Alfred of Beverley's recycling of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain

The Following is an extract from a book titled 'The Island of Avalon' by Rev. Francis Lot which shows that Henry Blois used Geoffrey of Monmouth as a pen name to write as Galfridus Arthur the book found at the Abbey of Bec.... now thought to be the same as Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'History of the Kings of Britain'.


You can also see the updated 2019  information at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/

http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6

Alfred of Beverley

Another contemporary writer is also fascinated by the Galfridus’ Historia. Alfred of Beverley is a contemporary chronicler in the time the Primary Historia existed as a separate book from the prophecies and in the Libellus Merlini.  Since we know the First Variant was employed in pursuing the goal of obtaining a metropolitan for Winchester we might conclude that prophecies which predict such a future state may well have been added in the interim to bolster Henry’s case at Rome i.e. between 1139 and 1144 the early prophecies were included into the version known as the First Variant.

Alfred was ‘sacrist of the church of Beverley’. He speaks of himself in the preface to his book as contemporary with the removal of the Flemings from the north of England to Rhos in Dyfed around 1110-2.  Alfred also says that he compiled his chronicle ‘when the church was silent, owing to the number of persons excommunicated under the decree of the council of London.’  He says that his interest in history in general was first sparked off by reading Galfridus’ ‘Historia Britonum’.  One must assume since he relates to the prophecies but omits to comment on them saying they are ‘too long’ that he has a First Variant with a set of early libellus Merlini prophecies spliced in. Scholars seem to think Alfred recycled Geoffrey’s work from a Vulgate copy not a First Variant. They say that Alfred relates to episodes exclusively found in the Vulgate version only. If this is a fact, I suggest that the Vulgate was evolving from the First Variant between 1147-51, when Alfred relates to Geoffrey’s work.  Alfred admits: ‘neither the Roman nor the English historians record anything about the illustrious Arthur, although he did such remarkable deeds with such skill and valour, not only in Britain against the pagans, but also in Gaul against the Romans’.  He too, questions if the Ambrosius Aurelius in Bede[1] was the same as ‘Geoffrey’s’ Ambrosius. Alfred wrote his chronicle entitled Annales sive Historia de gestis regum Britanniae, which begins with Brutus. His title informs us ad annum 1129 and so incorporates the history of England down to 1129. A second book or follow on takes us up to the death of Henry Ist.  Some commentators think he wrote it in 1143. Our interest in the work is really only to establish that it was not written in 1143 as many commentators have thought, but it was published at the earliest after the end of 1147 and more probably in 1150-51.  Most commentators have concluded the earlier date because Alfred relates that he wrote in an era of enforced idleness and was probably as a result of the legatine council held in 1143. (the splicing of the early prophetia into the version know as First Variant was not composed before 1144)

The importance of this is that the prophecies of Merlin were not in the Primary Historia as Huntingdon unintentionally reveals; yet they had been spliced into a First Variant or a precursor to the finalized Vulgate.  In Alfred’s account he does not mention dedicatees, which, since much of his history is based on Geoffrey’s work one might think it an oversight. However, since we know the dedicatees in the finalized Vulgate, HRB are not employed until after their deaths (and Walter is not mentioned either by Alfred) we know he is not using a finalized Vulgate version. Although Alfred omits the prophecies he does not mention Alexander either but this is obviously because the copy he has must have been composed before Alexander’s death.  It is through William Fitz Herbert or Hugh de Puiset, both Henry’s nephews, that we may conclude Beverley would have obtained the version from which Alfred is using. We know that when the archbishop was deposed in favour of the Cistercian Murdac in 1147, William stayed with Henry at Winchester and also during that period Hugh had fled to Beverley. Now, we would be silly to think the provenance of the book at Beverley found its way there by any other route than through Henry’s nephews since so few copies of HRB were in circulation at that time. This opinion of course runs contrary to modern Scholar’s views which is based upon the presumption that the Vulgate HRB was widely distributed at this time because they, undiscerningly, ‘lay aside’ the discrepancies in EAW. Scholars make ridiculous rationalisations for Huntingdon having not mentioned Merlin or his prophecies. They aver that the Bec copy and all copies were synonymous with the Vulgate.

Alfred of Beverley repeats what Britannicus says about Merlin, i.e. the account of the young Merlin delivering the story about the two dragons fighting, but Alfred does not include any of the 'Prophetiae' but has heard of them. It is not a certainty that his copy had the prophecies spliced in. But, it is doubtful if he would have mentioned them if they were not.

