Albion Revisited

A series of articles on Ancient British Christianity

 

26th  November  2006

 

Part 5. Glastonbury Thorn

In this article we shall be looking at a series of articles on the subject of the Glastonbury Thorn Tree, which is unique, in that it flowers, not only in May but also in December – January. The article has been presented as it will appear as a chapter in the forthcoming book.

By 1000 the legend took the origins of the church at Glastonbury back to the age of the apostles, but the legend of its foundation by Joseph of Arimathea belongs to the 13th century. Joseph was reputed to have brought with him to Glastonbury sacred relics of the Crucifixion of Christ, while an even later tradition suggests that he carried with him the Holy Grail itself, the chalice used at the Last Supper. Further elaboration of this legend led to the derivation of the Glastonbury Thorn, a hawthorn (Crataegus Praecox) that blossoms at Christmas, from St. Joseph’s staff.

[From Volume 9, page 2741 of the New Caxton Encyclopedia. 1972]

If all that Caxton says is true, then we are wasting our time writing this book. The article was written in such a way as to give an impression of erudite opinion, and scholastic research. It shows no mockery; just a bland statement of “fact” that people can rely on. After all, encyclopaedias are meant to be authoritative compilations of factual information. That was back in 1972. It could well be that the authors took their cue from Encyclopaedia Britannica in 1950. Let’s see what that had to say.

 The two legends most closely connected with the story of the abbey are those of King Arthur and St. Joseph of Arimathea. It was claimed that the former was buried there and that the latter was the builder of the original wattle church. These legends “are truly venerable traditions, which greatly influenced the story of the past and have left an abiding mark on the nomenclature of the present. They are not very ancient, when the long life of the abbey is taken into account. From first to last they occupied the last three centuries and a half of its history. They were unknown to William of Malmsbury when he wrote his book, On the Antiquity of the Church of Glastonbury, about the year 1125, although he had free access to all the abbey’s records before the Great Fire, and made, as we know, excellent use of his opportunities of investigation. Our earliest date for any of them is 1191.” (Two Glastonbury Legends, page 50, by the Very Rev. J. Armitage Robinson.)  The Glastonbury thorn (Crataegus praecox), which flowers at Christmas as well as in the spring, a late legend asserted sprang from the staff of Joseph of Arimathea. It is probably nothing more than a perpetuated sport from the common thorn obtained by grafting. Trees raised from seeds of C. Praecox revert to the ordinary type.

[Britannica Volume 10, page 422c]

How can one contradict the learned pen of one such as J. Armitage Robinson, former Dean of Wells Cathedral, who had himself taken part in some of the archaeological digs at Glastonbury? The man in the street, being advised by such worthies, and even Christians who might rely on the wisdom of the Dean, would, after reading such material in these encyclopaedias and learned volumes, shrug his shoulders and leave everything to the sphere of legend and tradition, assuming there to be no substance at all from an historical point of view.

 We wrote to Kew Gardens to ask about the Thorn, purely from a botanical viewpoint. We asked whether Kew possessed a specimen of the Thorn, and in addition, whether this variety flowers twice in its native Levant. The emailed response came back rapidly, as follows –

 Thank you for your enquiry. The Glastonbury Thorn, Crataegus Monogyna ‘Biflora’ is a specimen of common hawthorn which flowers once in spring on ‘old wood’ and again in winter on ‘new wood’ (the current season’s matured new growth). The flowering of the Glastonbury Thorn in mild weather just past midwinter was turned into a ‘Miracle’ by the Abbey as at that time the monasteries were competing with each other to attract more pilgrims. I hope this is of interest.  Information Dept.

[Email from Kew Gardens, dated 2nd June 2005]

This was hardly a sufficient answer to our questions. On replying, to obtain further information, we found that no further reply was forthcoming. The comment about abbeys competing with each other was certainly a novel idea, something that has been the brain-child of several writers in the 20th century. However, there is absolutely no foundation for this assertion based upon extant records. It gives the impression of mockery, so rife in today’s western society, where even the Biblical records themselves are found to be under attack from many sources, whereas in centuries gone by one would have been censured for speaking a word against Holy Writ, and some have even been executed for disbelieving in the Trinity. We now live in an age of satire, lampoonery, and cheap mockery, which is undermining the very foundations of life, and removing from the common man the whole rationale of life.

 Britannica quoted J. Armitage Robinson from his book Two Glastonbury Legends.  Having read this book, we conclude that the Dean was more concerned with his own ecclesiastical image, than in pursuing original truth. His book was published in 1926, and the following year the Vicar of Glastonbury, Rev. Lionel Smithett Lewis, brought out the second edition of his book, Glastonbury, her Saints.  In his forward to the second edition, he gives a ten-page answer to the Dean. The first paragraph of this answer reads as follows –

 In the 1st Edition of this book I expressed the hope that Dr. Armitage Robinson, Dean of Wells, would have his gifts kindled in defence of early Glastonbury traditions. Since that edition the Dean has written a book. The Dean of Wells was formerly Dean of Westminster, between both of which places and Glastonbury there has been age-long rivalry. The double mantle has proved too much for him. His book is called “Two Glastonbury Legends”. In it he tries to destroy the age-long association of St. Joseph of Arimathea and King Arthur with Glastonbury.

Just before concluding his forward, he quotes from the final summing-up in the Dean’s book. It might be best to quote that again here.

 Yet they [the legends] claim respectful treatment on very various grounds. He who rejects them as unworthy trivialities, (says the Dean) and will have nothing but the unclothed skeleton of historically attested fact, cuts out the poetry from life and renders himself incapable of understanding the fullness of his inheritance.

