The following is an extract from a book titled 'The Island of Avalon' by Reverend Francis Uriah Lot which outlines that William of Malmesbury is not aware that Ineswitrin is the old name for Glastonbury. Also, nor does he equate the 'estate' referred to in the donation as pertaining to the locality of Glastonbury.
Please go to the new 2019 updated website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-Volume-2/dp/132630979X
The 601 A.D. charter regarding Ineswitrin and Glastonbury
Few
commentators have broached the subject of Ineswitrin and the provenance of its
name. There is a general acceptance that it is the old name for Glastonbury.
The reason modern medieval scholars do not understand that this assumption is
incorrect…. is because they have not grasped Ineswitrin’s connection and
importance to the propaganda which Henry Blois has interpolated into William of
Malmesbury’s GR3 (version B) and DA. (see chapter on William of Malmesbury's De Antiquitates)
The
name of Ineswitrin is found in the GR, DA, and the life of Gildas. There is no prior instance of the name of Ineswitrin
in connection with Glastonbury in any previous manuscripts prior to the early
twelfth century excepting that charter to which Malmesbury refers and recycles in the unadulterated forms of his work. In the GR and DA, both composed originally
by William of Malmesbury, the name Ineswitrin appears in connection with an ancient
charter seen by William of Malmesbury, which informs us of the grant of an estate with the name of Ineswitrin
to the ‘old church’ at Glastonbury.
Initially, the original DA written by William of Malmesbury, before Henry Blois added his interpolations (which comprise the most part of the first 34 chapters of DA as explained in the chapter on the DA), the manuscript started (at chapter 35). In the original 'unadulterated' version of William's De Antiquitates, the opening chapter of that book evidenced the 601 charter as referenced by him. The charter which recorded the donation of the Island of Ineswitrin to the Old Church at Glastonbury was the earliest written evidence William of Malmesbury could find extant at Glastonbury Abbey when he searched their records. The date of the charter which was clearly evidenced by his reference to it went toward establishing the antiquity of Glastonbury to at least 601.AD (and beyond as he clearly states in his reference to the church already being called 'old' at that date..
Initially, the original DA written by William of Malmesbury, before Henry Blois added his interpolations (which comprise the most part of the first 34 chapters of DA as explained in the chapter on the DA), the manuscript started (at chapter 35). In the original 'unadulterated' version of William's De Antiquitates, the opening chapter of that book evidenced the 601 charter as referenced by him. The charter which recorded the donation of the Island of Ineswitrin to the Old Church at Glastonbury was the earliest written evidence William of Malmesbury could find extant at Glastonbury Abbey when he searched their records. The date of the charter which was clearly evidenced by his reference to it went toward establishing the antiquity of Glastonbury to at least 601.AD (and beyond as he clearly states in his reference to the church already being called 'old' at that date..
Martin Grimmer[1]comments on the point that British monasteries and other ecclesiastical sites are thought to have provided a foundation for West Saxon establishments, with the British Celtic communities in some fashion metamorphosing into West Saxon Roman houses. Grimmer questions the assumption that I think largely stems from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s presentation of the early Celtic Church in HRB of which there is no certain record except the scant information found in tracts of some early Celtic saints’ lives. Yet this point is relevant in that if Geoffrey of Monmouth is the nom de plume used by Henry Blois (as we have previously discussed)…. how is it that Henry Blois has envisaged this pre Augustine ecclesiastical Celtic backdrop in which the Arthurian panoply exists?
Henry’s view I believe, is based upon what documents he came across while abbot of Glastonbury. For the moment, it is Ineswitrin, the island of Avalon and Avalon’s supposed synonymy with Glastonbury that bring us to the subject of this 601A.D. charter of donation and its relevance as to why Henry Blois composed the short tract known as Caradoc's Life of Gildas in the first place and then added the reference to Ineswitrin as being the old name for the Island (on which the 'old church' stands) referred to in author B's Life of Dunstan.
In
William of Malmesbury's De antiquitate Glastonie ecclesie, the 601
charter in the original 'un-interpolated' version begins the account with the grant of the island of Witrin to Glastonbury and thereby establishes by record, the Church at Glastonbury's verifiable antiquity (the reason for composing DA). William's reason or 'commission' for composing the De
antiquitate Glastonie was to counter a claim made by Osbern of Canterbury
that Glastonbury's foundation only occurred in the mid-tenth century and also the erroneous fact stating that St
Dunstan was the first abbot of Glastonbury. This conflict had arisen because
Glastonbury monks had claimed that Dunstan was buried in the Church at
Glastonbury when in reality.... Canterbury monks surely knew Dunstan was buried at Canterbury (see the chapter on Eadmer's letter).
Therefore, Henry Blois and the Glastonbury monks employed William of Malmesbury to produce a tract which, in essence, validated Glastonbury's antiquity. Part of this proof of antiquity was based upon the 601 charter and the circumstantial evidence it provides. Another relevant point which was indicated by the date of the charter was that a religious house at Glastonbury existed before Augustine’s arrival and negates the commonly held assumption that Augustine (who became the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the year 597) was the "Apostle to the English" and a founder of the English Church (when it had existed previously as a church of the Britons). Coincidentally, ‘Geoffrey’ expresses the same commonly held belief in his bogus Prophecies of Merlin: Afterward Rome shall bring God back through the medium of a monk…..
