King Arthur in Avalon?

On the Illustrious Arthur
When William of Malmesbury was invited to write the early history of Glastonbury Abbey in 1129 he spent much time searching their library archive and noting the names on memorial stones in the abbey grounds but, rather tellingly, did not record any mention of Arthur’s burial there. In his chronicle the Deeds of the English Kings (Gesta Regum Anglorum, c.1125) William treats Arthur as a historical figure who the Britons still told many fables even in his own day and writes that “The sepulchre of Arthur is no where to be seen, whence ancient ballads fable that he is still to come.” 

After spending time at Glastonbury William made further additions to this chronicle which were published in later editions, this has enabled manuscript scholars such as John Scott1 to detect later interpolations in his original work, [as discussed above in Fake and Forgery at Glastonbury Abbey] but to William the location of Arthur’s grave remained a mystery and he does not associate the legendary king with Glastonbury at all. We have also seen how in the Life of Gildas, c.1130-1150, Caradoc of Llancarfan2 has a stand-off at Glastonbury between Arthur and Melvas, king of the Summer country, who has abducted Gwenhwyfar (Guinevere) and held her captive there owing to the natural protection of its reed, river and marsh. Arthur has spent a year searching for his wife then hears she being held at Glastonia. He assembles the whole armies of Cornubia and Dibneria (Latin for Cornwall and Devon) and besieges the glass city and prepares to attack. The abbot of Glastonia and Gildas the Wise manage to obtain peace between the two kings and Gwenhwyfar is released. If we are to locate the two kings from this tale then clearly Arthur is king of Devon and Cornwall, while Mevas is king of Somerset, the land of the Summer People. Therefore we can assert that Caradoc does not locate Arthur at Glastonbury either.

In his De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie (On the Antiquity of the Church of Glastonbury) William writes chapters on the Saints Gildas, Patrick, Indract, Bridget, Benignus, Columba, David and recounts many more as he lists the relics of saints and nobles deposited at Glastonbury including the translation of St Dunstan from Canterbury before adding a short chapter ‘On the Illustrious Arthur’.3

Here William recalls how we read in the deeds of the most illustrious King Arthur, which is assumed to be a reference to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia which was originally titled De gestis Britonum (The Deeds of the Britons), how Arthur led a youth named Ider, the son of King Nuth, to Frog Mountain (Brent Knoll) to test him in battle against three giants. Ider went on ahead of Arthur without the king knowing and attacked and killed the giants. When he arrived Arthur found Ider lying lifeless and assumed he was dead. Arthur considered himself responsible for the young man’s death so when he returned to Glastonbury he established 80 monks there for his soul, generously granting them lands and gold, silver, chalices and other ecclesiastical ornaments.4

We find another version of this story in John of Glastonbury’s chronicle5 at chapter 33 but in John’s account it is the Mountain of Areynes (Mount of Spiders) in North Wales and Arthur established 24 monks but presented the same gifts of land and gold, silver, chalices and other churchly adornments. John names the lands given to Glastonbury as Brent Marsh and Polden among many others. No one knows the source of Ider’s story but it was clearly derived to explain how Glastonbury acquired the lands around Brent Knoll. If Geoffrey of Monmouth had been aware of the story he surely would have used it as he had a fascination with giants and has several giant-killing episodes in his Historia, but Geoffrey only makes a brief reference to Ider as Hyderus son of Nu (Hiderus filius Nu) in the skirmish of Autun in Arthur’s Gallic campaign.6

In the next chapter of John’s Cronica, chp 34, he mentions a convent of Holy Virgins on Wearyall where Arthur liked to stay and rest. He experiences a dream which involves a ride to the nearby chapel of St Mary at Beckery. The episode is referred to as ‘King Arthur’s Chapel Ride’ and bears a close relationship to a similar episode recorded in the opening section of Perlesvaus, or The High Book of the Holy Grail. In William Nitze’s study of the Perlesvaus he determined that John did not borrow from the Perlesvaus but both accounts derive from a common Latin original.7  We will return to Perlesvaus and its relationship with Glastonbury later. The remains of a chapel at Beckery have been discovered where burials, presumably monks, have been dated to the 5th or early 6th Century AD. Yet no evidence for a nunnery on Wearyall has ever been detected.

