You can also see the new 2018 updated information at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
The Following is from a two volume work called 'The Island of Avalon; by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-Volume-2/dp/132630979X
Henry Blois and Magister Gregorius, De mirabilibus urbis Romae
The Narracio de
mirabilibus urbis Romae is a strange little book by an unknown author who
was from England. He describes a visitor’s account of the marvels he witnessed
while visiting Rome. The author is highly educated and has a taste for statues
and the architecture of buildings interest him. He is also interested in
monuments such as triumphal arches. The mysterious author has taken upon
himself to write a short piece in Latin of about 4,500 words of what he
witnessed while visiting. Many of the descriptions though, are of pieces not
traceable and may never have existed there; and appear to be derived from a
pseudo-historical book supposedly written by Bede on the seven wonders of the
world, the anonymous De septem miraculis mundi. Some of the accounts describing the Art
pieces or buildings have highly original material attributed to them not
corroborated elsewhere. It would seem as if some accounts had been invented by
the author Gregorius himself. He is a man not unfamiliar in forthrightly
adducing a sometimes bogus historical anecdote to interest his reader. So, the
question is whether this Narracio is written by Henry Blois on one of
his many trips to Rome. It has startling similarities not only regarding the
interests of Henry Blois, but also Gregorius has a fascination with a statue of
Marcus Aurelius which he dwells upon more than any other object in his short
exposé.
The Narracio was first known through an extract found in Ranulph
Higden’s Polychronicon a monk at Chester. A later and more complete copy was
then found at Cambridge. Having now seen that Henry Blois is reluctant to put
any manuscript to his name it would seem that this Gregorius calls himself Magister also, not unlike Galfredo
Arthur had done when he signed his supposed charters at Oxford. Gregorius never
alludes to where he is from, but he is staying at an inn in Rome as a
visitor. A few of the historical accounts
relating to the objects he describes in Rome, he attributes to information
supplied to him by Cardinals. This is certainly no uneducated or unconnected
visitor with an interest in casual art, but a man so interested in antiquity,
statuary and architecture, who, without ostentation subconsciously portrays his
extensive reading by giving quotes or anecdotes arrived from Livy, Lucan,
Virgil and Ovid; and these are some of the authors which ‘Geoffrey’ has used as
source material for his HRB. From Dark Age sources, he refers to Isidore of Seville’s
Etymologiae[1]
which constitutes a large part of the naturist source material for the VM as we
have covered. Gregorius also quotes from memory a recent Hildebert of Lavardin,
who as bishop of Tours he might have met. In 1125 Hildebert was translated
unwillingly to the archbishopric of Tours from Le Mans, where he came into
conflict with the French king Louis VI about the rights of ecclesiastical
patronage, and with the bishop of Dol about the authority of his see in
Brittany. Certainly Hildebert sent
letters and poetry to Adela of Normandy, Henry Blois’ mother advising her on
clemency, and praised her regency of Blois. Hilderert of Lavardin’s poem ‘par
tibi Roma’ from which Gregorius quotes from memory the first two lines (as the
sense but not the same words are used), shows that the era was awakening with a
new regard for antiquity and the glories of a bygone age much as ‘Geoffrey’
searched back to the roots of the Britons.
It is
not improbable to suggest that Henry is posing as Gregorius. As usual the one place to which Gregorius is
said to be returning (presumably in England), is omitted from the Cambridge
text and is not mentioned by Higden. In his prologue to the Narracio,
similarities are found much like the dedications found in the HRB and Vita
Merlini where Henry establishes that he is someone other than Henry Blois,
demeaning his composition with self deprecating humility calling it a ‘poorly
composed report’ but ‘overcomes his bashfulness’ in setting down his
‘unpolished prose’ by the insistence of a Master Martin and a Lord Thomas. It
is a device so similar to that used in the dedication to Alexander in the
Prophecies of Merlin and that to Robert de Chesney in the Vita Merlini. Henry
Blois certainly knew Thomas a Becket archbishop of Canterbury, but by picking
this name, it may indicate the date of publication to 1162-1170 when Thomas was
Archbishop.
