Weiler - Paris

This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen]
On: 14 May 2012, At: 04:57

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Medieval History

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmed20
Matthew Paris, Richard of Cornwall's

candidacy for the German throne, and
the Sicilian Business
a
Bjrn Weiler
a
Department of History, University of Wales at Swansea,
Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK
Available online: 03 Jan 2012
To cite this article: Bjrn Weiler (2000): Matthew Paris, Richard of Cornwall's candidacy for the
German throne, and the Sicilian Business, Journal of Medieval History, 26:1, 71-92
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4181(99)00008-1
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The
accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified
with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Medieval History, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 7192 2000
2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0304-4181(99)00008-1 0304-4181/00 - see front matter
Matthew Paris, Richard of Cornwalls candidacy for the

German throne, and the Sicilian Business
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 04:57 14 May 2012
Bjorn Weiler
Department of History, University of Wales at Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK
Abstract
Matthew Paris Chronica Maiora has long been recognised as one of the most important sources
for the history of the thirteenth century. So far, however, research has concentrated largely on
discovering and isolating Matthews prejudices and bias. This has led to an approach in which
some passages are accepted as genuine and therefore reliable, whereas others are dismissed as
fanciful. However, this ignores Matthews considerable literary skills and the wide range of
techniques and methods he employed in composing his chronicle. Even seemingly innocuous epi-
sodes form part of a bigger whole, and cannot be viewed in isolation. The following will exemplify
this with Matthews coverage of the 1256 Christmas Parliament, when news of Earl Richard of
Cornwalls candidacy for the German throne was first announced to the English magnates. Matthew
employed King Henry IIIs own propaganda to invalidate the very message it was intended to
convey. This, in turn, throws new light on the early months of Richards career, its connection with
the ambitions and undertakings of the English royal court, and Matthews method and technique of
literary composition. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Henry III; Matthew Paris; Richard of Cornwall; Medieval Propaganda; Medieval chronicles
During a parliament meeting at Christmas 1256 at Westminster, important news

was conveyed. The fullest account is given by Matthew Paris in his Chronica
Maiora: German envoys arrived, announcing that Earl Richard of Cornwall, King
Henry IIIs younger brother, had been chosen, unanimously and spontaneously, as
King of the Romans, that is ruler of Germany and Emperor-elect. This caused some
concern, not the least so to Earl Richard himself. He was reluctant to accept the
honour, and was only swayed by the advice he received from some of those present.
He was told to muster his courage and face the challenges ahead of him. Richard
BJORN WEILER has published in the English Historical Review, and Thirteenth Century England. He is
currently preparing a book on AngloGerman relations in the reign of Henry III (12161272) and a trans-
lation of sources on Later Medieval Germany.
E-mail: bkuw@st-and.ac.uk
71
72 B. Weiler
was warned not to follow the example of Robert Curthose, once duke of Normandy,
who had refused the crown of Jerusalem when it was offered to him. For this act
of pride he had been punished, as fortune deserted him ever afterwards. Moreover,
unlike Richards two predecessors, Henry Raspe and William of Holland, he had
not been imposed by the Pope, but had been chosen willingly and freely by the
Germans. In fact, his future subjects had already collected a treasure for him. and
he would be surrounded by friends and relatives. Eventually, Richard accepted his
election, promising that he would not rule to acquire worldly gain or glory, but only
to set right the affairs of his new realm.1
This passage, the earliest narrative account concerning Richards German career,
has frequently been dismissed as unrealistic, fanciful, and of little historical value.2
After all, as we will see, Richards election had been neither unanimous, nor spon-
taneous, and Matthews version of events thus stands in striking contrast to the sur-
viving documentary evidence. However, if viewed in relation both to the themes and
aims of the Chronica Maiora, as well as to political events in England, a different
interpretation becomes possible. This account allows us to glimpse not only the liter-
ary techniques employed by Matthew Paris, but also the ambitions and undertakings
of the English court, and how it tried to present them.
News of Richards election could not have come at a more opportune moment. By
December 1256 Henry IIIs pet project, the so-called negotium Sicilie, the Sicilian
Business, had run into difficulties. After the death of Emperor Frederick II in 1250,
the papal curia had begun to look for a champion to replace Fredericks son and
heir, Conrad IV, as King of Sicily, a papal fief. Various princes had been approached,
including Charles of Anjou, the younger brother of Louis IX, and Richard of
Cornwall. However, none of them had been willing to take up the challenge, when,
quite unexpectedly, in 1253 Henry III accepted the throne of Sicily on behalf of
Edmund, his youngest son.3 Initially, he had been expected to lead an army to Italy
1
Matthew, Paris, Chronica Maiora, ed. H.R. Luard (Rolls Series, 6 vols., (London, 18724), vol. 5, 601603.
All unreferenced quotations will refer to this passage.
2
HansEberhard Hilpert. Richard of Cornwalls candidature for the German throne and the Christmas 1256
parliament at Westminster, Journal of Medieval History, 6 (1980), 18598 at 18990 cites earlier verdicts.
Also, N. DenholmYoung, Richard of Cornwall (Oxford, 1947), 88 n.2.
3
Thomas Rymer ed., Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae et cujuscunque generis acta publica, new edn, vol. 1, i,
ed. A. Clark and F. Holbrooke (London, 1816), vol. 1, 284; Close Rolls for the Reign of Henry III, (Record
Series, 14 vols., London, 190238), 12513, 449; Epistolae saeculi xiii e regestis pontificium Romanorum
selectae, ed. Carl Rodenberg (Monumenta Germaniae Historica Epistolae, 3 vols., Berlin, 18831894), 3,
no. 446; Carl Rodenberg, Innocenz IV und das Konigreich Sicilien, 12451254 (Halle, 1892), 12768; Alois
Wachtel, Die sizilische Thronkandidatur des Prinzen Edmund von England, Deutsches Archiv fur
Geschichte des Mittelalters, 4 (1940), 98178; Henri Marc-Bonnet, Richard de Cornouailles et la couronne
de Sicile, in: Melanges dHistoire du Moyen Age a Louis Halphen (Paris, 1951), 4839; Wachte, Le Saint
Siege et Charles dAnjou sous Innocent IV et Alexandre IV, Revue historique, 200 (1948), 3865; Gerhard
Baaken, Ius Imperii ad regnum: Konigreich Sizilien, Imperium Romanum und Romisches Papsttum vom
Tode Kaiser Heinrichs VI. bis zu den Verzichtserklarungen Rudolfs von Habsburg (Cologne, Weimar and
Vienna, 1993), 38795; F.M. Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward: the Community of the Realm
Matthew Paris, Richard of Cornwalls candidacy for the German throne, and the Sicilian Business 73
by October 1256. However, remaining unable to enlist the backing of his English
subjects, Henry had to ask for several postponements.4 Matters of finance were at
the centre of his problems. Not only would he have to repay papal debts amounting
to over 135,000 marks, but he was also required to fund the costs of conquest.5
Repeated attempts to muster support from his English subjects had met with little
success.6 In addition, English nobles were unwilling to fight for their king in Sicily.
The popes offer that crusading vows could be fulfilled by fighting Manfred, Freder-
icks illegitimate son, Conrad IVs successor, and champion of the Hohenstaufen
supporters in the regno, met with only a lukewarm reception.7 The king thus lacked
both the means and the men to make true his promises, and decisive action was
needed to whip up support.

The reluctance of his English subjects was not however the only problem facing
Henry. A conquest of Sicily was unlikely without at least the tacit support of Louis
IX of France who, after all, faced the prospect of an English prince controlling access
to the Eastern Mediterranean. Moreover, in order to reach Sicily, Henry III and his
troops would have to cross either French territory, or the counties of Toulouse and
Provence, recently acquired by cadet-branches of the Capetian house. Peaceful
relations with France were thus a pre-condition for success in Italy. Immediately
after Pope Alexander IV had officially confirmed Prince Edmund as the future King
of Sicily, an English embassy was therefore sent to Paris, to prolong the existing
truce.8 Nonetheless, distrust continued to disrupt dealings between the two rulers,
and no permanent agreement could be found.9
In early 1256 further disaster loomed, when William of Holland was killed in
battle. This was most unfortunate, as, over the previous twelve months, relations
between England and Germany had steadily improved. For the first time in almost
ten years an English embassy had been sent to the Empire, and high-ranking members
of Williams entourage had visited Henrys court.10 The choice of Williams suc-
cessor was of strategic importance. Henry III feared, as he explained to his proctor
at the curia that Louis IX of France might use this opportunity to harm the Sicilian
Business.11 Moreover, it seemed not unlikely that Conradin, Frederick IIs grandson,
might be elected king, combining his claims to the Empire with those to Sicily.
Consequently, drastic action had to be taken. When Pope Alexander IV rejected
in the Thirteenth Century, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1947), 343410; the best, although short, coverage in English
is provided by: M.T. Clanchy, England and Its Rulers. 10661272, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1998), 16972.
4
Close Rolls, 12546, 4046
5
Annals of Burton, in Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard Rolls Series, 5 vols., (London, 18649), vol. 1, 387.
6
Rymer, Foedera, 3446; Annals of Dunstable, Annales Monastici, vol. 3, 200.
7
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, vol. 5, 522. In fact, the only figure of some prominence receiving papal
dispensation to fight in Sicily was Maurice FitzGerald, Henry IIIs former Justiciar in Ireland, Calendar of
entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland, ed. W.H. Bliss Record Series (London,
1893), 329.
8
Calendar of Patent Rolls for the Reign of Henry III Record Series, 4 vols., (London, 190613), 124758, 41.
9
Close Rolls, 12569, 1367.
10
Calender of Liberate Rolls for the Reign of Henry III Record Series, 6 vols., (London, 191764), 125160,
228, 238, 244, 253.
11
74 B. Weiler
English requests for a cardinal to be sent to Germany to oversee the election,12 a

