Arthur's Glastonbury Grave (long)
Tony Jebson
PFJTurner wrote:
[snip]
> HIC IACET SEPULTUS INCLITUS REX ARTURIUS IN INSULA AVALONIA
> CUM WENNEVERIA UXORE SUA SECUNDA
> (Here lies buried the renown King Arthur on the Isle of Avalon
> with Guinevere his second wife).
I don't think this follows the 6th century 'Hic Iacet' style
of inscriptions. There is also a suspicious parallel between
the start of this text and the Latin version of Arthurs death
scene in the Historia Regum Britannie:
"Set et inclitus ille rex Arturus letaliter uulneratus est;
qui illinc ad sananda uulnera sua in insulam Auallonis
euectus."
The scribe who wrote the Bern MS had no time for the Breton
hope that Arthur would return, as he added "Anima eius in
pace quiescat" to the passage where Arthur is taken to
Avalon.
My guess is that the monks' account of the discovery owes
a lot to the religious _inventiones_ that were extremely
popular in the 12th century: most places "discovered" the
relics of some obscure saint or another, and most of the
accounts are _heavily_ dependent on either the _Inventio
Crucis_ or the _Revelatio Sancti Stephani_.
[snip]
> and the version of the Regissimus’s name used on the cross,
> “Arturius,” is anachronistic for the Twelfth Century. “Arturius”
> is, of course, very close to the correct Sixth Century form of
> “Artorius.” The latest known rendering of the name as “Arturius”
> is in a Seventh Century manuscript. A Twelfth Century forger
> would not have known to use the archaic form of lettering found
> on the cross or the old version of Arthur’s name, so the
> Glastonbury cross could not be a Twelfth Century forgery.
No, but a 12th century forger *would* have access to Geoffrey
of Monmouths HRB. Geoffrey uses the spelling "Arturus" (at
least in the Bern MS; I'm not certain what variants exist in
other MSS, but "Arturius" is likely).
Which is more likely: that it is a forgery based on a very
popular contemporary book, or the grave of King Arthur?
I know where my money is.
[snip]
--- Tony Jebson
PFJTurner
In another thread, the Glastonbury Exhumation was mentioned. here are some
thoughts:
In 1191, the monks of Glastonbury exhumed an old grave which they claimed to be
Arthur’s. Supposedly they were told where to dig by the English King Henry II,
who had obtained the information from a Welsh or Breton bard. However they
might have learned of the grave, the Glastonbury monks unearthed a coffin made
from a hollowed-out log and buried nine feet below the ground. They discovered
within the coffin the skeleton of a tall man with a damaged skull, as well as
the bones of a smaller woman.
A lead cross buried with the coffin bore the inscription: HIC IACET SEPULTUS
INCLITUS REX ARTURIUS IN INSULA AVALONIA CUM WENNEVERIA UXORE SUA SECUNDA
(Here lies buried the renown King Arthur on the Isle of Avalon with Guinevere
his second wife). “Avalon” was a fairly common Celtic place name in both
Britannia and Gaul, as well the name of a mythical realm, and it was an old
name for Glastonbury. Glastonbury was also a seasonal island. The grave
marker, if genuine, is conclusive evidence for Arthur’s having married twice,
with Guinevere being his second wife.
Many historians have dismissed the monks’ claim as a publicity stunt. The
Glastonbury clerics were then in need of money to finance the rebuilding of
their monastery, which had suffered fire damage in 1184. The monks could have
promoted the gravesite as a “tourist attraction” for medieval pilgrims; these
pilgrims would then be expected to make generous donations to the monastery.
The exhumation also served King Henry II’s political purposes. The English
monarch was militarily embroiled in Wales, and he could have pointed to the
location of Arthur’s grave on English soil as support for his claim of
supremacy over the Celtic realm. The finding of the grave also contradicted
bardic claims that Arthur would someday return to save the Welsh remnant of his
people. Nevertheless, we should not automatically dismiss and ignore the event
just because the discovery of Arthur’s grave might have proved financially
beneficial to the Glastonbury monks or politically advantageous to King Henry
II. Despite the suspicious circumstances, we have many good reasons for
accepting the exhumation as genuine, at least insofar as the monks truthfully
reported what they really did find and what they honestly believed.