Alfred in his preface says that others around him had already read Geoffrey’s Historia and their mouths were full of his narrations. Alfred was by his own admission accounted an ignoramus for being a stranger to Geoffrey’s work c.1149-50 by the other monks.  We can gauge that the book arrived c.1147 and Alfred wrote c.1150-51. Alfred witnessed charters in favour of the town of Beverley, the nearby religious houses at Bridlington, Warter, and Watton, and Rufford, between 1135 and 1154, but probably died about 1157, when a certain Robert attests as sacrist of Beverley.

The point is that, when Alfred says: ‘when the church was silent, owing to the number of persons excommunicated under the decree of the council of London’….  he is not referring to the time of the council in London but what was agreed ‘at’ the council regarding ex-communication. The time that Alfred says he was composing his book must be after 1147 and up until the time Henry Murdac died in 1153. The reason for concluding this time span for Alfred’s publication is coincidentally linked to affairs concerning Henry Blois and his brother Stephen. The poor state of the church at Beverley, which Alfred refers to, was a direct result of events which took place at York. William Fitz Herbert, as we covered earlier, was the son of Henry Blois’ sister and was Archbishop of York (twice); before and after the appointment of Henry Murdac. William of Newburgh records that William Fitz Herbert is ‘received with honour’ (put up) by Henry Blois at Winchester until re-established at York after Murdac’s death.[2] King Stephen and Henry Blois helped secure Fitz Herbert's election to York after a number of candidates had failed to secure papal confirmation. Fitz Herbert faced opposition from the Cistercians who, after the election of the Cistercian Pope Eugene III, managed to have the archbishop deposed. Henry Murdac was a personal friend of the pope himself who was at Tiers at the time and thus consecrated Murdac as the new archbishop of York, on 7 December 1147…. effectively replacing Fitz Herbert. However, York's cathedral chapter and King Stephen refused to acknowledge Murdac’s appointment and Stephen imposed a fine on the town of Beverley for harbouring Murdac. In retaliation, Murdac excommunicated Hugh de Puiset (who became Bishop of Durham), another (appointed) Nephew of Henry and Stephen who was at the time Treasurer of York, and laid the city under interdict. Puiset, in return, excommunicated the Archbishop Murdac and ordered church services to be conducted as usual.  In this he was supported by Eustace, son of Stephen. John of Hexam relates that Hugh de Puiset fled to Beverley where even when Prince Eustace requested Hugh’s return to his see, he refused…. and probably also went to his uncle at Winchester.  This era of church politics, (testing Rome’s power to appoint bishops), is the era in which Alfred refers to ‘when the church was silent’ i.e. when normal services were interrupted because numerous clergy were excommunicated. From this we may surmise that Alfred had an evolved First Variant (because there are still no dedicatees). We will return to Alfred’s work when we compare it to the First Variant in a later Chapter.