group of English envoys, led by Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hereford,
and William Bonquer, was sent to the German princes in June 1256.13 Both had
been foremost amongst Henrys advisors in preparing for the Sicilian Business,14
and we may therefore assume that they had been sent to achieve what the papacy
had been reluctant to promise: the election of a King of the Romans unlikely to
hinder English ambitions in the Mediterranean.
During the summer and early autumn of 1256 several unsuccessful attempts were
made to find a new king. The Count of Henneberg, the King of Bohemia, and the
Margrave of Brandenburg were put forth as candidates, but none secured election.15
By November, however, the Count Palatine of the Rhineland and Duke of Bavaria
agreed to elect Richard of Cornwall as King of the Romans, in exchange for 12,000
marks.16 The Archbishop of Cologne followed suit in early December, and received
8,000 marks from Richard.17 They were later joined by the Archbishop of Mainz,
who supported the Earl in exchange for another 8,000 marks.18 When exactly Rich-
ards candidacy began to he pursued in earnest remains unclear, but it seems likely
that first contacts had been made in late September or early October 1256. The
agreements reached in November and December thus formed the basis for the
announcement made at the Christmas Parliament. Although Richard had not yet for-
mally been elected, he had won the support of some of the most important princes
in Germany. Henry III had achieved a major diplomatic success. Although he may
not have expected to bypass France en route to Italy via Germany, the prospect of
having his brother installed as Frederick IIs successor, as Plantagenet ruler of Ger-
many and the Empire, may have presented an opportunity both to exert pressure on
Louis, and to solicit much needed support from his English subjects. In fact, it has
been suggested that events at Westminster may have been staged with this purpose
in mind,19 and it is to this assumption that we must now turn.
Richards election had not been as smooth as either his letters or Matthews
account would imply. Already in March and September 1256, King Alfonso X of
Castile had begun to pursue his candidacy for the German throne, and had himself
12
Regesta Imperii, Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Philipp, Otto IV., Freidrich II., Heinrich (VII), Conrad
IV., Heinrich Raspe, Wilhelm und Richard, 11981272., ed. Johann Friedrich Bohmer, Eduard Winkelmann
and Julis Ficker, 3 vols. (Innsbruck, 18811901), nos. 4289a, 9068.
13
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 124758, 481.
14
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, vol. 5, 511, 521; Calendar of Patent Rolls, 124758, 344; Calendar of
Liberate Rolls, 125160, 4556.
15
Johannes Siebert, Graf Hermann von Henneberg als Bewerber urn die deutsche Konigskrone, Zeitschrift fur
deutsche Philologie, 57 (1932), 215223; Chronica principuum saxoniae ampliata, Monumenta Germaniae
Historica Scriptores rerum Germanicarum vol. 30/1, 30; for a more detailed discussion: Manfred Groten,
Konrad von Hochstaden und die Wahl Richards von Cornwall, in: Koln Stadt und Bistum in Kirche und
Reich des Mittelalters: Festschrift fur Odilo Engels, ed. Hanna Vollrath and Stefan Weinfurtea (Cologne,
Weimar and Vienna, 1993), 483510.
16
Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum, 11981272, ed. Ludwig Weiland, Monumenta German-
iae Historica Leges, vol. 4/2, (Hanover, 1896), 37980.
17
Weiland, Constitutiones, no. 383.
18
Chronicon Thomae Wykes, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, 113.
19
Hilpert, Richard of Cornwalls candidature, 195.
elected Emperor by the communes of Marseilles and Pisa.20 It may seem as if Alfon-
sos ambitions had been kept secret from Henrys subjects. Matthews account of
the Christmas parliament certainly makes no mention of it. The question remains,
whether the English court knew of Alfonsos aspirations. The King of Castile did
not officially issue charters for the Empire until the autumn of 1257.21 Similarly, the
extant correspondence between Henry III and his proctors in Gascony and Castile
leaves no indication as to any knowledge of Alfonsos plans.22 The first official
English acknowledgement of Alfonsos rival claims dates from December 1257,
when Henry III responded to complaints made by the King of Castile concerning
Richards election and coronation.23 Moreover, Alfonso would have had good reason
to keep secret his candidacy. After all, during the summer of 1256, he had made an
arrangement with the commune of Pisa concerning his election as Emperor, in which
he also promised to safeguard the towns rights and privileges should he conquer
Sicily.24 That no reference was made to Alfonsos plans in Germany was probably
less an indication of deceit, than of ignorance.
Equally, the fact that no mention was made of the need to win over other Electors
should not be over-interpreted. Legally, the term electio referred to all the elements
of the electoral process, that is declarations of intent, the pre-selection of a candidate,
as well as the final act of declaring a king.25 By Christmas 1256, it must have seemed
as if these further steps were a mere formality. Several earlier attempts to find a
king had failed, and some of the most important princes in the Empire had been
enlisted in Richards support. For the others to follow suit may have been only a
matter of time.26 The news conveyed at the Christmas parliament was thus probably
less a carefully staged comedy, than an embroidered and embellished, but nonetheless
accurate representation of what the king and his court knew at the time.27
20
Weiland, Constitutiones, nos. 3935; Cayetano J. Socarras, Alfonso X of Castile, A Study on Imperialistic
Frustrations (Barcelona, 1976); Percy Ernst Schramm, Kastilien zwischen EnglandFrankreichDeutsch-
landItalica. Konig Alfonso X. el Sabio (125284). deutscher Gegenkonig. Ein Beitrag zur spanischen Kai-