Gregory begins his exposé seeing the city
spread out before him as he descended the slope of Monte Mario. He then includes a list of the city gates before
telling us of the marvels found inside the walls. His first subject is that
which impressed him most i.e. the Bronze statues; and it is interesting that on
his epitaph on the Meusan plates, Henry seems to think at the time he had them
fabricated he would also have a bronze effigy of himself on display in
Winchester…. otherwise I can see no other sense in the meaning of ‘Henry, alive in bronze, gives
gifts to God’. After a brief account of a bronze bull he gets into
the lengthiest account, by comparison with any other piece, when he describes
the equestrian monument of Marcus Aurelius in two chapters with dubious
commentaries seemingly designed to explain the background story behind the
bronze…. explaining the dwarf beneath the horses feet and the tale in
explanation of a cuckoo on the horses head. Gregorius then attempts various
fabrications which are derived from the anonymous ‘seven wonders of the world’
ascribed to Bede whose work is referred to (‘luminous tractae’) by Geoffrey of
Monmouth and obviously used as a source for the HRB. Henry Blois, (our author
Gregorius) goes on to identify a head and hand having come from Nero’s
Colossus, said in the Seven wonders work
ascribed to Bede, to have straddled the harbour of Rhodes and also picks other
items from the work while discussing statuary and other architectural marvels.
The point of all this, much like the HRB, can only be accounted by Henry’s
fascination with antiquity. With his vast reading he is interconnecting history
just as he had done in the HRB basing his accounts from the ancients and
bringing them to life…. always with just enough substance to seem credible, but
drawing in the interest of his reader; relating accounts about certain objects
that formerly were said by him to have been in Rome. Henry is always conscious
of history and is in a way re-writing it for posterity so that they may
formulate an impression from his anecdotes. Henry Blois’ accounts act as a
shadow of history rather than a mirror i.e. history distorted, not always
accurate, but the historical eras are connected for the medieval mind and made
more interesting and alive by Henry’s anecdotes. Gregorius much like ‘Geoffrey’
is bold in his assertions; the Spinario or Thorn-Plucker is confidently
attributed to be Priapus a fertility god because of the size of its genitals.
Our author covers marble statues and palaces and the Egyptian obelisk said to
contain the ashes of Julius Caesar. This reminds him of the Pharos of
Alexandria, again from Bede’s seven wonders and the ramble seems cut short and
ends suddenly without conclusion.
Not surprisingly,
the characters in the Narracio are Pompey Brutus, Cassius, Tiberius, Augustus
Marcus Aurelius, Scipio, Nero etc.not a thing about St Peter or Constantine
as one would expect a man who mixed with the curia in Rome to be more
interested in. Henry Blois has little respect for the papacy (Roman church)
although he was legate and used its power to establish his own power in
Britain. Cluniacs in general had a deference to the pope but Henry especially
because he was cognisant of a British church which stood on a merit equal to
Rome. Henry was more remiss than most in his respect for the institution to
which he often needed to appeal to and yet often had had cause to answer to.
Because of his nobility he was bestowed with the legation in a power play when
Stephen spurned him as Archbishop. On
several occasions, Henry had been denied his wishes as a supplicant to regain
autonomy from Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury once the legation had expired.
