
The date given by Ralph of
Coggeshall, who wrote at the same time as Giraldus’ first account for the
unearthing of King Arthur’s bones was 1191. Ralph writes that they were found
when a grave was being dug for a monk who had specially desired to be buried
between the two pyramids. He also gives an alternative inscription on the
leaden cross not mentioning Queen Guinevere. Since the Guinevere connection is
only found in both of Giraldus’ accounts, it seems that he is the most guilty
of Glastonbury's self-promotion setting its history records conveniently on
course to concur with information given in Perlesvaus regarding Guinevere’s burial
with Arthur. This now renders the Perlesvaus’ location of Avalon at Glastonbury
thus laying claim to Joseph of
Arimathea's burial ground. As startling as it is, that three Glastonbury
chroniclers Ralph of Coggeshall, Giraldus and Leland all attest to having had
the lead cross discovered with Arthur in their possession, all three of them
were unable to agree exactly what was written on it.
Not only were there three
different renditions of what was written on the cross unearthed with Arthur,
one with Guinevere: ‘cum wenneveria uxore sua secunda’, but there was another
which came from Leyland, a witness who stated that he held the cross in his
hand circa 1540 and actually measured it. There are later chroniclers who give
a completely different translation: ‘hic jacet gloriosissimus Rex Britonum
Arturus’ (here lies the renowned British king Arthur) that it makes one wonder
what the cross, which the monks had obviously fabricated themselves, actually
had written upon it. Now we know why Giraldus found it necessary to introduce
Guinevere, (for he quotes the epitaph twice) to fit in with more recent
accounts of Arthur emanating through the romances, both accounts differ which
does highlight his invention. In the first quote, having ‘cum wenneveria uxore
sua secunda’ coming before ‘in insula Avallonia’ and in the second place after
it. Giraldus specifically says that he had read the quotes from the cross, so
we will never understand why, having gone to the trouble to fabricate the cross
in the first place, the Glastonbury chroniclers couldn't sing from the same
hymn sheet. It actually makes little difference what was written on the cross,
for its sole purpose was to establish Glastonbury as Avalon.
Figure 21 Showing the plaque in the ruins of Glastonbury Abbey today still insistent that Arthur is buried beneath. The situation of the plaque is shown in figure 20.
This era 1190, to 1230
when the Grail legends became prevalent, was the time when it became a
necessity for Glastonbury to find a solution to its problem. To maintain its
independence and ecclesiastical standing, its status and primacy, it had to be
three things; the burial place of Joseph, the burial place of Arthur, and the
Island of Avalon. As long as it could maintain to the world that these things
were true, it would always remain a sacred placed thus attracting pilgrim alms.
It was due to the proliferation of the Grail romances and their connection with
Joseph and Arthur that at this time it shone a light on Avalon and thus the
need to be the location where such illustrious personages were interred.
Just to recap then……after Geoffrey’s book had reached popular consciousness stating that Arthur was buried in the Isle of Avalon and Grail literature confirmed it; it was necessary for Glastonbury to produce King Arthur. (Geoffrey’s source for this information was one of the books left in Britain by Melkin). The discovery of Arthur in the Abbey cemetery in 1191 established that Glastonbury was the Island of Avalon, the island that is the subject of Melkin's prophecy. The Perlesvaus also concurred that the Grail was on Avalon. The obvious inference was that Joseph was buried there also. This quick transmutation, has been pointed out already because when William of Malmesbury looked through Glastonbury's records in 1120 and from the time when Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his history of the Kings of Britain in 1135, neither of them up to that date had ever associated Avalon, with Glastonbury and as we have covered already, William of Malmesbury asserting that King Arthur’s burial place was unknown.
It is for this reason most scholars believe the prophecy to be a fake of the twelvth or thirteenth century. Why, one must ask, are the monks so keen to associate the abbey with this prophecy if it is merely a fabrication? Why, if it is a fabrication do the three clear instructions contained within it, point to the place where Joseph is buried which just happens to be an island by the sea which coincidentally used to sell tin and the main protagonist supposed to be buried on the island was a tin merchant?. If this is not enough why is Avalon in the Vales of the west unlike Glastonbury. This prophecy was anything but a fake and because of this the monks had to mould their features to it, not the other way round. Besides if you clearly want to indicate that Joseph of Arimathea is at Glastonbury why spend so much energy reinventing onself as Avalon to fit anothers format. Why not create a much clearer puzzle that says ‘Joseph is here’ rather than creating a riddle (that no-one understands) and that points exactly to an Island in Devon where according to the Perlesvaus (the other authority for Avalon), the geographical features fit the location at the sea and of course explain the title of the book………Through,across or around these Valleys.
As William wrote a
comprehensive history of Glastonbury ‘De antiquitae Glatoniensis ecclesie’
around 1130 which related many legends in connection with the Abbey, but made
no mention of either Arthur's grave or a connection of Glastonbury to the name
Avalon, it becomes plain that Glastonbury is not Avalon.
So it would seem that
between the dates of 1135 and 1191, the plan was hatched to produce Arthur
probably taking place due to necessity straight after the Abbey fire. The
contemporary authors of the time of the discovery gave different reasons for
Arthur suddenly being disinterred. Giraldus in his ‘de Instructione Principis’
written in 1193, relates that King Henry had been informed by the Welsh Bard
that Arthur’s body would be found in this exact location 16 feet beneath the
ground. However, Ralph of Coggeshall writing a few years after the disinterment
says that Arthur's grave was found haphazardly as a grave was being prepared
for one of the monks of the Abbey, who had asked to be buried between the two
pyramids that existed just outside the Abbey. Both of these writers seemed to
be relating inconsequential narrative, but one wonders why it was so essential
to proffer a reason for having uncovered Arthur’s bones, and like so many polemicists,
they are seen to be entrapped in their own guile.
Where there is a
connection there is often a grain of truth that lays behind the rumour. In 1152
Eleanor became engaged to Henry II who became King in 1154. Eleanor had a
strong connection to Melkin’s Book of the Grail as we shall find out and since
no one knew at this stage where Avalon was, it seems likely that the Queen
having come from France had informed King Henry of the ‘Matter of Britain’.
King Henry died in 1189 two years before Arthur’s supposed unearthing. The only
place in England to have a Joseph tradition (except Cornwall and that was just
as a visitor) was Glastonbury. The business of ‘Aviragus and the twelve hides’
as Glastonbury tradition may have pervaded along with rumours of the churches
founder.
Eleanor knew both Arthur and Joseph were
buried in Avalon, so are Henry and Eleanor with their proprietary knowledge
from the Book of the Grail, responsible for emboldening the Monks to make the
connection between their tradition of Joseph and that of the emergent King
Arthur from the Grail stories, both buried in Avalon. This could well have been
the doing of Henry Blois, who initially planted the seed that Avalon was
Glastonbury. However, Joseph could not be produced for reasons given already,
so the monks duly uncover Arthur out of necessity, requiring funds from
pilgrims to rebuild.
Arthur’s body was never in
reality discovered and as we shall reveal shortly, it is still buried in the
Island of Avalon. Even though, in all probability, Joseph had in fact
established the first church at Glastonbury, the real reason for the inventions
propagated by Glastonbury, were due to the fact that in 1184, the Abbey had
been burnt down. What does again seem a little convenient to fit with Melkin’s ‘adorable
virgin’ translation is the consecration in 1186 of the ‘Lady Chapel’ at
Glastonbury Abbey straight after the fire which Dugdale says was ‘better known
as the chapel of Saint Joseph’. By
strange coincidence this just happens to be the appellation of the Grail chapel
in the Perlesvaus. This tends to show
the churches traditional connection to Joseph but implies a later wish to carry
that association further to comply with Melkin’s ‘adorandam virginem’ or ‘Our Lady’ which puts the ‘oratori’ in Avalon.
The ancient manuscripts
that would have provided Glastonbury with evidence of its illustrious past had
been burnt along with other books Melkin had written that remained in Britain.
One however, the ‘Book of the Grail’ had left for France in the Saxon era after
the death of Arthur; the historical content of which was slowly filtering back
into Britain, but it was now transformed and barely recognisable as the same
Joseph heritage upon which Glastonbury had its reputation before the fire. The
version was now mixed with arcane ancient knowledge derived from the Jerusalem
temple that had been intermingled with historical accounts of Jesus’ death that
involved Joseph’s journey with his body in an oil filled coffin to an island
and allegorical accounts of mixed iconography and anachronistic muddled
relationships of the illustrious bloodline that followed for the ensuing 400
years after Joseph’s arrival.
This was all accomplished
by troubadours who were not aware of the substance of the source from which
they composed their tales. These troubadours encouraged and commissioned by
European courtiers, most of whom at this time were either Templars or were
connected to them, were at the centre of court entertainment. How flattering if
one of their names were weaved into these tales as the rest of the court
listened on.
This Grail material
concerning Joseph as it filtered into Britain must have trivialised what the
‘Glastonbury institution’ had previously viewed as their monopoly, by virtue of
possessing the wattle church. By association with the wattle church and Joseph,
they needed a quick fix to re-establish themselves as the only serious location
to have direct historical associations with Joseph now these foreign romances
had infiltrated and told of Avalon the same as Melkin had done. The ploy worked
and the discovery of Arthur’s body, accompanied by the ‘Leaden Cross’ found
with it, not only spelled out the location it was found in, but was immediately
accepted as genuine. The Glastonbury institution gained enormously from this
promotion and from that date forward Arthur and Glastonbury were inextricably
linked.
Establishing Joseph’s
connection with Glastonbury however, remained a little more elusive. It was
through William of Malmesbury who tells us how St. Joseph was sent over by St.
Philip, and how a king of Britain, (to who he gives no name), gave Joseph and
his companions the island called ‘Ynyswitryn’, where, by admonition of the
Archangel Gabriel appearing to him in a vision, he built a chapel which he dedicated
to the Virgin, but this could of course be later interpolation. After which two
other kings, whom again he does not name, gave the twelve holy men the ‘Twelve
Hides’ of Glastonbury. It was through William relating that St. Philip had sent
Joseph of Arimathea to proselytise the British, that Glastonbury (if genuine)
had written precedent and this was only by way of an ‘ut ferunt’ meaning ‘as is
reported’. So after William had casually alluded to Joseph, it was not until St
Patrick's Charter was fortuitously found in 1220 in the chapel at the top of
the tor that Joseph's name was concretely linked to Glastonbury as having been
of ancient standing.
It seems apparent that this was in fact a
fabrication of a non-existent document, supposedly burnt in the fire, which had
been fortuitously duplicated and therefore coincidentally saved for posterity.
For every monastic order, church or Abbey, it was essential to have as its
head, a patron saint and Joseph was Glastonbury's, by a long-standing tradition
not able to be substantiated except by a now fired wattle church. After the
first fire, the re-establishment or firming up of Joseph’s connection with
Glastonbury came mainly through John of Glastonbury's Cronica, which was
written in 1340 and this as we have seen, consolidated all the previous
chroniclers to concur that Glastonbury was the Isle of Avalon.
Geoffrey of Monmouth
established the Welsh Arthurian tradition and Merlin prophecies which must have
come from a Melkin source originally(as it tells of Arthur in Avalon), while
England had an already established Joseph tradition based upon Melkin's
manuscripts and especially latterly through the massaging of the prophecy of
Melkin. Arthur was king of Dumnonia, the Belerion of Pytheas, that nowadays
constitutes most of Devon and Cornwall. However it would seem that this Kingdom
of long standing, possibly started by the descendants of Zarah (island of
Sarras), grew from the valleys south of Dartmoor (that at Joseph’s arrival was
fully forrested south of the moors) and
incorporated as far away as Tintagel in the west and possibly as far as
Glastonbury in the east.
This is kind of reiterated in the attestation
in the Life of Gildas related by Caradoc of Llancarvan. He states that the King
of Somerset had carried off King Arthur's wife, Guinevere, so that King Arthur
brought up the whole forces of Cornwall and Devon to affect her release.
It is not known how widely
Melkin’s works had permeated into other monasteries before the dissolution but
it would appear there had been a suppression of his work in Saxon times.
Melkin's manuscripts or even fragments of them, could still have existed before
the dissolution, at the Abbey, as is attested, however the material
extrapolated from them is scantly recorded. Melkin arrived in popular
consciousness at the production of John of Glastonbury's Cronica quoting
directly from the book of Melkin. It seems likely that Geoffrey of Monmouth's
British ‘book of great antiquity’ which he says is his source, could have been
one of Melkin's manuscripts, but Geoffrey had flights of fantasy and may have
used Melkin’s work for ideas that eventually metamorphosed Arthur into a
consolidated British king.
The other reference we
have that there was a Book of Melkin, is from John Hardyng’s English history
and he tells us citing Melkin as the source, that Joseph of Arimathea baptised
King Aviragus and that Scotland was named after Scota the daughter of a
Pharaoh, indicating by this new detail that he had seen another source quoting
Melkin or a copy of his book was still extant after the fire. There is no
reason to disbelieve Hardyng and it is interesting to note that Melkin probably
understood more about a connection with Egypt, than is commonly accepted, but
the subject is related in a muddled fashion by the Grail romances. Hardyng also
says, as if he were quoting Melkin directly, Galahad created the order of the
knights of Saint Graall, and was made King of Sarras, and that Galahad would
achieve the Grail, and mentions the configuration of the table of the Knights.
‘Where
thenne he (Galahad) made twelve knightes of the Saint Graal,in full
signifycacyon of the table which Joseph was the founder, at Avalon, as Mewyn
(Melkin) made relacyon; in token of the table refyguracyon, of the brotherhede
of Christes souper and maundie, afore his death,of highest dignytee’.
Not only did Hardyng
introduce previously unrecorded information from Melkin, but refers to him
directly in the above text. This does imply that a book written by Melkin
mentioning Avalon apart from Melkin’s prophecy had survived in Britain because
one of his books is said to have been about Arthur and the round Table. However
the very mention of ‘Saint Graal’ means that Hardyng has definitely sourced
French material also.
Hardying has a problem with Scota however and calls
her(and therby the Scots) ‘Doughte and bastard of kyng Pharao’. To Hardying the
belief in the story of Joseph of Arimathea and the Holy Grail fitted in with
his political agenda of the right of the English to rule Scotland which may
have been just a reaction against a Scottish aspersion that Arthur was a
Bastard.
‘Mewynus
the cronycler in Britayne tonge full fine’ is mentioned only in Hardyings short Chronicle
as if he were newly discovered. Hardying definitely had heard of Melkin’s
prophecy because he refers to Joseph being buried at Glastonbuy along with his
two ‘fyls’ as mentioned in the long version,
but ‘Mewynus’ does not get a mention by name in that earlier long version. In the short version however melkin is referred
to five times, but he does not mention the phials in this version which might
suggest when writing the long version he had not known of the derivation of the
information regarding Joseph and the two phials. He seems to have come across a
book in the interim and that book was written by Melkin.
Hardyngs first reference in the short version to
Mewynus was as his source for Joseph’s
conversion of King Arviragus:
‘Joseph
converte this kynge Arviragus
By
his prechynge to knowe the lawe devyne
And
baptised hym as wretn hath Mewynus
The
cronycler in Britayne tonge full fine.’
Scholars seem to
think Melkin did not exist because why would he have written such a strange
puzzle. It is easier to think that he
and his prophecy are an invention but then why are chronichlers always appealing to him as a
sound and acient witness. It is even posited that Hardyng in this last extract
is using the word ‘Mewynus’ to rhyme with Arviagus which is extraordinary. I
think the gift of Avalon by Arviragus to Joseph is confused with the twelve
hides that may have been given at Glastonbury. If we assume Hardyng has just
got this book since the Long version came out and this new information
concerning the Shield of Evalak and Avalon is genuinely exposed in this British
book and has not come from Grail literature. This cannot be proved but to think that there
was no Melkin and there was no book that Hardying is referencing is plain
ridiculous. Just because scholars can’t work out the puzzle it does not mean
that it is a twelveth or thirteenth invention. Why invent something no-one
understands?
Anyway, Scholars tend to think that- because Hardying
does not have Arviragus convert in the first long version and then susequently
convert in the later shorter version, Mewynus
is a fabrication. Mewynus is just a
devise used for a rhyme with Arviragus to add credibility to the conversion
story and therefore Mewynus as a source not genuine.
Melkin is Mewyn
because the name Mewyn pops up only two verses later in Hardyngs text on the subject of the
red-cross shield which Joseph presents to Arviragus yet we know it was Evalaks
shield and as we will discuss later this was an ancient source that provided
this material and so it reiterates the fact that Melkin is Mewyn.
‘The
Armes were used in all Britayne
For
comoun signe eche man’ to knowe his nacioune
Fro his
enemyse which nowe we call certayne
Seynte
Georges armes by Mewyns ynformacioun
Which
armes here were hade after Crist passioun
Full
longe afore seynt George was generate
Were
worshipped hee of Mekell elder date.’
If Hardyng had invented his source to substantiate his
theory (substantiating primary establishment of Chrisianity over Scotland) and proof
derived from antiquity; why appeal to Mewyn, if as most say, he was a fabrication
or even his prophecy was. Hardyng was
accessing information from a Melkin Manuscript because by appealing to Melkin
he makes credible his claims of ancient English association with Joseph as his
critics would know that there is no older source to appeal to.