seride), in: Kaiser. Koaige und Papste. Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 4 vols. in 5,
(Stuttgart, 196871), vol. 4:1, 378419; Arnold Busson, Die Doppelwahl des Jahres 1257 und das romische
Konigthum Alfons X. von Castilien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des grossen Interregnums (Munster, 1866).
21
Regesta Imperii, ed. Bohmer, Ficker, Winkelmann, no. 5489; cf. also: Ingo Schwab, Kanzlei und Urkundenw-
esen Konig Alfons X. von Kastilien fur das Reich, Archiv fur Diplomatik und Urkundenforschung, 32
(1986), 569616.
22
Rymer, Foedera, 1 353.
23
24
Weiland, Constitutiones, no. 394; also: Simon Lloyd, King Henry III, the Crusade and the Mediterranean,
in: England and her Neighbours 10661453, ed. Michael Jones and Malcolm Vale (London, 1989), 97
119, at 114 n.88.
25
Heinrich Mitteis, Die deutsche Konigswahl: ihre Rechtsgrundlagen bis zur Goldenen Bulle (Brunn, Munich
and Vienna, 1944), 509.
26
Groten, Die Wahl, 509, suggests that this reflects English ignorance concerning the exact procedure of the
electoral process in Germany. Although no detailed account is given, Matthew Paris, for instance, was well
aware that an election contains several stages. Under 1198, describing the coronation of King John, he refers
to the stages of electio and pre-electio [Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, vol. 2, 4545].
27
What had been kept from the barons were the financial inducements Richard had offered. The first English
chronicler to refer to the sums Richard had paid to his electors was Thomas Wykes, writing in the late
1270s and closely associated with the Earls entourage [Noel DenholmYoung, Thomas de Wykes and his
Chronicle, in: Collected Papers (Cardiff, 1969), 24566, at 248], thus having access to information not
76 B. Weiler
Similarly, Richards display of humility when hearing the news of his election
has been described as an act of shameless trickery.28 Richard hesitated before
accepting the Kingship of the Germans, and only agreed to his election because it
was a duty conferred upon him by the will of God. Far from being an elaborate
play, this was a topos with a venerable pedigree. Reluctance to accept the crown
was amongst the standard virtues of a good or saintly king. The most famous
example is probably Charlemagne who, according to his biographer Einhard, was
unexpectedly crowned Emperor by the Pope while visiting Rome, against his will,
and to his continuing embarrassment.29 Equally, among the many virtues of, for
instance, St Ladislas of Hungary was that he never wore a crown, as a permanent
reminder that he had been chosen king against his will.30 One of the more elaborate
accounts of a king being reluctant to accept his elevation is found in the Kaiserch-
ronik eines Regensburger Geistlichen concerning the election of Duke Lothar of
Saxony as King of the Romans in 1125.31 After the death of Emperor Henry V, the
princes were unable to find a suitable candidate to replace him. Eventually, they
decided on Duke Lothar. When, not having been involved in the electoral process,
Lothar heard the news, he assembled his friends and faithful, and requested their
counsel. He was eventually swayed to accept his election, when his nobles told him
that he should be pleased and proud that the princes had chosen him as their lord
normally available. Nor was this unusual. No contemporary German chronicler mentions the sums paid out
to Richards electors. In fact, they only developed political and propagandistic potential after Richards
death, and the prominence they are being given by later writers may have been connected to the political
turmoil after Rudolf of Habsburgs election in 1273: Bjorn Weiler, Image and Reality in Richard of
Cornwalls German Career, English Historical Review, 113 (1998), 111143. For the role of financial
inducements: Hugo Stehkamper, Geld bei deutschen Konigswahlen des 13. Jahrhunderts, in: Wirt-
schaftskrafte und Wirtschaftswege. Festschrift Hermann Kellenbenz, ed. J. Schneider, 4 vols. (Stuttgart,
1978), 1, 83115, at 92, 96, 106; Siegfried Haider, Schriftliche Wahlversprechen romisch-deutscher Konige
im 13. Jahrhundert, Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, 76 (1968), 10673.
28
Georg Lemcke, Beitrage zur Geschichte Konig Richards von Cornwall (Berlin, 1909), 8890; Denholm
Young, Richard, 86.
29
Einhardi vita Karoli Magni, ed. Oswald HolderEgger, Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores rerum
Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi (Hanover and Leipzig, 1911), 323. See also: Robert
Folz, The Coronation of Charlemagne. 25 December 800, trans. J.E. Anderson (London, 1974), 13250,
for the broader context. For a recent, short survey on the surrounding historiographical discussion: Josef
Semmler, Der vorbildliche Herrscher in seinem Jahrhundert: Karl der Groe, in: Der Herrscher, Leitbild
und Abbild in Mittelalter und Renaissance ed. Hans Hecker (Studia Humaniora 13 (Dusseldorf, 1990), 43
58, at 514; Rudolf Schieffer, Die Karolinger (Stuttgart, 1992), 1024.
30
Legenda sancti Ladislai regis, Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum ed. Emma Bartoniek, vol. 2 (Budapest, 1938),
5178. Kornel Szovak, The image of the ideal king in twelfth-century Hungary (remarks on the legend of
St Ladislas), in: Kings and Kingship in Medieval Europe, ed. Anne J. Duggan (London, 1993), 24164.
For the Byzantine context: Rosemary Morris, Succession and usurpation: politics and rhetoric in the late
tenth century in: New Constantines: the Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium. 4th13th Centuries,
ed. Paul Magdalino (Aldershot, 1994), 199214; also Janet Nelson, Inauguration Rituals, in: Early Medieval
Kingship, ed. P.H. Sawyer and I.N. Wood (Leeds, 1977), 5071, at 567.
31
On the context most recently: Henning Diedler, Eine vergessene Designation Zu den politischen und verfas-
sungsrechtlichen Hintergrunden der deutschen Konigswahl von 1125, Concilium Medii Aevii, 1 (1998), 28
58; Ulrich Nonn, Gebltutsrecht, Wahlrecht, Konigswahl: Die Wahl Lothars von Supplinburg 1125,
Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 44 (1993), 14657.
and judge.32 Nor was this vernacular source the only one to elaborate on Lothars
seeming reluctance. Otto of Freising, for instance, in his Historia de Duabus Civitat-
ibus, also describes Lothar as accepting his election renitens et reclamans reluctantly
and under protest.33 It is unlikely that Matthew Paris was aware of this story.34
However, the counsel given to Lothar is echoed in Richards declaration that he did
not accept the Kingship of the Germans for greed or to satisfy his ambition, but to
settle and righten the affairs of his new kingdom. In itself the phraseology used is
reminiscent of accounts of prelates being reluctant to assume high office, or of poten-
tial priests before entering Holy Orders.35 The principle is clearly stated in the Magna
Vita of St Hugh of Lincoln. Having joined the Grand Chartreuse, Hugh declared his
desire to join the priesthood. For this he is reprimanded by one of his fellow-monks:
He who is not raised to the priesthood against his will, is unworthy to be raised to
it.36 A display of hesitation and doubt was the sign of a candidate truly meriting
his new status and dignity. Although Matthew may have been influenced by familiar
clerical or literary examples, Richards declaration was not without precedent, and
he may have conformed to a traditional pattern of behaviour which was recognised
as such by his audience.37
32
Kaiserchronik eines Regensburger Geistlichen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica Deutsche Chroniken, 1
(Hanover, 1895), 387, lines 1695416970. On the text: Ernst Friedrich Ohly, Sage und Legende in der
Kaiserchronik. Untersuchungen uber Quellen und Aufbau der Dichtung (Munster, 1940; repr. Darmstadt,
1968); Henry A. Myers, The concept of kingship in the Book of Emperors (Kaiserchronik), Traditio,
27 (197l), 20530.
33
Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis chronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. Adolf Hofmeister, Monumenta
Germaniae Historica Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi (Hanover, 1912),
333. This is the more interesting, as in his later Gesta Friderici, commissioned by Frederick Barbarossa,
Lothars election is described as the result of the intrigues of the Archbishop of Mainz who deprived the
Hohenstaufen of their rightful claim to the throne, Ottonis et Rahewini gesta Friderici I. Imperatoris, Monu-
menta Germaniae Historica Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi, ed. B. von
Sinson (Hanover and Leipzig, 1912), 301]. On this: Ludwig Vones, Der gescheiterte Konigsmacher: Erzbi-
schof Adalbert I. von Mainz und die Wahl von 1125, Historisches Jahrbuch, 115 (1995), 85124. Compare
also the version of events in Orderic Vitalis: The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. Marjorie
Chibnall, Oxford Medieval Texts, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1968-80), vol. 6, 3605.
34
Despite the strong links between England and the Welfs who inherited Lothars claims and lands, no account
of this story is found in Matthews historical writings. For political relations between the Welfs and England
see: Jens Ahlers, Die Welfen und die englischen Konige, 11651235 (Hildesheim, 1987); for cultural contacts
see most recently: Markus Muller, Die Welfen und Formen hofischer Reprasentation im anglonorman-
nischen Reich, in: Heinrich der Lowe und sein Zeit; Herrschaft und Reprasentation der Welfen, 1124
1235, Exhibition Catalogue, 3 vols. (Braunschweig and Munich, 1995), vol. 2, 37786.
35
In the context of Canterbury, this has most recently been discussed by Marylou Ruud, Unworthy servants:
the rhetoric of resignation at Canterbury, 10701170, Journal of Religious History, 22 (1998), 113, and
Michael Staunton, Eadmers Vita Anselmi: a reinterpretation, Journal of Medieval History, 23 (1997), 1
14, at 59. The literary topos has been identified as affektierte Bescheidenheit [fake humility] by Ernst
Robert Curtius, Europaische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, second edition (Tubingen and Basle,
1954; repr, l993), 935.
36
Magna Vita Sancti Hugonis: The Life of St Hugh of Lincoln, ed. and trans. Decima L. Douie and Hugh
Farmer 2 vols., Nelsons Medieval Texts, London, (1961), vol. 1, 35.
37
For the wider background see also: John van Engen, Sacred sanctions for lordship, in: Cultures of Power,
Lordship, Status and Process in Twelfth Century Europe, ed. Thomas N. Bisson (Philadelphia, 1995), 203
30, which, although with a strong emphasis on the eleventh and twelfth centuries, spans nearly the whole
of the Middle Ages; and Philippe Buc, Exegese et pensee politique: Radulphus Niger (vers 1190) et Nicolas
de Lyre (vers 1330), in: Representation, pouvoir et royaute a la fin du Moven Age, ed. Joel Blanchard
(Paris, 1995), 14564.
78 B. Weiler
Although it is therefore difficult to uphold an interpretation of the Christmas Par-

