Please go to the new 2019 updated website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
Henry Blois and the Meusan Plates.
There are two enamel plaques in the British
Museum which were made in the Meuse valley in modern day Belgium, with a very
high degree of skill, from copper alloy and enamel. These are semi-circular
dished plaques usually referred to as the Mosan plaques or the Henry of Blois plaques. On one of these plaques, Henry of Blois is
depicted prostrating himself, offering what looks to be a very large book and
underneath described by a Latin inscription as HENRICVS
EPISCOP ('Henry the bishop'). On the other, there are two angels depicted protruding
from the clouds, both swinging censors containing fragrance indicating the benevolence from
heaven upon mankind. One of the angels is holding a golden chalice. Both
have further inscriptions in Latin running along the borders of the plaques.
They describe a gift to God and a donor on whom England depends for stability. Also
there is a statement implying that there is nothing greater than an ‘Author’. When
the plaques came to the British Museum in 1852, the plaques were joined
together, and had been previously sold as an alms dish. However, it was clear
that this was not their original state or intended purpose. Henry Blois’ name
is chronicled in connection with four episodes in which crosses play a large
part. It is my belief that these plaques may have been attached to a cross on
or above an altar. The reason for thinking this is that, as seen in the figure,
they are indented in a convex form with fixing holes to mount top and bottom of
an object. It would seem, the most likely place they would fit is top and
bottom on the sculpted ends of a wooden vertical upright of a cross. There may
well have been similar plates made for the horizontal ends of the crossbeam,
but the wording,(if in the same design) would have been difficult to read as the
present ones have the script upright, as long as one plate is placed at the top
and the other at the bottom.
Some commentators
have posited that the plates comprise Henry’s own text for his legation. What is
written is not a personal statement regarding his time as ‘papal legate’ and
the sense of the words do not correlate to a middle aged Henry as the
expiration of Henry's legatine commission was in September 1143. Nor would it
be apparent at this stage that the peace of England was within his power.
The usual
translation goes: Art comes before gold
and gems, the author before everything. Henry, alive in bronze, gives gifts to
god. Henry, whose fame commends him to men, whose character commends him to the
heavens, a man equal in mind to the muses and in eloquence higher than Marcus.
(Marcus Tullius Cicero.)[2]
Art is above gold
and gems, but an ‘author’ before everything.
The word author in no way substitutes in meaning for a fabricator of Art,
but specifically relates to the composer of a book. We can see the object which
he presents is a book. Some have
translated this as: Art ranks above gold
and gems; the maker ranks above the work. If this were the case a host of
other words would apply such as fabricator, artificer, maker etc. If the word AVTOR had the meaning of ‘maker’,
why would the purport of the rest of the epitaph refer to the greatest and most
renowned Roman author? The eloquence
referred to is a comparison with the way Cicero wrote and spoke. Henry is plain
in what he says of the enduring word…. as he has read books which relate events a
thousand years old.... and it is this point that he makes. The author is above
transitory art and acquired wealth as his words endure. Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote on a wide range of
subjects, but the substance of his thoughts on politics, law, philosophy etc.
have been responsible for the attitudes of others which lived subsequently. As we have seen already Henry has certainly read parts of Cicero’s vast output,
but his own vanity states that his work compares with Cicero’s.... arguably the
most famous thinker of the ancient world. This is an odd autobiographical
statement when no written work is evident except Henry Blois’s relatively brief Libellus concerning his deeds at Glastonbury. Yet Henry’s work is not so
much voluminous in what he wrote; but, what he did author…. volumes have been
written about. Henry Blois is directly responsible for the tales of Grail lore,
Arthuriana and Glastonburyana.... much of this output accounted to a certain Master Blehis. Henry
has had a greater impact on the European stage than anything Cicero ever wrote.
William of Malmesbury in DA writes: This
man, of illustrious birth, is also distinguished in his knowledge of letters…
Henry, as several
chroniclers attest in different instances, was very eloquent, but he himself
thought he had a mind equal to the muses and eloquence greater than Cicero. If
Muses are accounted as the inspiration of man’s thoughts, we need only look at 'Geoffrey's'
HRB to see Henry’s mind is equal to the classical muses.
Why would Henry
Blois accredit so much that is desirable to the person of an author? In plain
speak, one can see it is the expression of an accolade or personal self-acclaim
– an aspiration of worth. More
importantly, if Henry realised that the written word left to posterity is far
more desirable or greater than riches or of higher worth than the manufacture
of any kind of art form, architectural work or jewels; what evidence is there
that he, (likening himself to Cicero), has also left bebehind works to posterity…. which,
in his own mind, ranks him higher than Cicero?
