Matthew Paris' Mappa Mundi in Contrast

When examining the work of Matthew Paris, and reading The Art of Matthew Paris by Suzanne Lewis, there were several aspects of both Paris’ work and Lewis’ analysis that stuck out in my mind. Firstly, as Lewis notes that the individual figures inserted into the margins of the work created by Roger vary widely in style and treatment depending on the context. These figures are cause for great interest as they are very detailed, colourful and at times very accurate to the descriptions given in the text. The fact that Matthew extended his copious collection of corroborative evidence to the making of precise pictorial replicas of important images indicates to me that he is meticulous when it comes to illustrating the history and stories within the manuscript to the best of his ability. For me, it appears that Matthew compiled and illustrated these books they were to centre on England and Christendom. As Lewis notes, both his textual and visual addenda are more obviously motivated by strong personal loyalties and prejudices, sometimes leading him to distort or undermine Roger’s original intention.

Many of the figures represented in the maps and margins of the works by Paris can be considered ‘normal’ people who are either well known, or noteworthy. Though Matthew inserts images representative of cities and kings (ex. The boar of Cornwall), he does not provide undue imagery of mythological, imaginative or unknown ‘things’ as representation of people. Unlike the mappa mundi from Hereford Cathedral (also seen in the video clip), Paris’ maps as well as his marginalia lack many of these mythological characters and artistic embellishment. Why is this? Why would Paris spend so much time illustrating the text with images, and not his maps? I believe that Paris drew these maps not to illustrate the imaginative, but rather the temporal world of man.

Much of the maps that Paris drew that survive today only show cities, towns, and villages. Though he does embellish them more than other cartographers from the time do, the maps themselves have a distinct absence of nature to their character. The maps do include some aspects from the natural world, such as rivers and seas; little else is given (like trees, mountains, lakes, etc.)

This lack of the natural may be due to space constraints, as he was writing and drawing these images to be included within a book, rather than a map itself, it is odd that his embellishment is in severe withdrawal compared to many of his marginalia. This is unclear why from both examining Paris’ work, and from Lewis herself.

Another interesting point to make about Paris’ maps is the space between cities. This space is treated negatively (empty and blank), rather than full of detail, indicating an uneasy relationship that Paris seems to have had with the non-human, natural world that would have been found outside of major cities that Paris illustrates. It is unclear why there is such a disconnect between images on maps like the Hereford mappa mundi which comes from the same time period of Paris’ own lifetime, and his own works. Was this only to reflect what he knew? Or was it to emphasize different things than the Hereford map, such as key centres for pilgrims or important areas of Christendom.