liament as a carefully staged comedy,38 that is an event designed to dupe the
English barons into supporting Richards candidacy by denying them important infor-
mation, it would be equally wrong to ignore its connection with the Sicilian Business.
Few opportunities were missed to highlight the connection between the negotium
Sicilie and Richards new honour. A parliament was called to coincide with the
Earls departure for Germany, where Edmunds coronation as King of Sicily was
celebrated.39 A formal treaty of friendship was concluded between the newly chosen
King of the Romans and his brother, the King of England.40 In fact, Henry III
announced to the bishop of Hereford that he was to accompany Richard to Germany,
to further the affairs of his own realm.41 The nature of the business which Henry
intended to conduct with his brothers support is illuminated by another letter, in

which the King of England assured his supporters at the curia that Richard would
deal with the Sicilian Business while at Rome, presumably in order to be crowned
Emperor.42 In addition, Richards career in Germany was exploited for propaganda
purposes. A number of letters from Richard survive, written to various recipients in
England, which paint a glamorous picture of his deeds and successes. The Bishop
of Lincoln, for instance, was given a lengthy account of how Richard had already
nearly reached the Alps, and that only a few more towns needed to be won over.43
The mayor and citizen of London received an elaborate description of how Richard
had been crowned on the throne of Charlemagne, and how, even before his coron-
ation, opposition against him had begun to dissolve.44 An almost identical letter was
sent to the Lord Edward, Henry IIIs eldest son. In addition, he was told of the war-
like prelates in Getmany, and how they could he used to smother rebellions.45 Far
from being an indication of Richards naivete, this aimed at underlining and empha-
sising the degree of his support. The picture thus emerging was one of steady and
glorious progress across Germany, to culminate in Richards eventual coronation as
Emperor. These letters were probably meant not only to extoll Richards achieve-
ments, but also to spread a message which few of their readers could have failed to
understand. Not only had English diplomacy been successful, but the Earl of
Cornwalls swift progress also showed how easily opposition could be overcome,
once the claimant to a throne was present amongst his subjects. Moreover, like Rich-
ard in Germany, Edmund, too, could depend on military support from the Church,
and, although he would not he able to take a major army with him to Sicily, this
38
Hilpert, Richard of Cornwalls candidacy, 195.
39
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, vol. 5, 6234.
40
41
Close Rolls, 12569, 11820.
42
Diplomatic Documents Preserved in the Public Record Office 11011272, ed. Pierre Chaplais, (London,
1964), no. 287.
43
Felix Liebermann, Zur Geschichte Friedrichs II. und Richards von Cornwall, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft
fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 13 (1888), 217220 at 220.
44
De antiquis legibus: cronica maiorum et vicecomitum Londoniarum, ed. Thomas Stapleton, Camden Series,
(London, 1846), 2629.
45
Annals of Burton, Annales Monastici, vol. 1, 3924.
need not impede his chances of success. Even a small force would he sufficient.
Consequently, no reason remained to block the Kings plans any longer.
Furthermore, the advice given to Richard at Westminster speaks for itself: he was
not to follow the example of Robert Curthose, whose temerity had made him refuse
the kingdom of Jerusalem. As a consequence he had lost not only that throne, hut
also those of England and Normandy.46 Being offered a crown was a sign of Gods
benevolence and generosity, and spurning these tokens of heavenly favour was blas-
phemy. Certainly, if this was to convince Richard of Cornwall to accept the kingship
of the Romans, it was also appropriate for Henry III to justify his sons claims to
the throne of Sicily.47 We may therefore assume that this advice had been directed
as much at Earl Richard as at the assembled barons. A similar point was also made
during a parliament in March 1257. Presenting Prince Edmund, dressed in royal
garb, to his subjects, Henry III asked that they support the young boy, whom the
Lord, by his grace, had called to the dignity of royal excellence.48 Royalty, be it
in Germany or Sicily, was in Gods gift alone, and His will was not to he spurned.
Yet we must also remember that Matthew provides the only detailed account of
the Christmas Parliament. Other chronicles largely confine themselves to stating the
year of Richards election, and only the Chronicle of the Mayors of London by
Arnold fitzThedmar refers to these news as having been conveyed during the
Christmas Parliament.49 No independent source thus survives to corroborate the
details of Matthews picture. This does not mean that Matthews account is fabri-
cated. In fact, he names his source, Bishop Richard of Bangor, who attended the
Christmas Parliament, and who probably conveyed the news when he visited the
chroniclers monastery of St Albans in January 1257.50 In addition, within a week
46
This reflected Matthews general attitude to Robert Curthose. The story of Roberts dealings in the Holy
Land is also elaborated in Matthews Historia Anglorum, written between 1250 and 1255. While at Jerusa-
lem, Duke Robert had been elected king [Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sanchi Albani, Historia Anglorum,
ed. Frederick Madden 3 vols., Record Series (London, 18669), vol. 1, 14950]. However, he then refused
the honour and returned home, succumbing to vanity and greed, by hoping that he might profit from his
brothers affairs in England [Matthew Partis, Historia Anglorum, vol. 1, 1567]. In this Matthew follows
the story, as developed by William of Malmesbury and others during the twelfth century [Charles Wendell
David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy (Cambridge/Mass., 1920), 197200]. On Matthews uses of
the past see also: Rebecca Reader, Matthew Paris and the Norman Conquest, in: The Cloister and the
World: Essays in Medieval History in Honour of Barbara Harvey, ed. John Blair and Brian Golding (Oxford,
1996), 11847.
47
For the wider background: D.A. Bullough, Games people played: drama and ritual as propaganda in medieval
Europe, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fifth Series, 24 (1974), 97122. Generally useful for
the topic of a public and how that could be addressed via diets, parliaments or other general meetings:
Bernd Thum,Offentlichkeit und Kommunikation im Mittelalter. Zur Herstellung von Offentlichkeit im
Bezugsfeld elementarer Kommunikation im 13. Jahrhundert, in: Hofische Reprasentation. Das Zeremoniell
und die Zeichen, ed. Hedda Ragotzky and Horst Wenzel (Tubingen, 1990), 6587.
48
49
Annals of Worcester, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, 455; Annals of Dunstable, Annales Monastici, vol. 3. 20;
De antiquis legibus, 24; Continuatio Chronici Willemi de Novoburgo, in: Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen,
Henry II. and Richard I., ed. Richard Howlett, vol. 2 Rolls Series (London, 1885), 537. For a more detailed
discussion: Hilpert, Richard of Cornwalls candidature, 1934.
50
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 124758, 534; Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, vol. 5, 608. For a more detailed
discussion: Hilpert, Richard of Cornwalls candidature, 190.
80 B. Weiler
of the events at Westminster, Richard of Cornwalls seneschal visited the abbey,51

and in March 1257 Henry III himself stayed at St Albans, and spoke to Matthew
about Richard and the German electoral system, and encouraged him to pen down
their conversation.52 Matthew could thus draw on several eye-witness accounts when
composing his annals for 1256/7,53 and we may therefore assume that he gives a
generally reliable outline of events during the Christmas Parliament, based on what
the King and others had told him. His sources, in particular Richards seneschal and
Henry III, may also account for the close similarities between Matthews account
and the propaganda employed by the Earl of Cornwall. It would be equally mistaken,
however, to view Matthew as a mere recorder of facts. Rather this passage shows
Matthew Paris the propagandist at work, amending and restructuring reports he

received to make his point, and it is this aspect which we should now address.
II
The Chronica Maiora was written in two stages. Matthew first began working on
it in or around 1245, and completed it by about 1251. It starts with the Creation and
initially ended with the annals for 1250. Matthew decided to take up his pen again,
probably in 1253, and continued writing the Chronica until 1259, and it is the second
stage of his writing with which this article is concerned. It seems that he started his
annals as soon as a year had ended. Thus, for instance, the events of 1256 were
probably written down during 1257.54 The scope of material treated in the Chronica
remains impressive: affairs of the Holy Land were dealt with, as was the Mongol
invasion of Eastern Europe, or the reform of Benedictine monasteries in Norway.55
At the same time, Matthews scope as a chronicler was matched by the wide range
of his dislikes. He abhorred ecclesiastical reform, mendicants, the growth of papal
or royal bureaucracy. Few opportunities were missed to deride what he perceived
to be greed, undue patronage or the evil machinations of foreign powers.56 In parti-
cular from about 1250 onwards, his tone becomes sharper and his commentary shows
ever less restraint. Most of this has been recognised before.57 However, as a conse-
quence Matthews writings have often been viewed as a rambling assortment of
facts: reliable information was interspersed with spiteful comments and implausible
51
52
53
Matthew Paris has Christmas as the beginning of a new calendar year.
54
Vaughan, Matthew Paris, 5971, 757.
55
Vaughan, Matthew Paris, 137, for a list of his sources; also: HansEberhard Hilpert, Kaiser- und Papstbriefe
in den Chronica majora des Matthaeus Paris (Stuttgart, 1981), 1149, 13252; Antonia Gransden, Historical
Writing in England. c. 550 to c. 1307 (London, 1974), 35674.
56
For the discussion of some particularly striking examples: Hilpert, Kaiser-und Papstbriefe, 5362.
57
Vaughan, Matthew Paris, 13943.
anecdotes which could easily bc discarded.58 Objective fact could be extracted by