The obvious intonation is that Christianity existed in Britain before it fell away (as Gildas makes plain) and therefore Augustine could not be founder (if only to the English)…. and therefore 'primacy' (Henry’s main concern) should not be awarded to Canterbury. Primacy was the all important point in his pursuance of the Archbishopric for the whole of Southern England. (Primacy was one of Henry Blois' agendas once he had been snubbed by his brother King Stephen from becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury).
Therefore, Henry Blois and the Glastonbury monks employed William of Malmesbury to produce a tract which, in essence, validated Glastonbury's antiquity. Part of this proof of antiquity was based upon the 601 charter and the circumstantial evidence it provides. Another relevant point which was indicated by the date of the charter was that a religious house at Glastonbury existed before Augustine’s arrival and negates the commonly held assumption that Augustine (who became the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the year 597) was the "Apostle to the English" and a founder of the English Church (when it had existed previously as a church of the Britons). Coincidentally, ‘Geoffrey’ expresses the same commonly held belief in his bogus Prophecies of Merlin: Afterward Rome shall bring God back through the medium of a monk…..
The obvious intonation is that Christianity existed in Britain before it fell away (as Gildas makes plain) and therefore Augustine could not be founder (if only to the English)…. and therefore 'primacy' (Henry’s main concern) should not be awarded to Canterbury. Primacy was the all important point in his pursuance of the Archbishopric for the whole of Southern England. (Primacy was one of Henry Blois' agendas once he had been snubbed by his brother King Stephen from becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury).
The 601 A.D. charter in effect was a proof which
indicated that even at that date, the church at Glastonbury was termed ‘old’
and therefore evidenced a pre-existence of the British (Celtic) church before
Augustine’s arrival. This is entirely obvious through the works of Gildas; but
the dispute was specifically about the antiquity of Glastonbury. The DA (as I
have posited already), was interpolated by Henry Blois himself and this practice of interpolation
continued after his death in the same book by subsequent monks at Glastonbury. (I will cover the analysis of
the exclusively Glastonbury record of DA and GR3 (version B) in a later chapter. The DA was in effect an instantaneous cartulary (and treated like one
thereafter) and is thought to have been originally written c.1129-34. However, it was interpolated ‘for the first
time’ immediately after William’s death in 1143 by Henry Blois as we shall discover.
Since the
relevance of Ineswitrin[2] is
only corroborated in the Life of Gildas
(which was written by Henry Blois) and it is he who is responsible for the Arthurian episode which depicts the kidnap of Guinevere in an engraving on the Modena cathedral archivolt and the DA is grossly interpolated by him.... we can understand how this misinformation originated in his tenure as abbot. I
will state for the record now, that the unadulterated DA was written prior to 1134.[3]
Henry Blois's interpolations into the DA commenced post 1143 in the first instance. The main body of Life of Gildas may well have been composed after the presentation of DA to Henry Blois in.1134, but the references to Ineswitrin found in his composition of the Life of Gildas were probably written post 1143.... as it ties in with Henry’s agenda for Metropolitan.... where it is employed as corroborative evidence to uphold Henry’s position in presenting Ynis witrin as an estate on Glastonbury. (see the chapter on Caradoc of Llancarfon and how it is clear that he died c.1129 and Henry Blois' reference to him in the colophon of the Vulgate HRB is a ploy)
Henry Blois's interpolations into the DA commenced post 1143 in the first instance. The main body of Life of Gildas may well have been composed after the presentation of DA to Henry Blois in.1134, but the references to Ineswitrin found in his composition of the Life of Gildas were probably written post 1143.... as it ties in with Henry’s agenda for Metropolitan.... where it is employed as corroborative evidence to uphold Henry’s position in presenting Ynis witrin as an estate on Glastonbury. (see the chapter on Caradoc of Llancarfon and how it is clear that he died c.1129 and Henry Blois' reference to him in the colophon of the Vulgate HRB is a ploy)
It must be understood that to construct an initial
edifice, an architect is necessary. Once the building stands and the architect
is dead, additions to the edifice can still be added by subsequent generations.
Henry Blois has built his authorial edifice in secret on the back of various authors, one
of which was William of Malmesbury. The Arthurian legacy and the Grail legends
are built upon the foundations of Henry’s own HRB through a fictitious
‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ and his supposed translation of the prophecies of Merlin. (This is set out in Volume 1 of 'The Island of Avalon').
Why it was necessary for Ineswitrin to be
established as the earlier appellation of Glastonbury is the puzzle I hope to
clarify. Certainly the most ingenious etymology has been used to establish this
as a fact. It is entirely misleading and inaccurate to assume the location of
Ineswitrin and the donation of the Island estate by a Devonian King applies to
an estate as part of 'Glastonbury Island' itself.
It is only Henry Blois’ statement in the Life of Gildas which is
reiterated in his own interpolations into DA which transforms Ineswitrin into an estate on
Glastonbury (island). We are led to believe it is
the old name for Glastonbury. In reality,
the name applies to an island in Devon and the reason for this purposeful
translocation lies squarely with Henry Blois.
The answer lies in the fact that the Ynis or the ‘Ines’ part of
the name denotes an Island. We know from the vivid description in the Life of Dunstan
manuscript by author B, Glastonbury was an Island c.1000AD.