Scott states that the source of the story of Ider cannot be determined8 and asserts that it was obviously interpolated after the purported discovery of Arthur’s grave at Glastonbury. He adds that William indicates in Gesta Regum Anglorum that he is interested in authentic history about Arthur and would have no doubt included this story had he known and believed it. Scott dismisses the whole chapter ‘On the Illustrious King Arthur’ as a later interpolation in William’s original work.9

Rachel Bromwich names the youth as Edern mab Nud, a mythical figure, who like his brother Gwynn ap Nudd, he is a euhemerization of a Romano-British deity, Aeternus son of Nodons, who is far less prominent than in Welsh sources than his brother Gwynn ap Nudd, indeed Ider (Edern) is absent from the Triads of the Island of Britain.10 He appears in the so-called 'Arthurian Court List' in Culhwch and Olwen, in The Dream of Rhonabwy leading a group of Danes while serving as an advisor to Arthur, and also in Geraint and Enid. He was well known in Continental Arthurian Romance appearing on the Modena archivolt as Isdernus and Yder fiz Nut in Chretien de Troyes poem Erec et Enide and Yder son of Nuc in the 13th century French Romance. Evidently he was much more widely known in Continental sources than Welsh which supports Scott’s contention that he was a later addition to William’s De Antiquitate.11

Authors and Demons
The 12th century witnessed an explosion of Arthurian literature which had started with Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain (Historia Regum Britanniae, c.1136). Geoffrey’s book, which contained the first full biography of the great King Arthur, was an immensely popular and influential work, although some contemporary historians had their doubts. In his Prologue to the Historia Geoffrey states that his work is a translation of a "librum vetustissimum" (a most ancient book), written in the British language and given to him by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford. Many doubt this book ever existed and Geoffrey is accused of manufacturing much of his 'history'; he seems to have taken certain elements from historical sources and embellished them with his own tales. Writing at the end of the 12th century William of Newburgh declared that "it is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur ….. was made up, partly by himself and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons." 

Another critic of Geoffrey’s work was Gerald of Wales who in his Journey through Wales (Itinerarium Kambrie) tells the story of a Welshman named Meilyr who was immediately aware if someone was lying as he saw a demon dancing on the liar's tongue. He could spot parts in books that were not correct and contained a false statement. On explaining how he did this Meilyr said the devil pointed it out with his finger. When St John’s Gospel was placed on his lap the demons fly off and disappeared. If the Gospel was then removed and Geoffrey’s History of the Kings of Britain put in in its place the demons would return.12

However, Geoffrey’s Historia was widely considered a credible history of Britain until the 16th century yet today is generally considered a work primarily of fiction, little more than a 12th century novel. During his tenure as Abbot Henry of Blois is said to have presented a copy of Geoffrey’s magnum opus to the library at Glastonbury which seems to have influenced certain actions of the monks when the need arose. But significantly Geoffrey did not associate Arthur with Glastonbury, or Glastonbury with Avalon; in his Historia Geoffrey writes that Arthur was carried off to the Isle of Avalon to be cured of his wounds.13 Geoffrey fails to elaborate on Avalon, the only previous mention he makes of it is that he states Arthur’s sword Caliburn was forged there.14 He never mentions Glastonbury in his whole text. 

Some years later Geoffrey returns to this theme in his Life of Merlin (Vita Merlini, c.1155); perhaps he felt the entry in his Historia was all too brief and required further explanation. In this much shorter work Geoffrey does not mention Avalon by name but it is clear he means the same place as he writes of the abode of Morgan and her sisters, where they took Arthur after the battle of Camlann to be cured of his wounds. In the Vita Merlini Geoffrey is clearly referring to the concept of ‘The Elysian Fields’ also known as ‘The Isles of the Blessed’ of Greek mythology located at the end of the earth in the western ocean, an afterlife paradise for those favoured by the gods. Here Geoffrey calls it the ‘Island of Apples which gets it name from the Fortunate Island’.15 Geoffrey is obviously referring to the Celtic version of Elysium, an island of plenty bearing the name for ‘apple tree’ = afallen (Welsh), aball (Irish), aballo (Gaulish). In the Brut y Brenhinedd, the Welsh versions of Geoffrey’s Historia,  the Island of Avalon is rendered as Ynys Afallach, the island of a Deity in some tales referred to as the King of Annwn, the Celtic Otherworld.