setting aside the authors many prejudices and dislikes. This approach does injustice
to Matthew, and ignores his considerable skill as a writer and polemicist. Even when
taking into account that none of the surviving manuscripts of the Chronica Maiora
is a fair copy,59 that all contain repetitions, errors and corrections, it is still possible
to discern a narrative structure, a hand which ordered and presented the material in
way which coincided with the points Matthew wanted to make. By ignoring this
wider structure, by under-estimating Matthews ability to control his flow of infor-
mation, we continuously expose ourselves to the very danger which we are claiming
to avoid, that is to take at face value comments and anecdotes which become under-
standable only if put within their wider context. Neither Matthew nor his audience
were limiting their reading of the Chronica Maiora to those sections which modern
historians may find relevant. Instead, they perused and conceived the text as a whole,
where individual passages echoed what had gone before and foreshadowed what was
yet to come.
Matthews account of the 1256 Christmas Parliament may serve as an example.
Superficially a colourful and somewhat fantastic version of events, put in context it
reveals itself as a damning and thorough critique of Henry III and his government.
Richards election was everything the Sicilian Business was not. It was unanimous,
spontaneous, and born out of the free will of the Germans. This contrast will only
become clear when we consider Matthews earlier coverage of the events surrounding
the Sicilian Business, and the narrative techniques he employed. He avoided making
his point directly. Others spoke for him, and he presented his material in a way
which excluded any interpretation of events but his own. This is exemplified by the
narrative immediately preceding and following the account of Henrys initial accept-
ance of Sicily under the Chronicas entries for 1254. Point by point the curias
shortcomings and vices are listed. Just before the papal offer is considered, Matthew
reports a Byzantine mission to Rome, come to discuss matters of faith. Although he
firmly rejects their theological argument, he continues to explain how the Greeks
rightly accused the Pope of usury and simony.60 This takes up a complaint repeatedly
made by Matthew: the avarice and tyranny of the Holy See damaged the unity of
the Church,61 and made heathen and schismatics fearful of accepting papal authority.
Rather than working for the unity of the Christian faith and leading by moral example
the Pope deepened the divides among the faithful. The same annals also contain an
account of how the late Bishop Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln appeared in a dream
to Pope Innocent IV. Dressed in pontifical garb, Robert reprimanded the Pope for
his oppression of the see of Lincoln, probably referring to the resistance he had put
58
For a few examples concerning Matthews coverage of Richards German career: Julius Kempf, Geschichte
des deutschen Reiches wahrend des groen Interregnums (Wurzburg, 1893), 189 n. 3, 220 n. 2; Hugo Koch,
Richard von Cornwall. Erster Teil (12091257) (Strasbourg, 1887). 1057, in particular 107 n. 6; Denholm
Young, Richard, 867.
59
60
61
82 B. Weiler
up to papal demands for the distribution of benefices among members of the curia.62
To underline the degree of Roberts wrath, Innocent was struck with a fever which
rendered him unable either to drink or sleep.63 One should note the juxtaposition
between the saintly Bishop, dressed in the robes of his office, and the expropriator
and oppressor of the Church, occupying the see of St Peter. A similar point was made
in yet another appearance, encountered by Pope Alexander IV in 1255. Innocent was
presented for judgement before God and the Virgin Mary. When he pleaded for
mercy, the Virgin sternly rebuked him: the moment for contrition and mercy had
passed; now, it was time to judge. Innocents past sins were listed: he had dissipated
the goods of the Church, sold and misappropriated benefices, harming the legacy of
his saintly predecessors. What exactly happened to Innocent, Matthew continues, he