It should be understood that the 601 charter represents a genuine
donation of an island estate to the Church at Glastonbury on a genuinely extant
charter at the time Malmesbury searched Glastonbury’s records. The 601 charter, drawn up by
a Bishop Mauuron, records a grant to the 'old church' made by a King of
Dumnonia of five ‘cassates’ at
Ineswitrin at the request of Abbot Worgret.
William of Malmesbury records the donation as follows: On the estate of Ynswitrin, given to Glastonbury at the time the English were converted to the faith. In 60I AD the King of Dumnonia granted five cassates on the estate called lneswitrin to the old church on the petition of Abbot Worgret. I, Bishop Mauuron wrote this charter. I, Worgret, abbot of that place, have subscribed. The age of the document prevents us knowing who the King was, yet it can be presumed that he was British because he referred to Glastonbury in his own tongue as Yneswitrin which, as we know, was the British name. But Abbot Worgret, whose name smacks of British barbarism, was succeeded by Lademund and he by Bregored. The dates of their rule are obscure but their names and ranks can clearly be seen in a painting to be found near the altar in the greater church. Berthwald succeeded Bregored.
William of Malmesbury records the donation as follows: On the estate of Ynswitrin, given to Glastonbury at the time the English were converted to the faith. In 60I AD the King of Dumnonia granted five cassates on the estate called lneswitrin to the old church on the petition of Abbot Worgret. I, Bishop Mauuron wrote this charter. I, Worgret, abbot of that place, have subscribed. The age of the document prevents us knowing who the King was, yet it can be presumed that he was British because he referred to Glastonbury in his own tongue as Yneswitrin which, as we know, was the British name. But Abbot Worgret, whose name smacks of British barbarism, was succeeded by Lademund and he by Bregored. The dates of their rule are obscure but their names and ranks can clearly be seen in a painting to be found near the altar in the greater church. Berthwald succeeded Bregored.
Grimmer’s suspicions are that
the date of the charter is wrong based upon the term anno Dominae. He dates the
charter for other reasons to the 670’s in line with the establishment of Wessex
rather than 601 which was obviously the date expressed on the charter. Yet the paschal tables used by priests to
find the date for Easter by their nature began at the incarnation. Dionysius
Exiguus had already invented this method as a dating system c.500 A.D.
This charter is the one piece of evidence upon which Glastonbury stakes its ancient foundation, in a proof that it was founded prior to Canterbury. Therefore the charter itself would have been under scrutiny at that time. Although the charter appears only in the later B & C stemma versions of William of Malmesbury’s GR, it does not follow that it was not genuine because we should understand that GR1 was written before William spent time searching the records at Glastonbury. (Many of the other Glastonbury additions to version C & B of GR3 will be elucidated in a later chapter specifically on the GR). The 601 charter plays a large part in unfolding what transpired regarding Ineswitrin and why its phony etymology was added to the last paragraph of Life of Gildas by Henry Blois. There is no reason to doubt the charter's existence or its genuineness and its date is genuine.
This charter is the one piece of evidence upon which Glastonbury stakes its ancient foundation, in a proof that it was founded prior to Canterbury. Therefore the charter itself would have been under scrutiny at that time. Although the charter appears only in the later B & C stemma versions of William of Malmesbury’s GR, it does not follow that it was not genuine because we should understand that GR1 was written before William spent time searching the records at Glastonbury. (Many of the other Glastonbury additions to version C & B of GR3 will be elucidated in a later chapter specifically on the GR). The 601 charter plays a large part in unfolding what transpired regarding Ineswitrin and why its phony etymology was added to the last paragraph of Life of Gildas by Henry Blois. There is no reason to doubt the charter's existence or its genuineness and its date is genuine.
William was accustomed to seeing old charters
and bears witness to the charter’s antiquity when he updates his GR3 with other
additions he had gleaned in the interim since production of GR1. Why would
someone perpetrating a fraud have a Dumnonian King as donor? Why choose a place
called Ineswitrin which no-one has heard of as the object of the grant.... if the charter
was a 12th century invention. If it was really archaic and it was a genuine
charter from the 670’s, why perpetrate the fraud by applying a date of 601AD
which is after Augustine’s arrival. There can be no reason why a Saxon house
which used to be a ‘Briton/Celtic’ church would change a date of donation from
a Devonian King.
There was and is no charter evidence relating to the years between 601 and 670 at Glastonbury, but a picture that William of Malmesbury had seen by the altar led him to record three names of Abbots in the intervening 70 year period and relate that they were British. If there were these abbots, why is Grimmer so insistent that the 601 charter is of later date? If his suspicion of fraud is purely based on the Anno Dominae term, there is not much previous charter evidence for comparison upon which to base such a dismissal of the date on a seemingly flimsy premise. So, let us leave the date at 601, remembering that this is the very charter to be scrutinized by detractors at Canterbury (or whoever at Rome later) who presume a case of Roman primacy in an Augustinian foundation. The reader will understand as we progress in our investigation that the 601 charter was also to be produced in evidence at Rome in Henry’s case for Metropolitan.