Twenty years after Geoffrey’s Historia the Norman poet Wace produced the Roman de Brut, 1155, which largely followed Geoffrey’s story, but introduced new elements such as the Round Table. These early works were known as the Brut tradition, a chronicle on British history starting with Brutus of Troy and ending with the 7th century Welsh king Cadwallon ap Cadfan. The first English version was written by the priest Layamon expanding on Wace’s story.

This followed with an explosion of Arthurian literature in the last quarter of the 12th century ignited by Chretien de Troyes who after writing several Arthurian Romances introduced the Grail to the Arthurian cannon. Chretien left his work on the Grail unfinished which resulted in a multitude of ‘continuations’. Much of this Continental Romance literature focused on the exploits of Arthur’s knights with the king himself relegated to a minor role in the tales.

Glastonbury as Avalon
In conclusion, to writers of the early 12th century, such as Caradoc Llancarfan, Geoffrey of Monmouth, William of Malmesbury, Glastonbury was not associated with the mythical Island of Avalon. Similarly, King Arthur was not attached to Glastonbury living or dead. William of Malmesbury who had studied Glastonbury inside and out could not find any trace of him there and did not include him in his original De Antiquitate as he left it; we can be certain that all Arthurian references in the De Antiquitate are later interpolations.16 Geoffrey of Monmouth does not connect Arthur with Glastonbury in anyway; the King is conceived and falls in Cornwall. Caradoc of Llancarfan has Arthur preparing to attack Glastonia because Melvas is holding Gwenhwyfar there because its marshes make it impregnable.17 Caradoc was invited by the monks to write an account of Arthur associated with Glastonbury and the tale of Ider was taken from a later source and inserted into William’s original version of De Antiquitate; both accounts created to explain the monastery’s claims to its substantial land holdings, gifted by King Arthur of course.

Yet, the situation at Glastonbury and the privileges that its independence brought was about to change at the end of the 12th century with a discovery that would shake the Arthurian story to its very roots.

Notes & References
1. John Scott,The Early History of Glastonbury: An Edition, Translation, and Study of William of Malmesbury's De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie, Boydell Press, 2009,
2. Caradoc of Llangarfan: The Life of Gildas - Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University.
Hugh Williams, translator. Two Lives of Gildas by a monk of Ruys and Caradoc of Llancarfan.
First published in the Cymmrodorion Record Series, 1899.
3.  Scott, pp-87-89.
Scott has identified many later interpolations into William’s original work.
4. Scott, See Note: 77 on p.197.
5. James P Carley, The Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey: An Edition, Translation and Study of John of Glastonbury’s Cronica sive Antiquatates Glastoniensis Ecclesie, tranlation by David Townsend, The Boydell Press, 1985, p.75.
6. Lewis Thorpe, Geoffrey of Monmouth: The History of the Kings of Britain, Penguin Book, 1966, pp.243-46.
7. Carley, Cronica, see end note p.284
8. Scott, note 77, p.197.
9. Ibid.
10. Bromwich and D Simon Evans, Culhwch and Olwen: An Edition and Study of the Oldest Arthurian Tale, University of Wales Press, 1992, pp.70-71.
11. Scott, note 77, p.197.
12. Owain Wyn Jones, The Most Excellent Princes: Geoffrey of Monmouth and Medieval Welsh Historical Writing, in A Companion to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Brill, 2020, pp.257–290.
13. Thorpe, p.261.
14. Thorpe, p.217.
15. Geoffrey of Monmouth, Vita Merlini - translated by Basil Clarke, in The Life of Merlin. Cardiff: UWP, 1973 - Mary Jones Celtic Literature Collective.
16. Scott, p.34.
17. Caradoc of Llangarfan: The Life of Gildas.

* * * 

Fake and Forgery at Glastonbury Abbey

1. The Early History of Glastonbury Abbey 

Introduction 
At the time of Domesday Glastonbury was the wealthiest religious house in England. The monastery’s fortunes had started to decline under the last Saxon abbots of the late 11th century. The situation was exacerbated by the arrival of the Normans and Lanfranc’s monastic reforms which brought the Glastonbury monks into conflict with Thurstan, their first Norman abbot. Then on St Urban’s day, 25th May, 1184 a disastrous fire broke out which destroyed much of the monastery’s buildings. Glastonbury’s fortunes were turned around by the successive appointments of some shrewd abbots who promoted the prestige of the abbey to reach its peak in the centuries following the Norman Conquest up to its Dissolution in 1539. The growth of the abbey’s reputation can be attributed to chroniclers employed by the monks to produce the history of the abbey and ‘prove’ its antiquity. The process started in the 12th century and saw the production of increasingly elaborate later medieval legends.