did not know, although it was pious to believe that he was sent to purgatory.64
Little doubt was thus left as to the moral ineptitude of the Pope. He was greedy,
avaricious and he oppressed the Church, driven not by a concern for the spiritual
and material welfare of his flock, but by a desire to satisfy his ambition for worldly
gain and glory. This fact was recognised by schismatics and the forces of heaven
alike, and only a fool could have failed to see the dangers of doing the Popes bid-
ding.
The theme is elaborated further, and the encounter between Robert and Innocent
is immediately followed by a passage on how Innocent, not heeding divine admon-
itions, embarked upon a campaign against the Hohenstaufen in Apulia, spending
not a little care, labour and money. Despite all these efforts, his forces were
defeated.65 Soon after, Matthew draws the readers attention to the fortunes of Henry,
Frederick IIs son from his marriage with Isabella Plantagenet. Recounting how the
Pope had planned to make Richard of Cornwall King of Sicily, Matthew describes
the reaction of the Sicilian nobles. Fearing for their independence and abhorring the
rule of foreigners, their hearts were filled with hatred against the Pope and the young
prince. No wonder, therefore, that the boy was killed by poison.66 Thus, even before
the Sicilian Business itself is mentioned, we are informed of the curias greed, the
worldly ambitions at the heart of papal policy, and the strenuous opposition within
Sicily to foreign rule. Not only was papal policy immoral, motivated not by a desire
to restore rectitude and purity amongst the Christian faithful, but by avarice and an
unholy lust for worldly power. In addition, the practical difficulties in complying
with the curias wishes seemed insurmountable. The Sicilians, a freedom-loving
people, had been driven into revolt by the false ambitions of Innocent IV. They had
62
R.W. Southern, Robert Grosseteste: the Growth of an English Mind in Medieval Europe, 2nd ed., (Oxford,
1992), 27285.
63
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, vol. 4, 42930; for the connotations of the sleepless sinner: Paul Edward
Dutton, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire (Lincoln and London, 1994), 67; Steven F.
Kruger, Dreaming in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1992); Thomas Ricklin, Der Traum der Philosophie
im 12. Jahrhundert. Traumtheorien zwischen Constantinus Africanus und Aristoteles (Leiden, Boston and
Cologne, 1998).
64
65
66
withstood the papacy, and they were just as likely to hold out against a prince from
distant England. Without ever mentioning the Sicilian Business as such, Matthew
slowly prepares his readers for Innocents offer of the Apulian throne, in all its, as
he perceived it, preposterous vanity.
Once his narrative reaches the point when Henry III accepted the Sicilian crown,
we find a masterpiece of propaganda. Matthew rarely voices his own opinion, but
lets others, of greater authority, speak on his behalf. In fact, he does this so success-
fully, that the following episode has been taken at face value, as a reliable record of
an actually occurring conversation.67 Matthew begins by recounting the negotiations
between Richard of Cornwall and a papal envoy. The Earl refused the Popes offer,
as they could not agree on sureties and the support demanded by Richard. Once
again, Matthews views are expressed by others. He reports how Master Albert,
Innocents proctor, returned to Rome, where he had a secret meeting with the Pope.
Their conversation is given verbatim, and includes a comment allegedly made by
Richard. Albert is said to have summarised the Earls objections by comparing the
papal offer of Sicily to someone saying: I give or sell you the moon, you go and get
it.68 It is important to remember that this was not an eye-witness account. Matthew
speculated on the content of the conversation between Albert and Innocent, and he
speculated as to the reasons given by Richard of Cornwall. This is followed by the
formal offer of the Sicilian throne to Henry III. The Pope secretly sent messengers
to Henry III, offering him the kingdom of Apulia, well aware of Henrys gullibility.
Hearing the news, the king is so overjoyed that he proclaimes with inane joy and
risible exultation that his son had already been made king of Sicily.69 Henry had
put himself and his kingdom at the curias mercy. Unaware of the dangers this
involved, he behaves like an imbecile, unworthy of his royal title.70 The foolishness
of his actions and the wisdom of his brother are underlined by what follows. Conrad
IV, Frederick IIs son and heir, sent an embassy to the Earl of Cornwall. Having
been horrified at the idea that the King of England would assist the Pope in his
schemes, Conrad thanks Richard for rejecting the curias offer. His envoys continue
to explain that this was done wisely, as, where the Earl had one silver piece, Conrad
could procure one of gold,71 i.e. tenfold the value of Richards treasury,72 renowned
for its seemingly infinite abundance. So strong was the opposition to papal demands,
that even Conrads death in the spring of 1254 fails to solve the curias problems.
Rather than submitting to the yoke of papal rule, the magnates of Sicily decide to
have Frederick IIs illegitimate son Manfred as their king instead.73 Henrys under-
67
DenholmYoung, Richard, 812.
68
69
70
An exaggerated display of mirth was unbecoming to a Christian ruler [see: Karl Leyser, The Angevin Kings
and the Holy Man, in: Saint Hugh of Lincoln, ed. Henry MayrHarting (Oxford, 1987), 4974, at 5960;
Dietmar Peil, Die Gebarde bei Chretien. Hartmann und Wolfram (Munich, 1975), 2234]. This attitude is
widely reflected in Matthew Paris: Cynthia Hahn, Proper behavior for knights and kings: the hagiography
of Matthew Paris, monk of St Albans, Haskins Society Journal, 2 (1990), 23748.
71
72
David Carpenter, The gold treasure of Henry III, Thirteenth Century England, 1 (1985). 6188.
73
84 B. Weiler
taking was thus preposterous, embarked upon in compliance with the greed and
secular ambitions of a corrupt Pope, and was bitterly opposed by the inhabitants of
Sicily, who were led by a prince with riches beyond imagination. Matthews account
of the acceptance of the Sicilian throne thus presents a narrative of gradually increas-
ing tension. The circle of those who set the preposterous nature of the Popes politics
is drawn closer and closer, from Greek schismatics to the Sicilians, from the Virgin
Mary to Henry IIIs own brother. Each time, the same points are made: the immoral
nature of the Popes demands, and the impossibility of wrenching control over Sicily
from its native inhabitants. The wisdom of others is juxtaposed with Henry IIIs own
foolishness. The King does not appear in the narrative until the end, when his behav-
iour, inappropriate and childish, is contrasted with the warnings and objections of
those more prudent. To contemporary readers of the text, Henry III must have
appeared more of a dunce and imbecil with every step.
Matthews account of the Christmas Parliament of 1256 was structured along simi-
lar lines. Nearly all his coverage presents a critique of Henrys involvement in Sicily.
Sometimes the allusions are veiled, sometimes direct, but it must have been clear
to those who perused the text that the negotium Sicilie formed its wider frame of
reference. A more detailed analysis of the speeches and gestures recorded will under-
line this point. To begin with, Richard was told that
the Pope has not imposed you by violent means, (). You are in possession of
a treasure: preserved for you, which has been collected from the kingdom of
Germany and faithfully kept for your use; you have restored your own treasury,
like a second Octavian ; you are surrounded by English and German friends, and
by relatives. ()
The contrast with Henrys acceptance of the Sicilian throne is obvious. Not only
had the Germans chosen Richard as their king, rather than finding him imposed upon
themselves by the Pope, furthermore, unlike the Apulians, they were willing to assist
him with funds and troops. Although no evidence survives to suggest that the Germ-
ans had actually collected a treasure on the Earls behalf, as claimed by Matthew, this
nonetheless accentuates an important difference between Richard and his immediate
predecessors who had met with sinister ends, as through the wrath of God. This
echoes earlier comments on the anti-kings which had been elected since Fredericks
deposition at the Council of Lyon in 1245. Under the year 1251 Matthew describes
Henry Raspe, chosen to challenge Frederick II and his sons in 1246, as a willing
victim of papal greed, who therefore suffered an ignominious death.74 Although Mat-
thew was to give Henrys successor, William of Holland, a flowery obituary,75
initially he was cited as an example of how succumbing to papal pressure resulted
in impoverishment and misery.76 Under 1252, Williams bid for the Imperial throne
is described as damnable presumption to which he had been induced by the Popes
74
75
76
promise of pecuniary aid.77 Matthews criticism of Henry Raspe and William was
also directed at Henry III of England. Under 1255, describing the disastrous outcome
of yet another papal campaign in Sicily, he inserts a passage where he appeals to
the Holy See: incredible sums had already been spent on promoting two candidates
as Emperors of the Germans, with uncertain outcome; now, money was wasted in
Apulia as well.78 Candidates chosen by the curia to supplant established rulers rarely
succeeded. Rather, they saw their own wealth and that of the Church wasted in the
vain pursuit of secular ambitions, unbecoming to the successor of St Peter. The
papacys schemes had failed in Germany, and they were failing in Sicily, too. Doing
the curias bidding was a sure way of courting shame and defeat. Henry Raspe and
William of Holland had been raised to the throne by the Popes greed. However,
the very help which the curia promised, had turned their people against them.
Matthew elaborated this point further. Richard was contrasted favourably with
William and Henry Raspe, as, unlike his predecessors, he had not been induced by
papal promises to pay
what is necessary from the spoils of the Church, and the pillage of those who
have taken the cross, which would never be of any good to you. For these foul
gains of the Pope have excited mens feelings, not to mercy but to anger.
Papal backing begets disaster. This was true of William and Henry in Germany,
and it also applied to Henry III. The means employed in financing the Sicilian Busi-
ness formed the background to this passage. In England, most of the funds needed
to satisfy papal demands had been raised with considerable success by taxing
the Church. Despite Henrys inability to solicit a grant of extra taxation, by 1259
nearly half the sums owed to the curia had been paid.79 However, dubious means
had to he employed to achieve this. In 1255, for instance, during a meeting at Read-
ing, Henry asked the prelates to affix their seals to blank charters.80 Soon after, royal
envoys were sent to the curia. Presenting the charters to Pope Alexander IV, they
suggested that this could he used to force a contribution from the prelates. The names
of creditors and the sums owed were inserted, and the bishops and abbots threatened
with excommunication should they refuse to pay.81 The amounts demanded were
considerable: St Albans was asked to contribute 400,82 the bishop of Hereford 4,000
marks,83 and Oseney 200 marks. Matters were further aggravated by the actions of
Rostand, a papal notary, sent to oversee the payments made by the English Church.
77
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, vol. 5, 275. It is worth noting the difference in emphasis from Matthews
coverage of Emperor Otto IV (11981218), who is said to have been persecuted by the Church because he
had striven to protect and recover Imperial rights alienated by the curia: Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora,
vol. 3, 6089.
78
79
William E. Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1328 (Cambridge/Mass., 1939), 290.
80
Annals of Oseney, Annales Monastici. vol. 4, 10910.
81
82
83
86 B. Weiler
During a meeting in London in October, he confronted the prelates with his demands.
Dissenters were threatened by both King and Pope, who acted, according to Matthew
Paris, like shepherd and wolf allying to destroy the flock.84 The prelates was further
alienated by the fact that they already contributed to the Kings planned crusade.85
In early 1256, however, new demands were made, including a tenth, the usufruct of
vacant benefices, a universal obligation to pay 150,000 marks worth of loans, half
the income of non-resident benefices, and the goods of those dying intestate.86 This
explains Matthews emphasis on the Earl of Cornwalls financial independence. His
subjects would not be reluctant to support him, as he did not exploit their wealth to
satisfy papal greed. Unlike the Sicilians, and unlike the clergy of England, the Germ-
ans were willing to collect a treasure to support Richard, and they did so because
he had been chosen as the most suitable candidate, not as yet another papal puppet-
king. Whereas the curias involvement had only begotten disaster for Henry Raspe
and William of Holland, his very independence guaranteed the Earl of Cornwall a
joyous reception amongst and the loyalty of his new subjects.
In addition, unlike his brother, Richard would not tie up resources which could
he used to better effect in expanding and securing the lands of Christendom. Matthew
reports that the very day, when Richard was offered the Sicilian throne, Louis IX
had been captured in the Holy Land.87 This reflects another consistent complaint
with Matthew: the Popes sinister policies were among the reasons to blame for the
parlous state of Christian affairs in Outremer. Louis IX is frequently and favourably
contrasted with Henry III. While the King of France was in tears for the confusion
his failure at Damietta had brought upon Christendom,88 Henry III exploited the
English monasteries,89 and embarked upon the foolish business or conquering Apu-
lia.90 Worst of all, the curia sought to organise support for its vain ambitions by
commuting the crusading vows of English nobles from the Holy Land to Sicily. This
piece of news, as Matthew does not fail to point out, caused great distress to the
military orders, the prelates and inhabitants of Palestine who opposed the forces of
heathendom.91 Not only was the Pope thus an oppressor of the Church, wreaking
havoc upon those who fell prey to his false promises and evil ambitions, but he was
also to blame for the fact that the holy places of Christendom continued to ache
under the yoke of Muslim rule.
Another difference between the Earl of Cornwall and his brother is emphasised.
Whereas the Apulians rejected English involvement, and, fearing foreign rule,
decided to adhere either to Conrad or Manfred,92 Richard would have been supported
84
85
Close Rolls, 12546, 3801. Alan Forey, The crusading vows of the English king Henry III, Durham
University Journal, 65 (1973), 229247; and, placing the Sicilian Business in a wider context. Lloyd, Henry
III, passim.
86
Annals of Oseney, Annales Monastici, vol. 4. 1145. Also Rymer, Foedera, vol., 1, 3446.
87
88
89
90
91
92
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, 5, 531.
by friends and relatives in Germany, who surrounded him like a protective wall.
This point is elaborated further. After his account of the Christmas Parliament, Mat-
thew describes the reasons for the Germans choice. They did not want to elect one
of their compatriots, due to their internal dissension, or a Frenchmen, whom they
disliked for their pride, or an Italian, as they were too greedy. He then continues:
() after careful and deliberate consultation, [they] elected Earl Richard, as well
on account of his speaking the English language, which is similar in sound to the
German, as of their common origin, both ancient and modern. The ancient origin
may be discovered in the chronicles, and the modern may be traced in our times
from the birth of the duke of Brunswick, and the duke of Saxony, from the
emperor Otho, who was the son of an Englishwoman, namely, the daughter of
Henry, king of England.93
Richard was not an alien, but of common stock with his German subjects, shar-
ing their language and sharing descent with some of their most illustrious princes,
including a former Emperor. Whereas the Sicilians were afraid of English rule, the
Germans gladly, and out of their own free will, embraced the prospect of Richards
kingship. For he was one of their own.94
The difference between Richards rule in Germany and Henry IIIs troubles in
Apulia was further stressed. Matthew reports how, early in 1257, John Maunsel and
the Earl of Gloucester had been sent to Germany to investigate the strength of Rich-
ards following. They
found all things favourable, and the hearts of the chief men of the country so
well disposed and devoted to the Earl, that they at once swore allegiance and
fealty to him, and the keys of some of the cities and castles were delivered to
these messengers.95
93
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, vol. 5, 603; translation: J.A. Giles, trans., Matthew Pariss English History
from the Year 1235 to 1273, 3 vols., (London, 1852-4), 3, 209. The King Henry in question was Henry II,
whose daughter married Duke Henry the Lion of Saxony and Bavaria. The duke had several children with
his wife including Otto, at one point Count of Poitou and Earl of York, who was elected King of the Romans
in 1198, later crowned Emperor Otto IV, and Henry, claiming the title Duke of Saxony, while in 1235 his
son Otto the Child was created Duke of Brunswick by Frederick II.
94
This context has been overlooked, for instance, by Koch, Richard, 88. Nonetheless, this did not stop Matthew
from having the Germans insist that Richard send back his English advisors, as they did not want to be
governed by foreigners: Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, vol. 5, 653. This was probably another attack
on Henry III, as the kings patronage of his foreign relatives was a recurrent theme in Matthews criticism
of Henry. After all, the safe-conducts issued for the Earls entourage on his visit to Germany were generally
limited to three months, i.e. they had never been intended to remain with him: DenholmYoung, Richard,
902. On the issue of Richards (and Alfonsos) foreigness: Armin Wolf, The family of dynasties in
medieval Europe: dynasties, kingdoms and Tochterstamme, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History,
12 (1991), 183260. On Henry IIIs patronage of his foreign relatives: Margaret Howell, Eleanor of Pro-
vence: queenship in thirteenth century England (Oxford, 1998); Huw Ridgeway, King Henry III and the
aliens, 12361272, Thirteenth Century England, 2 (1987), 8192; Hugh Ridgeway, Foreign favourites
and Henry IIIs problems of patronage, 124758, English Historical Review, 104 (1989), 590610.
95
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, vol. 5, 604; translation: Giles, Matthew Paris Chronicle, vol. 3, 210.
88 B. Weiler
The point conveyed here is not only that the Germans flocked to acknowledge
Richard as their king, but also that the Earl avoided repeating his brothers mistakes.
Whereas Henry had accepted the crown of Sicily without consulting his prospective
subjects in Apulia, Richard had not only been approached by the Germans, but he
also investigated the degree and strength of his backing. Rather than displaying inane
and ill-founded joy at hearing of his election, the Earl was cautious, reluctant, and
only willing to commit himself fully, once he was assured of broad and enthusi-
astic support.
Matthews account of the early stages of Richards kingship reflects the Earls
propaganda, and its claims of swift and easy progress through Germany. Alfonsos
candidacy is rarely mentioned, and no attention is given to the range of his support.96
This was not a sign of ignorance Richard may have played down the degree of
opposition he encountered, but he nonetheless acknowledged that not all the Germans
had yet accepted him as their king. Matthew Paris had good reason to ignore this
fact. The effectiveness of his message depended on a clear contrast between Rich-
ards career in Germany and his brothers misfortunes in Sicily. Furthermore, despite
Alfonsos best efforts, Richard did indeed make swift progress through Germany.
During his first sojourn on the continent, the Earl had managed to assert his authority
across most of Germany. One by one, Alfonso of Castiles supporters had been won
over,97 and by 1258 even the Pope promised to crown Richard Emperor.98 Not only
did it suit Matthew to present a positive picture of Richards exploits, he also would
have been hard pressed to find much evidence for effective resistance being mounted
by the King of Castile or his supporters. Richard was successful, and he was success-
ful because he had been chosen freely and unanimously, and because he did not act
as the curias agent.
We should not assume, however, that Matthew was uncritical towards the Earls
German adventure. Although Richards election and early career were used to paint
an unfavourable picture of Henry III, the chronicler did not hold back criticism. He
complained, for instance, that, once again, England was drained of gold and silver
to satisfy the greed of foreigners.99 In fact, the means chosen by Richard to finance
his expedition to Germany were sternly criticised: he impoverished the realm to feed
his treasury.100 The advice given to Richard during the Christmas Parliament also
makes reference to this: like a second Octavian he had restored his treasury. As
Hilpert has demonstrated,101 the Octavian in question is not the Emperor Augustus,
but a legendary king, at the centre of a story in one of Matthews main sources,
the Gesta Regum of William of Malmesbury. There, two adventurers encountered a
subterranean world, made entirely of gold, ruled over by a certain Octavian. They
96
Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, vol. 5, 621624, 649.
97
Annales Wormatienses, Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, vol. 17, 5962.
98
Karl Hampe, Ungedruckte Briefe zur Geschichte Konig Richards von Cornwall aus der Sammlung Richards
von Pofi, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 30 (1905), 67390; Bernard
Barbiche, Les Actes Pontificaux: Index actorum romanorum pontificum, vol. 1 (Vatican, 1975), no. 1001.
99
100
101
Hilpert, Richard of Cornwalls candidature, 190.
managed to retrieve a token as proof of their encounter. However, as with all sorcery,
once washed with water, the gold turned into dust.102 This reference could be read
as a warning to Richard: he had gained his wealth by means of oppression and
exploitation, and could thus lose it as easily as it had been gained.
Nor is this the only warning given to the Earl: his predecessors had met with
sinister ends because they assumed the crown of Germany out of ambition and greed.
By contrast, Richard had promised that he would rule only to set right the affairs
of his new found kingdom. This is in stark contrast to Matthews general view of
the Earl and his motivations. In 1250, for instance, Matthew reports rumours that
Innocent IV considered promoting him to the Empire of Constantinople, knowing
of his greed and ambition.103 Under the entry for 1252 he reports how Master Albert,
a papal notary, had been sent to England to induce Richard to accept the offer of
the crown of Sicily, knowing that the Earl laboured insatiably, like someone suffer-
ing from dropsy, to acquire riches and temporal dignities.104 The advice given to
and the promise made by Richard at Westminster are also strangely reminiscent of
an earlier, similar episode. Under 1199, Matthew reports how Hubert Walter, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, had addressed King John, warning him that, like Saul
and David, he had been chosen, not because he was closely related to his predecessor,
but because he was the most suitable candidate.105 What exactly this meant is made
clear under the annal for 1216: after King John had failed to honour the promises
made in Magna Carta, the barons decided that he had therefore also failed in his
duties as monarch, and decided to choose Prince Louis of France, the future Louis
VIII, as their King instead.106 Although these passages have to be viewed in the
context of Matthews general hostility towards King John,107 its principles. could
also be applied to Richard in Germany: he had been chosen as the most suitable
candidate. However, should he prove unworthy of his office, as his immediate prede-
cessors had done, he could just as quickly be deposed.
This is more than simply listing allusions and verbal echoes dispersed across the
six volumes of the full edition of the Chronica Maiora. In fact, nearly all the
examples cited can be found within the annals from 1250 to 1257, that is those
passages written down between 1254 and 1258. This, in turn, makes it likely that a
contemporary reader of or listener to Matthew Paris would have recognized what
Matthew was referring to in his account of the Christmas Parliament, and would
have seen how the chronicler used the version of events as it had been passed on
102
William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum: The History of the English Kings, vol. 1, ed. & transl.
R.A.B. Mynors, continued by R.N. Thomson and M. Winterbottom Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1998),
28893; Monika Otter, Inventiones: Fiction and Referentiality in Twelfth-Century English Historical Writing
(Chapel Hill and London, 1996), 97100.
103
104
105
106
107
For a more detailed discussion: V.H. Galbraith, Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris (Glasgow, 1944),
reprinted in his: Kings and Chroniclers (Hambledon, 1982); Beryl Smalley, Historians in the Middle Ages
(New York, 1974), 15983; Ralph V. Turner, King John (London, 1994), 616.
90 B. Weiler
to him by the King and by Richard of Cornwall to mould it into a scathing critique
of Henry IIls own undertakings.
III
Matthews reporting of the events at Westminster in 1256 also allows us to glimpse