John of Salisbury relates an account where
Henry Blois was before the pope when news of the persecutions of the church in
England was mentioned and Henry says: ‘how
glad I am that I am not there now or this persecution would be laid at my
door’. Smiling the pope retorts with
a fable about the devil and a storm arising causing ships to sink, where the
Devil claims the same innocence for not being in a place at a certain
time. The pope says to Henry Blois ’even if you were not actually on the spot,
you have certainly trailed your tail there beforehand’ ….all aimed against
Henry. Henry Blois must have reviled the
pope as the pope continued ’ask yourself
my brother, if you have not been trailing your tail in the English sea’. John of Salisbury relates that Bishop Henry ‘could hope for nothing more than
absolution’. However,Henry ‘obtained
permission from the pope before leaving Rome to buy old statues, and had them
taken back to Winchester. So when a certain grammarian saw him, conspicuous in
the papal court for his long beard and philosophical solemnity, engaged in
buying up idols, carefully made by the heathen in the error of their hands
rather than their minds he mocked him thus: “buying old busts is Damasippus’
craze”.The same man aimed another jest at the bishop when he had heard his
reply to a request for advice during a discussion. He said: ‘for this good
counsel Damasippus, may gods and goddesses grant you a barber’.
An insult against
Henry’s beard could be connected to the weirdest tale in the HRB where the
giant who fights Arthur collects beards for his coat. Not by coincidence, the
sculptor at Modena must know of ‘Geoffrey’s’ invented giant episode c.1140
because in the Modena sculpture Arthur has a beard. This is not a random
personal detail which a sculptor inserted by his own free will, but one assumes
was relayed by the person who commissioned the work, who also would have
dictated through description Arthur’s non-Norman garb as seen by comparison
with his compatriots or fellow attackers.
John of Salisbury
relates also concerning the statues that ’it
was this same man who was to reply for the bishop, unprompted but perhaps
expressing his point of view: that he had been doing his best to deprive the
romans of their gods to prevent them restoring the ancient rites of worship’. The reference“buying old busts is Damasippus’s craze.” is
to Junius Brutus X, who, ‘put to death at Rome several of the most eminent
senators of the opposite party.’
Henry Blois is at Rome buying old Roman
statues and we know from his building projects at Glastonbury and at Winchester
that he was interested in architectural aesthetics to which our English Master
Gregorius has similar tastes. Is it a coincidence that our Gregorius has a
fascination for antiquity and also has the same unfortunate attribute of little
regard for the truth and the love of inventing fictitious accounts much like
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s episodes in the HRB? There had always
been interest in putting classical objects into buildings and the re-use of
Roman materials; but Gregorius’ interest, not only of architecture, but also
statuary marbles and their composition, reminds us of Henry’s foray into the
commissioning of several
pieces of sculptured Purbeck marble stonework in Winchester cathedral. There are works commissioned for various
churches in Purbeck marble by Henry and we know he is responsible for the
importation of Tournai marble
which is evident in several fonts. It can be said that Henry was the initial
patron of the infant Purbeck
marble industry and Henry is buried in a coffin-shaped tomb in Winchester Cathedral constructed from Purbeck.
Another
coincidence showing Henry’s interest in marble is to do with the statue of
Venus, because Gregorius was the first to mention this statue in medieval
literature as it entranced him so much. He relates that he went ‘back three times to look at it despite the
fact that it was two stades distant from my inn’. Gregorius states that the
statue is ’made of Parian marble with
such wonderful and intricate skill’ and the ‘Capitoline Venus’ which is the
same as Gregorius describes (as its history can be traced back to the Quirinal
hill) is made from Parian marble. An observation by someone who has knowledge
of the provenance and texture of marble! Is Henry Blois writing this book not
Gregorius?
As I have touched
on briefly already, Gregorius covers the statue of a horse man with more
interest than any other object. Herein lies one of the fundamentals in
establishing Gregorius as Henry Blois, but furthermore…. the author of vulgate
HRB and Wace’s Brut are at variance with the First Variant version where
certain contradictions concerning the death of Maximianus occur. This, as I
have maintained before, is due to Henry having to follow more closely the
chronology of the Roman annals because of scrutiny. However, in Vulgate HRB: 'What cause hast thou, Maximian, to be
fearful of Gratian, when the way lieth open unto thee to snatch the empire from
him? Come with me into the island of Britain and thou shalt wear the crown of
the kingdom.[2]
Before Henry Blois
arrived in Rome the most likely candidate who was thought to be represented by
the horse man was Constantine; yet ‘Gregorius’ is bent on persuading us that
this horseman is the image ofMarcus
Aurelius Mausaeus Valerius Carausius. If no-one knew who the statue represented….
can we see Henry Blois constructing evidence that it was a British commander so
that we see a parallel with First Variant.