There was and is no charter evidence relating to the years between 601 and 670 at Glastonbury, but a picture that William of Malmesbury had seen by the altar led him to record three names of Abbots in the intervening 70 year period and relate that they were British. If there were these abbots, why is Grimmer so insistent that the 601 charter is of later date? If his suspicion of fraud is purely based on the Anno Dominae term, there is not much previous charter evidence for comparison upon which to base such a dismissal of the date on a seemingly flimsy premise. So, let us leave the date at 601, remembering that this is the very charter to be scrutinized by detractors at Canterbury (or whoever at Rome later) who presume a case of Roman primacy in an Augustinian foundation. The reader will understand as we progress in our investigation that the 601 charter was also to be produced in evidence at Rome in Henry’s case for Metropolitan.
The
supposition that the charter was manufactured to lend weight to the claim for
Glastonbury's antiquity might be tenable if the Island did not exist in Devon
and did not coincide with the precise position to which Melkin’s geometrical
prophecy locates. Again, if we understand that Henry Blois has substituted
Ineswitrin in Melkin’s prophecy for his own invented name of Insula Avallonis mentioned in HRB.... all
will become clear by the end of this exposé. Avallon’s name only (not the rest
of the prophecy of Melkin) is fictitious. Avallon is Henry Blois’s invention based
upon the name of a town in the region of Blois just as he had located King Arthur's continental battle scene in the same region.
It would be a remarkable co-incidence that Melkin’s instructions in the prophecy mark precisely the spot which locates an island in Devon…. when it just so happened also, that a supposedly faked charter is witness to an Island being donated to Glastonbury by a Devonian King. The interpretation of the charter is not straightforward because of Henry Blois’ bogus and misleading etymology in life of Gildas. William at the time of writing (in his own words) in no way intonates that Ineswitrin is at Glastonbury. Everything which points to the supposition that Ineswitrin (as a location) is an estate at or near Glastonbury is an interpolation into DA or false information supplied by Henry Blois in Life of Gildas. Caradoc’s etymological explanation was then adopted by Gerald of Wales,[4] The reader will understand in a later chapter once we get to that point…. that Gerald has seen and read DA (for the most part in its current form) prior to Arthur’s disinterment.
It would be a remarkable co-incidence that Melkin’s instructions in the prophecy mark precisely the spot which locates an island in Devon…. when it just so happened also, that a supposedly faked charter is witness to an Island being donated to Glastonbury by a Devonian King. The interpretation of the charter is not straightforward because of Henry Blois’ bogus and misleading etymology in life of Gildas. William at the time of writing (in his own words) in no way intonates that Ineswitrin is at Glastonbury. Everything which points to the supposition that Ineswitrin (as a location) is an estate at or near Glastonbury is an interpolation into DA or false information supplied by Henry Blois in Life of Gildas. Caradoc’s etymological explanation was then adopted by Gerald of Wales,[4] The reader will understand in a later chapter once we get to that point…. that Gerald has seen and read DA (for the most part in its current form) prior to Arthur’s disinterment.
Edwards[5]
assesses the 601 charter as probably genuine and also sees no motive for
forgery. William obviously believed the charter itself to be representative of
Glastonbury's antiquity and in no way infers in any work (of his pen) that Ineswitrin
is an estate on the Island of Glastonbury.[6] In his account in the GR, he makes the
observation that Glastonbury must be an ancient foundation as 'even then (it)
was called Old Church'. William portrays that the poor condition of the
document caused the King's name to be illegible. William says: The age of the document prevents us knowing
who the King was. Where it is stated that the writer of the charter is
British because he referred to Glastonbury in his own tongue as Yneswitrin
which, as we know, was the British name… this is an interpolation by Henry
Blois in GR3 version B which concurs with what he had written in Life of Gildas.
William
knew Ineswitrin was a British name for an island somewhere, but it is Henry
Blois’ interpolation which infers the name is synonymous with Glastonbury. In
no other document is it found that Ineswitrin was the old name for Glastonbury prior
to Henry Blois’ interpolations. How could it be when it applies to an Island in
Devon?
William’s
statement that the Island of Ineswitrin was given
to Glastonbury at the time the English were converted to the faith.... is based
upon the commonly held belief that the real faith i.e. Roman, only arrived at
the time of Augustine. This incidentally adds credence to the fact that the 601
date is firmly believed by William. The apparently mistaken
date of A.D. 610, which also references
the conversion of the English which is found in the GR version C, must be a dyslexic misprint: 'that is, in the
fifth year of the coming of the blessed Augustine'.
William is implying that a church existed at Glastonbury.
At the time of the donation, it was already old. In reference to the contention with
Canterbury, it is being spelled out, ‘Glastonbury already had an old church
before the founder of Roman (Canterbury) arrived on English shores’.
William, while living at Glastonbury, would have become
very sympathetic to their views and took on the task to counteract the rivalry
against Canterbury,especially Osbern's assertion. concerning Dunstan being the first Abbot. William’s disgust (as a prodigy of Roman
religion) for anything prior to Augustine’s time is evident in his reference to
Abbot Worgret. Martin Grimmer’s exposé
on this 601 charter is revealing, but he does not understand Henry Blois’ role
or reasoning behind the motive in having the reader of Life of Gildas believe Ineswitrin was close in proximity to
Glastonbury. Yet even Grimmer states that though:
Ineswitrin looks like a British
name, it cannot securely be contended that it was the pre-Saxon name for
Glastonbury. The possibility exists, rather, that Ineswitrin was the name of an estate, as it is in fact called in
the charter, that was later erroneously taken to be the early name for
Glastonbury, perhaps because the actual origin, identification, and location of
the grant was forgotten. This is in part true. The knowledge of the
Island to which the charter pertains i.e.Burgh Island had faded into obscurity, since the charter was deposited in the
scriptorium or chest of old documents which William was going through.