his technique, his literary outlook and his understanding of the role and purpose of
writing history. He was trained and schooled in the methods of literary compo-
sition,108 well versed in the classics, knowing Ovid, Vergil, Sallust and Cicero,109
and was an accomplished writer of vernacular hagiography.110 His literary back-
ground and ambitions are beyond doubt and reveal considerable talent. Although his
Latin is sometimes flawed, and his vocabulary limited,111 the structure and forms
along which Matthew ordered his material reveal an author who knew what he
wanted his readers to see, and who knew how to make them see it. However, we
would look in vain for a theological framework of history, an echo of Augustinian
or Joachimite views of the past and of the stages of historical development.112 Mat-
thew was too busy keeping track of the continuous flow of information which he
had to filter and incorporate, explain and order. Although he aimed at including as
much information as he could, Matthew was not planning to be an unprejudiced
recorder of news, a conscious collector of sources and documents, but someone who
wanted to understand and explain the events he described. Even some of his more
bizarre stories and tales are frequently based on real occurrences.113 For instance,
Matthews account of envoys sent by Conrad IV to Richard of Cornwall is probably
108
Vaughan, Matthew Paris, 1289. For the wider background: Erich Auerhach, Literatursprache und Publikum
in der lateinischen Spatantike und im Mittelalter (Bern, 1958), 20510.
109
Miriam Helene Marshal , Thirteenth-century culture as illustrated by Matthew Paris, Speculum, 14 (1939),
46577; Edward Kennard Rand, The Classics in the thirteenth century, Speculum, 4 (1929), 24069. For
the effect of classical literature on medieval biography and historiography in general: B. Smalley, Sallust
in the Middle Ages in: Classical Influences on European Culture, 5001500, ed. R.R. Bolgar, (Cambridge,
197l), 165-75; relevant beyond the immediate chronological scope of its subject: Matthew Innes, The classi-
cal tradition in the Carolingian Renaissance, International Journal for the Classical Tradition, 3 (1997),
26782. Also, with relevance to one of Matthews main sources: Joan Gluckauf Haahr, William of Malmes-
burys Roman models: Suetonius and Lucan, in: The Classics in the Middle Ages, ed. Aldo S. Bernard and
Saul Levin (Binghampton, 1990), 16573.
110
For the library at St Albans and the materials on which Matthew could draw, see R.W. Hunt, The library
of the abbey of St Albans, in: Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts and Libraries. Essays presented to N.R. Ker,
ed. M.B. Parkes and Andrew G. Watson (London, 1978), 25177; Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A
list of Surviving Books, ed. N.R. Ker (London, 1964), 1648, M. Dominica Legge, Anglo-Norman in the
Cloisters. The Influence of the Orders upon Anglo-Norman Literature (Edinburgh, 1950), 2031.
111
112
Hans-Eberhard Hilpert, Zu den Prophetien im Geschichtswerk des Matthaus Paris, Deutsches Archiv fur
Erforschung des Mittelalters, 41 (1985), 17591. cf. However, the case study by Daniel Williams. Matthew
Paris and the thirteenth century prospect of Asia, in: England in the Thirteenth Century: Proceedings of
the 1989 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. W.M. Ormrod (Stamford, 1991), 5167.
113
For some recent case-studies: Sophia Menache, Tartars, Jews, Saracens and the Jewish-Mongol Plot of
1241, History, 81 (1996), 31942; Southern, Robert Grosseteste, 2915; David Carpenter, Matthew Paris
and Henry IIIs Speech at the Exchequer in October 1256, in: his The Reign of Henry III (London, 1996),
13750.
based on an actual embassy received in England in 1253.114 We should therefore