Glastonbury Abbey reimagined

Henry of Blois: A Man of Influence
In 1126 King Henry I of England invited his nephew Henry of Blois (c.1096-1171) to become abbot of Glastonbury. The position had been vacated when Seffrid Pelochin left Glastonbury to take up the position of Bishop of Chichester. Blois was appointed Bishop of Winchester in 1129 and aspired to become Archbishop of Canterbury. Yet Henry refused to give up his beloved Glastonbury and remained abbot and bishop until his death in 1171; at 45 years one of the longest abbacy’s at Glastonbury equalled only by John Chinnock who served as abbot 1375-1420. As bishop of Winchester Henry resented his subservience to Canterbury but failed to convince his elder brother King Stephen of England to create a third diocese in the West Country, York being the second in Northern England. However, Stephen did appoint him as papal legate from 1139-1143, ranking him above the Archbishop of Canterbury, making him the most powerful man in the English Church during the civil war known as the Anarchy which raged from 1138 to 1153.

The Civil War erupted when the 17-year old William Adelin, the only legitimate son and heir of King Henry I of England, drowned in the White Ship disaster causing a succession crisis. King Henry’s preference was for his daughter the Empress Matilda to succeed him but he failed to gain the support of the nobility and his nephew Stephen of Blois, supported by his younger brother Henry, abbot of Glastonbury and bishop of Winchester, seized the throne. Henry would later switch sides to support Matilda and then switch back to Stephen. The Civil War raged on, becoming something of a stalemate; the way out was an agreement on the future succession of England. In 1153, the Treaty of Westminster stated that Stephen would remain monarch of England for the rest of his life but on his death Henry (Curtmantle), the eldest son of Empress Matilda and Geoffrey of Anjou would succeed him as King Henry II, the first Plantagenent king of England.

Bligh Bond's reconstruction of the
first Christian settlement at Glastonbury

Back at Glastonbury, when Henry of Blois first arrived from the Benedictine Abbey at Cluny in France in 1126 he is said to have found the Somerset monastery in a dilapidated state with the monks lacking even the daily basics. This was a drastic change of prosperity for a monastery that at the time of Domesday was recorded as the wealthiest religious house in England. The monastery’s fortunes had started to decline under the late-Saxon abbots Aethelweard (1027-1053) and Aethelnoth (1053-1077) who strayed from the abbey’s long traditions. The situation was exacerbated by the arrival of the Normans when William I installed many of his vassals in the abbey’s lands. 

In 1070 King William appointed Lanfranc as Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the church in England. Lanfranc, an Italian born monk who had served as prior of Bec Abbey in Normandy and abbot of St Stephen's Abbey in Caen, introduced ecclesiastical reforms to the Anglo-Norman church in England and questioned the sanctity of the Anglo-Saxon saints; the likes of St Cuthbert, St Alban and St Dunstan all became objects of Norman scepticism. Lanfranc also started to replace the Anglo-Saxon bishops and within twenty years of the Conquest all Anglo-Saxon bishops had been removed except for Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester (1062 to 1095), the only English-born bishop to retain his diocese for any significant length of time after the arrival of the Normans.

The appointment of Norman heads of religious establishments saw Thurstan from the Abbey of Saint-Étienne in Caen installed as the first Norman abbot of Glastonbury in 1077. Thurstan immediately started to introduce new ecclesiastical practices changed the traditional Glastonbury chant for that of Fécamp, which was unacceptable to the monks. His aggressive attitude resulted in a conflict in 1083 in which at least two monks were killed and several others wounded. Thurstan was sent back to Normandy in disgrace.

Then there were the challenges from Canterbury. Prior to Henry of Blois’s appointment Eadmer, a monk from Christ Church, Canterbury, had written a long letter to Glastonbury c.1120 ridiculing rumours circulating that they held the body of St Dunstan. The rumours claimed monks from Glastonbury had removed St Dunstan’s remains from Canterbury the year after the church was abandoned and left desolate following an attack by the Danes as recorded in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle year 1011. Eadmer asserted that he had himself as a boy witnessed the translation of St Dunstan’s body when it was moved during the construction of the new cathedral at Canterbury in 1074. The story continues that having retrieved the Saint’s relics from Canterbury the monks at Glastonbury then hid them away and only produced them for veneration by the public after the devastating fire of 1184. A few years earlier, late in the 11th century, probably between 1080 and 1090, another Canterbury monk named Osbern wrote a Life of St Dunstan and claimed that Dunstan was the first abbot of Glastonbury implying that the Somerset house’s foundation could only be traced back to the 10th century.