Marcus Aurelius died 293 and was a military commander of the
Roman Empire in the 3rd century. He was a Menapian
from Belgic Gaul, who usurped power in 286, declaring himself emperor in
Britain and northern Gaul. He distinguished himself during Maximian's campaign
against the Bagaudae rebels in
northern Gaul in 286. This success, and his former occupation as a sea pilot,
led to his appointment to command the Classis Britannica, a fleet based
in the English Channel, with the responsibility of eliminating Frankish and
Saxon pirates who had been raiding the coasts of Armorica and Belgica. Henry
Blois surely knew of him as he ran his fleet from a base near Porchester Castle
which Henry Blois went on to rebuild (which we see mentioned in VM) and it is
no doubt what inspired his purposeful conflation with Arthur. He was suspected
of keeping captured treasure for himself, and of allowing pirates to carry out
raids and enrich themselves before taking action against them…. and Maximian
ordered his execution. In late 286 or early 287 Marcus learned of this sentence
and responded by declaring himself Emperor in Britain and northern Gaul. In HRB
we even hear of Maximian: Whilst
that they were debating these matters amongst themselves, in came Caradoc, Duke
of Cornwall, and gave it as his counsel that they should invite Maximian the
Senator and give him the King's daughter and the kingdom, that so they might
enjoy perpetual peace.[3]
As Geoffrey of Monmouth does
throughout the HRB he changes a historical persona to suit his purpose, the
hapless reader conflates to make the connection himself. Thus, Master Gregorius
pits Marcus Aurelius against a king of the Miseni
in his account of the story behind the statue. Anachronisms are one of Henry
Blois’ ploys that he uses in both the HRB and the Vita while feigning ignorance
of the connection himself. Henry Blois, the master of conflation, knows his
audience will make it as he refers to the statue of the rider as being that of
Marcus knowing that his Roman audience might think it Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, but a British readership would immediately
think it was the British warlord sometimes confused with Arthur conflated
through Gildas’s Aurelius Ambrosius at Badon and possibly through a lovely twist of
Geoffrey’s into Merlin Ambrosius from Nennius’ boy.
Not to be too blatant in naming the bronze
horseman as Marcus Aurelius which might expose him; instead, Henry Blois as
Gregorius just refers to a Marcus. He may even wish us to associate the statue
with Cadwallo from the HRB as a captured trophy. I would suggest it is from
this statue seen at Rome on his first visit that gave him his inspiration for: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.
Henry Blois’ has a known penchant for
statuary and this may have led to his exposure as the author ‘Geoffrey of
Monmouth’ if links were made between HRB and Marcus Aurelius. The intended subliminal link is obviously
made to Aurelius and then to Arthur in the HRB. Henry Blois’ point is that there is a statue of an Aurelius in
Rome. In this instance is Gregorius seen to be constructing a tentative link
between two works (both composed by him) by inserting this proposition (given
on good authority by Cardinals) of the statue being an image of Marcus Aurelius
the British emperor. If he came out and said unequivocally there was a
connection then suspicion would follow that ‘Gregorius’ was Henry, since prior
to writing this book the statue was attributed to Constantine. The only reason
for laboring this connection is that HRB indicates that (at some stage) Rome
was defeated by Britons.
We should not forget Henry was in the
business of re-writing History. He always tries to substantiate his authority
as he does using Archdeacon Walter, hence the reference to the good authority
of the account derived from the Cardinals. It is relevant to my purpose to show
how ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’s’ mind works because if we can establish that this
mind is the mind of Henry Blois and Master Gregorius and the mind which
authored the GS; then the reader will understand the links discussed previously
which show that much Glastonbury material has also been disseminated to
correlate and form a cohesive body of historicity which interrelates with other
parts of Henry’s specific design.