One important reason for accepting the veracity of the monks’ account is that
neither of the conspirators in the alleged hoax actually reaped much benefit
from the unearthing of Arthur’s bones. We can find no evidence that the monks
exploited the grave as a fund-raising device, or that the English launched a
propaganda campaign against the Welsh based upon the location of the grave. If
the discovery of Arthur’s grave was a cynical ploy for economic or military
gain, then its purported masterminds failed to follow through and capitalize
upon their scheme.
The Glastonbury monks also failed to manufacture a grave for Joseph of
Arimathea, the legendary founder of the religious community at Glastonbury.
Joseph of Arimathea was a very popular religious hero in the Middle Ages, and
he was widely believed to lie buried at Glastonbury. [Joseph of Arimathea
appears in the Bible as the wealthy merchant who donated his tomb for use by
the crucified Christ. In medieval legend, he was believed to have sailed to
Britannia with the cup used by Christ at the Last Supper. This cup was later
identified with the Holy Grail of Celtic mythology.] The Glastonbury monks, in
order to arrange a faked exhumation, would have had to overcome many seemingly
insurmountable obstacles, including the finding of a suitable corpse and the
fabrication of appropriate grave paraphernalia. If they could overcome these
obstacles, they would have certainly devoted their efforts to the concoction of
a grave for the renowned Joseph of Arimathea. If the monks were capable of
faking the discovery of Arthur’s grave, they would have done so instead - or
also - for their own saintly founder, whose tomb would have attracted at least
as many visitors.
Archaeological examination of the purported gravesite has, moreover, uncovered
evidence that the exhumation occurred just as the medieval monks claimed. The
excavators found traces of the monks’ digging and indications that a large
object, such as a coffin, had indeed been removed from the earth. The reality
of the grave and the exhumation is no longer seriously doubted: the
Glastonbury clerics did indeed find and uncover some sort of burial.
The single most important reason for accepting the authenticity of the
Glastonbury exhumation is, however, the inscription on the lead cross found
with the coffin. The cross itself is no longer available for examination
because it unfortunately disappeared in the Eighteenth Century, but a drawing
of it published in 1607 confirms the form and substance of the inscription.
The second line of the inscription, the line referring to Guinevere, does not
appear in the Seventeenth Century drawing. This portion of the inscription
must have been on the reverse side of the cross, which was not copied. We can
be sure that the original inscription did include the reference to Arthur’s
queen because the full inscription appears in the earliest eyewitness accounts
of the exhumation, including the accounts written by Giraldus Cambrensis
(Gerald of Wales), a Twelfth Century Welsh chronicler who visited Glastonbury
soon after the exhumation. The contemporary accounts have been vindicated in
all other respects, so we have no reason to disbelieve that the reverse side of
the cross originally identified Guinevere as Arthur’s second wife.
The inscription as reproduced in the 1607 publication establishes that the
cross is not a fake created by the Glastonbury monks. The lettering and
content of the inscription is pre-medieval; it could not have been written at
the time of the exhumation. The untidy and crude lettering on the cross
belongs to a date long before 1190, and the version of the Regissimus’s name
used on the cross, “Arturius,” is anachronistic for the Twelfth Century.
“Arturius” is, of course, very close to the correct Sixth Century form of
“Artorius.” The latest known rendering of the name as “Arturius” is in a
Seventh Century manuscript. A Twelfth Century forger would not have known to
use the archaic form of lettering found on the cross or the old version of
Arthur’s name, so the Glastonbury cross could not be a Twelfth Century forgery.
The lead cross could be of Tenth Century manufacture, however. The cross could
have been added to the grave by the Anglo-Saxon Saint Dunstan. Saint Dunstan
was Abbot of Glastonbury around A.D. 945, and he undertook major renovations at
the monastery. He might have come across the grave during the course of these
renovations, and he might have had the cross made when he restored the site and
re-buried the coffin. Word of the discovery would have then spread among
Celtic storytellers, and a later Welsh or Breton bard could have thus known
where to find the grave. This possibility does not necessarily mean that the
grave really did belong to Arthur, only that Saint Dunstan believed it to
belong to Arthur. If the grave was uncovered during the course of Saint
Dunstan’s Tenth Century renovation work, the lead cross could have been created
at this time to mark a grave which the Saint concluded, for reasons we can only
guess, was Arthur’s.