Now the next reference to Mewyn comes when Hardyng
again casts aspersions on the antecedents of the Scots and after referring to
an account in the ‘Historia regnum Britannie’ which states that the Scots are
descended from intermarriage of the picts and the Irish…….clearly here he is
referencing Melkin as a respected source as he says Melkin is contradicting this
view.
‘But Mewynus the
Briton cronyclere
Saith in his
cronycles other wise’.
In his first and longer version he had simply followed
Goeffrey of Monmouth’s account, but now he had come across Melkin who he
respects……… so he then goes on to rather
give his more correct account that the Scots had descended from the marriage of
Gadolus and Pharaoh’s Daughter Scota as we mentioned before.
‘This Scota was as
Mewyn the Sage saith Doughter and bastarde of Kynge Pharao that day’.
We know that Melkin wrote a book and it deals with King
Arthur in connection with the Siege Perilous.
‘Which Joseph saide
afore tyyme full’ longe
In Mewyns boke the
Britouns cronyclere
As wreytn’ is the
Brritouns Iestes amonge
That Galahaad the
Knyght and virgyne clere
Shuld it escheue………’
If Mewyns book were being confused with Merlyns from
Geoffrey how does this follow then in the next verse
‘But the Knyghtes
all than’of the Rounde Table
Conseived well and
fully than beleued
He was the same
person incomparable
Of whom Merlyne
said ever shuld be well cheued
This has to be the
Melkynus of John of Glastonbury’ .
Hardying says that Joseph was endowed with Avalon and
Joseph baptizes Arviragus and shows him a figure of ‘Cristes
pyne’ and gives him a shield bearing a red cross ‘of his own blode whiche from his neck
did rynne’
Hardyngs real intent is more engaged in letting the
reader know that…….. from ancient antiquity is this story of the establishment
of the cross of St George. Of course the primacy this would establish of having
been connected with Joseph of Arimathea is the goal…i.e comoun signe eche man to knowe his
nacioun/from hys enemyse’…. thus establishing from antiquity St.
George as patron saint of the Garter and of England.
Hardyng reveals that Galaad travels to Avalon to get
Joseph’s Shield with the red cross which he takes to the Holy land but when he
dies his heart is brought back to Avalon :
‘It to entere at
Avalon anente
The sepultur and very
monument
Whare Joseph lyeth
of Aramathy so gode’…
This
could well be the Avalon as an Island by the Sea that we are seeing as the one
meant by Melkin rather than the fictitious one at Glastonbury created by the
Monks. This whole scenario has duped the world into thinking that Glastonbury
is Avalon that we have Scholars like James Carley saying:
‘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 medieval community at Glastonbury not
undertake some sort of exhumation, the finds of which could be associated with
Joseph? Why did Melkin 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’.
The fact that Joseph was never disinterred there, is
that he is on an Island in Devon. They could not take the risk like they had
done with Arthur for where was the Grail. Of course it would have been
convenient to have relics on show but their corroboration in regards to
complying to details in Melkin’s prophecy is the very fact that establishes the prophecy's
antiquity and thus proves that Melkin existed and his prophecy was understood
to be profound even though it, at that time, was not decipherable. It is modern
scholarship’s presumption that Avalon is Glastonbury and the fact that no
corpse has been found; which gives rise to the questionability of whether
Melkin existed but as we shall find out, Joseph’s body is still yet to be
discovered in Avalon.
Hardyng stands out as an
independent source and not part of the Glastonbury brotherhood of polemicists.
The only other citation, that is said to come directly from Melkin, is in
Capgrave’s ‘Nova Legenda Angliae,’ where Melkin's original prophecy is so
reduced, (most probably because of the difficulties with its meaning) that the
whole thing could have been précised from John's Cronica. John Hardyng writing
a chronicle, starts the provenance of the English through Brutus the Trojan,
first born of Locrinus and ‘heir to that part of Britain now called England’;
then continuing his chronicle through Arthur to the end of his history. The
interesting thing is that Hardyng comments that he follows the tradition of
“Mewn the Britayn chronicler” thereby confirming that Melkin was a collator who
drew from an ancient source. This tradition which he is following, we must
assume is contrary to that in which Geoffrey of Monmouth has embellished
Arthur’s Welsh and British role as opposed to a more historic southern
tradition and Arthur’s genealogical connection to either Joseph or as we shall
cover shortly, Jesus.
John Leland relates that he came across fragments of Melkin’s ‘Historiola De Rebus Britannnicis’ in the Glastonbury library and it is from these fragments that Leland tells us, that Melkin was the most famous and erudite of British writers, well-respected and was renowned since great antiquity which does go against modern scholastic opinion that his prophecy was a forgery. It is implied also by Leland, that Melkin thinks Arthur is buried at Glastonbury. This surely must be Leland's conclusion based upon the connection of the ‘oratori’ in Melkin’s prophecy because in his ‘Assertio Arturii’, Leland names Glastonbury as Arthur’s burial place, yet as we know Arthur is buried in Avalon and Melkin knew this since he has left specific instructions to show us where it is. Leland who wrote around 1530 says that the document here quoted is ‘a very treasured possession in the old Library of the Abbey. He calls it 'a fragment of history written by ‘Melchinus an Avalonian' which may infer he was one of the Hermits refered to in the Perlesvaus. The passage below from his Nova Legenda Angliae, is from a translation by Skeat and indicates the interest that Melkin’s prophecy generated and the seriousness with which it was treated was a reflection of its hidden veracity. It was taken seriously as a venerated ancient text but no one really understood what it meant and why it was made so ambiguous.
'The
Isle of Avalon, hungry for the burial of the natives, once adorned, above all
others in the world, by oracular circles ('sperulis vaticinantibus') of
prophecy, will for the future also be furnished with worshippers of the
Highest. Abbadare, mighty in judgement, noblest of natives, with one hundred
and four knights ("milibus" for "militibus") fell asleep
there. Amid whom, Joseph of Marmor, name of "Armathia", found his
perpetual rest. And he lies inside the forked line near the southern angle of
the oratory erected there (of wattles prepared before), over ("super
potentem adorandam virginem") the powerful adorable virgin, by that circle
of thirteen inhabiting the spot. Joseph forsooth, has with him in his tomb two
cruets, white and silvery, filled with the blood and sweat of the prophet
Jesus. When his sepulchre shall be found, it will be seen in future years
complete and undamaged, and it will be open to the whole world. Thenceforth,
neither dew nor rain shall ever fail those who inhabit this most noble island.
Long before the judgement day in Josaphat, these things will be open and
manifested to living people.'
It is evident from the
time Melkin lived (sometime after Arthur’s death) up to the 11th century, that
Melkin had played a big part in perpetuating the Joseph tradition in English
history and had, single-handedly and effectively altered the English psyche by
his occult riddle that gave directions to Joseph's resting place. This riddle
somehow implied or transformed the finding of his tomb into a quest, that
interchangeably became a quest for the Holy Grail. This seems to be rather
circuitous because it was through Melkin’s mention of the ‘duo fassula’ in
association with Joseph that we are made to assume a receptacle (or two) and
this eventually become synonymous with the Grail that originated in France from
Melkin.
The French Grail romances
perpetuated a connection between Arthur and Joseph that had derived from
Melkin’s Book of the Grail and shows no sign of acknowledgement of the
Glastonbury connection. This is typical of the French vulgate cycle and shows
that Melkin’s intent for his Book of the Grail was to convey historical
information about the arrival of Joseph and the arcane information which
arrived with him. Much of this arcane or occult knowledge lodged within the
book, clearly went over the original Grail writers’ heads. There has been so
much erudite work done on comparisons of all the different grail romances and
their similarities and it is impossible
to enlighten upon all the scenarios of who might have used who as a source as
one version embellishes less a certain part of a romance. One thing is
absolutely clear and that is the very early troubadours clearly did not
understand the occult depths to which the original Grail book enlightened upon
a divine plan. The types of knighthood have a didactic purpose, overcoming cowardice
,Gawain yielding his pride, attainment through grades etc etc. they did not understand the moral of the
story being derived from another source and thus we have a very unclear
portrayal of the original that is split into snapshot small histoires which
originally would have been part of a better interrelated whole.
A lot depended on the
interests of the story to what parts may have interested him from an earlier
version or how good his memory was if he had only heard it and whether when he
reiterated it , it was now in prose rather than rhyme. Thus the real clarity
and profundity of the original written by melkin has become diluted and
distorted. The Perlesvaus gets right into detail of a battle scene which must
have been a personal quirk of the compiler. Certain facets in some romances
have upheld geographical details, some specific historical details, but on the
whole all the romances interrelate and
tell the story of Joseph coming to Britain after the passion, followed by the
trials and tribulations of a bloodline that lived in the south west of England.
we shall see what vestiges
of Historical truths are left in certain of these romance stories when we look
at the Middle English poem called Joseph of Aramathie the Alliterative poem
written supposedly and dated by its meter around 1330, but it’s content shows
it is highly original and unique in that it adheres to what Melkin knew as fact
and should be regarded as a more accurate portrayal of Josephs arrival in
Britain. This virtually states that the coffin came to England whereas the
Perlesvaus most emphatically indicates this but only subliminally in the
various branches. In essence the Perlesvaus, in modern parlance, skirts the
unsayable sacrilege by not emphatically stating or noticing the ‘gorilla in the
room’
Although the Estoire, the
book of the ‘Sanctum Graal’ is cited as a source from which John drew much of
his Joseph material; the early writings at Glastonbury distance themselves from
association with the Graal from France because they seem to be trivialising
what Glastonbury had always assumed was its monopolistic heritage of Joseph
through its church. They were only interested in having the most prodigious saint
buried within their grounds but got caught up by the associations of their
saint with Arthur that was coming from French Grail stories and could not quite
understand this at first due to the disparity in chronology but as we have seen
turned this to their own advantage.
Overtime, the French Grail
becomes a vessel from the obvious connection with (vassula) and the fact that
Joseph had purportedly brought both (the vassula and the Grail), and thus they become
inextricably entwined. The Graal in the French version of Melkin’s work was
originally based upon ‘Arcane knowledge’ and the ‘duo fassula’ in Melkin’s
English prophecy was understood to hold liquid, but this was only due to
Melkin’s subtlety in constructing his riddle. The Duo fassula is the Turin
Shroud, (duplico Fasciola) which we are getting subliminally hit with in most
Branches of the Perlesvaus: Joseph himself placed the shroud of Christ in the
Perilous Chapel and after his death his own body was buried outside the Grail
castle.
This misconception eventually transformed the Graal into a receptacle which coincided with Helinand’s description as a plate. Melkin’s understanding of the Gradale and the knowledge he was trying to convey, had to do with processional stages or the three grades to gnosis which shall be elucidated later. The processional of the Grail is a misunderstood romanticised version of a divine plan that was originally conveyed in its Hebrew form by Joseph to Britain. This accompanied with references to the ‘bleeding spear’ in the French Grail book and the fact that the vessel purported to hold Jesus’ blood collected from the spear wound, got mixed up with Jesus’ role in the Divine plan which the original French Grail material enlightened upon. The Menorah also being alluded to in the French material from the original ‘Book of the Grail’, plays a definite allegorical part in this processional or gradual steps as the Divine plan unfolds. This arcane knowledge, as relating to the candelabra of the Grail processional, is confirmed in Zechariah: 4.
Most of the information
within Melkin’s manuscripts in the intervening years from his death to the 11th
century had initially been suppressed by the Saxons, probably in a bid to deny
national pride and therefore his works were not widely known. It is also
probable that those that understood and had knowledge of these traditions
rather than being repressed themselves, eventually found safer haven with their
Breton brothers, rather than living under Saxon rule, hence moving these traditions
and original Latin Book of the Grail into France which eventually triggered the
proliferation of the Grail romances.
The Melkin prophecy as we
have seen did not locate Avalon at Glastonbury but a continual polemical
transformation was in progress as is apparent from John'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’. It
appears that because of John's inference and reference that the ‘linea
bifurcata’ is a dividing line associated to the position of the old wattle
church; John has for ever more, located Joseph in Glastonbury. It could have
been a scribal change of the latin word ‘orari’ an adjective meaning ‘of the
sea, or sea shore’(where Avalon actually is located), or even ‘ora tor’ to
‘oratori’ in Melkin’s original text that has prevented Joseph's resting place
from being discovered. It is possible that the amendment occurred in Melkin’s
original work by a scribe, to be followed by all subsequent chroniclers. This
cannot be stated unequivocally, but this would seem to be the case if others
who have borne witness, to having seen Melkin’s manuscript, did not pick up on
this discrepancy. Conversely Melkin played a deliberate ‘double entendre’ on
the words ‘ora’ and ‘tor’ knowing that by association to Joseph’s established
church at Glastonbury, everyone would conclude he was near the ‘oratori’. Most
likely though is that the Grail Chapel of ‘Our Lady’ that existed on Avalon is
actually being refered to.
This conundrum, we will
never know as he could never have foreseen the active polemicism that was
carried out by Glastonbury at a much later date. He might have assumed that if
Joseph was never found at Glastonbury someone would keep looking for Avalon
until it was found, but he could never have conceived that Glastonbury would
become Avalon.
The fact that the word ‘oratori’ is followed by the word ‘cratibus’, meaning ‘wattled’ would tend to unhinge the supposition that it was not intentional obfuscation, unless of course Melkin had originally written ‘orari crater preparatis’, which would suggest a pre-prepared cave by the sea. We will see just how many scenario’s and permutations there are when we dissect Melkin’s prophecy, but it would seem that the inclusion of ‘adorandam virginem’ in addition to ‘oratori’ and ‘cratibus preparatis’; if no scribal changes took place, is a direct attempt by Melkin to perpetuate an association with the wattled church at Glastonbury. However this argument does not follow ontologically when he is giving specific directions elsewhere.
This leads to the question
of how could Melkin know that we would find the St. Michael Ley line. However,
we will deal with this point when disentangling Melkin’s prophecy shortly. If
there had been a scribal correction, the total misunderstanding of the location
of Avalon is compounded in the Lection which prefaces John's Cronica, that
tells of St. David, adding a new chapel at the West of the old wattle church
and at the point where the two chapels joined,
‘a pyramid on the exterior to the northern part on the outside and the platform
(raised step) on the inside in the South, a straight line divided them, according
to certain of the ancients, St. Joseph lies buried along with a great multitude
of saints’.
Relevance for the
inclusion of this information was to act as a conduit for redirecting people's
thoughts back to the original triangles and squares that were associated with
the mystery inferred by William of Malmesbury. Plainly, Joseph being joined by
a multitude is a reference to the 104,000 saints which is how many exegetes
translated Melkin’s riddle. It was William who had intonated that the solving
of the geometrical puzzle would reveal Joseph's burial place within the Abbey
grounds. It is because of these various assertions and possible interpolations
that Joseph’s resting place has remained undiscovered until the present day.
Before moving on we should
quote William of Malmesbury for the respect he confers on the old wattle church
as pertaining to the relevance of the word ‘cratibus’-wattle, which initially
confines any search for the Holy Grail, or Joseph's grave to Glastonbury by its
association with the old church:
“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 first, savoured somewhat of heavenly sanctity
even from its very foundation, having breathed it over the whole country;
claiming superior reverence, though the structure was rudimentary. Hence, here
arrived whole tribes of lower orders, thronging every path; here assembled the
opulent divested of their pomp; and it became the crowded residence of the
religious and the literary. For, as we have heard from men of old time, here
Gildas, a historian neither unlearned nor inelegant, to obtain among other
nations, captivated by the sanctity of the place, took up his abode for a
series of years. This church, then, is certainly the oldest I am acquainted
with in England and from its circumstance, derives its name. In it are
preserved the mortal remains of many saints, some of whom, we shall notice in
our progress, nor is any corner of the church destitute of the ashes of the
holy. The very floor, inlaid with polished stone, and the sides of the altar,
and even the altar itself above and beneath are laden with the multitude of
relics.
Moreover
in the pavement may be remarked on every side stones designedly inter-laid in
triangles and squares, and figured with lead, under which if I believe some sacred mystery to be contained, I do no
injustice to religion. The antiquity, and multitude of its saints, have
enhanced the place with so much sanctity, that at night scarcely anyone
presumes to keep vigil there, or during the day to spit upon its floor: he who
is conscious of pollution shudders throughout their whole frame: no one ever
brought hawk or horses within the confines of the neighbouring cemetery, who
did not depart injured either in them or in himself. Within the memory of man,
all persons who, before undergoing the ordeal of fire or water, there put up
their petitions, exulted in their escape, one only excepted: if any person
erected a building in its vicinity, which by its shade obstructed the light of
the church, it forthwith became a ruin. And it is sufficiently evident that the
men of that province had no oath more frequent, or more sacred, than to swear
by the Old Church, fearing the swiftest vengeance on their perjury in this
respect.
The
truth of what I have asserted, if it be dubious, will be supported by testimony
in the book which I have written, on the antiquity of the said church,
according to the series of years."