The location of the Island would have fallen into obscurity as a consequence of the change from a Briton to a West Saxon house. However, it was not by accident Ineswitrin was posited as the old name for Glastonbury. The relevance to this donation is intricately linked to the prophecy of Melkin. (discount any notion that Melkin’s prophecy was a late invention as attested by Carley et.al. They are simply quite wrong based on earlier scholar'sassumptions as will be shown in progression).
Henry Blois certainly had no idea of where the island of Ineswitrin was located, but I will cover later how and where his search for its location was carried out (in two places). Henry was appraised of the 'Island of Witrin’s' genuine existence because he knew the charter was genuine. It was Henry Blois who eventually substituted the name of Ineswitrin for Avalon in the extant Melkin’s prophecy (recycled much later by JG) to fit with Henry Blois’ later (post 1158) agenda concerning the bogus grave of King Arthur he had manufactured at Glastonbury between the 'piramides'. This point becomes self-evident as we progress through the following chapters.
However, Grimmer, attempting to enlighten us on the Ineswitrin conundrum follows on with: Nor for that matter does Ineswitrin even have to be an estate which is located within Somerset. This opens up the possibility of Ineswitrin being situated further west in territory in Devon or Cornwall still under the control of a British King.
The location of the Island would have fallen into obscurity as a consequence of the change from a Briton to a West Saxon house. However, it was not by accident Ineswitrin was posited as the old name for Glastonbury. The relevance to this donation is intricately linked to the prophecy of Melkin. (discount any notion that Melkin’s prophecy was a late invention as attested by Carley et.al. They are simply quite wrong based on earlier scholar'sassumptions as will be shown in progression).
Henry Blois certainly had no idea of where the island of Ineswitrin was located, but I will cover later how and where his search for its location was carried out (in two places). Henry was appraised of the 'Island of Witrin’s' genuine existence because he knew the charter was genuine. It was Henry Blois who eventually substituted the name of Ineswitrin for Avalon in the extant Melkin’s prophecy (recycled much later by JG) to fit with Henry Blois’ later (post 1158) agenda concerning the bogus grave of King Arthur he had manufactured at Glastonbury between the 'piramides'. This point becomes self-evident as we progress through the following chapters.
However, Grimmer, attempting to enlighten us on the Ineswitrin conundrum follows on with: Nor for that matter does Ineswitrin even have to be an estate which is located within Somerset. This opens up the possibility of Ineswitrin being situated further west in territory in Devon or Cornwall still under the control of a British King.
The
King of Dumnonia would only be able to grant land within his own territory,
which locates 'Inis Witrin' somewhere in Devon or Cornwall, the old Dumnonia.
There seems to be no obvious reason why the name Dumnonia would have been
interpolated into the charter, especially if the charter was a fraud and the
intent was to provide proof of antiquity for Glastonbury. Instead it adds credence to the unequivocal
position that Ynis Witrin really was an island location in Dumnonia and someone
is trying (through interpolation) to make us think otherwise.
Grimmer
also states that William’s: assertion
that the donor was the 'King of Dumnonia' ('rex Domnonie'), which he presumably made because that was what
he found on the document from which he was working. This is a fairly explicit
statement of the charter's origin. Finally Grimmer concludes: As has been shown, there is no
contemporaneous evidence suggesting that Ineswitrin
was the name for Glastonbury,
rather than the name of an estate granted to Glastonbury. Grimmer has deduced this from evidence
supplied by William’s attestation to what he saw in the charter. Henry Blois’
etymological addition to the last paragraph of the Life of Gildas is added later to a script (he had already written)
so that none could accuse Glastonbury of having a grant (which proved its
antiquity) pertaining to an unidentifiable location.
The inconsistency of logic is: if Glastonbury was
an Island as described in Dunstan ‘B’, the ‘old church’ and any monastic house
attached to it would be considered as ‘Glastonbury’; so why is Glastonbury, if
it is an island, receiving by donation a part of itself i.e. the ‘island of
Witrin’…. on which the old church is
located. Logically, Ineswitrin and the island entity of Glastonbury and its old
Church cannot be one and the same, but must be separate Islands. It was the
synchronicity of both Ineswitrin being an island and the fact that the ‘old
church’ existed on an island which made the illusion (by which Henry Blois
attempts to mislead his audience) all the more plausible. The purposeful
etymological transformation concocted in the Life of Gildas concerning Ineswitrin was added by Henry Blois to a manuscript already wholly composed
by himself. Thereafter, all and sundry(including John of Glastonbury) accepted Ineswitrin as the old name for
Glastonbury.
At
the end of the Life of Gildas,
between an ‘amen’ and a verse colophon proclaiming the authorship of Caradoc,
there is the postscript, stating that: "Glastonbury
was of old called Ynysgutrin and is still called so by native
Britons." It is this ‘postscript’
and the cleverly inserted ‘g’ in the etymology which misleads us all to ‘Glass
Island’ in further bogus etymology.