Saint Dunstan could have been right. The Glastonbury grave, regardless of when
its lead cross was made, could have been the grave of Arthur and his wife. The
religious community of Glastonbury was active and important in Arthur’s day, so
the monastery grounds were a logical burial site for the Regissimus and his
queen. Unfortunately, we will never know for certain whom the monks of
Glastonbury exhumed, because the bones were dispersed and lost when the
Glastonbury monastery was dissolved during the reign of King Henry VIII in the
Sixteenth Century. For our purposes, however, the true identity of the
occupants of the grave is almost irrelevant.
What is relevant is that at the time the lead cross was inscribed, whether in
the Sixth, Tenth or Twelfth Century, Arthur was thought to have been interred
at Glastonbury and Guinevere was thought to have been Arthur’s second wife. If
the lead cross is genuine, then it does, of course, dispose of the whole issue.
If, on the other hand, the lead cross is of Tenth Century origin, then Dunstan
and his contemporaries, approximately two centuries before Geoffrey of Monmouth
wrote the _Historia Regum Britanniae_ and long before the first Romances were
composed, accepted Glastonbury as Arthur’s burial site and Guinevere as
Arthur’s second wife. Even if the grave marker was manufactured in the Twelfth
Century, its factual assertions are likely to be true. If the Glastonbury
monks intended to deceive people with a pretend exhumation, they would have
included only credible details in their account; they would have included only
details which were generally known and generally accepted as factual.
Regardless of when Arthur’s lead cross was inscribed, it points to an early and
widely accepted tradition that Arthur had two wives during his lifetime and
that Guinevere was the second of these wives.
Along these lines, we should attach special significance to the fact that, at
the time of the Glastonbury exhumation, the Welsh did not seize upon the
reference to Guinevere in order to contest the veracity of the exhumation.
Welsh nationalists should have eagerly exploited any unusual circumstance in
the monks’ account to undermine the credibility of the Glastonbury grave site.
They would have liked to deny that Arthur’s last resting place lay outside
their own borders, and they would have pointed to any erroneous statement
concerning Arthur’s marital history as evidence of English fraud. Welsh
silence is persuasive evidence for there having been a genuine tradition of
Arthur’s burial at Glastonbury and for Guinevere being Arthur’s second wife.
As the people closest to the historical Arthur, and as the people whose oral
tradition kept alive the memory of the real Arthur, the Welsh would have been
quick to detect and deride any obvious errors in a forged grave site.
Excerpt from: THE REAL KING ARTHUR; A HISTORY OF POST-ROMAN BRITANNIA; A.D.
410 - A.D. 593 by P.F.J. Turner.
Paul J. Gans
Tony Jebson (je...@texas.net) wrote:
[much good stuff deleted]
>My guess is that the monks' account of the discovery owes
>a lot to the religious _inventiones_ that were extremely
>popular in the 12th century: most places "discovered" the
>relics of some obscure saint or another, and most of the
>accounts are _heavily_ dependent on either the _Inventio
>Crucis_ or the _Revelatio Sancti Stephani_.
[...]
There is an excellent fictional account of such a happening
in Ellis Peters' _A Morbid Taste for Bones_, one of the
Brother Cadfael books. The tale is told by the slightly
skeptical Brother Cadfael, who nevertheless finds his own
reasons for participating.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
JudyW1917
>
There is an excellent fictional account of such a happening
in Ellis Peters'
>_A Morbid Taste for Bones_, one of the
Brother Cadfael books. The tale is
>told by the slightly
skeptical Brother Cadfael, who nevertheless finds his
>own
reasons for participating.
Hmm Even when it is written in English you can't get is straight. The books is
about the attempt to return Saint Winifred's ( Saint's day Nov. 3, d. c. 655)
to Shrewsbury. SHe lived at Hollywell , and was the only child of a knight
called Tevyth. When Prince Cradoc tried to seduce her she cut off her head with
his sword. Her uncle Saint Beuno restored her to life and she then when on a
pilgrimage to Rome and returned to become the prioress of a Convent. She was
buried in the churchyard at Gwytherin and in 1137 her relics were taken to
Shrewsbury. Her translation is celebrated on 22nd June.
For further info you can read:
Hermann Grotefend, Taschenbuch der Zeitrechnung des Deutschen Mittelalters und
der Neuzeit, 10th edition (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1960).