We should look at an
extract from Dugdale's ‘Monasticon Anglicanum’, who plainly believes the legend
of the arrival in Britain of Joseph of Arimathea, and who also attests that it
was Joseph who built the first church, but he like other sources are overly
keen to stress its construction to match in with Melkin’s ‘Cratibus’ ."Here St. Joseph, who is
considered by the monkish historians as the first abbot, erected, to the honour
of the Virgin Mary, of wreathed twigs, the first Christian oratory in
England."
And again from the same
source:
The ancient church of wood or wicker, which
legend spoke of as the first temple reared on British soil to the honour of
Christ, was preserved as a hallowed relic, even after a greater church of stone
was built by Dunstan to the east of it. And though not a fragment of either of
those buildings still remains, yet each alike is represented in the peculiar
arrangements of that mighty and now fallen minster. The wooden church of the
Briton is represented by the famous Lady Chapel, better known as the chapel of
Saint Joseph ; the stone church of the West-Saxon is represented by the vast
Abbey church itself. Nowhere else can we see the works of the conquerors and
the works of the conquered thus standing, though but in a figure, side by side.
Wherein is proved by all kinds of testimonies, and authorities, that for
certain, S. Joseph of Aramathia, "with divers other holy Associates, came
into, preached, lived, dyed, and was buryed in Britayne, at the place now
called Glastenbury in Summersetshire."
However John of
Glastonbury waxes lyrical about the old church saying;
No other
human hands made the church of Glastonbury, but Christ's disciples founded and
built it by angelic doctrine; an unattractive structure, certainly, but,
adorned by God with manifold virtue; the high priest of the heavens himself,
the maker and Redeemer of humankind, our Lord Jesus Christ, in his true
presence dedicated it to himself and his most holy mother. On account of its
antiquity the English called this church, the ‘ealdechirche’, which is ‘the old
church’, and it is quite evident that the men of that region hold no oath more
sacred or binding than one on the Old Church and they shun nothing through fear
of punishment for their crime more than perjury. Glastonbury originally built
of wattles, is first and eldest of all churches in England. From it the
strength of divine sanctity gave forth its scent from the very outset and
breathed upon the whole land; and though it was made of unsightly material, it
was nevertheless esteemed greatly in worshipful reverence.
The real puzzle here is to
find out whether it was in fact Melkin’s intention for the world to believe
(for a time) that Joseph was buried at Glastonbury or was it later scribal
changes of Melkin’s prophecy just after the fire, followed by later gradual
rationalisation of interpretation, that eradicated any other location as a
possible contender for Joseph’s resting place. We should not forget that for
Melkin, Glastonbury was never synonymous with Avalon. In Archbishop Usher's
‘Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates’ he provides us a Chinese whispers
variant of Melkin’s prophecy, which he says was found in the margin of Matthew
Westminster's ‘Flores Historiarum’ which plainly shows the prophecy’s
evolution:
'Joseph
ab Arimathea nobilis decurio in insula Avallonia cum xi. Sociis suis somnum
cepit perpetuum et jacet in meridiano angulo lineae bifurcate Oratorii
Adorandae Virginis. Habit enim secum duo vascula argentea alba cruore et sudore
magni prophetae Jesu perimpleta. et per multum tempus ante diem Judicii ejus
corpus integrum et illibatum reperietur; et erit apertum toti Orbi terranum.
Tunc nec ros nec pluvial habitantibus insulam nobilissimam poterit deficere’.
'Joseph
of Arimathea, the noble decurion, received his everlasting rest with his eleven
associates in the Isle of Avalon. He lies in the southern angle of the
bifurcated line of the Oratorium of the Adorable Virgin. He has with him the
two white vessels of silver which were filled with the blood and the sweat of
the great prophet Jesus. And for a long time before the day of judgement, his
body will be discovered whole and undisturbed; and will be opened to the whole
world. At that time neither dew, nor rain, will lack from that noble island’.
"Nobilis decurio"
is St. Jerome's translation in the Vulgate of St. Mark's "honourable
counsellor" and also Rabanus Maurus 776 – 856AD the archbishop of Mainz,
in 'The Life of St. Mary Magdalene' uses the same appellation along with
Helinand. If, (as we shall show later) Helinand is copying directly from his
source, then this term of 'Decurion' was used in connection to Joseph, all
prior to 800AD, so this is not of the Grail writers invention, but a genuine
appellation from different sources. Many have taken it to mean that Joseph was
a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. Some commentators assume Joseph was a member
of a provincial Roman Senate as ‘decurions’ are reported as being in charge of
mining districts.
The Glastonbury propaganda machine was able to firmly establish Glastonbury as an island in association with the Tor, but it could not by any distortion, render its location by the sea. If Melkin did not write the words ‘orari’ or ‘ora’ and ‘tor’, the addition of letters to make ‘oratori’ brings the Island of Avalon away from the sea and into the Abbey grounds. This is onlt conjecture to what may have happened, but again an unlikely set of events is set out by John in his Cronica to convince the unsuspecting, that Avalon is in Glastonbury:
This
Glasteing (a person) pursued his sow through the territory inland of the Angles
near the village called ‘Escebtiorne’ all the way to Wells, and from wells by a
trackless and watery path which is now called the ‘Sugewey’, that is ‘the sow’s
way’. He found her suckling her piglets next to the Old Church on the aforesaid
island, beneath a fruit tree; hence it continues down to our own day that the
fruit of that tree are called ‘ealdechirchiness-apple’, that is ’apples of the
old church’. This Glasteing, then, after he had entered the island, saw that it
was rich in all manner of good things and came to live on it with his whole
family. And since at the first, he found apples of the most precious sort in
those parts, he called it the ‘Island of Avalon’ in his own tongue, that is
‘island of apples’, and he spent his life there and from his family and
progeny, who succeeded him that place was originally populated. Finally, the
Saxons who conquered it called the land ‘Glastonbury’ in their own tongue, by
translation of the former name, that is ‘Ynswytryn’, for in English or Saxon
‘glas’ means ‘glass’ and ‘bury’ means city.
Now, in Melkin’s prophecy
he had mentioned the word ’cratibus’, loosely meaning a hurdle, wattle or
interwoven sticks, precisely the method employed to construct the old wattle
church which seems quite a coincidence as the rest of his clues are telling us
to look elsewhere. The reader might note from the references above that the
construction method of the old church suddenly became unduly highlighted, after
the miraculous discovery of Arthur's bones while fiction upon later
rationalisations became embedded in popular history.
It was from this time,
that it was repeatedly mentioned as part of an intentional confirmation and
reassertion that, the original church (later dedicated to St. Mary or ‘Our
Lady’) was built from wattle by St. Joseph. It is however the ‘adorandam
virginem’ which convinces every investigator that Melkin was referring to the
‘oratori’ at Glastonbury; as this spells out the association with the Old
Church. It seems more than coincidental that a rededication needed to take
place; firstly to match references in the Perlesvaus to the Grail chapel (where
Joseph was buried and the Grail rested) and secondly to fit in with ‘adorandam
virginem’ from the prophecy. Melkin is
in fact giving us the most precise detail of the whole puzzle in these words,
which lead us to the entrance of the underground vault on Burgh Island and has
nothing to do with Glastonbury or the old church. This gradual transformation
to fit details at Glastonbury so that they concur with the prophecy………… is the
very proof that establishes the prophecy’s antiquity and its substance as the
real and only genuine set of instructions that mark out the whereabouts of
Joseph and the Grail in Avalon.
We will get to the ‘bronze
plaque’ as the final deception, but it is William of Malmesbury’s words ‘I believe some sacred mystery to be
contained, I do no injustice to religion’; that lay the foundation for inferring that Melkin’s
geometry has relevance at Glastonbury. It is this one sentence that opens the way for
future geometric speculation into hidden geometry within Melkin’s prophecy;
specifically its relevance to the ‘bifurcated line’ that was to be later
portrayed by the ‘bronze plaque’ as defining the whereabouts of the chancel of
the old church. ‘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 reason for this of course was to make the
geometry seem relevant to the word ‘oratori’ and at least provide a fictional
line that somehow defines the whereabouts of the relics of Joseph of Arimathea.
Some conscientious monk may well have measured this out accurately as it
pertains to the old church, but this was not the object of the exercise (unless
he of course really believed Joseph’s remains were under the church), rather it
pretended to be in someway relevant to the instructions in Melkin’s prophecy.
This was the final smoke that prevented any unlocking of Melkin’s code because
not only the Bifurcated line now purports to show Joseph’s resting place near
the church, but also the Island of Avalon (that was tidal according to the
Perlesvaus and all Grail literature) was now also firmly identified as
pertaining to Glastonbury tor. Religious lies all of it, but the biggest lie
was what the religion is founded upon and is soon about to be exposed.
Melkin’s prophecy
ultimately is what re-establishes Glastonbury Abbey, but it is through the
prophecy that the British people believed that Joseph's burial site exists
somewhere. The theme perpetuated through a combination of the Grail Romances
and Melkin’s prophecy, that alludes to the island of Avalon. This, coupled with
the mystery of Joseph of Arimathea's resting place has somehow become a quest
or endeavour of occult meaning, that has today entered the psyche of the
British people and Jesus’ visit to Britain is now celebrated in the anthem ‘Jerusalem’
which asks the question ‘and did those feet of Jesus walk in England’s green
and pleasant land’, which was broadcast abroad around the world at the opening
ceremony of the 2012 olympics.
Chapter 9
The relationship of
Melkin’s prophecy to the French Grail material.
Father William Good, a
Jesuit priest, born at Glastonbury, served mass in the Abbey at Glastonbury as
a boy just before its dissolution. This was before Queen Elizabeth I changed
the religion of the country to Protestantism. He also held a secret as to the
whereabouts of Joseph of Arimathea’s burial place. Father William was educated
in Glastonbury, and later attended Corpus Christi College in 1546 where he
became a fellow in 1548, and studied for his Master of Arts in 1552. Throughout
all the early days of his life while he studied and before he came to the
priesthood, he carried around with him the information that was passed on to
him by Abbot Richard Whiting at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries
in 1539.
As was usual in those
days, secret knowledge was handed down to chosen choirboys or likely candidates
for the priesthood, by Bishops and Abbots rather than writing it down and
running the risk of having it discovered by persons who were not privileged.
Just before Richard Whiting was about to be hanged on Glastonbury Tor at the
start of the dissolution, he related to the young William Good, that Joseph of
Arimathea was ‘carefully hidden in Montacute’, most probably with the added
instruction to say nothing to anybody. Father Good, while Queen Mary reigned in
the interim, obtained the benefice of Middle Chinnock in Somerset, the prebend
of Comba Octava in the Church of Wells, and was given the head-mastership of a
school in Wells.
When Elizabeth I came to
the throne, he travelled to Tourni where in 1562 he was admitted into the
Society of Jesus, thereafter travelling to Ireland to become a missionary for
many years. Afterwards he travelled to Belgium, where he met Robert Parsons,
who persuaded him to become a member of the Jesuit order, while the rest of his
days were passed as confessor to the English College in Rome.
It was during this time in
Rome that he passed on the message to alleviate himself of the burden he had
carried with him since he was a boy. He left to posterity at the English
college in Rome the information conveyed to him by Richard Whiting with the
added addition of his own précis of the last part of Melkin’s prophecy,
indicating how important he felt it was; “The
monks, never knew for certain the place of this saints burial (Joseph’s) or
pointed it out. They said the body was most “carefully hidden” on a hill near
Montacute and that when his body would be found, the whole world would wend
their way there, on account of the number and wondrous nature of the miracles
worked there”.
In Archbishop Usher’s
account describing the Arms of Glastonbury, he quotes from an account given by
William Good, and refers to him as “a Jesuit born at Glastonbury in the reign
of Henry VIII”:
"Antiqua
arma Glastoniensis Monasterii sunt hujusmodi. Scutum album, in quo per longum erigitur
stipes crucis viridis & nudosas, & de latere ad latus extenduntur
brachia seu rami crucis stipiti consimilia. Sparguntur guttse sanguinis per
oninem aream scuti. Utrinqwe ad latera stipitis, & sub alis crucis, ponitur
ampulla inaurata. Et haec semper denominabantur insignia Sancti Josephi, qui
ibi habitue pie credebatur, & fortasse sepultus esse”.
‘Such
are the ancient Arms of the monastery of Glastonbury. A white shield in which,
for a long time, a green and gnarled stake of a cross sticks out, and from side
to side stretch branches or boughs as if they were the beam of the cross. Drops
of blood are spattered around the whole expanse of the shield. And at the sides
of the stake, under the beam of the cross, is placed a gilded flask. And these
were always referred to as the tokens of St Joseph, who is believed to have
lived piously, and perhaps to have been buried there.’
The Reverend Walter Skeat
makes his own remarks on Father Good’s passage; “The knotted cross evidently
refers to the legend of St Joseph's thorny staff (from which a tree had
sprouted at Glastonbury until recently…… cut down by vandals), the drops of
blood denote his receiving the blood of Christ in the Holy Grail, and the two
cruets are the "duo fassula" mentioned in the book of Melkin, which
resulted from the duplication of the Grail of the original legend”. We can
conclude from this, that Father Good had read Melkin while in the British Isles
and had been privately engaged investigating the whereabouts of the sepulchre
of Joseph. It would seem that Father William assumed that within the Heraldry
depicted on the shield, there could have been a clue to where Joseph lay. It
would also appear that he was probably taking this line of investigation,
having previously read the Seint Graal, and its associations with Joseph, where
"a white knight relates to Galahad the mystery of a certain wonderful
shield." It is fairly evident that Father Good had tried to locate the
burial place of Joseph having been motivated by the possession of a clue, but
unfortunately he didn't piece together the relevance of Montacute.
Figure 22 Showing the Folly tower where there once stood a chapel dedicated to St.Michael on this hilltop ‘marker’ site.
Geoffrey of Monmouth
writing in 1130 makes no allusion to the Graal, or to Lancelot or Gawain, or to
the prophecy of Melkin and does not say much about Joseph of Arimathea in his
popular Historia Regum Britanniae. Geoffrey wrote many works, all in Latin, but
in his History of the Kings of Britain, he writes about Arthur, Merlin and
Vortigern at length, but draws nothing from Melkin’s genealogy of Arthur, yet
includes the previously unknown prophecies of Merlin. Geoffrey claims in his
dedication that his book is a translation of an "ancient book in the British
language that told in orderly fashion the deeds of all the kings of
Britain", given to him by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford. Much of his
material was invented, but the main body of manuscript text was supplied by the
Archdeacon of Oxford, which mainly came from Welsh sources, most probably
derived from a Melkin manuscript. These were embellished upon and subsequently
they place Arthur in a Welsh backdrop. Geoffrey's works seem to show
acquaintance with the place names of the region and most commentators think Geoffrey
was Welsh and spoke Welsh. He seems to have come from the French-speaking Welsh
border country and was probably educated in a Benedictine monastery. There were
probably many French speaking Bretons in this region from the monastic houses
that were to influence the likes of Gerald of Wales (Gerald de Barri), who is
half Welsh, half Norman and Walter Map. Maep or Mapes was born on the Marches
of Wales and calls the Welsh his countrymen, and England ‘our mother.’ It is
posited that the Bretons and the Welsh spoke a similar language and it was from
this connection that the Grail stories were easily assimilated with a similar
Arthurian tradition that existed in Wales. William of Malmesbury the product of
intermarriage between Norman and Saxon noticed but a slight difference in his
time between Welsh and Breton: ‘Lingua nonnihil a nostris Brittonibus
Degeneres’ and Giraldus calls the Breton an old-fashioned Welsh : ‘Magis
antiquo linguae Britannicae idiomati appropriato’.
This tradition could have
existed in Wales through copies of the works of Melkin that remained in Britain
but as we have covered, it seems that the Book of the Grail went to France
caused by the Saxon invasion and later returned to revitalise and mix with
Welsh legend after having metamorphosed from a French romanticization of
original, yet overlapping historical Material. The route of this information
having probably travelled to Mont- Saint-Michel near St. Malo and Avranche
which of course would have had links with the tin traders since ancient times.
We will cover in a later chapter the probable landing point of Melkin and show
why Helinand is the first to mention the account of the Graal and the supposed
apparition to the Hermit (in Britain), taking place in 707 or as Walter map has
it as 717AD. It becomes apparent later that Melkin probably took this book to
France in his old age and thus an account of a British monk experiencing an
angelic apparition was known in France.
Geoffrey’s omission of the
Joseph material, meant that the French tradition that linked Arthur to Joseph
was not as widely known in Britain, (despite his book's popular success)until
the full pervasion of the romance material intermingled. This did not seem to take
hold in popular culture until the arrival of the Grail material after
Geoffrey’s death in 1154. If there was an early tradition that included the
Nicodemus and Joseph stories at Glastonbury or anywhere else, it was ignored by
William and Geoffrey, but then it proliferated at the advent of the French
Grail material as if in response, to set the record straight and counter the
more Welsh and strictly Arthurian material. That's not to say that the legends
had not persisted about Arthur and his connection with Joseph before then, this
being evidenced by St. Augustin's argument with the Britons, "who
preferred their own traditions before all the churches in the world",
which of course is a referral to the Joseph tradition and possibly the
bloodline ties of Arthur to Joseph.