not doubt his sincerity when he protests the truthfulness of his account.115 His misrep-
resentations and inventions were not merely emendations and falsifications, but an
attempt to show what he perceived to be the true nature of the actions and undertak-
ings he recorded. If this meant that he had to add to, amend or change documents
and reports, then this was done in the service of a search for truth and proper under-
standing.116 In many ways, this also reflects the fact that many of Matthews sources
were flawed, or, as in the case of the 1256 Christmas Parliament, propaganda. More
importantly, as I hope to have shown, Matthew himself was aware of this and did
try to look beyond what was being presented to him.
It is this intention which we have to keep in mind when reading the Chronica
Maiora, and it is this intention which also explains so many of the stylistic means
and methods which we have encountered. This should also warn us against viewing
Matthews statements in isolation. As we have seen, even seemingly innocuous
remarks, like his explanation that the Germans chose Richard because of the close
linguistic relation between English and German, have to be handled cautiously and
should be read within the wider context of his narrative. Also, Matthews opinions
develop over time. In 1254, for instance, Robert Grosseteste appears as the saintly
defender of the Church and its liberties, and is called a corrector of monks and
hammer of the Romans.117 When Robert first assumed office, however, his actions
are described in words reminiscent of those later used to depict Innocent IV: when
Robert embarked on regular visitations of the Benedictine houses in his diocese,
which included St Albans, he is vilified as a hammer and persecutor of monks.118
Opinions change. In Roberts case, his opposition to papal encroachment of episcopal
prerogatives outweighed his efforts at manifesting these very prerogatives against
his subordinates. Thus, the favourable coverage received by some has to be viewed
in correlation to the actions and deeds which they are supposed to contrast. This
explains the seeming contradictions we have encountered in the case of Robert Gros-
seteste, and it is the principle on which rests the Chronica Maioras reporting of
Richard and his German career.
If put in its wider context, Matthews account of the Christmas Parliament thus
reveals itself as an integral part of his narrative, and makes visible the structures
along which he ordered and presented his material. The Sicilian Business and the
demands it entailed upon the English Church radicalised Matthews opinions, and
drove him to persistent attacks on the king, his allies and policies. All this came to
bear upon his account of the 1256 Parliament. Although, as we have seen, Richards
election had been intended to whip up support amongst the English barons, to Mat-
thew it presented an opportunity to show how preposterous he thought the Sicilian
114
Calendar of Liberate Rolls, 125160, 114.
115
116
Ruth Morse, Truth and Convention in the Middle Ages, Rhetoric, Representation, and Reality (Cambridge,
1991), for the wider background.
117
118
92 B. Weiler
Business to he. Whereas Henry had embarked upon the conquest of Sicily driven
by papal greed, against the will of the regnos inhabitants, and lacking support both
at home and abroad, Richard had been chosen spontaneously, willingly and unani-
mously. Matthew certainly reflected Richards propaganda. However, he had not
fallen for Henrys announcement of imminent success in Sicily, nor for the attempted
parallels between the Earl of Cornwalls election as King of the Romans, and Prince
Edmunds designation as king of Sicily. To him, the very argument put forth to
justify Henrys involvement in Apulia revealed the emptiness of his claims.
Acknowledgements
A version of this paper has been read at the conference on Political, Cultural and
Religious Interaction in Thirteenth Century Europe, held at St Andrews in July 1998.
I would like to thank Rob Bartlett, Michael Clanchy, and Christoph Egger for their
comments and suggestions, and Haki Antonsson for reading through earlier drafts.

Weiler - Paris

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weiler - Paris

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen]

On: 14 May 2012, At: 04:57

Journal of Medieval History

Matthew Paris, Richard of Cornwall's

Available online: 03 Jan 2012

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4181(99)00008-1

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Matthew Paris, Richard of Cornwalls candidacy for the

During a parliament meeting at Christmas 1256 at Westminster, important news

needed to whip up support.

English requests for a cardinal to be sent to Germany to oversee the election,12 a

Although it is therefore difficult to uphold an interpretation of the Christmas Par-

intended to conduct with his brothers support is illuminated by another letter, in

of the events at Westminster, Richard of Cornwalls seneschal visited the abbey,51

Matthew Paris the propagandist at work, amending and restructuring reports he

anecdotes which could easily bc discarded.58 Objective fact could be extracted by

his saintly predecessors. What exactly happened to Innocent, Matthew continues, he

Matthews reporting of the events at Westminster in 1256 also allows us to glimpse

based on an actual embassy received in England in 1253.114 We should therefore

You might also like