Alban Butler, The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and other Principal Saints
(London: Virtue, [1936?]).
The Primer, or Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in Latin (Antwerp: Arnold
Conings, 1599).
This doesn't sound much like Arthur & Guinevere at Glastonbury to me.
Judy
Paul J. Gans
> Judy
Judy, do yourself a favor and stop replying to my posts.
Your blind hate just makes you say silly things.
I was responding to a mention of the frequent translocation of
Saint's bones to new monasteries in the 12th century. The
Cadfael story, as you yourself indicate above, is EXACTLY
about that.
My reply had nothing to do with Arthur and company at all
and was never intended to. You are getting as bad as
David in reading my posts. He can't keep the subject matter
straight either.
And don't take this as meaning you are off the hook. You
owe Curt a real apology. If you were a decent person, you'd
give it.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
D. Spencer Hines
>And don't take this as meaning you are off the hook. You
>owe Curt a real apology. If you were a decent person, you'd
>give it.
>
> ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Why are Gans and the GLLB so upset that Judy Weller compared Curt Emanuel to
Sidney Blumenthal?
The comparison seems quite apt to me.
Just as Blumenthal is a spin doctor for Bill Clinton, so is Emanuel a spin
doctor for Paul Gans.
So what, we all know that, don't we? Why all the hypocritical and quite
false sense of "shocked betrayal?
You do remember the analogies section on the SAT and the GRE and the LSAT?
Gans and the GLLB must have a really low opinion of Sidney Blumenthal.
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
JudyW1917
>
Judy, do yourself a favor and stop replying to my posts.
I will reply to any post I feel like doing so -- even to yours.
Judy
David Read
In article <6dimc7$s...@panix2.panix.com>, "Paul J. Gans"
<ga...@panix.com> writes
> You are getting as bad as
>David in reading my posts. He can't keep the subject matter
>straight either.
David who ? I cannot see any "Davids" in this thread. If you mean me,
please explain in detail, in public or private, I don't mind.
cheers,
--
David Read
Paul J. Gans
>cheers,
>--
>David Read
The David I mentioned above is David Spencer Hines.
My apologies for any confusion.
JudyW1917
In article <6diqlc$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "D. Spencer Hines"
<shi...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
Why are Gans and the GLLB so upset that Judy Weller compared Curt Emanuel
>to
Sidney Blumenthal?
The comparison seems quite apt to me.
Just as
>Blumenthal is a spin doctor for Bill Clinton, so is Emanuel a spin
doctor for
>Paul Gans.
You know I have understand this either. Folks have apparently misconstrued or
misread my comparison of Curt Emanuel to Sidney Blumenthal in some
convoluted way. I have come to the conclusion that they don't know who
Sidney Blumenthal is or they are talkin about a different Sidney Blumenthal
than I am.
Judy
David Read
In article <6dk58e$g...@panix2.panix.com>, "Paul J. Gans"
<ga...@panix.com> writes
>The David I mentioned above is David Spencer Hines.
>My apologies for any confusion.
>
Thanks Paul. Pardon my paranoia.
cheers,
--
David Read
Jim Boyle
try reading Ashe's The Landscape of King Arthur it sheds some light on to
the glasztonbury situation and also the interesing legends about the thorn
bush that supposedly grew out off Joseph of Arimethea's staff
Jim
Captain Wolf
JudyW1917 wrote:
>
> In article <6deprb$7...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) writes:
>
> >
> There is an excellent fictional account of such a happening
> in Ellis Peters'
> >_A Morbid Taste for Bones_, one of the
> Brother Cadfael books. The tale is
> >told by the slightly
> skeptical Brother Cadfael, who nevertheless finds his
> >own
> reasons for participating.
>
> Hmm Even when it is written in English you can't get is straight. The books is
> about the attempt to return Saint Winifred's ( Saint's day Nov. 3, d. c. 655)
> to Shrewsbury. SHe lived at Hollywell , and was the only child of a knight
> called Tevyth. When Prince Cradoc tried to seduce her she cut off her head with
> his sword. Her uncle Saint Beuno restored her to life and she then when on a
> pilgrimage to Rome and returned to become the prioress of a Convent. She was
> buried in the churchyard at Gwytherin and in 1137 her relics were taken to
> Shrewsbury. Her translation is celebrated on 22nd June.