 Lewis’s final paragraph contains the following words –

 This is exactly what the Dean has done. In that sentence the Dean has hanged himself. There he will hang – a man who wrote a book to assassinate two beautiful legends, but does not like to be called an assassin. . . . So much labour! So much ingenuity! I repeat “Cui bono?” [Latin for ‘who stands to gain?’] If one can accept the St. Joseph story everything fits in like a jig-saw puzzle. No forcing is necessary. If not, nothing fits in. And people write books which their better selves condemn. It is an interesting psychological study.

 Lewis had reason to feel deeply disturbed, even hurt, by the Dean’s penmanship. He had spent no less than twenty years of his time as incumbent at Glastonbury, studying, collecting material, making local enquiries, and eventually writing one of the most enduring books about Glastonbury, one that has been quoted again and again by subsequent authors. Lewis’s research tree took twenty years to grow into a beautiful organism, which the Dean attempted to cut down by a single blow of his editorial axe.

 Here, then, is the background, not just to the Thorn Tree, but to all the legends of Glastonbury. We shall now have a look at the facts concerning the Tree, to see whether encyclopaedists, Deans, and Kew Gardens informants have their facts verifiable. One thing is certain. If anyone should wish to demolish the Glastonbury legends by taking a single topic, like the Thorn Tree, he might find sufficient grounds for doing so. But this subject is one that requires investigations into perhaps a dozen different directions, some at first sight seeming to have no connection with each other, but when all the evidence is laid out, it becomes impossible to deny the strength of the case.

 The first fact to be presented is perhaps the most important, and the least understood. It is this. The Glastonbury Thorn flowers twice in the year. Now should this tree have been brought here from the Levant, by Joseph of Arimathea, or anyone else come to that, and planted at Wearyall Hill, botanists are all agreed that it should take on the properties of the hawthorn trees from the country of origin. If the tree had the way of flowering at Christmas time, then it would continue to do so in England. What it would not do, is flower again in May. It is equally true the other way round. An English hawthorn, taken abroad, would still function as it does in England, and flower in May. In the Appendix (Presented as Part 6 in this series) on this subject we have reproduced a most fascinating article, written by a man back in 1880. This should be read in conjunction with this chapter. In this Appendix the author, E.C.Batten, recalls how a Morocco Thorn was introduced into England in 1812, and how it produced leaves very early in the season, even in January. The same was true of a Siberian Thorn. Both put forth leaves in January, but neither of them flowered in May. There is no other example throughout the world of a Thorn Tree producing flowers twice in the year. The Glastonbury Thorn is utterly unique. Those who try to explain away the legend, cannot deny facts that continue to happen each May and December.

 Joseph of Arimathea, if he should have reached Glastonbury in the first century, and planted a thorn tree that he’d carried with him from Palestine, would find that his young tree would bud and flower around Christmas time. However, it would not flower again in May. Therefore this tree, that has caused such a lot of controversy, must have had a completely different origin. If it has to be traced to Joseph, then it was not as a result of his planting a tree.

 The legend says that he stuck his staff in the ground on the southern slope of Wearyall Hill, where first he landed, and it sprouted. Now as George Jowett reports in his book The Drama of the Lost Disciples, page 74,  “Tree experts affirm it is not only possible , but a natural process, under favourable conditions for such a staff formed from the limb of a tree to take root and develop into a live, thriving tree.”  But he goes on to say what we have affirmed again and again, that such a tree would bear all the characteristics of a Levantine tree, which only flowers at Christmas time. It does not explain the additional May flowering.

 Let us assume that Joseph did arrive at Wearyall Hill [since corrupted into Wirrall Hill] and that he brought with him a staff, as many Old Testament characters carried, and which has given way to the use of Walking Sticks today. Suppose also that this staff was from a Hawthorn tree. What would cause him to relinquish his staff and drive it into the ground on the side of the hill? What possible purpose would there be in such an action?  Some have said they believed it to be an act of ownership. Certainly this would agree with some of the accounts in ancient Biblical times. However, we believe this to be somewhat doubtful, based on the fact that Joseph was not a stranger to these parts, and the traditions aver that King Arviragus gave him and his associates twelve hides of land. Why then would he need to make a demonstration of ownership by planting his staff?

 Another possibility arises, which we believe has the greater credibility, though obviously nothing can be proven as fact. Suppose Joseph began to preach the good news of Christ’s rising from the grave, and taking on His immortal heavenly form, an account that would be almost impossible for English people to accept, who had never been to Israel, and possibly knew very little if anything to do with the Old Testament, and the strange happenings in Jerusalem of recent years. How would Joseph prove to them the truth of his assertions? He would need miraculous resources. But these were available and used throughout the world in those days.  The New Testament record in Acts shows how God equipped His disciples, who became Apostles, with multifarious miraculous abilities, thereby authenticating the strange words they preached. Mark, in the last words of his Gospel, declares this very fact by saying, “And they, going forth, preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by signs following.”  [Mark 16:20]  

 We believe it to have been eminently possible that Joseph besought the Lord to know how to prove to his hearers the truth of his word, and therefore bring them “out of darkness into His glorious light.”  What more simple than to be told to plant his staff in the ground, and ask them to wait and watch. The God who caused Aaron’s rod to bud and blossom overnight, and the Christ who cursed the fig tree and caused it to die overnight, could equally have caused Joseph’s staff to burst into life, and take on the supernatural characteristics of flowering twice in the year. It is just the sort of miracle that would gain attention in those days, and authenticate Joseph’s message.

 From the Appendix it will be seen that throughout the centuries the Glastonbury Thorn has been treated with the utmost respect (apart from that over-zealous iconoclast of Cromwell’s day who cut it down). It is only during the last century and a half of the age of enlightenment, reason, and overthrow of faith that the Thorn Tree has been progressively sidelined and relegated to the trash bins of spurious legend and human fabrication. Truly we live in an age of debunking.