The Old Church

It is hardly surprising that Glastonbury had reached such a low ebb when Henry of Blois arrived. Henry had a passion for grand buildings and was a great collector of the arts. On appointment he immediately started the restoration of Glastonbury on two fronts, firstly he restored the buildings and secondly raised the prestige of the monastery by employing writers to produce accounts of the early history of the monastery. Henry is credited with building a chapter house, cloister, bell tower, refectory, dormitory, an outer gate and the ‘castellum’.

As Henry set about rebuilding the monastery buildings he employed Robert of Lewes, a man with proven business acumen, to recover the monastery’s lost estates. Henry invited the hagiographer Caradog of Llancarfan and the respected historian William of Malmesbury to produce literary accounts to raise the profile and prestige of Glastonbury. During the 12th century religious houses relied on hagiography to establish their early history based on the deeds of a founding saint. Later the growth of Romance literature would start to influence the accounts of certain houses, including Glastonbury. 

Men who knew of Arthur
At the end of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain, c.1136) he entrusts Caradog of Llancarfan to continue the history of the Welsh kings, leaving the English Kings to William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon. At one time Caradog was suspected of being the author of a large part of the Brut y Tywysogion (The Chronicle of the Princes) up to around 1150 but this is generally discounted by modern scholars. However it is generally accepted that Caradog did write the Life of St Cadog in which Arthur figures prominently, and also possibly the Life of St Iltud, in which Arthur is noted as cousin of the saint.

Caradog produced the second of the two lives of St Gildas around 1130-1150 which contained an episode of the abduction of Arthur’s Queen Gwenhwyfar by Melvas, king of the Summerland. Arthur assembled the men of the south-west but Gildas and the Abbot of Glastonbury resolved the issue without war breaking out. In return the two kings embellished Glastonia (Glastonbury) with gifts of many lands. Caradog tells us that after this Gildas went on to live a hermit's life upon the bank of a river close to Glastonbury and when he died he was buried in the middle of the pavement of St. Mary's church (the Old Church). However, another Life of Gildas, possibly written earlier in the 11th century by an unnamed monk claims Gildas spent he last days in Rhuys, Brittany, where he was buried.

At the end of his Life of St Gildas Caradog tells us that Glastonia was of old called ‘Ynisgutrin’ the name still used by the British inhabitants at the time he wrote. He explains that ‘Ynis’ in the British language is ‘insula’ in Latin, and ‘gutrin’ (made of glass). But, according to Caradog, after the coming of the English it was renamed “Glastigberi, according to the formation of the first name, that is English ‘glass’ and ‘beria’ a city; then Glastinberia, that is, the ‘City of Glass’. 

The respected historian William of Malmesbury also knew of Arthur. In his Gesta Regum Anglorum (Deeds of the English Kings, c.1125) William treats Arthur as a historical figure who the Britons still told many fables even in his own day. In this chronicle he adds that the tomb of Walwin, ‘the noble nephew of Arthur’ has been found but adds that “The sepulchre of Arthur is no where to be seen, whence ancient ballads fable that he is still to come.”

The marker for Arthur's tomb

Around sixty years after William’s visit to Glastonbury King Arthur’s grave was discovered in the monk’s cemetery in 1190/91. According to Gerald of Wales the monks of Glastonbury had been told of the location of the grave by King Henry II. A burial cross recovered from the grave identified the bodies as King Arthur and his wife Guinevere lying in the Isle of Avalon. Evidently from what we read in the Gesta Regum Anglorum William was not aware of Arthur being buried at Glastonbury and clearly he was not told of this by the monks during his visit. Significantly not one of these contemporary writers, William of Malmesbury, Geoffrey of Monmouth or Caradog of Llancarfan had identified Glastonbury with Avalon. 