Helinand, the Cistercian
Abbot of Froidemont or in latin Frigidus Mons on the river Tera near Beauvais,
wrote a chronicle and the date provided for the first mention of the Graal. Here
in the diocese of Beauvais was a Cistercian monk who died circa 1220, who wrote
a chronicle of events in history which terminates with the year 1209 and seems
to have heard an account of Melkin having had an apparition of an Angel.
Coincidentally, this account seems to relate to the Grail and matches the date
when Melkin possibly visited Mont-Saint-Michel in Normandy around 700AD.
John of Tynemouth, writing
later quotes an extract from Helinand (below) referring to the Graal for the
first time by its name at a date given in his chronicle as 707A.D. As the
chronicle was laid out by date and it was at this point in time where the
extract was inserted in the chronicle, it infers that the Graal was so named at
this date. There has been much discussion about the early date of the insertion
of this reference to the ‘Graal’ and due to preconceived ideas of the ‘Graal’
being an invention of the Grail writers……… commentators have looked for reasons
to show this date to be inaccurate and a fabrication of a later date.
The extract from Helinand:
De loseph centurione:
Hoc tempore in britannia cuidam heremitae demonstrata fuit mirabilis quaedam
visio per angelum de loseph decurione nobili, qui corpus domini deposuit de
cruce, et de catino illo vel parapside in quo dominus cenavit cum discipulis
suis; de quo ab eodem heremita descripta est historia que dicitur gradale.
Gradalis autem vel gradale gallice dicitur scutella lata et aliquantulum profunda,
in qua preciose dapes divitibus a solent apponi gradatim, unus morsellus post
alium in diversis ordinibus. Dicitur vulgari nomine greal, quia grata et
acceptabilis est in ea comedenti, tum propter continens, quia forte argentea
est vel de alia preciosa materia, tum propter contentum ordinem multiplicem
dapium preciosarum. Hanc historiam latine scriptam inuenire non potui sed
tantum gallice scripta habetur a quibusdem proceribus, nec facile, ut aiunt,
tota inueniri potest.
‘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). Now a platter, broad and
somewhat deep is called in French ‘gradalis’ or ‘gradale’, wherein costly meats
(with their sauce) are want to be set before rich folk by degrees (gradatim),
one morsel after another in divers orders, and in the vulgar speech it is
called graalz, for that it is grateful and acceptable to him that eateth
therein, as well. For that which containeth the victual, for that haply it is
of silver and other precious material, as for the contents thereof, to wit, the
manifold courses of costly meats. I have not been able to find this history
written in Latin, but it is in the possession of certain noble written in
French only, nor, as they say, can it easily be found complete. This however, I
have not hitherto been able to obtain from any person, so as to read it with
attention. As soon as I can do so, I will translate into Latin, such passages
as are more useful and more likely to be true.’
The fact that Helinand
could not find a copy of an early French source indicates to the contrary as
most commentators have proposed. The commentators have supposed that the reason
that Helinand is unable to locate a French copy is because of its recent
popularity and production. The opposite is probably true, in that it is not
widely copied and those bits that have been obtained derive from the original
Latin version held by the noble family that have had it translated into French.
It could be that parts of this French version were distributed to troubadours
to expand upon and thus……… would part explain the erraticness of most of the
early versions storylines. It is more likely, the reason for the books scarcity
is that it had been in possession of an un-named French noble family from a
very early date and from which troubadours close to that family accessed and
romanticised its material, possibly picking bits and translating them into the
French. The fact that Helinand is not finding (but has heard of the Latin
original) shows us that he has come across Grail extracts in French from which
he understands are derived from a Latin source.
It is quite astounding that one of the most
scholarly books that looks at comparisons of several romances and comments on
how they interrelate with the Perlesvaus and which might be derived from
another has this to say : ‘Note.—I have not
considered it necessary to discuss the question, whether the romance existed originally
in a Latin form. The mention of Josephus and several other passages in the romance
(pp. 1, 79, 152) to my mind show clearly that the Latin original claimed by the
author is a fiction’.
If a whole French version exists is unclear as
it appears it only exists in certain extracts and not as a complete version.
The fact that it is purportedly only fragmentary or not easily found complete,
adds to the veracity of this supposition that early on a Grail writer or
writers were commissioned by this noble family to make sense of its obviously
difficult story. It is these early French translations that provide separate
bases for certain romances. The translations may have been exacerbated by
Melkin’s different form of Latin and also the difficulty of the subject because
as we know even in Melkin’s Latin original he did not categorically state that
Jesus and the Shroud were brought to Britain otherwise one of the translators
would probably have disclosed this. It seems most of the confusion stems (like
the misunderstanding of Melkins English prophecy) from his inability to
disclose directly what he saw in the Tomb and thus chooses to leave sublimal
hints for the adept to pick up on.
Was the sense of the Graal
as assumed by Helinand and elaborated upon as relating to a Dish, originally
conveying the sense of a ‘container’ of the Graal and can this container be the
Grail Ark or box that contained the Grail that Joseph of Arimathea conveyed to
Britain.
Let us assume that a
French noble family possessed a manuscript of Melkin’s original compilation of
ancient Joseph material written in Latin and later had it translated into
French, to be called or referred to as the ‘Book of the Graal.’ The reason
behind this assumption is, we know definitively that Melkin has knowledge of
Joseph’s whereabouts around six hundred years after his death. He knows also of
the place where Arthur is buried because it is the same location at which
Joseph was buried and Melkin is the only one who appears to know where Avalon
is.
Melkin was said to have
written a book about Arthur entitled ‘De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda’,(which
stayed in Britain) and indicates he lived contemporaneously with Arthur or soon
thereafter. Given Melkin’s understanding of directions to the tomb and his
accuracy in describing what will be found within it, we must conclude he
entered it at Arthur’s death. It must be remembered that Melkin’s description
of the ‘duo fassula’ (which applies to the Turin shroud) shows long before
Perlesvaus (which is a derivative of his Grail book) also subliminally portrays
the Shroud is where the Grail is. This of course, long before the shroud form
was known or its appearance 600 years afterward but Melkin describes it
perfectly.
It would also seem
probable that Geoffrey sourced the location of Arthur’s burial as being in
Avalon from Melkin’s work that remained in Britain and Geoffrey’s 'Arthur's grave is nowhere seen,
whence antiquity of fables still claims that he will return',
is either based upon Melkin’s knowledge that Joseph’s grave would be found thus
uncovering Arthur or as we covered earlier it was a response to the
unexplainable fact that such an illustrious figure had suddenly vanished.
The probable scenario is
that Melkin, witnessed Arthur’s interment in Avalon, but it is still
unfathomable how Melkin was able to give us such accurate co-ordinates to Burgh
Island not only geometrically but topographically describing the locale, in a
clearly well-constructed puzzle, if he had not visited the site.
The inclusion of the Grail
in French, Welsh, Irish and English variations of the romances, makes it
virtually impossible to divine its substance, provenance, or essential meaning
and most elucidations are fraught with supposition and contradiction. So,
digressing slightly, let us assume as we posited earlier, that the book of the
Grail was written in Latin. It used as its material a source that included
Hebrew arcane terminology and also used an account of Joseph and his associates
journey to Britain with the Grail Ark. It was expanded upon, with information
of a bloodline that existed from Joseph (or possibly Jesus through the
Magdalene) down through Arthur……… inclusive of his exploits and that of the
family from Roman to Saxon times. This book was originally written as a
compilation of this body of knowledge, giving the origins of the religious
nature of the Grail. This really has two aspects to it, 1) the gradual steps or
degrees to the enlightenment of Man, that conveyed a higher notion of honor and
righteousness expressed in knightly endeavour and should also be understood as
the meaning behind the processional and 2) The Grail as an artefact directly
relating to the death of Jesus. This as we shall cover shortly is his body
preserved in Cedar oil contained within the Grail Ark.
Hardyng, Leland, Capgrave
and Bale all cite Melkin as an ancient authority on Arthurian and British
history and of the four titles he is supposed to have written that are
referenced by these later chroniclers, let us assume a crossover of material
between these manuscripts and the ‘Book of the Grail’. Melkin’s Grail book in
France not only contained a historical account of Joseph’s journey to Britain
but also occult temple knowledge having come directly from Jerusalem that
explained or gave meaning to the original purport of the Grail. Let us also
assume that this Gnostic material from the Temple contained an account of the
Divine plan, the striving of man for spiritual enlightenment and its history
through the Davidic heritage. Over time the Grail metamorphosed into an object
and this transformation was partly due to Melkin who had written his riddle
which included a description of the ‘duo fassula’. Now this misrepresentation
of the ‘duo fassula’ as a vessel or vessels was said to contain liquids of
blood and sweat and thus the necessity for a receptacle to hold a liquid or two
containers. This puzzle or prophecy survived in one of his four British books
or was duplicated in other manuscripts to be reproduced by John of Glastonbury.
Melkin’s book ‘Arthurii
mensa rotunda’ obviously supplying much of the early Arthurian material for
Welsh manuscripts that would, of necessity be void of the specific Grail
material that was to emanate from Melkin’s Book of the Grail that had wound up
in the hands of a noble family in France.
The Welsh Greal material
however, contains the adventures of Gwalchmei Peredur and Lancelot, and of the
Knights of the Round Table; but these are not found in Malory’s "Morte
d'Arthur". The Peniarth manuscript is dated to Henry VI, the earlier part
of the fifteenth century. This is similar to that of the "Mabinogion of
the Llyvr Coch Hergest", which is of that same date, but it is probably
transcribed from an earlier copy and it is not known when it was first
translated into Welsh……… some scholars saying it was written around 1070 or in
Henry I’s time, but this is debatable. Whatever the date of the Welsh version,
the translator had no great mastery of the original French from the source and
the Welsh scribe by his own volition chose not translate portions, because the
French was difficult to translate and the story was itself erratic and for the
most part misunderstood by the French collator. It can be seen that some of the
Welsh versions have been assimilated from French sources and sometimes changed
or interpolated or polemicized conferring a Welsh perspective to names places
and events, as can be witnessed in the early Welsh versions, which gives a
differing outlook from those in the French and can be seen by these next
examples. Perceval in the Welsh is called Peredur. Perceval's father, Alain li
Gros, is in the Welsh Earl Evrawg, and his sister Dindrane becomes Danbrann.
King Arthur becomes Emperor Arthur while Queen Guenievre becomes Gwenhwyvar and
so on. This leads to a comparable lack of rigour with place names; Cardoil
becomes Caerlleon on Usk, Pannenoisance, Penvoisins; Tintagel translates into
Tindagoyl and Avalon becomes Avallach. These are examples of deliberate
alterations, and it is probable that those capable of such practice would have
been prepared to usurp Arthur’s Cornish heritage.
This passage in the
History of Fulke Fitz-Warine, originally written around 1260 is the first to
mention the Graal from Welsh sources
‘And when Kahuz was awake,
he put his hand to his side. There hath he found the knife that had smitten him
through, so telleth us the Graal, The Book of the Holy Vessel. There the King
Arthur recovered his bounty and his valour when he had lost all his chivalry
and his virtue’
Thus it seems that
"The Graal, the Book of the Holy Vessel" to which the Welsh
biographer of Fulke refers is from a French source. It would seem that because
he uses the definite article, it indicates that he thought this book to be the
original authority on the subject, either having heard about it from a
different source or seeing this in his written source. Melkin’s works had been
in amongst older books at Glastonbury now lost, burnt or dispersed which John
of Glastonbury describes as “Vetustissimi”. The Vetustissimi were the books of
very ancient scribes, copied before the Norman Conquest, so copies of Melkin’s
original Arthurian material had plenty of time to be transformed to a Welsh
arena. In around 1280, the troubadour Sarrazin also refers to ‘The Graal’ as
‘li Graaus’ with the same definite article, when he was trying to assert a
confirmation of established fact that King Arthur was at one time ‘Lord of
Great Britain’. The references to ‘The Graal’ or ‘Book of the Graal’ as being
the established authority or source for all the Grail literature even before
Chrétien de Troyes, is further evidenced by Sarrazin’s following statement ‘the
Romance that Chrestien telleth so fairly of Perceval the adventures of the
Graal’. The statement tells us that Chrétien had used a source and had
portrayed or conveyed the contents with clarity and it commends him for doing
so. It is plain to see Chetièn’s Perceval and even later contiuations have a
commonality with the Perlesvaus, one mybe having been transcribed from earlier French
written material while the other composed by memory and by reference.
Let us assume the Grail
(apart from its physical aspect) is an account of a religious rite or process
of which a written explanation came to Britain with Joseph. Because what he
brought was connected with Jesus, what was originally an account a of spiritual
nature became synonymous with the box, Grail ark or receptacle that Joseph was
believed to have brought to Britain. This gets even more confused if the French
Troubadours heard news of the British account of a ‘Vessel’ buried with Joseph,
which at least would have given them something physical to romanticise rather
than what seemed to be some kind of unexplainable processional religious
quest………… and hence the very erratic nature of the early Grail stories.
If Helinand’s date is
correct it would explain the lack of continuity and provenance in the early
French versions. It would also allow for Melkin’s Arthurian material to be
corrupted in Wales, but we must not forget that Melkin’s intention was to
obfuscate. It is clearly the Glastonbury institution who must be responsible
for putting together the misinterpreted ‘duo fassula’ as receptacles that were
buried with Joseph from British sources, rather than the French sources that
were a Processional and was described as a singular plate or receptacle. The
turning point of the Grail is when it became a physical object that singularly
tried to encapsulate Jesus’s body, the Turin Shroud and an account of occult
meaning and this will become clear shortly.
If there was knowledge of
the Ark of the covenant’s whereabouts in Melkin’s ‘Book of the Graal’, coming
directly via Joseph (a Sanhedrin member), there could be some substance in the
rumour that the Templars possessed the Arc. It could have been Eleanor of
Aquitaine during the second crusade, who could have made use of this knowledge
as she was one of the wealthiest and most powerful women in Western Europe. As
well as being Duchess of Aquitaine in her own right, she was queen consort of
France (1137–1152) and of England (1154–1189) but more importantly she was
patron to Chrétien de Troyes. Eleanor of Aquitaine is the only woman to have
been Queen of both France and England and as Queen of France, she participated
in the unsuccessful second crusade but may also have been the personal owner of
Melkin’s Book of the Grail as Helinands noble family may suggest. Eleanor had
two Daughters by Louis VII, Mary who in 1164, married Henry, the great Count of
Champagne and Alix, who became Countess of Chartres by marriage to Theobald.
This same Theobald earlier had made Eleanor, while travelling, avoid Blois in
1152 because of his eagerness to have Eleanor as wife, after her divorce from
Louis. Henry and Theobald were brothers whose sister Alix had married Louis VII
in 1160, eight years after Eleanor’s divorce. The family ties that were forged
were fantastic, especially for Queen Eleanor, who, besides her two French
daughters, had eight children as Queen of England. Her second son, Richard
Coeur-de-Lion, born in 1157, was affianced in 1174 to a daughter of Louis VII
and Alix, a child only six years old, who was sent to England to be brought up
as future queen. Eleanor’s son Richard the Lionheart could also have found opportunity
to recoup the Arc on the third Crusade if anyone did in fact achieve this goal.
The name of the original
author of the Book of the Grail is recorded nowhere, but we know that Melkin
had knowledge of Joseph who brought and was buried with a relic of Jesus. So
the probability that Melkin wrote a tract specifically covering this same
subject matter of Grail material, that disappeared to France is highly likely.
What has made it difficult to work out how this common subject matter came from
different directions is because Melkin left evidence and crossover material
that existed in other works in Britain. The concurrence of two existing bodies
of information that were to re-emerge and confirm their united theme at the
advent of the gradual release of French material, through the Troubadour
tradition, gives us an answer as to why British history was emanating from
France.
Many have thought that the
originator of the French material is referred to in the
"Elucidation", prefixed to the rhymed version of "Percival le
Gallois" under the name of "Master Blihis" and this pseudonym
seems to refer to Henry de Blois who in French circles would have been known as
Monseigneur Blois, but in British circles as Henry of Blois (1101–1171). He was
often known as Henry of Winchester and was Abbot of Glastonbury Abbey from
1126, and Bishop of Winchester from 1129 to his death.
Henry de Blois was the
nephew of King Henry I, and he was one of five sons of Stephen II, Count of
Blois, by Adela of Normandy (daughter of William the Conqueror) and the younger
brother of King Stephen. Henry’s father died in the Crusade at Razes when Henry
was only two years of age. After an exeptional education and at the young age
of 23, Henry was appointed Prior of Montacute in Somerset which becomes
relevant later in our investigation, where his uncle Henry I, was planning to
create a royal abbey and it is for this reason we can be assured that the
information which Father Good gave us about Montecute could only have come from
Melkin’s book in France through Master Blihis.