Aelred, Abbot of Rievaulx in North Yorkshire, author of Speculum charitatis (The Mirror of Charity), reportedly written at the request of Bernard of Clairvaux, Henry Blois’ nemesis,[3] contains a dialogue between the author and his novice. The novice confesses in this exchange to being less moved to tears by pious readings than by fictitious tales of ‘somebody named Arcturus’. Later Aelred brands these tales as fabulae et mendacia, but the novice nor Aelred mention Merlin. These can only be ‘Geoffrey’s’ fabulous tales and not something anecdotal which can be accountable as having been found in manuscripts of ‘saints lives’ or Nennius concerning Arthur. The reason I mention this is because Powicke’s study of Aelred reveals he wrote this in 1141-2 while novice master at Rievaulx and we should not forget Henry’s nephew William was installed in York in January 1141 (although not consecrated until September 1143). What this shows is that in the middle of the Anarchy, an abbot in Yorkshire only three years (or so) after the Bec copy was found, is reading Geoffrey’s Primary Historia (ex-prophetia). Now in terms of propagation we must look to Henry Blois who has passed a copy to his Nephew, as the Primary Historia was not in wide circulation at this early date. In other words; what Aelred’s novice has read cannot be a First Variant version which we know was only compiled after William of Malmesbury had died and for the express purpose in adding evidence toward the case Henry Blois put forward in Rome in 1144 to obtain metropolitan status for southern England.  Tatlock is drawing the wrong conclusion in assuming the finalized Vulgate HRB was in full circulation when he understands that it was Walter Espec who had passed this copy on to Aelred.  Tatlock’s theory is largely based upon Gaimar’s epilogue and the fact that Rievaulx was near to Walter’s estate of Helmesley and also the fact that Aelred gives a good description of Walter at the Battle of Standard. The fact that Walter Espec was buried at Rievlaux aids Tatlock’s deduction. Tatlock reckons that Aelred’s is the first reference to HRB before 1147 and the ‘earliest proof of divulgation of the Historia in England,’ (which obviously is assumed as the date when Alfred obtained his copy). But Tatlock’s date is based upon Walter Espec having received a copy of Geoffrey’s HRB from Robert of Gloucester who died in 1147.  The name of Robert of Gloucester as dedicatee was not employed until after his death.  So, Tatlock’s proposition should be ignored. There is nothing in the novice’s tears to indicate they could not come from the same version recounted in EAW i.e. the Primary Historia. Certainly the story of King Lear, Helena’s rape by a giant, even the nostalgia of a once chivalric Briton would be enough to bring the soft hearted novice to tears. Basically, Tatlock has been duped by the misinformation inserted in Gaimar’s epilogue in L’estoire des Engles.  Gaimar’s epilogue is vital in misleading posterity into believing Henry’s assertions that the ‘good book’ provided by Archdeacon Walter really existed, as posited in the Vulgate HRB.

The four written sources Gaimar refers to are Walter Espec's book, the ‘Good book of Oxford’, the Winchester history, and an English book from Washingborough; all mentioned for a specific reason polemically. It is my supposition that Walter Espec’s name is included in the epilogue because in 1132 when Henry Blois had met Walter Espec he had handed him a copy of his pseudo-history (destined originally for Matilda) and he subsequently was trying to confuse us and contemporaneity by inventing Gaimar’s epilogue…. and the provenance of Walter’s book (by the invention of L’estoire des Bretons which no-one has ever seen). I can see no other reason for the inclusion of the name Walter Espec except to confuse by muddling all the versions. Henry Blois had met Walter Espec when he signed a Charter with King Henry Ist granting permission to build Rievaulx abbey.[4] We will return to Gaimar later, but more importantly to Alfred of Beverley’s use of an evolved First Variant version because contrary to scholarships belief, First Variant most emphatically preceded Vulgate and Alfred mentions no dedicatees or Walter. If Henry Blois had come up with the invention to introduce Walter to provide a provenance for Geoffrey’s work at the time Alfred was recycling ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB…. Alfred would surely have included this information.

Apart from Huntingdon there is only Abbot Suger and Alfred of Beverley’s work from which we can deduce ‘Geoffrey’s evolution’ of HRB before 1155 (with Aielred’s anecdote). Suger does not mention the ‘Sixth in Ireland’, so has an early edition of the prophecies. There would appear no reason to think that Alfred knew the prophecies from any other source than from the evolved First Variant. The omission of the prophecies (and his mention of them) occurs at the point in the text where they appear in the First Variant and Vulgate. Alfred clearly knew of the prophecies, before stating that they were too long to go into. However, we can be certain that even if Alfred had discussed the prophecies there would have been no mention of the ‘Sixth in Ireland’ as it had not been discussed until 1155 when the issue of providing land for Henry II brother was discussed. There would have been no incitement to insurrection either in the prophecies that Alfred had, as Stephen was still King.