However, we are
concerned at the moment with why Gregorius found it necessary to find a
representative of a mounted horseman at Rome, if this same Gregorius is the
Henry Blois who wrote the HRB Ambrosius
Aurelianus, Aurelius Ambrosius seems to be a combination of both Arthur and
Merlin and ‘Geoffrey’ does not have any particular anchor between the Ambrosius
and Aurelius appellation. Ambrosius Aurelianus is one of the few people that
Gildas identifies by name in his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae,
concerning a war with the Saxons, the survivors gather together under the
leadership of Ambrosius, who is described as: "... a gentleman who, perhaps alone of the Romans, had survived
the shock of this notable storm. Certainly his parents, who had worn the
purple, were slain by it. His descendants in our day have become greatly
inferior to their ancestors excellence." Again this is Geoffrey’s
derogatory mention of the Welsh. How could Geoffrey be a Welshman.
From Gildas we can conclude that Ambrosius Aurelianus was
of high birth, and had Roman ancestry…. a point relevant to Marcus Aurelius
referred to by Gregorius especially if what Gildas meant by saying Ambrosius'
family "had worn the purple". Roman Emperors and Roman males of the senatorial
class wore clothes with a purple band. Given that ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’
relates that Aurelius is born of Roman mother from Constantine it is not hard
to see how ‘Gregorius’ would love to have a statue attributed to him in Rome: Thereupon the Britons that afore were
scattered flocked unto them from every quarter, and a great council was held at
Silchester, where they raised Constantine to be King and set the crown of the
realm upon his head. They gave him also unto wife a damsel born of a noble Roman
family whom Archbishop Guethelin had brought up, who in due course did bear
unto him three sons, whose names were Constans, Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther
Pendragon. Constans, the eldest born, he made over to the church of Amphibalus
in Winchester, that he might there be admitted into the order of monks.[4]
Gildas says that Ambrosius, alone, is worthy of praise
among his countrymen for his leadership of the British attack against the
invading Anglo-Saxons. Gildas refers to
him as a "Roman"and goes on to say that the Saxon advance was halted,
altogether, by a British victory at Mt. Badon. Gildas does not name Aurelius
Ambrosius as the commander, but the implication of association is there from
Geoffrey trying to link his hero to a British annal when Gildas never mentions
Arthur. Geoffrey of Monmouth also makes this link through Nennius the book
which Geoffrey (and laughably Orderic) suspiciously ascribes to Gildas…. and
the reader should not forget Henry Blois is the author of Life of Gildas.
The Venerable Bede, an eighth century monk of the
monastery of Jarrow, in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (The
Ecclesiastical History of the English People), refers to an: "Ambrosius Aurelius, a modest man of
Roman origin, who was the sole survivor of the catastrophe in which his royal
parents had perished." Bede tells us also that "under his leadership the Britons took up arms, challenged their
conquerors to battle, and with God's help inflicted a defeat upon them."
Nennius, however, the early 9th century monk of Bangor in
his Historia Brittonum, has two
different Ambrosius'. Firstly, he refers to a clearly legendary Ambrosius as
being a fatherless child who displayed prophetic powers before Vortigern which could
well be a Blois interpolation. Then Nennius also says that Ambrosius was a
rival whom Vortigern dreaded, and, in a later passage, calls him "the great king of all the kings of the
British nation."
Now there are problems with Nennius[5] in
that it is an ancient tract probably comprising one or two original sources and
compiled to a form which was attributed to Nennius. Some also attribute it to
Gildas and this may be down to Henry himself and analysis does show some
Arthurian material could have been added.
The Arthurian part of Nennius on the whole is tricky to know if our
arch-interpolator has been at work. It would appear, however, as I have
maintained before, that it was Henry who had copies made with Gildas’ name
attached. There is therefore always a suspicion about Nennius.