The poem of Chrétien de
Troyes is the earliest surviving literary version that mentions the Grail and
Chrétien, as he himself admits, was not inventing, but re-telling, an already
popular tradition concerning the matière de Bretagne. The process of
romanticising arcane knowledge contained in Melkin’s book had already begun
with various degrees of interpretation and misunderstanding which had built
layer upon layer of variant versions from the core relevance of the original
purport of the Gradatim as a spiritual pattern or divine plan laid out for
mankind. If Henry of Blois is the author of the Perlesvaus or ‘High history of
the Grail’ it would explain the reverence with which he treats the subject even
if he had to uncomprehendingly interpret the depth of information revealed by
Melkin’s original and certainly he would have been in a position to correlate
this evidence with extant material at Glastonbury.
It might appear that he is one of the causes
that Avalon was thought to be at Glastonbury if he is indeed Master Blihis but
not even he knew where Avalon was. It would appear that corruption of Melkin’s
text into the French had taken place already and he may be looked uon as the
collator of various strands of romance material that were extant as he was
being educated in France and those that he came across as they pervaded into
court in Britain. It was probably Henry’s understanding of the ‘duo fassula’ as
a vessel; understood certainly as a receptacle(s) in Britain, that might have
transformed the religious rite, processional or quest of the French material
into an eventual reliquary or Chalice. Henry of Blois does know however that
Melkin the Hermit is recounting what Joseph as an eye witness 500 years earlier
had written down as an account that becomes the basis for the story of the
Graal coming to Britain and this is seen (as we will show later) as Joseph being
the one refered to in the text as the authority for the Story.
This high story records and testifies that Josephus, (Joseph) who records it for us, was the first priest to sacrifice the body of our lord and we should therefore believe in his words.
Gawain is told ’you will be told the meaning of anything you wish to ask about, by the testimony of Joseph the good clerk and good hermit (Melkin) that tells us these things and his(Melkin’s) knowledge of them comes from the pronouncements of the Holy Spirit and the Angel.
Hear
ye the history of the most holy vessel that is called Graal, wherein the
precious blood of the Saviour was received on the day that He was put on rood
and crucified in order that He might redeem His people from the pains of hell.
Josephus set it in remembrance by annunciation of the voice of an angel, for
that the truth might be known by his writing of good knights, and good worshipful
men how they were willing to suffer pain and to travail for the setting forward
of the Law of Jesus Christ, that He willed to make new by His death and by His
crucifixion.
The
High Book of the Graal beginneth in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Ghost. These three Persons are one substance, which is God, and of
God moveth the High Story of the Graal. And all they that hear it ought to
understand it, and to forget all the wickednesses that they have in their
hearts. For right profitable shall it be to all them that shall hear it of the
heart. For the sake of the worshipful men and good knights of whose deeds shall
remembrance be made, doth Josephus recount this holy history, for the sake of
the lineage of the Good Knight that was after the crucifixion of Our Lord. Good
Knight was he without fail, for he was chaste and virgin of his body and hardy
of heart and with courage, and so were his conditions without wickedness. Not
boastful was he of speech, and it seemed not by his cheer that he had so great
courage; Nonetheless, of one little word that he delayed to speak came to pass
so sore mischances in Greater Britain, that all the islands and all the lands
fell thereby into much sorrow, albeit thereafter he put them back into gladness
by the authority of his good knighthood. Good knight was he of right, for he
was of the lineage of Joseph of Abarimacie. And this Joseph was his mother's
uncle, that had been a soldier of Pilate's seven years, nor asked he of him any
other favour of his service but only to take down the body of Our Saviour from
hanging on the cross. The delight to him seemed full great when it was granted
him, and full little to Pilate seemed the favour; for right well had Joseph
served him, and had he asked to have gold or land thereof, willingly would he
have given it to him. And for this did Pilate make him a gift of the Saviour's
body, for he supposed that Joseph should have dragged the same shamefully
through the city of Jerusalem when it had been taken down from the cross, and
should have left it without the city in some mean place. But the Good Soldier
had no mind thereto, but rather honoured the body the most he might, rather
laid it along in the Holy Sepulchre and kept safe the lance whereof He was
smitten in the side and the most Holy Vessel wherein they that believed on Him
received with awe the blood that ran down from His wounds when He was set upon
the rood. Of this lineage was the Good Knight for whose sake is this High
History treated.
Henry of Blois was
educated at a monastery in Cluny in the region of Bourgogne in eastern France.
This was a Benedictine Cluny Abbey, founded by Duke William I of Aquitaine in
AD 910 which adhered to the principles of Cluniac reform, including a sense of
intellectual freedom and humanism, as well as adherence to a high standard of
devotion and discipline. Here Henry studied in the seven liberal arts; trivium
(rhetoric grammar, and logic), quadrivium (geometry, arithmetic, music and
astronomy) along with architecture and he was essentially renowned later in
life, with all this schooling, as a sage. It was, probably while in France
during his formative years, that he heard of these early tales of the Grail and
later while at Glastonbury he combined later material that comprises the High
history of the Grail.
It is interesting to quote
from Miss Jesse Laidlaw Weston’s revealing book ‘From Ritual to Romance’ as
this gives a clear impression of the early Grail writers development.
while
the poem of Chrétien de Troyes is our earliest surviving literary version,
there is the strongest possible evidence that Chrétien, as he himself admits,
was not inventing, but re-telling, an already popular tale. The Grail Quest was
a theme which had been treated not once nor twice, but of which numerous, and
conflicting, versions were already current, and, when Wauchier de Denain
undertook to complete Chrétien's unfinished work, he drew largely upon these
already existing forms, regardless of the fact that they not only contradicted
the version they were ostensibly completing, but were impossible to harmonize
with each other.
It
is of importance for our investigation, however, to note that where Wauchier
does refer to a definite source, it is to an evidently important and already
famous collection of tales, Le Grant Conte, comprising several 'Branches,' the
hero of the collection being not Chrétien's hero, Perceval, but Gawain, who,
both in pseudo-historic and romantic tradition, is far more closely connected
with the Arthurian legend, occupying, as he does, the traditional position of
nephew, Sister's Son, to the monarch who is the centre of the cycle; even as
Cuchullinn is sister's son to Conchobar, Diarmid to Finn, Tristan to Mark, and
Roland to Charlemagne. In fact this relationship was so obviously required by
tradition that we find Perceval figuring now as sister's son to Arthur, now to
the Grail King, according as the Arthurian, or the Grail, tradition dominates
the story. The actual existence of such a group of tales as those referred to
by Wauchier derives confirmation from our surviving Gawain poems, as well as
from the references in the Elucidation.
On
a couple of occasions in the re-telling of these Gawain tales Wauchier refers
to what he thinks is the original author by name and calls him ‘Bleheris’ the
first time. On the second occasion he states specifically that this Bleheris
was of Welsh birth and origin, ‘né et engenuïs en Galles’. He says this in
connection with a tale being told to a certain, Comte de Poitiers, whose
favourite story it was, saying ‘he loved it above all others’, which would
infer that it was not the only tale the said ‘Bleheris’ had recounted to the
Count.
Even though it is posited
that Henry was born in Blois Castle in France, this cannot be substantiated but
if Henry is the composer, he used much Arthurian material for the Elucidation
which might have made others think he was Welsh. Henry could possibly be the
Link that combined Arthurian Welsh and the essentially British Glastonbury
Joseph material that had remained separate from the French source material of
Melkin that combined the Arthurian with Joseph and Nicodemus material owned by
Eleanor of Aquitaine. The ‘Elucidation’ prefaces its account of the Grail Quest
by a solemn statement of the gravity of the subject to be treated as ‘God
moveth the High Story of the Graal. And all they that hear it ought to
understand it, and to forget all the wickednesses that they have in their
hearts’.
These stark warnings are
said to have come from a certain Master Blihis, concerning whom we hear no more
but the warning does seem to derive from a firm believer with an understanding
of the Grail’s sanctity in connection with a divine plan or the mysterious
Grail. A little further on in the poem we meet with a knight, Blihos or
Bliheris, who, made prisoner by Gawain, reveals to Arthur and his court the
identity of the maidens wandering in the woods of the Fisher King and the
Grail, and is so good a story-teller that none can weary of listening to his
tales. This in a form, is autobiographical by Henry speaking of Blihis as other
than himself and is confirmed by the Count of Poitiers’ commendation of
Blihis’s storytelling.
‘Monseigneur’ is an
honorific appellation in the French language and it would seem that it has been
mistranslated or wrongly scribed for ‘Monsieur’ and then ‘master’ by later
translators from the French. It has occasional English use as well, as it may
be a title before the name of a French prelate, a member of a royal family or
any court dignitary; all of which might be applied to ‘Monseigneur Blois’. It
would seem that having studied rhetoric and Grammar, Henry would qualify in
some degree as a raconteur of Grail material to William X, Count of Poitiers
between (1126 - 1137), Father of Eleanor of Aquitaine just as it was said that
Master Blihis had done and not forgetting, Henry would have been abreast of the
Glastonbury material since 1126. Also some scholars seem to think that the
originator of the Perlesvaus, (due to his lack of detail in some areas compared
with Chretien or Gautier) may have comiled much fro memory rather than
transcribing all.
William IX, known as the
Troubadour, 1071 - 1126 was Duke of Aquitaine and Gascony and Count of Poitou
between 1086 and 1126. He was the son of William VIII of Aquitaine by his third
wife Hildegarde of Burgundy. He inherited the duchy at the age of fifteen. In
1088, at the age of sixteen, William married his first wife, Ermengarde of
Anjou the daughter of Count Fulk. It is interesting to note that the biographer
of Fulke in the History of Fulke Fitz-Warine the first to mention the Grail in
Welsh literature and more importantly the book of the Holy vessel, is Eleanor
of Aquitaine’s Grandmother’s family name (Fulke). William IX’s greatest legacy
in history was his renown as a poet. He was the first known troubadour or
trouvère, a lyric poet employing the Occitan or Langued’oc tongues. Eleven of
his songs survive and they are attributed to him under his title as Count of
Poitou. This seems to have become a family tradition as the first Romance poets
of the Middle Ages emerged as founders of the troubadour tradition……… because
like his father before him, William X, Eleanor’s father was a patron of
troubadours, music and literature. He was an educated man and gave his two
daughters an excellent education. Henry of Blois was obviously entirely fluent
in French and had family ties to Eleanor (His cousin Theobald was married to
Eleanor of Aquitaine´s daughter, Marie) who also was a patron to Chrétien de
Troyes and thus makes the Aquitaine’s the most likely ‘noble family’ (from
Helinand), to possess Melkin’s ‘Book of the Grail’ and to provide Henry with
the French source material. In the fragmentary remains of Thomas's Tristan we
have a passage, in which the poet refers, as source, to a certain Bréri, who
knew "all the feats, and all the tales, of all the kings, and all the
counts who had lived in Britain." With Henry’s privileged education and
fascination with books he would have found available at Glastonbury, in
conjunction with his royal connections; he does appear to be the obvious person
to correlate British and French sources that had been temporarily separated.
Blois became Bleheris which was mispronounced as Blihis which got Latinized
into Bledhericus and far from the bounds of our enquiry at the moment one can
trace Henry in other writings. Strangely enough one wonders if Robert de Boron (who is most notable as the author of the poem Joseph
d'Arimathe) knows about a master blihis as the priest
Blaise: ‘I’d like you to set it down in a book’ Merlin tells Blaise ‘ for many
people who hear my words will benefit from them and then he assures him that
the ‘Book of the Grail’ will be heard most gladly’. The accounts in The Vulgate
Cycle appear to be derived from Blaise's texts. Merlin brings Blaise (In the
Didot-Perceval ) to the Grail
Castle to pass the time there while in the Vulgate Merlin, Blaise takes up residence in Camelot just prior to Merlin's death.
As we will investigate shortly the Grail castle on Avalon is just opposite what
became known as Kamaalot in Perlesvaus.
Briefly, Giraldus
Cambrensis refers to the ‘famosus ille fabulator’, Bledhericus, who had lived
"shortly before our time" and whose renown he evidently takes for
granted and was familiar to his readers not necessarily for his personage, but
rather for the material said to have been written by him. Now if Gerald of
Wales was writing around 1210 this would be when the High History of the Grail
was at its most Popular. Although Henry employed his own pseudonym in his work,
it would seem that other appellations from other writers; the Bleheris who,
according to Wauchier, had told tales concerning Gawain, and Arthur's court,
one of the tales of which was certainly the Grail adventure; the Master Blihis,
who knew the Grail mystery, and gave solemn counselling about its revelation;
the Blihos-Bliheris, who knew the Grail, and many other tales; the Bréri, who
knew all the legendary tales concerning the princes of Britain; and the famous
story-teller Bledhericus, of whom Gerald of Wales speaks, are not separate
people, or mere inventions of the separate writers. It would seem as if Henry,
may well have deserved the title ‘famosus ille fabulator,’ but he was only
accounted as the originator of the Grail because people thought Monseigneur Blois
wrote the original. However,he was just the consolidator of much of the Melkin
material and as we now know, Melkin was the writer of the original book of the
Grail. It was however the coincidence of his being privy to knowledge from
British and French sources that led to his reputation and renown as master
Blihis, but it seems as if we can account Henry in some way responsible for the
Grail’s evolution as an object.
In 1126 at the age of 29, Henry was appointed
Abbot of Glastonbury and would certainly have come into contact with the works
of Melkin which were extant at that date. He joined the Abbey in a state of
decline when the monks lived in penury. Abbot Henry took immediate action,
proving himself as an excellent leader and architect. He renovated and restored
the monastery and it was through his efforts that by 1143, Glastonbury Abbey is
noted in the Doomsday book as “the wealthiest in England”. Henry definitely would have profited if he
could persuade others that Glastonbury was Avalon. Henry’s brother, King
Stephen with Queen Matilda were two of the greatest benefactors to the Templars
and it is through the Templar connection of Eleanor and her proximity to the
Crusades that threads of Templar material got embedded in the romances and as we
shall find out became the main guardians of the truths behind the Grail.
It would seem therefore
that Henry can be accredited for having written one of the first compilations
of Grail Romances called ‘The High History of the Holy Graal’.
It appears to have been not only collated sourcing from Chrétien de Troye’s work and from sources which Eleanor’s family owned, but also it becomes clearer because of his family connections and the likelihood of Henry and Chrétien’s paths crossing.
King Arthur is alive in the story, so how is it we know where he is buried especially when we see Lancelot’s visit to the Isle of Avalon were he sees Guinevere’s grave. The person who told this story had seen Guinevere's Grave and knew it was on Avalon and the only person who could have known this is Melkin. Henry was just a consolidator of some of the original book of the Grail, but all seem to think Henry wrote it.
If our assumptions are correct, the ‘Book of the Grail’ was written by Melkin which approximately concurs with Helinands’ date. Henry of Blois was also aware of Melkin’s other writings at Glastonbury, adding to the fact that it is also credited in the Latin version of the ‘High History of the Holy Graal’ to have been written by a monk at Glastonbury who, incidentally must have been fluent in some dialects of the French.
Melkin appears to be single handedly responsible for coalescing the Joseph tradition in Britain and the Grail literature that emanated from France. Thus to make a delectable tune to your ear, history goes masking as fable. (R. Wace)
It appears to have been not only collated sourcing from Chrétien de Troye’s work and from sources which Eleanor’s family owned, but also it becomes clearer because of his family connections and the likelihood of Henry and Chrétien’s paths crossing.
King Arthur is alive in the story, so how is it we know where he is buried especially when we see Lancelot’s visit to the Isle of Avalon were he sees Guinevere’s grave. The person who told this story had seen Guinevere's Grave and knew it was on Avalon and the only person who could have known this is Melkin. Henry was just a consolidator of some of the original book of the Grail, but all seem to think Henry wrote it.
If our assumptions are correct, the ‘Book of the Grail’ was written by Melkin which approximately concurs with Helinands’ date. Henry of Blois was also aware of Melkin’s other writings at Glastonbury, adding to the fact that it is also credited in the Latin version of the ‘High History of the Holy Graal’ to have been written by a monk at Glastonbury who, incidentally must have been fluent in some dialects of the French.
Melkin appears to be single handedly responsible for coalescing the Joseph tradition in Britain and the Grail literature that emanated from France. Thus to make a delectable tune to your ear, history goes masking as fable. (R. Wace)
Melkin through the construction of his English prophecy kept alive a tradition from great antiquity through conjoining the Quest of the Grail (from French literature) with a search for Joseph and what was with him in his tomb. It would seem also that Henry de Blois (as a later propagator) was the ‘famous fabulator’ named ‘Master Blihis’ in the prologue called the Elucidation of Le Conte Del Graal where it says, Master Blihis is ‘one who knew all the stories of the Graal’.
Chrétien de Troyes working for Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughters states that he had been given a Grail book by them, to be romanticised, (inferring a more historical or factual account), so that it could be read out at court to provide pleasure for its listeners. It would appear therefore, that the French noble family in possession of Melkin’s work which contained the historical Joseph account including the gospel of Nicodemus (which Chrétien was aware of), and the various tales up to king Arthur were all derived from Melkin’s ‘Book of the Graal’ in the possession of Eleanor.
