Glastonbury Abbey and the Charge of Forgery: A Historical Overview

J. Neil Daniels

Historical Importance of Glastonbury Abbey

Glastonbury Abbey, situated in Somerset, England, was among the most prominent and wealthy monastic houses in medieval Britain. It served as a center of religious life, cultural production, and political influence for centuries. By the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it had established a formidable reputation, attracting pilgrims, scholars, and patrons alike. Yet despite its impressive legacy, the abbey’s purported antiquity and its legendary associations, especially those linking it to Joseph of Arimathea and King Arthur, have come under sustained critical scrutiny. Modern historians have increasingly viewed Glastonbury not only as a religious institution but also as a place where myth and invention were consciously cultivated.

Accusations of Forgery and Legendary Claims

The characterization of Glastonbury as a “factory of fraud,” a phrase famously coined by the French historian Ferdinand Lot, stems from its production of documents and artifacts that many scholars now regard as deliberate forgeries. These were not mere embellishments. Rather, they appear to have been part of a calculated effort to enhance the abbey’s prestige and secure its territorial and theological claims.

One of the earliest and most contested examples is a charter purportedly dating from the year 601. It claims to record a land grant from a Celtic king of Dumnonia to the monks of Glastonbury. However, the Latin in the document exhibits no discernible Celtic features, and its grammatical structure, vocabulary, and stylistic elements suggest a much later origin. Most historians today regard it as an outright fabrication, likely composed within the abbey’s own scriptorium to establish retroactive legitimacy for its land holdings.

Perhaps the most dramatic example of Glastonbury’s myth-making came in 1191, when the monks announced the discovery of the tombs of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere. This revelation came shortly after a devastating fire in 1184, which had left the abbey in need of reconstruction and, presumably, renewed income. The timing of the discovery has rightly raised eyebrows. According to chroniclers such as Giraldus Cambrensis (also known as Gerald of Wales), the remains were found in a hollowed-out log coffin, complete with a lead cross identifying Arthur by name. Giraldus, keep in mind, was connected to the English crown and had political motives for affirming that Arthur was dead, and thus not a messianic figure who might return. Modern archaeology has found no corroborating evidence for the burial, and the entire episode is now widely regarded as an elaborate fabrication aimed at bolstering the abbey’s fame and revenue.

Glastonbury’s legendary claims were not limited to Arthur. The abbey also asserted that it was founded by Joseph of Arimathea, the man who buried Jesus, and that it housed some of the earliest Christian relics in the British Isles. Additionally, it produced saints’ lives—many of which were heavily redacted or composed from whole cloth—to reinforce its claims of apostolic antiquity. These narratives served more than devotional purposes; they functioned as legitimizing tools that placed Glastonbury above rival ecclesiastical institutions.

Motivations for Fabrication

The motivations for these fabrications were not purely theological. In the competitive ecclesiastical climate of the Middle Ages, documentary claims were a vital means of asserting authority, defending property, and enhancing spiritual prestige. By producing charters that ostensibly proved early grants of land, Glastonbury could protect its holdings from encroachment. By laying claim to apostolic relics, it could compete with Canterbury and Westminster as a pilgrimage site.

Economic gain was clearly a factor as well. The cult of relics and pilgrimage played a major role in medieval piety, and abbeys that could boast of housing famous saints or artifacts drew enormous crowds, and, of course, considerable alms. (One might recall that Chaucer’s pilgrims were en route to Canterbury, not for scenic enjoyment, but to venerate St. Thomas Becket.)

Interestingly, such forgeries were not necessarily seen as deceitful by their creators in the way modern readers would understand the term. The concept of fraus pia—a “pious fraud”—allowed for the fabrication of documents or relics if they served a devotional or ecclesial purpose. This is not to excuse the practice, but it does help explain how otherwise devout monks could justify creating false documents or inventing hagiographical legends. In their view, these forgeries supported a higher truth, even if the literal details were invented.

Modern Scholarly Evaluation

Modern historians have overwhelmingly concluded that many of Glastonbury’s foundational documents and relics were fabricated. Michael Wood has noted the absence of credible early sources for the abbey’s origins and has expressed skepticism about nearly every major claim to antiquity made by its chroniclers. James P. Carley has conducted extensive textual analysis on the Glastonbury legends, tracing how narratives about Joseph of Arimathea and King Arthur evolved over time, often growing in complexity as they were revised and republished by successive generations of monks.

Ferdinand Lot’s description of Glastonbury as a “factory of fraud” is now widely cited in academic discussions of medieval forgery. While some scholars attempt to contextualize the abbey’s actions within the broader medieval worldview—arguing that the line between history and hagiography was often blurred—the weight of evidence strongly suggests that Glastonbury engaged in systematic and intentional fabrication for institutional advantage.

Sources for Further Study

Primary sources for Glastonbury’s legendary claims include the writings of Giraldus Cambrensis and the Chronica attributed to William of Malmesbury, although later interpolations by Glastonbury monks have made such texts difficult to trust without careful critical analysis.

For secondary scholarship, James P. Carley’s Glastonbury Abbey: The Holy House at the Head of the Moors Adventurous offers a thorough examination of the abbey’s legendary status and the development of its myths. Michael Wood’s In Search of the Dark Ages provides a readable but well-researched critique of Glastonbury’s spurious antiquity. Richard Barber’s The Holy Grail: Imagination and Belief places the abbey in the wider context of medieval myth-making, and Ronald Hutton’s Pagan Britain contains a valuable chapter on Glastonbury’s role in the creation of pseudo-historical traditions.

Conclusion

Glastonbury Abbey stands as a striking case study in the manipulation of historical memory for religious, political, and economic gain. While it undoubtedly served an important spiritual and cultural role in medieval England, its historical legacy is complicated by its demonstrable pattern of forgery and myth-making. The phrase “factory of fraud” may sound polemical, but it accurately reflects the deliberate and repeated creation of counterfeit documents and relics that characterized the abbey’s public narrative. For the careful historian, Glastonbury is a reminder that not all venerable traditions are rooted in fact, and that rigorous source criticism remains essential in the study of ecclesiastical history.

---

For Further Study

Barber, Richard. The Holy Grail: Imagination and Belief. London: Penguin, 2004.

Barrow, Julia. “Forgery and the Abbeys: The Example of Glastonbury.” In Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Fakes and Fabrications in Medieval England, edited by Alfred Hiatt, 77–96. York: York Medieval Press, 2010.

Carley, James P. Glastonbury Abbey: The Holy House at the Head of the Moors Adventurous. London: Guild Publishing, 1988.

———. The Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey: An Edition, Translation and Study of John of Glastonbury’s Cronica sive Antiquitates Glastoniensis Ecclesie. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1985.

Ferdinand Lot. La Légende arthurienne. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1923.

Giraldus Cambrensis. De Principis Instructione. Edited and translated by Robert Bartlett. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010.

Gransden, Antonia. Legends, Traditions and History in Medieval England. London: Hambledon Press, 1992.

Hutton, Ronald. Pagan Britain. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.

Radford, Courtenay Arthur Ralegh. Glastonbury Abbey: The Excavations of 1904–1979. Somerset: Council of the Society of Antiquaries of London, 1981.

Rahtz, Philip. Glastonbury: Myth and Archaeology. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Tempus, 1993.

William of Malmesbury. The Chronicle of the Kings of England and The History of the English Bishops. Translated by J. A. Giles. London: George Bell & Sons, 1904.

Wood, Michael. In Search of the Dark Ages. London: BBC Books, 1981.