After the reader has been appraised
of the interpolations of Henry Blois exposed in this work, there would be no
reason not to ascribe the reworked version of Nennius to Henry Blois as it
seems to be Henry (through Geoffrey) that ascribes the adulterated 11th
century recension to Gildas in the HRB. Another reason for suspecting Henry
Blois is that Nennius’ Historia Brittonum describes the settlement of
Britain by Trojan expatriates and states that Britain took its name after
Brutus, a descendant of Aeneas just as Geoffrey maintains. The work also was
the first source to portray King Arthur, who is described as a dux bellorum
(military leader) or miles (soldier) and not as a king so may well be
original. It names the twelve battles
that Arthur fought, but like ‘Geoffrey’s’ habit in the HRB, none are assigned actual dates. Assignation of date would
automatically throw up difficulties in confluence concerning much of the HRB, but the earliest known reference to
the battle of Camlann is an entry from the 10th-century Annales Cambriae,
recording the battle in the year 537 which mentions Mordred (Medraut). The
Arthurian part of Nennius is tricky to evaluate. The accusation against most of
the evidence supplied in this exposé will be that I have apportioned
manuscripts too often to Henry Blois or contrived evidence to make it appear as
if he is the author when others believe he is not. On that basis I would rather
leave Nennius as it stands holding a healthy suspicion of interpolation. But,
lastly on the subject, since Henry as ‘Geoffrey’ is seen to have employed a
source for his inspiration on nearly every occasion, this adds credence that it
was an extant manuscript as it stands in 1126. William Newell in his ‘Doubts Concerning the British History
Attributed to Nennius’ (1905) is no more able to elucidate further and has
no suspicious that the author of Chivalric Arthur is culpable of equating
Nennius with Gildas.
However, after that brief digression, we can
see how Henry Blois melds Aurelius, Ambrosius, with Arthur and Merlin and how
these old British annals anchor for him (now posing as Master Gregorius) his
Marcus Aurelius into Rome and on such a stunning piece of statue artistry. If
we were to follow Henry’s mind we get from Marcus Aurelius through the three
British annals by associating Marcus Aurelius with Aurelius Ambrosius which, by
his links to battles, (specifically Badon) against the Saxons and Roman
heritage, imply Arthur as the hero.
Gregorius who assigns much of his small
exposé to Marcus Aurelius posits an explanation of a marvelous statue of a
Roman warlord or emperor, who, if one lived in Henry’s mind, might be construed
as Arthur. Aurelius, with the Arthurian connection derived from the British
annals, is very important to ‘Geoffrey’ and implies Arthur’s Roman roots
following the detail found in the annals and one can see the references in the HRB where the Ambrosius appellation is
attached to Merlin as a surname, but both Aurlelian and Ambrosian references
are frequent.
1. Aurelius
Conan, a youth of wondrous prowess, his nephew, who, as he held the monarchy of
the whole island,
2. 'Uter Pendragon, that is, "Dragon's
head," a most excellent youth, the son of Aurelius, to wit, brought from Ireland the Dance of Giants which is
now called Stanhenges.
