136 PAPEllS, ETC. 



evidently confbiuids Henry de Swansey, wlio was the 

 Abbot at the time of his visit, with bis predecessor Henry 

 de Blois, in whose time the discovery was made. These 

 discrepancles are not to be wondered at, when we reniem- 

 ber that the account was j^robably written at an interval 

 of nearly forty years after the visit Giraldus paid to Glas- 

 tonbury. 



Henry de Blois, who was also Bishop of Winchester, died, 

 according to Diigdale, in the year 1171, having had the 

 pastoral chai'ge of the Church for forty-five years, and re- 

 talning the government of the Monastery after he had 

 been promoted to the Bishoprlck. This helps us to deter- 

 mine the date of the reputed discovery. In addition to 

 this, it is represented in the Antiquitates Glastonienses that 

 the search was made soon after the return of Henry II. 

 from Wales, and it does not appear that he revisited Wales 

 after the year 1169. We find also that in 1170 Henry 

 was doing all he could to consolidate his dynasty, his son 

 Prince Henry having been crowned at York, in June of 

 the same year, in order to be associated with his father in 

 the royalty. From all this we are led to conslder A.D. 

 1170 as the date of the exhumation. 



Such is the testimony of Giraldus, who wrote, as I have 

 before intimated, about A.D. 1210, concerning what he saw 

 at Glastonbury forty years before. The remains then dis- 

 covered were evidently believed to have been those of the 

 ancient British king, and they were treated accordingly as 

 sacred relics. Dugdale states that they were afterwards 

 removed into the Presbytery of the Church and re- 

 Interred with the foUowing inscription by Abbot Henry 

 de Swansey : 



" Hio jaeet Arthurus, flos regum, gloria regni 

 Quam mores, probitas commendant laude perenni." 