The Old Church 
William of Malmesbury was a highly respected historian for his works Gesta Regum Anglorum (Deeds of the English Kings) and Gesta pontificum Anglorum (Deeds of the English Bishops). He had translated the Life of St Wulfstan into Latin for Worcester and already written several saint’s Lives for Glastonbury, SS. Dunstan, Patrick, Benignus and Indract. But Glastonbury had a major problem: it did not have a founding saint. Encouraged by their new abbot Henry of Blois, the monks of Glastonbury requested William to write the history of the abbey. On his arrival in 1129 he engaged with the monks no doubt listening to their tales of the long traditions of the monastery and spent much time in the abbey archive researching its history.

The monks of Glastonbury firmly believed in the sanctity of the monastery’s provenance and subsequent long history. In the late-10th century the first biographer of Dunstan, known simply as ‘B’, recorded the belief that the ancient church (antiqua ecclesia) at Glastonbury had not been built by the hand of man but had been “fashioned in Heaven”. ‘B’ appears to be a trustworthy source for the long traditions at Glastonbury as he had apparently been a member of the community there, his account of the abbot being based on personal memories up to 960 when Dunstan was appointed archbishop of Canterbury.

The First Saxon church (Reading University)

However, during his time at Glastonbury William could not find any evidence for the first church having been built by the disciples of Christ as implied by ‘B’. Yet he knew of the story of missionaries sent to Britain by Pope Eleutherius at the request of King Lucius, as recorded in Bede and other sources which, according to Scott, arose from a misreading of the Liber Pontificalis (The Book of Popes). As a compromise William did however allow the possibility, probably on the insistence of the Glastonbury monks, of an apostolic origin.

Evidently, the Old Church (vetusta ecclesia) is at the heart of the Glastonbury legends. Writing in the early 12th century William described this church as the oldest he knew, describing it as a brushwood building identical with the antiqua ecclesia mentioned by Dunstan's biographer 'B' in the 10th century. The Old Church along with many of the monastic buildings was completely destroyed by the fire of 1184. 

Construction of the Lady Chapel 1184-86

The Lady Chapel that survives in a ruinous state today as a result of the 16th century Dissolution was built during 1184 and 1186 on the exact site of the vetusta ecclesia, and later a crypt was added, thus any archaeological evidence for the Old Church was totally lost. The Lady Chapel was built in a Romanesque style, intentionally designed to appear archaic to preserve the memory of the Old Church and its claimed early foundation

By the time of William’s visit the monks firmly believed in the tradition that St Patrick had been the first abbot of Glastonbury in the 5th century. The connection with St Patrick later attracted many Irish pilgrims which can be traced back to at least Dunstan’s abbacy in the 10th century. ‘B’ tells us that Dunstan received an excellent education from Irish pilgrims who frequented Glastonbury, learned men who came to the Abbey to worship at the tomb of their blessed Patrick.

Legendary accounts suggest a Celtic Church was founded at Glastonbury. Tradition claims Saints Patrick and Brigit visited in the 5th century with the monastery claiming to hold relics of both saints and SS David and Gildas. However, there is no evidence that St Patrick ever visited Glastonbury, let alone appointed as the first abbot, yet there was certainly an attraction at Glastonbury that drew many Irish pilgrims in the 10th century which indicates that at least from this date Celtic saints were being venerated there. So many saints relics were held there that William called it a “heavenly shrine on earth.”

The archaeological picture has been confused by the layers of clay, which contained Roman or sub-Roman ceramics, imported into Glastonbury by Dunstan to raise the level of the monk’s cemetery. A spring, known today as St Joseph’s Well, on the southern edge of the Lady Chapel may date from the Roman period. The waters are said to have healing properties and was certainly in existence long before the chapel was built. The monks claimed a pre-Saxon church at Glastonbury and there is certainly a case for a post-Roman settlement at Glastonbury, but whether this was secular or ecclesiastical has not been determined. 

Glastonbury traditions also recounted numerous endowments made by kings and nobles associated with the place throughout its history which supported the high regard that the monastery was held in the past. William could trace land grants back to 601 but Glastonbury’s earliest historical documents date from the late 7th century; charters of the Wessex kings Cenwealh (641-72), Centwine (676-85) and Ine (688-726) confirm land grants or privileges to the monastery.

King Ine was the first of its patrons among the Wessex kings, enriching the monastery with gifts of vast estates and credited with building the first stone church at Glastonbury in the early 8th century dedicated to Saints Peter and Paul. Excavations in the 1920s discovered three phases of stone churches associated with the Saxon monastery. The earliest, King Ine’s dates to around AD 712, being erected immediately to the east of the Old Church

The royal endorsement of Glastonbury continued through the 10th century into the early 11th century with three prominent Wessex kings buried there; Edmund I (d.946) in the presbytery, with Edgar the Peaceful (d. 975) and Edmund II Ironside (d. 1016) both reburied adjacent to the tomb of King Arthur. 