The Meusan plates were surely commissioned by Henry Blois himself and transported back to Winchester after a continental journey to Rome. There is no evidence that anyone else ever suspected Henry’s authorship of the several works that I have indicated were composed by him. Therefore, the very words would be redundant or senseless in the context of another having designed the epitaph. We have already seen evidence in GS to produce a polemic in the form of an apologia, to re-colour history so that which posterity would have concluded was a conniving bishop (from what other chroniclers attest) positively paints a wholesome character reference for Henry in GS. Even if his image is that of a venerable statesman at best…. where can we find evidence of any connection to things literary for a comparison with Cicero as an author.
The Meusan plates were surely commissioned by Henry Blois himself and transported back to Winchester after a continental journey to Rome. There is no evidence that anyone else ever suspected Henry’s authorship of the several works that I have indicated were composed by him. Therefore, the very words would be redundant or senseless in the context of another having designed the epitaph. We have already seen evidence in GS to produce a polemic in the form of an apologia, to re-colour history so that which posterity would have concluded was a conniving bishop (from what other chroniclers attest) positively paints a wholesome character reference for Henry in GS. Even if his image is that of a venerable statesman at best…. where can we find evidence of any connection to things literary for a comparison with Cicero as an author.
Henry Blois'
eloquence is recorded in GS at the legatine council and thereafter at the court
in Winchester where his sophistry is picked up by William of Malmesbury(in HN), but
his greatest speech in HRB is his retort to Lucius Hiberius’s presumption of
tribute to Rome. Henry formulates a great speech of defiance from the mouth of
Arthur in front of his barons. It is this which inspires Hoel to say: For so exactly hath thy provident
forethought anticipated our desire, and with such Tullian dew of eloquence hast
thou besprinkled it withal. [3]
(Marcus
Tullius
Cicero )
Let there be no
question that Henry Blois’ epitaph was written by himself and the Meusan plates
were manufactured by his design. It is the bold statement that the ‘author is before everything’ which is
baffling if Henry Blois left nothing authored by him. If he wrote nothing, why
would he compare himself with Cicero? More importantly, why if he held this
view that a great literary work has more value than the more commonly accepted
material artefacts which are lusted after by mankind generally…. why would he
hold such a view, when it has no basis in reality? It is this logical sequence
of questions and suppositions which point to the authorship of a great work
paralleled or surpassing that of any of the works of Cicero in the mind of the
author and who commissioned the epitaph. Certainly HRB is a work which aspires
to such greatness and to the ignorant has the stamp of authority…. without
pretension, which is the mark of a great work. No other person could be
responsible for the wording on the Meusan plates. No-one else has any idea of
Henry Blois’ authorship of a hugely successful work but he himself; and no-one
else would know of his aspirations.
Henry has two
founts for his self-image and vanity; one which is witnessed here, stems from
his immense learning, the other from his high birth. Not only is he seeking his place in history,
but he actually attempts to establish his own version of it. What must be
understood about Henry Blois is how he wishes to be perceived by posterity and
his understanding of how history is transferred into posterity; but did he
really think his fame and character would commend him to the heavens? Henry has
vainly composed his own epitaph; much like the GS acts as an apologia for his actions,
couched as a memorial of his brother's deeds. The GS’s ulterior motive is to paint a
glossed image of Henry Blois himself for posterity. The HRB however, changes the way
posterity sees or understands itself. The composition of HRB is a vain action,
although unpretentious in its high Latin style it pretends to pass itself off
as credible history. Henry through his
learning has understood how a place in history is attained by great men and is
passed down by chroniclers. History usually only records the deeds of Kings and
therefore, he uses Stephen’s acts (GS) to implant a record of his own deeds, so
that History may account him as a great and influential man and his own name is
recorded in the dust of history. The substance of man is conveyed into
posterity through forms such as buildings or artworks and it is Henry’s
preoccupation with making his mark in history (which is dictated by his own
vanity), which ultimately led him to construct the Vulgate HRB.
Henry understands
that history (and the perpetuation of a man’s name in it) is conveyed through
art forms and literature and uses these plaques to write his own enduring
epitaph. It would be silly to think that a man, who obviously had such high
regard for authorship would only leave a drab Libellus of his actions at Glastonbury for posterity. This fact is
testament to his other works which, in due course, I shall uncover in these
pages.