As far as I can figure out from when Huntingdon wrote his letter to Warin c.1140 until Alfred’s report c.1150-51…. there is still the omission of the account of the transportation of the giants ring. We will never know what the prophecies contained as Alfred said they were too long to include in his comment of Britannicus’ work.  However, another example of Henry introducing and developing Merlin could be said to be witnessed in Alfred's reduction of Geoffrey's entire detailed story of Merlin's powers of illusion allowing Uther Pendragon to take on the appearance of Duke Gorlois of Cornwall and sleep with his wife Yegerna (whereby Arthur is conceived) to the briefest mention.  ‘Geoffrey’ refers to Avalon twice in the Vulgate HRB. The first is to describe Arthur’s sword. Alfred, in his reworking of the passage concerning Caliburnus, where it is forged in the island of Avalon in Vulgate HRB of 1155 omits mention of the island. This is possibly another reflection of Henry evolving the importance of Avalon and that Henry in the First Variant had not fully developed his coalescing of material around establishing Avalon at Glastonbury.  When Alfred describes the passage found in HRB where the mortally wounded Arthur is being taken to the island of Avalon to have his wounds tended, Alfred recycles this passage and here mentions Avalon, but significantly, omits the ambiguous word letaliter ‘mortally wounded’ which indicates that, like Huntingdon’s account, it is left open to accommodate the ‘hope of the Britons’. This to my mind indicates that Henry Blois has not yet decided to plant the body of Arthur at Glastonbury, but it definitely shows he has come up with the ’Mythical Island’…. but his muses have not fully developed the potential of Avalon.  Alfred refers to Stonehenge twice in his history. The first is recycled from Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum – where Huntingdon provides an architectural description of the stones and provides the earliest use of the term ‘Stonehenge’ that survives. It must have seemed strange to Huntingdon discovering the Primary Historia at Bec because Henry Blois posing as Galfridus used the HA as a source for Primary Historia and almost certainly borrowed the name from that source.  ‘Geoffrey’s’ Vulgate story of Merlin’s transportation of the stones from Ireland recycles Huntingdon’s name ‘Stonehenge’.  The evidence showing that the character and actions of Merlin is developed over time is that Alfred’s second reference to Stonehenge is recycled from the First Variant which he is using. He uses the description of the burial of Constantine, successor of King Arthur, ‘next to’ Uther Pendragon. Since Alfred is not using (a finalised) Vulgate, he is not aware of Geoffrey’s further developed account of the transportation by Merlin of the giants’ ring from Ireland. Alfred mentions Merlin on numerous occasions in book five of the History, but he presents a substantially understated and underdeveloped version compared to Vulgate HRB; quite obviously because he has a copy of a developing First Variant. Alfred omits the prophecies of Merlin in his account which may be because Henry has not fully spliced Merlin and the prophecies into the copy he gave his nephew. We must assume that the prophecies that Alfred saw were from the Libellus Merlini and not the updated set now attached to the First Variant copies.

Since Beverley is only 25 miles from York, one must assume that the version found its way to Alfred through William Fitz Herbert.  Bernard of Clairvaux, the Cistercian who hated Henry Blois exerted all his influence to ensure Fitz Herbert's suspension. The fact that Beverley was under York’s authority would suggest how such a rare volume at this stage was in circulation.  Alfred’s references to the name ‘Geoffrey’ are nil, but are still of very singular manner. He never uses the options of naming Geoffrey as Gaufridus Artur, or Gaufridus Monemutensis.  He always uses the term ‘Britannicus’. Some commentators may take Alfred’s Brittannicus reference to mean Celt or even Welshman assuming Alfred’s reference is based upon the author having situated Arthur in Wales. Alfred’s dismissal of the author’s personal name may indicate a scepticism of his existence in reality. Alfred comes across as sceptical of the work, but still very interested in its contents.

In 1147-8, when William Fitz Herbert had been suspended and the monks at Beverley had ‘all’ read the Historia before Alfred….Henry Blois had not come up with the name Geoffrey of Monmouth.[5] Britannicus as an appellation at this stage may not be based upon pudibundus Brito…. as this is a reference to Geoffrey himself as ‘an unabashed Briton’. This was probably only introduced in a revision of the prologue to the prophetia in the Vulgate version. Logically, (as long as we accept the back dating of Vulgate occurred) the prologue to the prophecies could not have been written until Alexander died in 1148. The pudibundus Brito reference disqualifies Henry Blois as author (for those misdirected). By 1155 when Vulgate was published ‘Geoffrey is dead’. Anyone on the trail of Geoffrey would not be looking for someone of Norman heritage….. as intended!!

As an indication that the history was talked about (at least at Beverley) Alfred remarks: anyone not acquainted with the History of the Kings of Britain puts himself down as uncultivated. 