Henry of Blois was uncle to Theobald V, Count of Blois and Troyes who was married to Alix de France, daughter of Louis VII, King of France from his first wife Eleanor d’Aquitaine. Theobald’s brother Henry was married to Marie, Eleanor’s other daughter; so through the Aquitaine’s possible ownership of Melkin’s book of the Grail, it is not difficult to see how Henry of Blois, appraised of the fact that Melkin was the originator of these truths, and being acquainted with the Glastonbury tradition could have been the one responsible in part for the British re-emergence. This helped through Crusader and Templar influences of the Joseph and Arthurian histories, couched and propagated as popular troubadour tales.
In addition, the Count of Blois’ court in Troyes became a renowned literary troubadour centre. Walter Map was among those who found hospitality there along with Chrétien.
We should not forget that Melkin was probably the hermit (pious monk) referred to by Helinand and that Melkin had to have been aware of arcane Joseph material, to have portrayed the Joseph and Grail material as the base for his Prophecy. As we shall see further in our investigation, it is through Melkin’s thorough understanding of the essence of the Grail that he can link its discovery with the unveiling of the tomb with a specific point in time. It is partly due to this prediction of the unveiling that subsequent commentators referred to his extract about Joseph’s tomb and the ‘duo fassula’, as a prophecy.
Henry for reasons regarding his ecclesiastical position, would not wish to be openly associated with the more romanticised and plainly embellished Grail material proliferating at the time that many thought trivialised into fable, the Lord’s relics and the personage of a saint. Henry understood the Grail’s sanctity in that it was a relic of Jesus in some form and may have been aware of some of its more arcane meaning as an expression of God’s work in man. He Knew that it was a subject (although not fully comprehended by him) that should not be treated irreverently and so ‘The High History of the Grail’, was written and alluded to himself by a pseudonym or nickname.
Henry was brought to England by King Henry I, to be Abbot of Glastonbury. On 4 October 1129, he was given the Bishopric of Winchester but allowed to keep his beloved Glastonbury Abbey. He was consecrated as bishop on 17 November 1129. He had ambitions to become Archbishop of Canterbury but was thwarted. However he did not abandon his work at Glastonbury. Except for a few brief months in 1141 when he changed his alliance to Empress Matilda, when he thought he would be on the winning side, Henry supported and advised Stephen his brother and is credited as one of the clergy who helped convince William of Corbeil, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to crown Stephen. Soon after his appointment to the See of Winchester, Henry came to resent his subservience to Canterbury. Henry was the patron of great writers one of whom was Archdeacon, Gerald of Wales (who later unwittingly referred to him as Bledhericus) and through his family connections, had links to the Templars and the Crusades and was well acquainted with William of Malmesbury.
One of the finest buildings Henry had constructed, was the Hospital of St. Cross on the outskirts of Winchester. A few years after completion, Henry was to assign the guardianship over to the Knights Templar. In William of Malmsbury’s work, ‘De Antiquitate Glasttonie Ecclesie’, (which he dedicated to Henry), he tells us that “the monk he knew personally and in fact whom he “served” was shy, learned and a great writer”. Henry of Blois gave some sixty books to the great library at Glastonbury and had ancient books copied, such as Pliny’s Natural History, the book of Enoch, and several other books of Origen, St. Jerome and St. Augustine which probably would have been lost except for his efforts. Mostly he will be remembered for sponsoring the Winchester Bible, the largest illustrated Bible ever produced (which was still unfinished at his death).
It is in 1155 though, that Master Robert Wace completes his "Roman de Brut," a version of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s "History" in French. Wace dedicated his work to Eleanor of Aquitaine his patron, and is remembered as being the first writer to introduce the concept of the "Round Table" to the Arthurian cycle but its derivative is somewhat lost in the embellishment and may have a connection to the ‘cercle d’or’.
Was it Eleanor who had provided him with a
source containing arcane geomatria supplied by Melkin’s book mixed with the
information from British sources found at Glastonbury supplied by Henry of
Blois that were to be included in the Architecture of Chartres then under the
jurisdiction of the Counts of Blois. Of King Arthur Robert Wace says,
"I know not if you have heard
tell the marvellous gestes and errant deeds related so often of King Arthur.
They have been noised about this mighty realm for so great a space that the
truth has turned to fable and an idle song. Such rhymes are neither sheer bare
lies, nor gospel truths. They should not be considered either an idiot's tale,
or given by inspiration. The minstrel has sung his ballad, the storyteller told
over his tale so frequently; little by little he has decked and painted, till
by reason of his embellishment the truth stands hid in the trappings of a tale.
Thus to make a delectable tune to your ear, history goes masking as fable.
Melkin
was a geometer, which was not only borne out by his Prophesy, but also if we
take into account information regarding Montacute as a marker on the ley line
from Avebury to Burgh island. This information may have been derived from the
Grail book originally and passed on by Henry of Blois. Henry could however,
have gleaned this from another work of Geomatria by Melkin. Henry was probably
the first Abbot to pass on this clue that seems to have come down through the
ages to Father Good.
It was generally understood that Joseph was hidden within some geometric puzzle, all the clues of which seem to emanate from Melkin, the one man who knew the whereabouts of Joseph.
It also seems a little suspect that he chose to be appointed at the young age of 23, as Prior of Montacute. The one person we suspect of having read Melkin’s Grail book and who most likely discovered that there was a connection between Montacute and finding Joseph just happens to be prior there. Henry had come across this Montacute information regarding the burial site of Joseph……. material from a source that Melkin must have written, since the line that he is sending us to find (the 104 nautical mile line from Avebury to Burgh Island), runs right through St. Michael’s hill Montacute. Since no-one at the time knew it was a ‘confirmation clue’ or knew where the Island of Avalon was, it obviously did not help Henry. Since this piece of material evidence was not spoken of or referenced in the Grail literature that emanated from France, one would assume that this information was found in a Melkin manuscript that existed in Britain before the fire. The only reason for not thinking this is that…… why at such a young age had Henry come straight from France to Montacute? This indeed would be an extraordinary coincidence if he had not come across this clue while in France.
Strangely enough, it was Eleanor who married King Henry II, the same King Henry who was supposedly told by a sage the exact place to start digging at Glastonbury Abbey to find King Arthur’s bones there between two pyramids. As we have covered Henry II was already dead when Arthur was unearthed but the story could have a grain of truth, if indeed Henry had learnt of Arthur’s burial in Avalon from Eleanor or her material. If it was widely accepted that Joseph was buried in Avalon and because of Joseph’s Glastonbury connection to the church there……… it is possible that the King, learning Arthur was also buried in Avalon also from the French source, may indeed have put this very idea of Avalon being equated with Glastonbury into the monks heads. It is possible that subsequently after the king’s death, they eventually (having lost their patron), decided to carry out the bogus unearthing of Arthur citing him as a witness.
Although John Leland, in 1534 says that the book he saw of Melkin’s dated to 450AD we do not know how he arrived at that date. The passage from Helinand’s chronicle relates the angels appearance to Melkin occured in 717,(and we will cover later how this date is probably accurate)……… so somewhere in-between both Arthur and Melkin lived.
One can only deduce that Helinand is referring to Melkin, as Melkin deals with the same two subjects, that of Joseph and the Grail in his Prophesy. It will become apparent to the reader, as we progress, that Melkin’s ‘Book of the Graal’ or ‘Of the Grades or by Degrees’ had express knowledge of what the Gradatim was, as a series of ‘grades’ toward spiritual enlightenment and this revelation of the Grail was known and understood by Melkin. He knew that it would be marked by an event in time, i.e. the unveiling of the tomb at a predestined point in time, but we will deal with this explanation of ‘Time’ later.
One cannot be certain if Helinand’s extract is the first passage which refers to the Grail directly at this early date, but the same date was quoted by Walter Map, an early Grail writer in reference as a source. If it is genuine, it is the closest we get to the original source of Melkin the consolidator of material found in the tomb. This is the point at which it becomes a question of faith for those who believe in Angels or for the pragmatic to answer……… ‘from where did Melkin receive instruction’? If we consider the Grail as arcane knowledge linked to a Divine Plan, then divine intervention by apparition should not be excluded especially when we consider Melkin’s link to an apparition by St. Michael that is attributed to St. Aubert at Mont-Saint-Michel discussed in a later chapter. Because Melkin states in his Prophecy precisely what was in the vault on Burgh Island and gives a description of the Turin Shroud long before it was supposedly first shown in public……. it seems more probable that he visited the vault or cave given the precise directions to the entrance.
Who imparted the knowledge for the original arcane source material, if it was not an angel that indeed gave Melkin his insight? More importantly, how were they or he able to leave behind such exact geometrical and geographic instructions with surveying pin point accuracy? One must remember that if Melkin did live around 450 to 700AD then where was this source and in what language, before Melkin transcribed all its information into the Latin book of the Grail? This source and the Grail book will be found at the unveiling of the tomb……… the Grail book being returned when the Templars hid their treasure there.
The arcane source material will have remained in the tomb but certainly the Grail book was returned to the tomb by the Templars as by now it would have surfaced along with their treasure. From the testimony of Helinand regarding the possession of the French book (only existing incomplete)……… makes one think that the original was only translated piecemeal and the parts translated and woven into a story were those parts that inspired individually the original transcribers. Each of the early troubadours elucidating and embellishing on an individual basis according to their penchant for the more spiritual essence or fight scenes or the transference of historical or geographically accurate detail.
There must be an arcane
source book for Melkin to have transcribed from Hebrew to render Shirei ha Ma'a
lot’, because to understand and relate in the Grail book about the Grades of
Enlightenement would indicate some exterior source or divine inspiration.
In Helinand’s chronicle, he derives ‘graal’ from ‘gradalis’ and sets the date for the British hermit's vision of the Grail at 707 or 717 A.D, but we are told that Melkin was ‘before’ Arthur and Merlin. This proposition now seems inaccurate if we take this date and the fact that Melkin knows where Arthur is buried. It is still not certain how this transition of the ‘Grades’ evolved into an object except from obvious misinterpretation, but Helinand's ‘gradalis’ did not resemble a chalice but rather a dish on which meats were served. This semantically fits with the other descriptions of the Holy Grail as a receptacle, since Joseph of Arimathea uses the Grail to catch blood and sweat from French tradition and alluded to by Melkin (in the misunderstood British prophecy) and implies that it is a vessel that holds liquid. Helinand states that Gradalis or Gradale means a dish, wide and somewhat deep by definition, in which rich meats are served to the rich in degrees- gradatim.
This is the point where I am sure that I will loose many readers as the duality of the Grail is on one side derived from arcane understanding. Is this not a misunderstanding of the transcribers and the original purport of the processional alluded to the spiritually rich as opposed to the waste-land or dearth which is cured on attainment of the Grail in the romances. This is a complex subject as the consciousness of man is refered to in Biblical expression through the prophets as ‘land’. The waste-land is an allusion to a spiritual state.
In Helinand’s chronicle, he derives ‘graal’ from ‘gradalis’ and sets the date for the British hermit's vision of the Grail at 707 or 717 A.D, but we are told that Melkin was ‘before’ Arthur and Merlin. This proposition now seems inaccurate if we take this date and the fact that Melkin knows where Arthur is buried. It is still not certain how this transition of the ‘Grades’ evolved into an object except from obvious misinterpretation, but Helinand's ‘gradalis’ did not resemble a chalice but rather a dish on which meats were served. This semantically fits with the other descriptions of the Holy Grail as a receptacle, since Joseph of Arimathea uses the Grail to catch blood and sweat from French tradition and alluded to by Melkin (in the misunderstood British prophecy) and implies that it is a vessel that holds liquid. Helinand states that Gradalis or Gradale means a dish, wide and somewhat deep by definition, in which rich meats are served to the rich in degrees- gradatim.
This is the point where I am sure that I will loose many readers as the duality of the Grail is on one side derived from arcane understanding. Is this not a misunderstanding of the transcribers and the original purport of the processional alluded to the spiritually rich as opposed to the waste-land or dearth which is cured on attainment of the Grail in the romances. This is a complex subject as the consciousness of man is refered to in Biblical expression through the prophets as ‘land’. The waste-land is an allusion to a spiritual state.
The singular Chalice is often thought of as the receptacle used at the Last Supper or is a relic of the Passion in which both blood and sweat were contained. Some scholars posit that the concept of the Grail as a platter preceded the notion of the Grail as the "Kiddush Cup" from the Last Supper positing that primarily it was a Paschal Dish and not the Eucharistic vessel used by the twelve disciples. The physical Grail is none of these, because Melkin describes it so accurately, he leaves no doubt as to its composition.
When Chrétien de Troyes refers to the ‘Graal’ in ‘le Conte du Graal, Chrétien refers to his object not as “the Grail”, but as “un graal”, “a grail”, implying that in the source document it was used in context as a common noun and that there were more than one. Melkin alludes to the Grail as either the body of Jesus in Grail ark or the shroud that was formed in it, but he also is recounting in the ‘Book of the Grai’l about Grades or Degrees to enlightenment, which is the whole essence of the other half of understanding what the Grail is……… an objective description of the ‘Divine Plan’ and the romances have in a way achieved a heightened awareness or preparation in readying the world as a form of pre-cognition.
It is difficult to ascertain whether Melkin, did survey the angles and distances that we will be elucidating when we investigate Melkin’s prophecy, because this art was supposedly lost in the sixth century Dark Ages, when European mapping techniques were still very crude. Melkin, however, passes on precise and accurate information given in his riddle, so where did he get it from? If it was not Melkin who surveyed the British landscape by his own skill, which points to where Joseph and Jesus were buried in the Island of Ictis, then how was it that he could leave us such precise directions? Was it truly by divine intervention as Helinand posits, or was there original ancient mapping instructions which indicated and marked Ley lines from which Melkin compiled his prophecy? The reason for considering this is that ‘Mons Acute’ or Montacute was the place Henry of Blois went to long before the Templars built the marker St. Michael churches. So was Mons Acutus the mount that marked out the thirteen degrees from the ley line from Avebury and got named as such…… long before the Templars built their St. Michael edifice to mark their treasure hoard.
If one considers that an entire body of knowledge may have existed since very early days from the offspring of Zerah through a line of Kings that ended with Arthur, then Melkin could have had access to this when he buried King Arthur. Was he, like Father Good, just the messenger, perpetuating a tradition and preserving directions to Joseph’s resting place to be found in a future generation? The hardest question to answer is…… “who did the original surveying and at what stage in history were the coordinates of these Ley Lines recorded and surveyed as pertaining to what was hidden in Ictis”? If we assume that the Templars possessed knowledge of this Ley line system (which will become apparent), then the French Book of the Grail may also have been contained this geometry. If this assumption is correct then it might explain where Henry of Blois got the information about Montacute that was passed on to Father Good down through the ages by the Abbots. What part does the island play in relation to the original St.Michael Ley line before the Templars put their stamp on it and named it as such.
If the extract that gives account of the Grail noted by Helinand was written in Latin around 707AD, it indicates that, before the five main romance writers, Guiot le Provencal, Chrétien de Troyes, Walter Map, Wolfram von Eschenbach, and Albrecht von Scharfenberg, began their works, there was a Latin original that contained geomatria which would explain (given his connections to the noble family), how Henry of Blois might have made the Montacute connection that was passed to Father Good. If it was not picked up to feature in any of the French transcripts by the French writers, maybe Henry had gleaned it from the original. But then one has to question whether Henry actually saw the French original translation of the Grail book (if there ever was one) or the original Latin from Melkin. It seems that if there ever was a complete transcription of the whole Grail book the various varients would concur more in their subject matter. As Helinand bears witness there probably was no complete French volume but the French material existed as seperate extracts or exerpts compiled by the original writers allowed to see the latin text.
As regards to when the original was written given the Saxon connection to Arthur, it would seem soon after Arthur’s demise and possibly even written in France although Helinand’s source seems to indicate an Apparition as taking place in Britain. The original Latin version written by Melkin we should guess at around 650 AD to be followed by the French excerpts translations and the French volume that Helinand presumes exists, never did. Because Eleanor’s father and Grandfather were captivated by these stories and the fact that Chretien is working off another’s work…… what we think all became a tradition at one time probably had much earlier strains as well. It is with this family that the troubadour tradition concerning the Grail commenced, to evolve into the various forms of romances. Before any of the early named Grail writers mentioned above came on the scene, there was most probably a more oral court tradition and it would seem these early troubadours recognised at this early date that the Grail book contained sacred information.
The Grail books appearance was either then ascribed the date by Helinand or more probably given the date of when his source wrote of the Latin originals first appearance at court. Because of the book’s profundity, knowledge and the nature of its material, it may have been assumed that it could only have been delivered by an angel to the hermit (better known as Melkin). In a later chapter we will cover the possibility that Burgh Island’s association as a Tomb in connection with St. Michael preceded even the Templars and if indeed it is the cause for the naming of Mont- Saint-Michel as Mons Tomba and its association with an angelic apparition by St. Michael to a monk.