To
think Henry Blois is not ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ the author of HRB and VM, or to think that Henry Blois is not
impersonating Caradoc as the writer of the Life
of Gildas would be the same as denying that Henry Blois is not Master
Blihis the originator of the Grail stories at his Nephew's court. We should not believe either what is stated in HRB.... that Caradoc is a 'comtempory; of ‘Geoffrey’.
Thisis plainly seen by evaluating Carado's work aswe cover in the chapter on Caradoc.
The facts which connect Henry Blois to Caradoc are on the Modena archivolt. Gildas’ entirely fictitious connection to Glastonbury found in Life of Gildas is the common denominator: he could not remain there any longer: he left the island, embarked on board a small ship, and, in great grief, put in at Glastonia, at the time when King Melvas was reigning in the summer country. He was received with much welcome by the abbot of Glastonia, and taught the brethren and the scattered people, sowing the precious seed of heavenly doctrine. It was there that he wrote the history of the Kings of Britain.[7] Glastonia, that is, the glassy city, which took its name from glass, is a city that had its name originally in the British tongue. It was besieged by the tyrant Arthur with a countless multitude on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, whom the aforesaid wicked King had violated and carried off, and brought there for protection, owing to the asylum afforded by the invulnerable position due to the fortifications of thickets of reed, river, and marsh.
The facts which connect Henry Blois to Caradoc are on the Modena archivolt. Gildas’ entirely fictitious connection to Glastonbury found in Life of Gildas is the common denominator: he could not remain there any longer: he left the island, embarked on board a small ship, and, in great grief, put in at Glastonia, at the time when King Melvas was reigning in the summer country. He was received with much welcome by the abbot of Glastonia, and taught the brethren and the scattered people, sowing the precious seed of heavenly doctrine. It was there that he wrote the history of the Kings of Britain.[7] Glastonia, that is, the glassy city, which took its name from glass, is a city that had its name originally in the British tongue. It was besieged by the tyrant Arthur with a countless multitude on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, whom the aforesaid wicked King had violated and carried off, and brought there for protection, owing to the asylum afforded by the invulnerable position due to the fortifications of thickets of reed, river, and marsh.
William of Malmesbury’s
‘British tongue’ epithet in reference to the charter just alludes to the fact
that 'Inis Witrin' is old English, but in no way establishes the etymological
truth between the supposed connection of ‘vitrea’ and the ‘Glass’ in
Glastonbury. This subtle connection which is similar to some later etymological
interpolations, are part of a persuasive polemic designed to synchronise what
initially were contradictory and conflicting evidences.
The name Glastonbury, from
the Anglo-Saxon period exists in charters from the reigns of the West Saxon
King Ine (c.704) where it was termed ‘Glastingaea’ and from Cuthred (c.744) as
‘Glastingei’. There are other early variations, ‘Glaestingabyrig’ and
‘Glaestingeberig’.
Glastonbury was never at any
stage ‘well known’ as Inis Witrin, but had always been Glastonia, Glaesting,
Glaesinbyrig, Glasteigbyrig and never Ynes gutrin, Insula Vitrea, Isle of
Glass, Isle of Apples or the Fortunate Isle, before Henry Blois came to England.
Most emphatically, no one had previously thought to establish Glastonbury as
Avallon, Avalonia, or Insula Avallonis as this appellation is derived from the
name of a town north of Clugny near to Arthur’s battle scene…. by Henry Blois
the composer of HRB.
However, this brings us to
the interesting question of ‘cassates’: peticionem
Worgret abbatis in quinque cassatis (superscript: id est hidis) i.e. hides.
Even
though William summarises this grant as follows: 'The King of Dumnonia gave five hides of land known as ‘Yneswitrin' ('rex Domnonie
dedit terram apellatam
Yneswitherim v hidas'), the original word ascribed from the charter is
‘cassatis’.
If we consider first the original nature of
the hide, the word ‘hida’ occurs in the laws of Ine, c. 690. Some have posited
that the word is derived from ‘hydan' -English "hut” to a certain
measurement of land ‘a hide’, but there is nothing in the sources of
Anglo-Saxon history to support this opinion nor is it probable that the word
"hut" was used as a complimentary part of a whole estate.
Coincidentally, Henry Blois posing as
‘Geoffrey’ the author of HRB…. who had obviously come across this problem while dealing with this
601 charter (and knowing that Henry Blois is the same person who loves to
please in etymological explanations in HRB)…. he writes: Hengist took a bull's hide,
and wrought the same into a single thong throughout. He then compassed round
with his thong a stony place that he had thought cunningly chosen, and within
the space thus meted out did begin to build the castle that was afterwards
called in British, Kaercorrei, but in Saxon, Thongceaster…[8] There is absolutely no truth in this
statement, but it just indicates that Henry Blois can fabricate on any subject
plausibly.
Bede, in his
history, always uses the word ‘familia’ where in Anglo-Saxon we should
expect to find hide; and in King Alfred's paraphrase of Bede the word ‘familia’
is commonly rendered hida, or by one
of its allied forms, hiwisc or hiwscipe. For example— Singulae possesiones decern erant familiarum
— waes thaes landes hundtwelftig hida; comparata possessione decern familiarum
— gebohte tyn hida landes. And—
Habens terram familiarum septem millium — is thaes landes seofen thusendo hida;
donavit terram octoginta septem familiarum — sealde seofon & hundeahtig
hida landes.