Huntingdon’s omission in EAW of the three archflamens when mentioning Eleutherius’ missionaries only gets introduced into the storyline of First Variant in pursuit of metropolitan in 1144 just after Malmesbury’s death. Alfred had a copy of First Variant because Alfred notes by name Faganus and Dunianus sent by Pope Eleutherius where they were distinctly not mentioned in EAW.  The preachers were not mentioned either by Malmesbury in any of his works, except those interpolated by Henry. These two very important figures were not included in Primary Historia. What may be a fair speculation, given that we can see an apostolic foundation for Glastonbury formed the basis for pope Lucius’ decision to grant metropolitan to Henry…. is that the formation of the St Patrick charter followed that decision. As I shall cover later in the chapter on DA, the St Patrick charter was included in DA for the 1149 request for metropolitan status. Therefore Alfred and the monks at Beverley c.1148 had the most recent recension of Henry Blois’s evolving HRB which most likely he had originally passed to Henry’s Nephew. But, this is also the time when Henry was composing the Vulgate HRB. 

---

[1] Historia Ecclesiastica, i 16

[2] William of Newburgh, Cap XVIII.1

[3] The contention between Bernard and Henry Blois started over the Oxford Charter of Liberties in 1136 where Henry Blois managed to reassert the sovereignty of the Celtic church in England. Bernard’s reforms were nullified for a time. The Oxford Charter retained power for monastic Abbots over Bishops; thus limiting Vatican appointed Bishops to presiding exclusively over Vatican business in England. The charter effectively guaranteed autonomy for the Abbots. The Cluniac’s were not anti-papal but recognised that the papacy was starting to interfere with their institutions and Henry Blois, his mother and brother, all held Cluniac values. Ultimately, the Beaumont twins, siding with Clairvaux’s aims persuaded King Stephen to abandon Henry’s advice against the Papacy.  Henry was essentially displaced in 1138 as archbishop of Canterbury on the pretence that the Beaumont’s said he was becoming too powerful. To all intents and purposes it was a papal plot to undermine Henry so Roman power would not be reduced and Bishops would retain their power. This of course led to the mistrust between the Bishop of Salisbury which we covered earlier. 

[4] With the mention of Walter Espec in Gaimar’s epilogue it is likely that he had a copy of the original Faux-History which was later to become the material for the Primary Historia.

[5] The name, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Henry Blois only introduces after 1153, when he has signed the charters as Galfridus Arthur at Oxford and seen Ralph’s provenance. No twelfth-century chronicler more frequently refers in a historical text to ‘Geoffrey’ than does Alfred, but he does so by referring to him as Britannicus. If Alfred dismissed the Gaufridus Arthur appellation as an improbable pseudonym…. then why would he not once mention Geoffrey of Monmouth…. if his name existed with the text? The simple answer is…. the name of Geoffrey did not exist in 1151 at the completion of Alfred’s work.

 

 The following is an extract from a book called 'The Island of Avalon'.


You can also see the updated 2019 information at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/

http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6

 

Abbot Suger

Abbot Suger built a church in the nascent Gothic style at St Denis. Suger wrote extensively on the construction of the abbey in Liber de Rebus in Administratione sua Gestis, Libellus Alter de Consecratione Ecclesiae Sancti Dionysii, and Ordinatio and was also a keen historian and moved in influential circles being a confidant of the French Kings, Louis VI and Louis VII. Not only was abbot Suger friends with Henry, they had similar interests, in architecture and history and both were central to power politics and correspondence between them is shown in note 4.  We can only assume that Henry gave Suger a copy of an early version of his Libellus Merlini, but his gullible attitude toward Merlin is noteworthy and may have been affected by Henry Blois’ own ‘insightful commendation’ when presenting the copy to him. While writing about Louis le Gros and Henry Ist, Suger interjects a few comments on extracts taken from the Libellus Merlini:

‘At that time, it so befell that Henry, King of the English, had come into the parts of the Normans, a right valiant man renowned alike in peace and war, whose excellency, admired and famous throughout well-nigh the universal world, Merlin, that marvellous observer and recorder of the continuous course of events amongst the English, rustic prophet though he be, doth with no less elegance than truth extol with exceeding honour; for, bursting forth abruptly, as hath ever been the wont of seers, in his praise, he thus up-lifteth his prophetic voice: "The Lion of Justice," saith he, "shall succeed, at whose roaring shall tremble the towers of Gaul and the Dragons of the Island. In his days shall gold be wrung from the lily and the nettle, and silver shall flow from the hooves of them that low. They whose hair is crisped and curled shall array themselves in parti-coloured fleeces, and the garment without shall betoken that which is within. The feet of them that bark shall be cropped short. The wild deer shall have peace, but humanity shall suffer the dole. The shape of commerce shall be cloven in twain; the half shall become round. The ravening of kites shall perish, and the teeth of wolves be blunted. The Lion's whelps shall be transformed into fishes of the sea, and his Eagle shall build her nest upon (over) the mount Aravium."