3. Their names and acts are to be found recorded in
the book that Gildas wrote as concerning the victory of Aurelius Ambrosius,
4. They gave him also unto wife a damsel born of a
noble Roman family whom Archbishop Guethelin had brought up, who in due course
did bear unto him three sons, whose names were Constans, Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon. Constans, the eldest born,
he made over to the church of Amphibalus in Winchester, that he might there be
admitted into the order of monks. The other twain, Aurelius, to wit, and Uther, he gave in charge to Guethelin
5. On the death of Constantine a
dissension arose among the barons whom they should raise to the throne. Some
were for Aurelius Ambrosius, others
for Uther Pendragon, and others for others of the blood royal
6. His brethren, moreover, the two children, to
wit, Uther Pendragon and Aurelius
Ambrosius, were not yet out of the cradle, and incapable of the rule of the
kingdom
7. Aurelius
Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon, fled away with them into Little Britain,
8. Aurelius
Ambrosius and his brother Uther Pendragon,
9. They all do threaten thee and say that they will
bring in hither thy brother Aurelius
Ambrosius from the shores of Armorica,
10. The two brethren Aurelius and Uther Pendragon will enter into thy land seeking to
revenge their father's death upon thee
11. The faces of the Saxons shall be red with
blood: Hengist shall be slain, and thereafter shall Aurelius Ambrosius be crowned King
12. Straightway, when the morrow dawned, came Aurelius Ambrosius with his brother
unto land with ten thousand warriors in their company
13. They called the clergy together, anointed Aurelius as King
14. When the report of this
reached Hengist and his Saxons he was smitten with dread, for he was afeard of
the prowess of Aurelius
15. So when this was told unto Aurelius, he took fresh hardihood and had good hope of a victory.
16. …exhorting each of them to stand their ground
like men and to be nowise in dread in fighting against Aurelius.
17. And when he had thus spirited up all of them
and put them in stomach to fight, he advanced towards Aurelius as far as a
field that was called Maesbeli, through which Aurelius would have to pass
18. Howbeit Aurelius
got wind of the design
19. Thus spake Eldol, and Aurelius
20. Aurelius
cheereth on his Christians
21. Aurelius
pursueth him
22. Hengist perceived that he was being hunted down
of Aurelius
23 … that the castle could in no wise withstand Aurelius,
24. At last, when Aurelius had overtaken him
25. For Aurelius
had stationed them apart as he had done in the first battle
26. Nor did Aurelius
stint to cheer on his men
27 .After that Aurelius had thus won the day
28. Then Aurelius led his army unto York
29. Aurelius
was thereby moved to pity
30. When Aurelius
had asked many questions about him
31. At these words of Merlin, Aurelius burst out laughing,
32. When this was reported unto Aurelius, he sent messengers throughout
the countries of Britain,
33. …called out every knight in arms of that
kingdom against Aurelius Ambrosius
34. …complaint of the injury that Uther, the
brother of Aurelius, had done him
when he came in quest of the Giants’ Dance
35. …for his brother Aurelius lay sick at Winchester
36. …What boon wilt thou bestow upon the man that
shall slay Aurelius for thee
37. …When Aurelius
had taken and drunk it,
38. …O, departure of a most noble King! Dead is the
renowned King of the Britons, Aurelius
Ambrosius,
39. …now that they were quit of the covenant they
had made with Aurelius Ambrosius,
40. …and laid it in the ground after kingly wise by
the side of Aurelius Ambrosius
within the Giants’ Dance.
41. …Howbeit, Lot, who in the days of Aurelius Ambrosius had married Arthur's
own sister,
42. Unto Him succeeded Aurelius Conan
43. Next they did betray Aurelius Ambrosius
The Vita Merlini
however only provides the Ambrosian nomenclature.
1. And I remember the crime when Constans was betrayed and
the small brothers Uther and Ambrosius
fled across the water.
2.
While these things were happening Uther and Ambrosius were in Breton territory with King Biducus
3.
After these things had been done, the kingdom and its crown were with the
approval of clergy and laity given to Ambrosius,
‘Geoffrey’ has specifically apportioned the
Ambrosius appellation from the initial Aurelius Ambrosius from the annals and
has assigned it to Merlin and one can only assume for purposes of conflation.
1. Then saith Merlin, that is also called Ambrosius:
2. Then Ambrosius
Merlin again came nigh unto the wizards and saith:
3.
King bade Ambrosius Merlin
4. When Ambrosius
had come thereunto, remembering the treason wrought against his father and
brother
5. …and when all were met together on the day
appointed, Ambrosius set the crown
upon his own head
6. When Aurelius had taken and drunk it, the
accursed Ambron straightway bade him cover him up under the coverlid and go to
sleep.