So, when Bede estimates the extent of
Islands, his unit of measurement is still the family. Thus about the Island of
Thanet he says: Tanatos insula non
modica, id est magnitudinis juxta consuetudinem aestimationis familiarum
sexcentarum — six hund hida, and of the Isle of Wight he gives, — Est antem mensura ejusdem insulae (juxta
aestimationem Anglorum) mille ducentarum familiarum — twelf hund hida.
From these examples, we may gather that in
the time of Bede, who died on Ascension Day 735AD, the value and extent of land
were measured, not by its acreage nor by its material worth, but by the number
of families it could maintain. Later, in England, it became a unit used in
assessing land for liability to "geld", or land tax and the ‘hide’
lost its original meaning and became the basis of a tax system of assessment;
but this was long after the Dumnonian charter.
Knowing William of Malmesbury’s resistance to
the invention of material, we should assume that his inability to read the flourit of the Devonian King[9]
substantiates William was looking at the charter he was duly copying. If the
charter were a fraud, doubtless the name of a King would have been provided on
the charter. The evidence that William is actually eyeballing the charter is
witnessed also by the personal form the two attesters using the word ‘I’: 'I, Mauron the bishop, wrote
this charter. I, Worgret, abbot of the same place, have subscribed it.'
It would seem then it is William’s own
interpretation that ‘Hides’ translates from the ‘Cassates’ term used on the
document. Cassatis, derived from
cottages i.e. cassa was interchanged with the word hides…. as the understood
measurement in William’s day. Given the fact that both ‘cassates’ and ‘hides’
seem to be measurements of land, maybe the Island of Ineswitrin had five
cottages located on it. I would suggest that the ‘five’ refers to dwellings on
the island. This then throws light upon the King knowing exactly what he is
donating. He is giving an Island (Inis) with the name Witrin with five cottages
on it to Glastonbury. In the next chapter we discuss the actual location of
Ineswitrin as Burgh Island based upon two indisputable facts along with the
rationale we have just covered. Ineswitrin without doubt becomes Melkin’s
Island mentioned in the Melkin prophecy where Joseph of Arimathea is buried. Also, as we covered earlier the same Island was Pytheas’ Island of Ictis referred to in 350 BC. Strangely enough,
five cottages on the Island would be about the right amount for a small fishing
community based there in 601AD.
However, the reason that Glastonbury held
a grant from a Dumnonian King and then lost interest in any monetary value that
the island may have provided, would indicate the five families or cottages were
just those of a small community on the island far from Glastonbury.[10]
The reason the Dumnonian King donated the Island to Glastonbury is not stated
in the charter but the importance of of the grave that still exists at that location of Burgh Island was hidden in
the numerical and topographical puzzle which became known as ‘The Prophecy of
Melkin’. This just happens to appear at Glastonbury also and I shall elucidate
in the following pages that the prophecy of Melkin was extant in the time of
Henry Blois (although this is ludicrously denied by modern scholars.
Over
time, and after the Saxon incursion of Britain, the connection was lost between the Island of Ineswitrin
and the ‘old church’ until such time as William of Malmesbury found the charter
in an old chest. It was shortly after that Henry Blois produced the charter to provide evidence of
antiquity for the abbey at Glastonbury.
From this proof of antiquity i.e. what was written on the charter…. an
opportunistic advantage was realised. ‘Ynis’ was indisputably understood as the
Dumnonian, Celtic, Briton or pre-Saxon word for ‘Island’. Unquestionably author
B's Life of Dunstan refers to Glastonbury as an Island surrounded by marshland c.1000 AD. Therefore, to confuse Glastonbury
with Ineswitrin is not a huge contortion for someone wishing to propagate such
an understanding…. and as seen in Henry Blois'/ 'Caradoc's' Life of Gildas and his own interpolations into DA, it is easily done with bogus etymology. The real problem
that existed is…. if the charter was to act as a proof to the sceptical for the
early existence of a church at Glastonbury, surely someone questioning the
charter’s genuineness would be asking: ‘where exactly is the place being
donated’. Hence the need for the contrived etymology in Life of Gildas, as no-one at Glastonbury, five hundred years after
the charter was signed, had any idea of the island’s location which was being
donated.
William’s recognition of Dumnonia as Devon is
seen in GR ‘in Dumnonia, now called Devonshire (Deuenescire)’, and again where
he says 'Crediton is a small villa of Dumnonia, which is commonly called Devonshire'.
In Gildas's ‘De excidio Britanniae’, Dumnonia is included as one of the British
Kingdoms and therefore William and Henry and any who scrutinized the validity of
the 601 charter would have no problem excepting the reality of a King from
Dumnonia. The problem was that they would think if the charter was genuine…. to
what location in Devon does the donation apply? This is specifically why it was necessary
to have corroborative evidence so that the charter appeared genuine (which it
was)….but which stated Ineswitrin was a part of Glastonbury or even the old
name for I.... and thereby, the last paragraph was inserted in the bogus tract of the Life of Gildas supposedly written by Caradoc (and
later backed up by the interpolation of the St Patrick charter in DA).
