Medieval Chroniclers

After examining the chronicles of Matthew Paris, it becomes apparent that he was a man of uncompromising opinions. In Paris’ writings, one gets the sense that nothing was sacred, despite the fact that he himself was a clergy member. More to the point, any topic was fair game, including the papal authorities. Within the 1244 chronicle, Pope Innocent IV was thoroughly lampooned. At the mercy of Paris’ pen, the Holy Father was characterized as a greedy coward, corrupted by evil. The evidence cited by the author is relatively strong, thus justifying his slanderous remarks. These unflattering observations may very well have been true, and to this avail the author injects his own assessments of the pope into the chronicle. Rather than simply record what was reported to have transpired, like a normal chronicle, Paris writes more along the lines of commentary, his own personal commentary. He critiques the pope.

The 1244 chronicle starts with a discussion regarding the schism between the pope and Frederic II, the Holy Roman Emperor. Matthew Paris clearly has a prerogative to utilize inflammatory language, which is one aspect of his commentary. In the first subheading of the chronicle, the title proclaims, “How the pope secretly took to flight”. Discussing the escapades of Innocent IV, the author insinuated that the Holy Father was a coward, avoiding the Emperor’s “expected” anger by running away in the middle of the night. If this assessment was not libel enough, Paris even provided an alternative motive – namely that the pope had fled Rome because he wanted to receive certain tributary gifts waiting for him on the other side of the Alps. Hence, the Holy Roman Empire was thrown into near chaos on account of one man’s fear, or worse yet his vanity.

As the chronicle unfolds, the pope is mentioned in various realms of discussion, including: Emperor Frederic II, taxation of the English clergy, the Scots-Anglo border wars, his hideaway in Genoa, and departure to Lyons. A commonality shared within all of these diverse discussions is the popes alleged greed. When it comes to monetary contributions, the pope possesses an “ever open bosom”. In this particular domain, Matthew Paris is a player rather than merely an observer. In 1244, the pope sent the prelates of England a request for funds, which Paris subsequently replicated into the chronicle. Since Paris is a player in this particular issue, his accounts are more akin to commentary rather than neutral reporting. The author concludes this segment by stating that the pope’s requests were wisely turned down. The reasons for this rejection was because King Henry III’s simultaneous funding request was deemed “more worthy”, while the pope’s request was discredited as “provisions for unknown purposes”.

Although it is shocking to hear a Roman Catholic clergymen speaking in such an advert manner, Matthew Paris attested that the Devil instigated Pope Innocent IV’s avarice. Furthermore, after the (not so) Holy Father dispatched an aggressive clerk to England for the purposes of shakedowns and extortion, Paris referred to the pope as a “cruel authority”. Through his papal moneyman Master Martin, the author contended that the pope sought to enslave the English kingdom. Given that Matthew Paris had such strong opinions regarding the pope, his chronicle reads more like a commentary than anything else. Full of flare and disdain, Paris’ attacks on Pope Innocent IV are far too personal to merely be a disinterested rendition of 1244 events. It is as though the pope was on trial, and Matthew Paris was the prosecution. Within the chronicle, he builds his case.