It was Robert de Boron circa 1170 who relates the story of the shield that was later to become the template for the Arms of Glastonbury, that had probably inspired Father Good’s investigation to find a clue to Joseph’s burial site. The shield given to Evalak by Josaphes, Joseph of Arimathea’s son, had a red cross on it that was also to become the symbol of the Rosicrucians and the Templars. Robert tells us that, following Evalak's victory over Tholomer, the red cross upon it disappeared, then Josaphes, just before his death, asked Mordrains to bring the shield to him. Continuing the story he then recounts that Josaphes with his own blood inscribed another cross on the shield and gave it back to Mordrains, and afterward it was placed upon the grave of Duke Nasciens, until Galahad would come and retrieve it. Galahad then posseses a sword which had belonged to King David, the hilt of which was covered by King Solomon with precious stones and the story ensues with an adventure with the holy bleeding lance, and Galahad’s eventual achievement of the Saint Graal, followed by his death at Sarras. Now here is the quirk. If the sword of Solomon was brought by Joseph then if he left Jerusalem with it, would he not know where the Arc is, presuming they were cached in the same place beneath the temple. Is this why these Knights originally wound up at the Temple Mount rather than the ruse of protecting the way of pilgrims?
Thomas Malory's ‘Morte D’Arthur’ has very much the same elements within his story with his own additions, the early French tradition keeping links with the Holy Land threaded throughout the narrative. Is Solomon’s sword’s iconic appearance in the original sources hinting at the inter-relationship of the two twins Pharez and Zerah’s separate bloodlines, as far back as King David, Solomon’s father, but somehow imputing the transference of kingship to Britain. The shield obviously being transformed in the tale with blood marks on it, to a Rosicrucian emblem and an association with the Templars, who not only were probably at this stage in possession of the Latin source in France after Eleanor but were now releasing their source material in response to the new interest shown in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s widely read history of the kings of Britain.
Evalak’s shield then by close association with Joseph was adopted as the Arms of Glastonbury. Glastonbury substituted the knotted wooden cross from the staff planted by Joseph at Glastonbury and then added the two vessels each side to coincide with the ‘duo fassula’ while the blood inscribed cross of Evalak also become the Templar emblem.
The subject matter of our investigation seems so wide, and interrelated from Ictis to Avalon via Glastonbury and the Grail stories. Evalak king of Sarras, Knights looking for the Graal in the East, Egypt, Jerusalem, the Templars’ cross, stories of Jesus in England, Joseph of Arimathea being buried with the Grail, Arthur, the oil with which Josaphes was consecrated, being kept in the Grail-ark. This oil with which a line of Kings are consecrated, while being kept at Sarras, swords and ships from Solomon, pyramids at Glastonbury, and prophecies in riddle form, but all of these having a link to Jesus.
Man from the dawn of consciousness, has advanced and gained a large amount of knowledge from stories recounted by previous generations that sometimes lived millenia before him while the individual has to learn and judge the validity of this corpus of knowledge in his short 70 years of life. The relevance of the stories in this enquiry are for mankind as a whole, as if we are being prepared for a revelation…… occult information couched within the Grail stories subliminaly some of it derived from understanding the Prophets of Israel, and bardic prophecies, without which, we would not comprehend a coming of heightened consciousness, and the proof that mankind needs. A proof that aligns with scriptures held as sacred by the Abrahamic religions i.e. the Prophets. The proof that is necessary for Mankind to progress in consciousness is the knowledge that there is some form of divine intervention which directs events. If Man were to have a more intellectual knowledge of God rather than wholly Faith based, there would be a shift in the consciousness of Mankind. There is understanding of this expectation even outside the arena of our investigation in the prophecy of Paracelcus, and the reformation of the whole world order.
Quod utilius Deus
patefieri sinet, quod autem majoris momenti est, vulgo adhuc latet usque ad
Eliæ Artistæ adventum, quando is venerit.
"God will permit a
discovery of the highest importance to be made, it must be hidden till the
advent of the artist Elias." He also states;
Hoc item verum est nihil
est absconditum quod non sit retegendum; ideo, post me veniet cujus magnale
nundum vivit qui multa revelabit.
"And it is true,
there is nothing concealed which shall not be discovered; for which cause a
marvellous being shall come after me, who as yet lives not, and who shall
reveal many things."
In Malachi 4:5 See, I will
send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD
comes. This passage comes straight after an admonishment to obey the Law of
Moses the very subject the Archangel is supposed to dispute with the Dragon.
Jehosaphat mentioned in Melkin’s prophecy, is the same day to which Malachi
refers; so is St. Michael synonymous with Elijah? It would seem that the
different religions would need a proof of provenance of some sort to reunite
them, especially those of the Abrahamic tradition, as all have been derived
from one heritage and been guided by one divine plan. Of course, in Jewish,
Moslem and Christian traditions this unifier is Michael the Archangel, attested
by Enoch first and then confirmed later by the Biblical prophets. The very
purpose of prophecy is realisation or gnosis to bring together these three
Abrahamic faiths and there will be a need to eradicate religion in all its
divisive forms of theological dogma and creed.
The very reality of what was foretold by these prophets needs to actually transpire and then there will be the proof needed by mankind. The problem is that gnosis of an omnipotent God needs be ‘re-cognised’. The Grail stories with what they reveal, when aligned with the prophets are just the vehicle to bring about this paradigm shift of consciousness. After all, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand and has been for 2000 years, but it is only a heightened consciousness that will recognise this fact when this shift in consciousness occurs and this is at the discovery of the Tomb and what it reveals to mankind.
Chrétien de Troyes poem tells of the passages through life of a young knight called Percival, but it is written in an uneasy form and suddenly goes from a story about Percival into the adventures he has on the way to being a knight. Percival is the first of the three Grail stories to be published and in the narrative it describes the vessel of the Holy Grail as a golden dish and also speaks of a Lance dripping with blood that appears with the Grail conveyed ceremoniously at times throughout a meal he is having. The Grail romances cover too many variations to be discussed here, but as we focused on the essential information provided by Pytheas that led us to the Island of Ictis, so too, must we look at the essential core of what the Grail romances have in common, to understand their meaning. It is evident that the Grail writers were not really concerned with historical time or anachronistic chronology as they interwove their various versions from a core body of material.
The essential threads of information that align themselves even semantically and allegorically seem to consist of Joseph of Arimathea, the Grail, Knightly pursuits and a quest, but essentially it was a British matter. Joseph has a connection to Jesus and most of the Grail heroes have a connection to Joseph and so it would seem a bloodline or inheritance is inferred. The Grail seems to be an object with direct connections to Jesus having been brought to Britain by Joseph. The quest appears to be, to find the Grail but the Grail seems hard to define and thus looking for it makes it all the more difficult. The Grail although greatly connected to Jesus (who was the one responsible for a major part of Man’s enlightenment) is also synonymous with the developmental stages of enlightenment in the individual, referred to as grades in the Book of the Grail and allegorised as the righteousness of knightly pursuits.
Melkin having prior knowledge of this process or divine plan would in effect equate him as having equal standing with Biblical prophets, informing us of future events in ’Time’ but also having knowledge that his prophecy relates in part to degrees of Spiritual enlightenment which are set in a finite timespan.
Chapter 10
The Montacute connection
to the Glastonbury Pyramids and the Ley line, that Melkin has shown us leads to
Avalon.
Father William Good, died
at Naples in 1586, and was buried in the college of the Jesuits in that city.
Father Good wishing to pass on the small nugget of information said that Joseph
of Arimathea is “hidden carefully in Montacute. Let us look however at the
connection with Montacute and the actions taken by previous unknown people that
must have heard of this same information that Father Good had been trusted to
pass on.
It becomes clear that
before Father Good’s time, an attempt had been made to establish Montacute as
the most holy site by the finding of a holy relic. This seems to be a
completely arbitrary act unless an Abbot or monk had prior information about
the sanctity of who was purportedly laid there. The only certain information
passed down to us, was that Joseph of Arimathea was buried, ‘very carefully in
Montacute’. It becomes apparent that the inclusion of Hamdon Hill being named
after Montacute as the precise location was probably a later interpolation
following the discovery of the Black Rood of Scotland, otherwise known as the
Holy cross of Waltham. The coincidence of this find having great similarities
to the discovery of the leaden cross that was fabricated to establish King
Arthur's Avalon as Glastonbury.
Holyrood Abbey, founded in
1128 by King David I of Scotland, once possessed a fragment of the original
holy cross from Calvary brought by St. Margaret to Scotland from Waltham Abbey
and known thereafter as the Black Rood of Scotland. Supposedly the right hand
man of King Canute 1016-1035, a man called Tofig had a vision and found a large
black flint crucifix -The Holy Cross, on a Hill at Montacute, he then took it
to Waltham. The story goes that he put the cross on an ox-cart, but the oxen
would only go in one direction and would not stop until they reached Waltham
and there it was housed in the Abbey. It was then re-appropriated back from the
Scottish by the English in 1346 to Durham Cathedral as one of its holy relics.
The Black Rood of Scotland disappeared at the Reformation, while at the same
time, the same fate befalling Waltham Abbey's Holy Cross.
The reason for relating these points is, firstly, the Holy Cross of Waltham, originally found buried at Montacute, seems to have been transformed on its journey to Scotland from a flint object into the actual Cross from Calvary, and secondly, that coincidentally becoming intertwined, Scotland's Holy Rood and the cross which was dug up at Montacute were both black, thereafter leaving for posterity a complete muddle of fake relics.
However, to have located
such a holy relic in Montacute in the first place would have certainly added
credibility to the possibility that Joseph of Arimathea also was buried there.
Probably what really transpired was that one of Father Good’s predecessors from
Glastonbury, (Montacute being a possession of the Glastonbury Monastery), while
in possession of the same secret information as William Good, tried to find
Joseph of Arimathea in Montacute, and not wanting to turn up empty-handed,
enacted very much the same deception as his other brothers of Glastonbury had
done by fabricating a lead cross for King Arthur. Somebody within the
Glastonbury institution at some stage knew of the connection, with Joseph of
Arimathea and Montacute…… a deception of a discovery was organised, but it did
not have the desired effect of finding Joseph. The deception did not
materialise as intended and instead, a cross was found, with stories of
miraculous circumstances and then an early date apportioned to the find, so
that Pilgrims could be persuaded of Montacute’s sanctity. In fact it would not
be going too far to postulate that it was the same Abbot responsible for both
deceptions. This was most probably Henry de Sully, Richard I’s nephew, Abbot of
Glastonbury, who was the perpetrator of the Arthur fiasco. This in the context
of not forgetting Richard was Eleanor’s of Aquitaine’s son who appointed Henry
de Sully not so many years after Henry Blois’ death. It was probably Henry of
Blois, as we have covered, who originally obtained this nugget of information
however, from Melkin’s geometry contained in Eleanor’s Grail book and it was
passed on to Henry de Sully. There is a small possibility that this clue was given
in extant Melkin manuscripts at Glastonbury and kept quiet so as not to detract
from Glastonbury’s monopolisation of Joseph. There is though, partial evidence
for the Grail book having contained geomatria that has come down in the form of
the Grail tables, these of course found in the geomatria of Chartres Cathedral
and the three table’s connection in relation to Arthur obviously been woven in
to the Grail romances.
The one fact that we can
draw from this Geomatric clue of Montacute is that the Montacute connection to
Joseph of Arimathea was prior to the time that there was a proliferation of St.
Michael dedicated churches. This seems to indicate that the present day St.
Michael's Hill at Montacute on which a St. Michael church was built has only
had that appellation since the early 1400’s and hence the reference to Hamden
hill or confusion with Ham hill.
Archbishop Usher in his
Antiquitates, who quotes from Maihew’s Trophea ;’Quod autem ad montem
illum Hamdenhil nuncupatum,in quo aliqui S.Josephum ab Arimathea sepultum
perhibent spectat habebatur sane olim sacellum in illo monte constructum inter
sacra et veranda angliae loca.’
'As
for the mountain called Hamden hill, in which some claim Joseph of Arimathea is
buried, clearly from the looks a chapel was once located here, built on that
mountain, among the sacred and revered places of England',
The Hamden Hill, mentioned
in this text, is referring to the one we have already established that is
called St Michael's Hill today, which, as the quote reports had a Chapel on it.
However, this is clear for two reasons, the first being that the proliferation
which makes up the design of St. Michael churches that we have previously
established, did not appear until the very late 13th, and early 14th century
and was not mentioned at the time when the holy cross of Waltham was
fabricated. St. Michael's Hill was not named, and was thus called Hamden Hill
at the time. The line we have been sent to find by Melkin tangentially touches
St.Michael’s hill at its base, 200 yards from where the chapel stood as we can
see in figure 24. The Ley lines length of 104 miles runs from Avebury to Burgh
Island as seen in figure 23. It now becomes obvious that the intended meaning
of ‘hidden carefully’, relates only to St. Michael's Hill as part of the Ley
system acting as a marker on the ley line, for the long awaited discovery of
Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb on the Island of Avalon in Devon.
There are other
observations worth noting from the passage left by Father Good from his
manuscript in the English College at Rome. The original Latin for the brief
passage quoted above was printed by Archbishop Usher in his 1687 edition of
‘Antiquitates’ quoting as his source Edward Maihew’s ‘Congregat Anglican
ordinis Benedict’. Maihew, while he was a student in the English College in
Rome after Father Good's death copied this following text from the signed
manuscript which Father Good had left for posterity. It is unclear which copy
of Maihew, Archbishop Usher used as his source, but there appears to have been
an attempt to cover up this following passage from being widely made public,
since the copies of Maihew's Trophea in the British Museum, in the Bodleian
library and in the library of Trinity College, Dublin are all missing this specific
passage. The passage quoted here actually comes from Stillingfleet’s private
collection that was sold to Archbishop Marsh’s library in 1704. It is
interesting to note that there remains no trace of the St. Michael church at
Montacute and it also seems as if an attempt with the same aim, has been made
to cover-up the clue to Joseph's whereabouts left by Father William Good.
Maihew writes:
For
this man (Father Good) was situated until now in the same monastery
(Glastonbury) in a flourishing position, a boy brought up as a priest to devote
himself to sacrifice for the mass, after the overturning of the rule of the
Catholic Queen Mary; however, while Queen Elizabeth was persecuting the
Catholics, he was made a member of the clergy of the Fellowship of Jesus. And
when the church of the Anglican college was decorated with pictures, he was the
first to assemble in that place an enumeration of the distinguished holy men of
England, with him as leader, to ensure that the appearances and deeds of those
very men in that place were portrayed with a faithful likeness to the truth.
However, concerning the convent of Glastonbury and Saint Joseph of Arimathea,
he leaves behind the following, written in his own hand and signed in that
place with his own name:
‘at
Glastonbury there were bronze plates as a perpetual memorial, chapels, crypts,
crosses, arms, the keeping of the feast(of St Joseph) on July 27, as long as
the monks enjoyed the protection of Kings by their charters. Now all these
things have perished in the ruins. The monks never knew for certain the place
of this Saints burial, or pointed it out. They said the body was hidden most
carefully, either there (Glastonbury), or on a Hill near Montacute called
Hamden Hill, and that when his body should be found, the whole world should
wend their way thither on account of the number and wondrous nature of the
miracles worked there. Among other things, I remember to have seen, at
Glastonbury, a stone cross, thrown down during this Queens reign, a bronze
plate, on the which was carved an inscription relating that Joseph of Arimathea
came to Britain 30 years after Christ's Passion, with eleven or twelve
companions: that he was allowed by Arviragus the King to dwell at Glastonbury,
which was then an island called Avalon, in a simple and solitary life: and that
he had brought with him two small silver vessels in which was some of the most
holy blood and water which had flowed from the side of the dead Christ. 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, there was a stone with the words ‘Jesus, Maria’, carved
in very ancient letters. The old arms of the monastery of Glastonbury confirm
(the traditions). These arms are a white shield on which is placed vertically
the stem of the green cross, and from side to side the arms of a cross in like
manner. Drops of blood are scattered over the field of the shield; on both
sides of the upper right and under the arms of the cross are set golden
ampullae. These were always called St Joseph's insignia for he was piously
believed to have abided there; and even perhaps to have been buried there.
There was in that same place (at Glastonbury) a long underground sanctuary
where a very famous pilgrimage was established to the stone statue of that
saint there; and there were many miracles done there, even while I was a boy,
who was born there (in Glastonbury), and I served mass in the sanctuary as an
eight-year old, and I saw it destroyed by the impious man, William Goals, under
Henry VIII.’
Thus
far go the words of that man (Father Good); as I said, he signs his name in his
own hand under these things: I copied them down from the manuscript itself when
I was a pupil of the same Anglican college in Rome, and always I kept them safe
with me, across sea and land, amid the most savage persecutions of heretics.
Nevertheless, it points towards that mount named Hamden Hill, on which some
claim the tomb of St. Joseph of Arimathea to be, the sanctuary on that mount
was kept safe for some time, built among the sacred and revered places of
England. In fact I remember when sometimes I myself would traverse that mount,
a certain old man who lived not far from that place would receive me through trust
in my worthiness, often, during the reign of Elizabeth the heretic, to visit
that place, and there, in a particular place he was accustomed to pray on his
knees.