William’s reference to Worgret's abbacy 'of
that place' ('eiusdem loci abbas'), indicates that, Worgret had been an abbot of Glastonbury before William's record of abbots begins . It must have been prior to the abbacy of Haerngils,
for whom at least two charters survive from the 680’s. Haerngils appears at the head of what appears
as an abbatial list for Glastonbury, contained in an eleventh-century
manuscript. This would further suggest
Worgret's abbacy must have been prior to the 680’s and thus adds weight to the
date of 691 that William has scribed from the charter…. as the charter was only
recently discovered in the chest of old papers from which William was gathering
evidence.
William in the employ of the monks at
Glastonbury was commissioned to write ‘De
antiquitate Glastonie’ so as to provide a document which validated
Glastonbury's antiquity. This acted to counter the claim made by Osbern of
Canterbury that Glastonbury's foundation only occurred more recently. The main
spat between Canterbury and Glastonbury followed propaganda put out by Henry Blois just after his arrival in 1126 to which Eadmer's letter is the retort from Canterbury (as I show in the elucidation of Eadmer's letter in a later chapter). Dunstan 909 –988 was an Abbot
of Glastonbury Abbey, a Bishop of Worcester, a Bishop of London, and an
Archbishop of Canterbury and later canonized as a saint. His remains were a valuable relic
to possess in terms of alms and prestige. The DA in part was written to counteract
Osbern’s denial of Glastonbury’s claim.
Osbern in his Life of Dunstan
had claimed that Dunstan was the first Abbot of Glastonbury, but the Monks at
Glastonbury knew this to be untrue because evidence existed at the abbey which
showed its monastic history went further back than Dunstan's era.
Osbern, when he was a
little boy at Canterbury remembered that the Archbishop had removed the coffins
of Dunstan and Elfege, in preparation for building the church.
50 years afterwards he testified to the reality of that translation of the corpses in order to confute the untrue assertions of the monks of Glastonbury. The monks of Glastonbury claimed that during the sack of Canterbury by the Danes in 1012, Dunstan's body had been carried for safety to their abbey. This story was disproved by Archbishop William Warham, who opened the tomb at Canterbury in 1508. Supposedly they found Dunstan's relics still to be there. But we shall see later on in progression that the erroneous rumour put out by Glastonbury which required a response from Canterbury in the form of Eadmer’s letter was perpetuated by Henry Blois in his interpolations in DA. (See the Chapter on DA)
50 years afterwards he testified to the reality of that translation of the corpses in order to confute the untrue assertions of the monks of Glastonbury. The monks of Glastonbury claimed that during the sack of Canterbury by the Danes in 1012, Dunstan's body had been carried for safety to their abbey. This story was disproved by Archbishop William Warham, who opened the tomb at Canterbury in 1508. Supposedly they found Dunstan's relics still to be there. But we shall see later on in progression that the erroneous rumour put out by Glastonbury which required a response from Canterbury in the form of Eadmer’s letter was perpetuated by Henry Blois in his interpolations in DA. (See the Chapter on DA)
In William’s DA, he gives two references to
passages by author B, and in a passage following the statement that St Dunstan's
father took him as a boy to visit Glastonbury goes on to describe the place
itself: ’There was within the realm of
King Athelstan a certain Royal Island known locally from ancient times as
Glastonbury. It spread wide with numerous inlets, surrounded by lakes full of
fish and by rivers suitable for human use and, what is more important, endowed
by God with sacred gift. In that place at God's command the first neophytes of
Catholic law discovered an ancient church, built by no human skill as though
prepared by heaven for the salvation of mankind. This church was consecrated to
Christ and the holy Mary is mother, as God himself the architect of heaven,
demonstrated by many miracles and wonderful mysteries. To this church they
added another an oratory built of stone which they dedicated to Christ and to
St Peter. Henceforth crowds of the faithful came from all around to worship and
humbly dwelt in that precious place on the island’.
The other relevant passage that William
quotes from author ‘B’s Life of Dunstan’
is ‘that Irish pilgrims as well as other
crowds of the faithful had a great veneration for Glastonbury particularly on
account of the blessed Patrick the younger, who was said most happily to rest
in the Lord there.
However, all this evidence apart, we can
still know that the Island to which Melkin refers upon which Joseph of Arimathea
is said to be buried was once known as ‘White Tin Island’ or Ineswitrin (as I
shall uncover in progression). This is Joseph of Arimathea’s connection asa tin trader to the Island which traded tin with the Phoenicians that
Diodorus recycles from Pythea’s account of the Island of Ictis.
Dodorus’ recycled account descibes the tidal causeway of Burgh Island but more to the point, it is the geometry in the decrypted
Melkin’s prophecy which also situates the island of Avalon (knowing that Henry Blois changed the name on Melkin's prophecy) precisely where
Burgh Island is located.
[1]
Martin Grimmer. The Early History of Glastonbury Abbey:
A Hypothesis Regarding the 'British
Charter".
Archaeological Reports 198, 988),p. 65.
[7] It is not by
coincidence that the composer of the Life
of Gildas would have us believe, just like ‘Geoffrey’ (and Orderic), that
Nennius’ Historia Brittonum was written by Gildas.
[8] HRB VI, xi
[9]
See note 6