The ruins of Glastonbury Abbey today

The History of Glastonbury as it Should Have Been
After spending time with the monks at Glastonbury and listening to their oral accounts of the long traditions associated with the monastery and searching the document archive William presented his De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie (On the Antiquity of the Church of Glastonbury) to the monks for their approval. He was aware that his work would not be what the monks had expected. Being a respected historian William would not include fables as fact unless he could find evidence to substantiate them; he could not give them the history they wanted. This would explain his rather defensive Preface to De Antiqitate; clearly the monks were dissatisfied with William’s conclusion

After the fire of 1184 Glastonbury was in desperate need of funds for rebuilding. Long running issues with the bishop of Bath came to head in 1192 when Savaric Fitzgeldewin was appointed to the position. Savaric wanted control of Glastonbury and formed a new seat known as the Diocese of Bath and Glastonbury. However, the Glastonbury monks refused to accept Savaric as the head of their establishment and held out for their independence. In 1199 he forced his entry into the abbey and excommunicated monks who opposed him. The dispute had cost Glastonbury dearly in legal fees and Savaric was also said to be diverting Glastonbury’s funds for other purposes in the Diocese. In 1186 when the Lady Chapel was completed work started on the Great Church (major ecclesia) but was not completed until 1303, 119 years after the fire, a long delay which can only be attributable to a lack of funds. 

The dispute with the Bishop of Bath had taken its toll on the abbey’s finances and weakened their independence. Their prestige had taken a battering from Osbern and Eadmer of Canterbury, which from 1170 held the relics of Thomas Becket, the top pilgrim attraction in the country. It is hardly surprising that Henry of Blois found the monastery in such a sorry state on his arrival, downbeat and downtrodden. Glastonbury then entered a period of ‘creative writing’, in other words outright forgery, amending documents and producing charters within its scriptorium to create a foundation story and long history how they thought it should be. 

Dissatisfied with William’s conclusion the monks would later add the required ‘proofs’ to the De Antiqitate that William had omitted to create what they perceived to be the ‘real’ history of Glastonbury. No original copies of De Antiquitate have survived in the form in which William presented it to Glastonbury on completion, but we know of its original text from large sections that had been transcribed into William’s later editions of the Gesta Regis Anglorum. The earliest version of the "De Antiquitate" that has come down to us is a 13th century copy heavily interpolated by the Glastonbury monks which adds significant elaboration not present in William's original document. As time went on the Glastonbury monks would make further amendments to William’s original work and by the 14th century later copies of William’s work claimed that the Old Church was founded by Joseph of Arimathea in the year AD 63 who had travelled to England after the Crucifixion.

Manuscript scholars such as John Scott have identified a combination of historical, textual, and chronological inconsistencies, particularly when compared to William’s other, authentic works such as the Gesta Regum Anglorum. Some interpolations even refer to events after William’s death c.1143 providing conclusive proof that he could not have written those parts. 

Scott concludes that the first 36 chapters of the De Antiquitate have been heavily rewritten by later scribes. Scott summarises what he considers was the fate of William’s De Antiquitate as such:

• incidents that refer to Henry of Blois in the past tense must have been added after his death in 1171,
• the rediscovery of the remains of St Dunstan at Glastonbury post date the fire of 1184,
• references to King Arthur were added after the discovery of his grave in 1190-91,
• chapters identifying Glastonbury as Avalon only became necessary after the discovery of Arthur’s grave and the inscription on the burial cross - as we have seen above neither William or contemporary writers identified Glastonbury with Avalon. Or, indeed, the burial place of Arthur,
• We can be certain that Joseph of Arimathea as the founder of Glastonbury does not appear in William’s original work, he only mentioned the possibility of an apostolic origin, as this was added by monks in response to the later Romance tradition that claimed Joseph brought the Holy Grail to Britain, literature that appeared well after William’s death.