‘Gregorius’ has
not only written his short tract to perpetuate Henry’s design which
substantiates the Arthur-Roman connection which readers of the
HRB will undoubtedly make; but Henry is genuinely interested in antiquity,
architecture and Roman art and thus the book takes the form it does. Gregorius
says that pilgrims to Rome think the Horseman statue is that of Theodoric or
Constantine, however the ‘Cardinals’ say the bronze horse-rider is Marcus
(meaning Marcus Aurelius) or Quintus Quirinius. Gregorius explains how the
statue once ‘stood on four bronze columns
in front of Jupiter on the Capitoline but blessed Gregory took the rider down’,
and set it up outside the Papal palace. Gregorius then goes on to say that he
is going to ‘give a wide berth to the
worthless stories of the pilgrims and Romans in this regard, and shall record
what I have been told by the elders, the cardinals and men of greatest
learning’ before launching into his own description of a dwarf king of the Miseni, more skilful than any other man in
the perverse art of magic’ who this Marcus (the horse-rider) on the statue
overcame. Because of his bravery ‘supposedly’ the statue was erected.
The second
possibility that Gregorius provides in explanation which accounts for the
statue in Rome involves Quintus Quirinius who supposedly jumped into a chasm in
Rome from his horse to save the citizens of Rome. Strangely enough another
account of similar date known as the Graphia aureae urbis Romae, or the Mirabilia states that the horseman is a Marcus Curtius whose story is also told by the Roman historian Livy
with similar details. The name given by Gregorius in the Narracio is, as we have said, alternatively, Quintus Quirinus which
has puzzled most commentators until we realise this tract is probably written
by Henry Blois who employs the same artifices of associating people to
historical events; because we have on the Roman ranks pitted against Arthur in
Gaul a certain Quintus Carutius.[6]
Of course the wholly fictional ‘Lucius
Hiberius’ Procurator of the Republic of Gaul in the HRB against Arthur had
a nephew Caius Quintilianus[7]who
had his head cut off by Gwain and may be the reason for Henry introducing this
possibility, but all these possibilities are highly tentative and conjectural
on my part.
The only other
medieval writer to refer to the Narracio as
we have said is Ranulf Higden in his introduction to the Polychronium who gives the Horse-riders name as Quintus Curtius. Given Henry Blois’
record in conflating and providing confusing accounts of personages in
theHRB;it is slightly coincidental that both of these explanations of who the
rider might be, given by Gregorius, (a Magister from England), tentatively tie
back to fictional characters in the HRB. Given that Henry Blois was often in
Rome and the time the book was written and Henry has an indisputable interest
in statuary and architecture; it is not ridiculous to suggest that this small
book has many coincidental factors where Henry Blois could be the author. Henry
Blois speaks of a Bronze horse in the HRB: 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. They did likewise build
beneath it a church in honour of St. Martin, wherein are divine services celebrated
for him and the faithful departed. Coincidentally, Henry Blois, always keen
to promote those institutions he has control over, is Dean of St Martin’s.
Henry Blois writes a letter to Robert Neufbourg while papal legate stating: Know that the church of St Martin of London
and all things pertaining to it are mine.
It is my
suggestion that Henry Blois is trying to imply the bronze horseman in Rome came
from London as a prize like many of the other trophies found in Rome. When we
throw the same bronze rider into the soup from the prophecies it is not silly
to suggest that Henry is implying the Horse rider in Rome was the Marcus
Auraelius from Britain: He that shall do these things
shall clothe him in the brazen man, and throughout many ages shall keep guard
over the gates of London sitting upon a brazen horse.
[1] Adam of
Damerham witnesses that Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae sive Origines
was donated to Glastonbury abbey by Henry Blois
[2] HRB V, ix
[3] HRB V, ix
[4] HRB VI,v
[5]"Doubts
concerning the British History Attributed to Nennius" article from PMLA, Volume 20. W.W.Newell 1905
[6] HRB X, i and v
[7] HRB X, iv