It is interesting to note
that the quotes ‘The monks never knew for certain the place of this Saints
burial, or pointed it out’, and ‘even perhaps to have been buried there’ tend
to denote a certain acquiescence in Father Good’s day that previous generations
of monks had fabricated the whole legend. It would seem that the subterranean
chapel in Glastonbury might have been an attempt at establishing a place of
worship where Joseph was supposed to be buried. However, as we posited earlier,
without the discovery of the Grail for all to see, this would lack credibility
with pilgrims. As Father Good bears witness, the miracles which were prophesied
by Melkin and which were supposed to happen at the unveiling of the grave, were
already taking place at this underground chapel, but not even Glastonbury would
have the effrontery to fabricate the Grail. Father Good, although he attests
that Glastonbury is Avalon as we have seen previously, is unconvinced that
Joseph is actually buried there, thus his investigation into the Arms of
Glastonbury. The fact that Maihew went to Montacute circa 1620 and witnessed a
man on his knees praying indicates that maybe the chapel was still standing
then and his reference ‘in a particular place’ is meaning St.Michael’s hill as
opposed to Hamden hill also known as Ham hill.
Possibly subsequent
searchers being newly appraised of this hitherto un-published clue, dismantled
the chapel to search beneath for the Grail. This does seem likely as all the
copies of Maihew’s Trophea were meddled with, to avoid this information being
spread abroad. The very fact that the monks did not point out the site in
Glastonbury and that there was equivocation as to whether Joseph's remains were
in Montacute or Glastonbury (even by the possessors of the Montacute clue),
leads one to deduce that there could have been a general suspicion of fabrication
even by the monks. It would surely seem as if an attempt had been made, prior
to Father Good’s days, to establish an underground Chapel to bring pilgrims
into close proximity with Joseph believed to lie within the grounds.
The second half of
Melkin's prophecy is assuredly prophetical, in that it speaks of the future
unveiling of Joseph’s sepulchre and the events that will accompany the
discovery. It deals with the consequences of unveiling Joseph's tomb and infers
a global reaction. However Melkin’s prophecy might be partially divinely
inspired and partly instructional. If Melkin had been present at Arthur’s
burial he would certainly know the lay of the land around the grave site of
Avalon. This is described in his puzzle but does not explain how he was able to
survey 104 miles across the landscape and take an angle from an invisible Ley
line. So is his riddle less prophetical than instructive……… as if relating
facts from a source? We can only conclude that it is both for he knows the
outcome of the discovery and yet describes not only its geographical location
but physical features of the island.
We can assume that the
second-half of the prophecy is prophetical. Prophetical in the sense that it is
foretelling of the global reaction, but maybe not divinely inspired as it could
be asserted that anyone could predict a stir at the unearthing of Jesus's
bones……… as ‘Abbadare’ in Melkin’s Prophecy is a pseudonym for Jesus. It is
Melkin’s references to biblical time which should convince us that he
understood the purport of the material that Joseph brought with him concerning
the Divine plan and later laid out, in his Book of the Grail.
Apart from his now famous
prophesy, which, shortly we shall discuss and dissect at length, it is worth
looking at what other references are made to his lost books. John Leyland says
he saw fragments of Melkin’s work, even a volume of great antiquity while 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
sites, ‘De antiquitatibus Britannicis’, ‘De gestis Britannorum’ and ‘De Regis
Arthurii mensa rotunda’, could have been written by Melkin and within one of
these three the prophecy probably existed and Bale confirms that it was Melkin
who wrote the ‘Arthurii mensa rotunda’ which surely could be just an
abbreviation of Pits’ title. It is unclear how much of the historical
information that we have today regarding Arthur and Joseph was derived from the
works of Melkin but these titles seem to concur that Melkin wrote a manuscript
about King Arthur and the Round Table and also of British history to his time.
None of these later chroniclers mention the more important ‘Book of the Graal’.
So it would seem our assumption that the Book of the Gradali was the source for
the French Grail stories which left Britain in the Saxon era. The source for
the Arthurian material that supplied Geoffrey and the Welsh tradition we should
assume stayed in Britain, but both originate from Melkin. Melkin then was the
common source to both and hence the overlap of material. This would explain the
Welsh corruption of Arthurian material until the advent of the French material.
It would also explain another piece of evidence that appeared at the time of
the Grail material in Britain. The ‘Acts of Pilate’ are different from the
‘Gospel of Nicodemus’ for they had been around since at least the fourth
century and were originally written in Greek. The Gospel of Nicodemus seemed to
surface around the time that Henry of Blois came from France; so was the
Nicodemus material gleaned from Melkin’s Grail book? If so it would add to the
evidence of the Graal material (that which explains the Divine Plan) originally
having come from the Holy land with Joseph.
The passage below, quoted
in John's Cronica giving an extract on the genealogy from Joseph of Arimathea
through to Arthur is most probably derived from Melkin, as this passage is next
to that of Melkin’s prophecy in John's work and others relate it is from him.
It also testifies to the proximity in relationship between the Grail stories
and the material found in Melkin’s prophecy, and should go a long way to
convincing the reader that, Melkin’s manuscripts and the Grail romances had a
common source.
‘Hae seriptura
testatur, quod rex Arthunts de itirpe Joseph descendit’, This passage bears
witness that King Arthur descended from the stock of Joseph.
‘Helaius, nepos
Joseph, genuit losue. losue genuit Aminadab. Aminadab genuit Castellors.
Castellors genuit Manael. Manael genuit Lambord & Urlard. Lambord genuit
filium, qui genuit Tgemam, de qua rex Uterpendragun genuit nobilem &
famosum regem Arthurum; per quod patet, quod rex Arthurus de stirpe Joseph
descendit. Item de eodem, Petrus, consanguineus Joseph ab Armathia, Rex
Oiganise, genuit Krlan. Erlan genuit Melianum. Melianus genuit Arguth. Arguth
genuit Edor. Edor genuit Loth, qui duxit in uxorem sororem regis Arthuri, de
qua genuit quatuor filios, scilicet Walwanum, Agraneyns, Gwerehes &
Geheries.'
Helians,
Joseph's nephew, begat Josue. Josue begat Aminadab. Aminadab begat Castellors.
Castellors begat Manael. Manael begat Lambord and Urlard. Lambord begat a son,
who begat Igerna, of whom King Utherpendragon begat the noble and famous King
Arthur, by which it is evident that King Arthur descended from the stock of
Joseph. Again on the same subject; Peter, cousin of Joseph of Arimathea and
King of Organiana begat Erlan. Erlan begat Melian begat Arguth begat Edor. Edor
begat Loth, who took to wife King Arthur's sister, of whom he begat four sons,
namely Gawain, Agravains, Guerrehes, and Gaheriet.
The first thing to notice
is that the genealogy starts with Joseph’s Nephew and this raises the question
of what relation was Helians to Jesus.
Figure 56 showing the
Bifurcation point or the two forked line of Melkin’s prophecy which bisects
inside the Avebury stone circle. The line which Melkin has sent us to find is
104 nautical miles away from Avebury and runs right through St. Michael’s hill
just as Father William Good had instructed us as to where Joseph of Arimathea
was ‘carefully hidden’. The angle at which the bifurcation toward mons-acutus
or Montacute bisects the Saint Michael ley line is 13 degress as Melkin had let
us know.
John of Glastonbury ends
his quotation from Melkin with the words ‘thus far Melkin’. He then continues
on to say that ‘also
in this island of Avalon, which is called the tomb of saints, rest, Coel, King
of the Britons, father of St Helen, mother of the great emperor Constantine,
and Caradoc Duke of Cornwall.’ He then follows on to say
‘King Arthur rests there with his Queen Guinevere; in
the year of the Lord's incarnation 542, Arthur was fatally wounded by Mordred
in Cornwall near the river Camlann, was brought to the island of Avalon for the
healing of his wounds, died there in summer, around Pentecost, and was buried
in the monks Cemetery.
We are able to see here in
this last caption how John had ended, quoting directly from Melkin but
continuing with most of Melkin’s material except for ‘and was buried in the monks Cemetery’.
The part that states ‘King Arthur rests there with his
Queen Guinevere’, which evidences clearly another example of
his polemicism may well be accurate as regards the real Avalon in Devon but I
feel that John here is just backing up the Glastonbury fable of Guinivere’s
unearthing. The information about the tomb being occupied by Arthur’s forebears
from Cornwall fits with the account that all the Kings were anointed from the
Grail Ark which is also in the Tomb.
This passage however, does
highlight that there was essentially an early southern tradition built upon
later by the Welsh. Caradoc, who seems to feature more prevalently in the
Silurian tales of knight’s, has his roots and those of King Arthur firmly fixed
in Cornwall according to genuine Melkin material. After all, Arthur was the son
of Uther Pendragon and Igraine. Igraine was wife to Duke Gorlois of Cornwall,
at the time she conceived Arthur and therefore Arthur was illegitimate, but
Cornish.
How much John of Glastonbury
has interpolated this additional information as is seen in reference to
Guinevere, the time of year, the date for king Arthur and his ‘burial in the
Monks cemetery’ after having thus confirmed ‘here ended Melkin’ we shall not
know.
Almost all of Christendom
laid claim to St. Helen’s relics and her inclusion by John, could be his own
interpolation mixed with Melkin's factual account. The St. Helen legend, made
popular by Geoffrey of Monmouth, claims that Helena was a daughter of the King
of Britain, Coel of Camulodunum. She gave birth to Constantine, but as history
spells out, Constantine did not spend much time in Britain. However, Caradoc
seems to have been supplied by the Melkin source, the same source that would
have left Arthur with the southern and Cornish tradition, and Caradoc as Duke
of Cornwall.
Just to reiterate, when
William of Malmesbury wrote his ‘De Antiquitate’ Joseph of Arimathea was not
included in the text, except that some annotations in the margin by a later
hand, related that he and twelve of the disciples had been sent from Gaul by St
Philip. This annotation had been made sometime in the middle 13th century and
tells how Joseph built the wattle church at Glastonbury and that the church was
dedicated to St Mary, (vital points to make by the polemicist). The Church then
fell into disrepair and was then renovated by two Roman missionaries called
Phagan and Deruvian, the same tale of events being told in St. Patrick's
charter much later, with barely a mention of Joseph of Arimathea before that
time.
John of Glastonbury
writing later included these annotations from a later hand interpolated into
William’s work quoting from it as if it were all from his hand. John’s
intention here is to have us believe that his source is entirely William’s work
only and not that of interpolators to add credence and historical weight to
Glastonbury propaganda. In fact John is swaying our opinion by saying this is
the William of Malmesbury who wrote an account of the Abbey ‘from the coming of St. Joseph down to
the time of Henry of Blois’. Had it not been for the annotations,
Joseph of Arimathea, leader of the band of 12 would have barely received a
mention. There is another later marginal annotation that states that ‘Joseph of Arimathea, the noble
councillor, with his son Joseph and many others, came to greater Britain and
there ended his life and is attested to by the book of the deeds of the famous
King Arthur’, and then again, another reference
referring the reader to the fourth and fifth books of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
This is quite strange since William of Malmesbury did not know the location of
the Isle of Avalon and chose not to include any part of the Joseph story.
John of Glastonbury is
primarily responsible for putting the whole legend together as we know it
today, conglomerating the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Acts of Pilate, Joseph's
connection with St. Philip, being extracted from the charter of St. Patrick,
Joseph’s arrival in Glastonbury, and the building of the wattle church. The
wattle church substantiated and overstated in its method of construction purely
based upon rationalising it with Melkin’s ‘cratibus’.
William of Malmesbury's
book ’On the antiquity of the Church of Glastonbury’ has not reached us in its
original form, suffering many interpolations at the hands of the scribal
polemicists at Glastonbury, the forged book which must necessarily and
manifestly have been composed fifty years after his death. Luckily we can see
this by William of Malmesbury's third edition of his Gesta Regnum which he
released circa 1140 in which he repeated verbatim much of which was in his
‘Antiquitates’, related by Adam of Domerham, and through this, we can detect
later interpolations.
William of Malmesbury
tells us that the Bishop of Rochester after fleeing from York covered the
wattle church in wooden boarding as a repair. This quite possibly was how
William of Malmesbury viewed the repaired church when he visited Glastonbury,
after having been repaired once by Phagan and Deruvian and then again by St.
David, so was it ever wattle and is this the fixing point that allows no
further indecision. ‘Cratibus’, ‘oratori’ and ‘adorandam virginem’ are the glue
that ties the prophecy to Glastonbury. The Rhygyfarch, a Welsh text, relates that Glastonbury was one
the churches St. David founded; this contradicting the Joseph tradition, but
William aware of this assertion and being able to peruse many of the ancient
manuscripts at Glastonbury was aware that it had a history prior to 500 AD.
William wrote that David only visited Glastonbury intending just to
‘rededicate’ the abbey, as well as to donate a travelling altar as well as the
Great Sapphire while en route and passing through…… and while there, he
fortuitously had a vision of Jesus, who said that "the church had been dedicated
long ago by himself (Jesus) in honour of His Mother, and it was not seemly that
it should be re-dedicated by human hands".
So instead, St. David, we hear, commissioned
an extension to be built to the Abbey, east of the Old Church and he was probably
not responsible for any rebuilding of the old church. The old church, with its
wooden boarding is probably the state in which William witnessed it, even
though in the ‘Antiquitates’ there is an account that it was covered from top
to bottom with lead, but this could have been referring to the roof only or a
protection of the wattle which like Cob crumbles when soaked. Whatever light
the construction of the church may be viewed in, it seems likely that even
before William of Malmesbury wrote, which was before the fire; the church’s
construction became a focal point to concur with Melkin’s ‘cratibus’ in the
time even prior to finding Arthur’s bones as this was physical evidence of the
wattled church dedicated to the adorable Virgin and hence the very place of
which Melkin prophesied that Joseph would be found.
Certainly the church’s
construction had already been overtly publicised, but afterward through John of
Glastonbury’s repeated confirmation of its construction being made from wattle,
it seemed like overcompensation to marry ‘cratibus’ to wattle.
It was the ‘Magna Tabula’
that Archbishop Usher refers to, that would have publicly associated Joseph's
name with the chapel at Glastonbury other than the fabricated St. Patrick’s
charter. The Magna tabula was a folding wooden frame containing two wooden
leaves like the pages of a book and all six interior faces were covered in
parchment manuscript that used to hang in Glastonbury Abbey, which for the most
part, quotes John of Glastonbury. It was put there for pilgrims to view and to
confirm to public awareness, the heritage of Glastonbury.
In the last section of
this Tabula, after following John of Glastonbury's work, there is new material
added and is headed, ’of the Chapel of Saints Michael and Joseph, and all
Saints, who rest in the cemetery’, followed on by a commentary that Abbot John
Chinnock in 1382 had repaired this Chapel that stood in the midst of the
cemetery. This Magna Tabula related the tales of King Arthur, St Patrick’s
charter, Joseph of Arimathea and the translation of the body of St. Dunstan,
among many other things, bringing into the public domain and to all pilgrims,
the association with Joseph of Arimathea. Not only were the pilgrims now made
aware of the original church that Joseph had built, by the mystical
instructions on the ‘bronze plaque’ but the placing of the Tabula within the
abbey, publicised its propaganda to every visiting pilgrim.
To the North of the Lady
Chapel stood a column (Father Good relating that it was a Cross), close to the
site where the pyramids used to be, the column foundations being uncovered in
1921. The function of the bronze plaque placed on the column was duly following
the Glastonbury tradition of self-promotion and propaganda. The column
ostensibly being built to indicate the exact site of Joseph's church. The
existence of the column still standing with the bronze plaque 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.
It also related the vision
of St. David, the positioning of the Chapel added by him, and a gift from him,
of the sapphire. The plaque then goes on to relate as we have seen earlier: ‘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 plaque seems to have
carried out its intended function……… J.Blome on 10th June 1345, having obtained
his royal permit, set out to search for Joseph within the Glastonbury grounds,
most probably making full use of the information provided by the plaque,
thinking this is relevant to Melkin’s instructions of a Bifurcated line, to
find Joseph.
So it was after the fire of 1184 that the stories of Joseph blossomed and a presumption that he would be buried close by his own church was generally assumed. The Isle of Avalon having found its geographical position at Glastonbury, was all part of Glastonbury re-inventing itself, but that was only the start, because without that there could be no synonymity with Melkin’s prophecy if Avalon was elsewhere.
When we take into acoount
the usurpation of a location by the sea it is incredible that the Monks managed
to pull it off for so long. The persuasion with the leaden triangles and
squares on the church floor is made to make us think some geometric puzzle is
hidden within and Melkinhas actually given us a geometric puzzle, but it has nothing
to do with Glastonbury
All this confusion
connects the circles of portentous prophecy, bifurcated lines, a southern angle
and a meridian from Melkin, together with, lines extending southwards through
two Eastern Angles indicated on the plaque………… it all leads one to believe that
these are purposeful directions, intended to lead the quester to Joseph's
burial site, which of course held the Holy Grail. The placing of the plaque,
not only confirming for pilgrims in posterity, the longevity and the veracity
of Glastonbury's long-standing association with Joseph, but also for evermore,
keeping the quester’s gaze firmly fixed within the confines of the Glastonbury
Abbey grounds.
Showing the Island of
Avalon described in the Perlesvaus