Scott expands this: although the Glastonbury monks were not totally satisfied with the interpretation of the monastery’s history as presented by William in his De Antiquitate the shortcomings did not seem that important while they had the powerful abbot Henry of Blois, who as we have seen was also Bishop of Winchester and one time papal legate to the king, his brother. However their fortunes soon changed with Henry’s death in 1171 which was followed by the disastrous fire in 1184 which destroyed most of the church buildings, then Savaric, the Bishop of Bath, threatened their independence and tapped into the monastery’s wealth.

The monks began to seek a means to restore their finances and prestige. Without a founding saint and relics they had to look elsewhere for a major attraction. Following the devastating fire of 1184 the monks started publicising the claim that the bones of Arthur had been discovered at their monastery and made the first additions to William’s original text accordingly. Among these amendments the most outrageous were the claims that Glastonbury held the remains of St Dunstan and the falsification of the Charter of St Patrick. The history of the monastery was extended to include the conflict with the bishop of Bath in 1192. Around 1230 these additions were integrated into a continuation of William's De Antiquitate attributed to Adam of Damerham, a monk of Glastonbury. Then the publication of the History of the Holy Grail, which detailed how Joseph of Arimathea brought the Holy vessel to the Vale of Avalon in Britain, meant further revision was necessary. Accordingly in 1247 the reworked version of William’s De Antiquitate was copied again and the scribe introduced Joseph into the monastery’s history by adding a first chapter and rewriting the second. The 1247 revision survives as the earliest known copy of De Antiquitate known as T, Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.5.33 (724).

The ‘history’ of Glastonbury received further interpolations as an ongoing matter with the addition of notes and marginal glosses by various hands inserted into the T, Cambridge manuscript. There are other variant manuscripts that have largely copied and extended from T, Cambridge and include additional later material annotated by different hands from the 13th  through to the 15th centuries. 

However, the fantastical claims of Glastonbury did not convince everyone. We have already seen how Canterbury had challenged their claim to possess the relics of St Dunstan. Oddly, there was no challenge, although perhaps a great deal of scepticism, to the claim that Glastonbury had discovered Arthur’s grave and held his relics. Then in his early-14th century ‘Polychronicon’ Ranulf Higden stated that it was not possible that the St Patrick buried at Glastonbury could be the apostle of Ireland as it was well known that he was buried in that country. 

In response in the mid-14th century a monk known as John of Glastonbury in an abbreviated continuation of Adam of Damerham’s work strongly opposed Higden's argument. John’s chronicle (Cronica sive Antiquitates Glastoniensis Ecclesie) added further information on Joseph of Arimathea and produced in writing for the first time the ‘Prophecy of Melkin’ which claims Joseph lies in Avalon with two cruets containing the blood and sweat of the “prophet Jesus”. John’s work ran to the year 1342 then was in turn continued by another hand down to the late 15th century. The cult of Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury was developed and promoted particularly by the later abbots John Chinnock (1375–1420) and  Richard Beere (1493–1524).

The rewards of fake and forgery propelled Glastonbury Abbey into a Golden Age in the four centuries following the Norman Conquest up to its fall in the Dissolution in the 16th century.

Sources:
John Scott, The Early History of Glastonbury: An Edition, Translation, and Study of William of Malmesbury's De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie, Boydell Press, 2009. Scott’s comprehensive study of the ‘De Antiquitate’ has been invaluable in producing this article. Scott’s edition is based on manuscript T, Cambridge.

Antonia Gransden, The Growth of the Glastonbury Traditions and Legends in the Twelfth Century,
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Volume 27, Issue 4, October 1976, pp. 337-358. Reprinted in Glastonbury Abbey and the Arthurian Tradition (see below).  

Caradoc of Llangarfan: The Life of Gildas - Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University
Hugh Williams, translator. Two Lives of Gildas by a monk of Ruys and Caradoc of Llancarfan.First published in the Cymmrodorion Record Series, 1899. 

Other Works Consulted:
Glastonbury Abbey and the Arthurian Tradition, edited by James P Carley, DS Brewer, 2001.
James P Carley, Glastonbury Abbey: The Holy House at the Head of the Moors Adventurous, Gothic Image, 1996.
The Archaeology and History of Glastonbury Abbey: Essays in Honour of the ninetieth birthday of C.A.Ralegh Radford, edited by Lesley Abrams and James P Carley, Boydell Press, 1991.
Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey: An Edition, Translation and Study of John of Glastonbury's Cronica sive Antiquitates, James P. Carley (Editor) and David Townsend (Translator), Boydell Press, 2009.

* * *