>
Hmm. You do have trouble quoting correctly don't you.
From "A Morbid Taste For Bones" by Ellis Peters:
"'Saint Winifred,' declaimed the old man, beginning to enjoy his hour of
glory, 'was the only child of a knight named Tevyth, who lived in those
parts when the princes where yet heathens. But this knight and all his
household where converted by Saint Beuno, and made him a church there,
and gave him house-room. The girl was devoted even above her parents,
and pledged herself to a virgin life, hearing Mass every day. But one
Sunday it happened that she was sick and stayed home when all the rest
of the household went to church. And there came to the door the prince
of those parts. Cradoc, son of the king, who had fallen in love with
her at a distance. For this girl was very beautiful...He pleaded that
he was hot a parched from hunting...and asked for a drink of water and
the firl let him in and gave him to drink. Then...he pressed his suit
upon her, and grappled her in his arms...The faithful virgin put him off
with soft words, and escaping into another room, climbed from a window
and fled towards the church. But finding that she had eluded him,
Prince Cradoc took horse and rode after, and overtaking her just within
sight of the church, and dreading that she would reveal his infamy,
struck off her head with his sword. [Note: She decapitate **herself**
according to the legend (which would have been difficult at best) the
Prince did it.]....Saint Beuno [Who was **not** her uncle according to
the legend] and the congregation were coming out of the church, and saw
what had passed. The saint drew a terrible curse upon the murderer, who
at once sank to the ground, and began to melt like wax in a fire, until
all his body had sunk away into the grass. Then Saint Bueno fitted the
head of the virgin onto her neck, and the flesh grew together, and she
stood alive, and the holy fountain sprang up on the spot where she
arose....She ent on a pilgrimage to Rome...and she attended at a great
synod of saints, and was appointed to be prioress over a community of
virgin sisters at Gwytherin, by Llanrwst. And there she lived many
years and did may mircles in her lifetime."
The main focus of the attempt to move St Winifred's bones was that the
prior couldn't tolerate the idea that the abbey had **no** relics of any
kind and so had been looking for some that could be moved to Shrewsbury.
>
> For further info you can read:
>
> Hermann Grotefend, Taschenbuch der Zeitrechnung des Deutschen Mittelalters und
> der Neuzeit, 10th edition (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1960).
>
> Alban Butler, The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and other Principal Saints
> (London: Virtue, [1936?]).
>
> The Primer, or Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in Latin (Antwerp: Arnold
> Conings, 1599).
>
> This doesn't sound much like Arthur & Guinevere at Glastonbury to me.
>
Paul, if I'm wrong please correct me; but I think that the point being
made was that people of the Middle Ages (just like today) wanted have
where they were to have some special form of importance if only
secondhand. You know such as: The burial place of Arthur & Guinevere,
or more recently all the places that claim that Washington slept there.
>
> Judy
--
Captain Wolf
Bard
Make mine BORLAND!!!!!
*********************************************************************
** St Vidicon of Cathode protect me from Bill Gates. **
** ------------------------------------------------------------- **
** Bless you C. Stasheff for giving us St Vidicon of Cathode **
*********************************************************************
Tony Jebson
Captain Wolf wrote:
[snip]
> The main focus of the attempt to move St Winifred's bones was that the
> prior couldn't tolerate the idea that the abbey had **no** relics
> of any kind and so had been looking for some that could be moved
> to Shrewsbury.
I don't remember the circumstances that Ellis Peters used in
_A Morbid Taste for Bones_, but monasteries generally wrote
or commisioned inventiones when their interests were under attack.
Most inventiones are connected to the founding of an institution
(often quite obliquely). They were extremely popular during the
late 11th and 12th centuries in England, when 'Arthurs grave'
was discovered ...
[snip]
[Judy wrote:]
> > This doesn't sound much like Arthur & Guinevere at Glastonbury
> > to me.
Paul was replying to a post I made pointing out the similarities
between the account of the 'discovery' of 'Arthurs grave' and
standard accounts of _inventiones_ [the discovery of a saint's
remains]. He provided the St. Winifred account as an easily
accessible (fictionalised) example of such a discovery, though
it falls -- if you want to be pedantic -- under the category of
_translationes_.
[snip]
--- Tony Jebson