I cannot think of any literary work which has
had such an enduring effect on any nation (disregarding the religions), than
the History of the Kings of Britain; its Arthuriana and the subsequent Grail
legends…. all derived from Henry. This man has studied the classical
philosophers and orators which is evident from the sources used in the
construction of HRB. His rousing speeches put in the mouths of others, polished
in style, rhetorical with their balance and oratorical questions are highly
sophisticated…. reworking the speeches of great men from antiquity and grafting
them into the mouths of the heroes of the HRB. When Arthur has given his reply
to the Romans regarding the non-payment of tribute, Hoel commends Arthur’s
speech with the words ‘your speech,
adorned as it was with Ciceronian eloquence, has anticipated exactly what we
all think”.
If the reader now understands that the GS was
written as an apologia
for Henry’s actions and understands Henry’s vanity; portraying himself as a
pious and venerable man who did great deeds for England…. one should understand
that a poem written about him was written by himself for posterity, (See note
5). In this same poem we can understand from a small extract how he perceives
himself: He was the Cicero of our time,
son of the generous stock of Kings, gem of parents and he was a glory of the
world, the summit of religion. The guide of the Kingdom, the defence and hope
of the powerful; staff of the weak and lover of covenants of peace. Rome, head
of the world, rich in foreign treasures has been made wealthier by his gift.
Rome was certainly
rich in treasure and Henry Blois itemizes some of these in his book written
under the pseudonym of Master Gregorius which I shall cover shortly, but how it
has been made richer by him is debatable. Anyway, there is little doubt that none other would
have written such flattering words about Henry and we can assume, like the
epitaph…. the words are his own.
It seems as if Henry is likening
his authorial gifts to those of Cicero and equating his inspiration for the
invention of the plots and characters that fill the HRB and VM, as being equal
or above those that inspired Greek Mythology and Poetry. In Greek Mythology,
poetry and literature, Muses were thought to be the goddesses of the
inspiration of that literature. A mountain in the region in Boeotia,
celebrated in Greek mythology, where two
springs sacred to the Muses were located are reminiscent of the Vita Merlini’s land
of Boeotia where it is said to have two fountains; the one makes the drinker
forgetful, the other makes them remember. However in the Vita Merlini we have an example of where
both Cicero and the Muses, (or at least the land of Boeotia) betray Henry’s mental associations as both muses and
Cicero are mentioned on the plaque by Henry Blois together. Henry’s underlying
considerations and ponderings likewise are derived from insight and inspiration
which is a necessary precursor to eloquence, which he himself, like Cicero, was
blessed with. Henry betrays himself as the author of the VM through this
previous thought pattern i.e. through his association of muses and Boeotia,
with Cicero. In
the dedication of the Vita Merlini,
Geoffrey calls upon the Muses and compares himself (in false self-deprecation)
to Orpheus and a group of Augustan epic poets: Thus I should wish to embrace you with a worthy song, but I am not able
to, even if Orpheus and Camerinus and Macer and Marius and Rabirius of the
great voice altogether would sing with my mouth while the Muses accompanied me.
The reference to the poets
Camerinus and Rabirius could be derived from a passage in Ovid’s ‘Letters from
Pontus’, (mostly unknown) but for Ovid’s mention of them. Henry, as we will
discover in a discussion of the HRB itself, must have a photographic memory, as
many of the classical tracts which he quotes from, or from which he draws
inspiration, would have been found on the continent while he was at Clugny,[4]
but certainly not at Glastonbury, where his pseudo-history (the main body of HRB written for the Empress Matilda originally until it became redundant) was initially
started. Henry’s mind needed classical manuscripts to feed it to provide the
epic that we have today in the Vulgate HRB.
One
last comment on this first plaque is about the inscription: Henry, alive in bronze, gives gifts to god.
The
plates were a copper alloy but different from bronze, but how is the word
‘alive’ relevant? It is my belief, (which is purely conjecture), Henry had
planned some brass effigy of himself so that posterity would be reminded of
him. I would even hazard that it was along the lines of Cadwallo’s bronze. This
image, (unlike most episodes or icons of the HRB which can be traced to a
previous source), came directly from Henry’s mind…. as there is no reference to
any such embalming within brass elsewhere in classical literature: The
Britons embalmed his body with balsams and sweet-scented condiments, and set it
with marvellous art within a brazen image cast to the measure of his stature.