 Just to indicate to the reader how Henry twisted these prophecies over time, notice there is no mention of a ‘third’ nesting. Another indication which would define some of Crick’s eighty five copies of the prophetia as deriving from the early versions would be to see which omit mention of the ‘third nesting’. Suger’s copy would have been part of Henry’s initial set prophecies and we should note they are close to those interpolated into ‘Orderic’s’ section. However, unlike Orderic’s there is no mention of a ‘sixth’ in Ireland. So let us not think that Orderic’s section which purposefully mirrors the content of the real Libellus Merlini as found in that which Suger recounts is contemporaneous in content with a prophecy which predicts Henry II in Ireland.  Since the Eagle is included, it dates to around 1139-43 given that there is no mention of material in the Anarchy which is present in the Vulgate set of updated prophecies and further extended in the VM and also found in the prophecies supposedly translated by John of Cornwall. It is interesting, the amount of fervent support such a sober and influential man lends to the credibility of Henry’s concoction. One may speculate Suger’s view may have been influenced by Henry’s commendation: ‘The whole compass of this prediction, so weighty and so ancient, fits in so exactly with the strenuous character of the person indicated and his administration of the realm, that not one single iota, not one single word can be regarded as inconsistent with the precise applicability thereof. For even from this which is said at the end about the Lion's whelps it is abundantly manifest that the prophecy hath proven true, seeing that his sons and daughters were shipwrecked, and being devoured of the fishes of the sea were physically transformed into them. The aforesaid King Henry, therefore, happily succeeding his brother William, as soon as he had by the counsel of experienced men and upright, ordered the realm of England to their liking according to the rule of their ancient Kings, and in order to secure their goodwill had confirmed by oath the ancient customs of the realm, made for the haven of his Norman duchy, and, relying on the help of the King of the French, bringeth back order to the land, restoreth the laws and imposeth peace upon compulsion, promising robbers nought less than the tearing out of their eyes or stark hanging, gallows-high. Presently, therefore, under the strokes and stress of these and the like promises, and stricken, moreover, by their frequent fulfilment, for any man can be profuse in promises, the land is dumb at sight of him, and the Normans, in whose fierce Dansker blood is no peace, keep peace against their will, thereby again verifying the words of the rustic prophet. For the ravening of kites doth perish, and the teeth of wolves are blunted when neither gentle nor simple durst presume to pillage or plunder save by stealth. And when he saith that at the roaring of the Lion of Justice the towers of Gaul and the Dragons of the Island shall tremble, he intimateth this, that well-nigh all the towers and whatsoever castles were strongest in Normandy, which is part of Gaul, he did cause to be either levelled with the ground, or otherwise subdued unto his will either by settling men of his own therein, or, if they were destroyed, by confiscating their revenues to his own treasury. The Island Dragons also did tremble when none of the nobles of England, whosoever they might be, durst even grumble during his whole administration. In his days was gold wrung by him out of the lily, that is, from the religious of good odour, and from the nettle, that is from the stinging seculars; his intent being that as he was a profit unto all, so also should all do service unto himself. For safer it is that all should have one to defend them against all, than for all to perish through one man for lack of such a defender. Silver flowed from the hooves of them that low when the strength of the castle safeguarded the plenty of the grange, and the plenty of the grange assured abundance of silver in the well-filled coffers.’ 

Note that the Abbot does not care to elucidate on Montem Aravium. Henry’s cryptic allusion to the Empress seems to have been indecipherable to the contemporary audience. Maybe this is why Henry needed to add the ‘third nesting’ in the Vulgate set to obviate the Eagle was the Empress.  Abbot Suger selects these prophecies as an exemplar bearing directly on the subject he is writing about i.e. (Henry Ist)…. interpreting some as evidence that Merlin’s words have come to fruition. The ‘Sixth in Ireland’ prediction is not part of this block of prophecies but is found in the Vulgate HRB and VM, but naturally that particular prophecy could not be part of the prophecies before Suger’s death. If only Suger (writing c.1147) had said by what means or from whom he had received these prophecies or Robert of Torigni had stated from whom Bec had obtained a copy of the Historia, we could then probably make one more connection back to Henry Blois.