This image, moreover, in armour of wondrous beauty and craftsmanship, they set
upon a brazen horse above the West Gate of London in token of the victory I
have spoken of, and as a terror unto the Saxons. [5]
This bronze statue will become more relevant to the reader when we cover
Gregorius’ study of the bronze horseman Marcus Aurelius in
Rome. It is my belief also that on Henry’s first trip to Rome to pick up his
pallium, he was so struck by the Horseman (supposedly Marcus Aurelius) outside
the Vatican that it was the inspiration for Cadwallo’s embalmed bronze.
What
with the Anarchy and his self-imposed exile, I expect Henry envisaged many
projects that never came to fruition. I have a strong belief that Henry was
going to produce one of the pair of Dragons (banners[6])
which Arthur used and it was going to appear at Winchester just as David’s
sapphire appeared at Glastonbury. It is not silly to suggest that as an
heirloom Harold’s dragon banner became the fictional other half of the Arthur
banners.[7]
On the second
plaque, where two censing angels are emerging from the clouds, the border has
inscribed on it: + MVNERA GRATA DEO PREMISSVS VERNA FIGVRAT. ANGELVS AD CELVM
RAPIAT POST DONA DATOREM; NE TAMEN ACCELERET NE SVSCITET ANGLIA LVCTVS, CVI PXA
VEL BELLVM MOTVSVE QVIESVE PER ILLUM.
The aforementioned
slave shapes gifts pleasing to God. May the angel take the giver to Heaven
after his gifts, but not just yet, lest England groan for it, since on him it
depends for peace or war, agitation or rest.
The
aforementioned is ‘Henricus episcop’. ‘May the Angels take him to Heaven after he has given his gifts’,
indicates that Henry firmly believes he is part of the divine plan, and his
part is important. The angels, sprinkling their heavenly aroma upon men, is how
Henry Blois sees the world; all of mankind in a giant drama coordinated in a
heavenly script. Henry hopes his actions on earth are in accordance with those
in heaven and asks a little more time to sort things out. I hope now the reader
sees how complex Henry Blois is; vain enough to think it is through him that
England’s war or peace depends. The contradiction is that he is a resolute
believer and yet a manipulative liar i.e. a split personality.[8] If
I am correct in my interpretation of the prophecies in the VM concerning
Cadwalladr and Conan we can see why at this later stage in life he still thinks
the state of war and peace in England are dependent upon his actions.
Henry hopes in the inscription (which is indicative
it was written by him) for a longer sojourn on earth and hopes his lifespan is
extended before death arrives; but not too quickly, not before England is
roused up from its struggle, since on him it depends for
peace or war, agitation or rest.
In the wording on
the Meusan plaques, there is a correlation to authorship. These plates are
commissioned so that he does not slip into obscurity. They must have been made
after Stephen’s death to even consider an epitaph. But at this stage the
interpretation of certain prophecies that incite rebellion ring true in the
plaques prophetic overtones in that war and peace in England are dependent upon
him.
[1] Note 4
[3] HRB IX xvii
[4] We do not know
where Henry stayed in Normandy in 1137-8 but it is likely he resided at times
in a monastic house and possibly even Bec.
[5] HRB XI,xiii
[6] The Legendary
history of Britain J. S. P. Tatlock p. 38 seems to think that Harold’s Dragon
may be at Winchester and this is what ‘Geoffrey’ is constructing his storyline
upon i.e. about the two dragons fabricari
by Arthur. It is not beyond reasonable conjecture that William the
conqueror Henry Blois Grandfather put the captured dragon portrayed in the Bayeaux
tapestry at Winchester. Tatlock posits that Geoffrey might have seen it
there. It seems relatively certain that
Henry would not incorporate it in the storyline if it did not exist in his day.
[7] In the
seventeenth century Henry Blois’ unadorned slab of Purbeck marble was removed
to expose his bones buried before the high alar in Winchester Cathedral. It is
reported that a chalice was discovered along with some fragments of textiles
including fine silks and braids with brocading of a very high quality. It would
not surprise me if indeed this was the cup which was promulgated as the Grail
cup and the textile was the remains of a disintegrated banner, considering that
Henry was well accustomed and could foresee the opening of graves by
posterity!!!
[8]
Dom David Knowles, The Monastic Order in England: Henry
of Blois, though not precisely a complex character…. for throughout all his
activities there is the same stamp of energy and directness of purpose… was
certainly a man of many sided qualities. Without knowledge
of Henry’s authorship of HRB few scholars have any real idea of Henry Blois’
true character. Voss’s montage of his character of course omits his authorial
prowess and split personality.
