Matthew Paris and the Chronica Majora: A Useful Source for the Reign Henry III?
Matthew Paris has been referred to by historians such as Vivian H. Galbraith, Simon Lloyd, and Rebecca Reader as a ‘genius’, and ‘one of the most prolific and wide-ranging historians of his time’ when commenting on Paris’ eleven chronicles and hagiographies, two histories, and other works (Galbraith, 1982, p. 14; Lloyd and Reader, 2010). Historians have long debated the usefulness of Paris’ works for historians of King Henry III, with earlier scholars such as Richard Vaughan and V. H. Galbraith who criticised the accuracy of Matthew Paris and his role as a historian, rather than a thirteenth century chronicler (Vaughan, 1958, p. 134; Carpenter, 2026, pp. 32-3). More recent scholars such as Björn Weiler, David Carpenter, and Nathan Greasley have attempted to provide a more nuanced view of the works of Matthew Paris, and suggest that his usefulness extends far beyond what Vaughan and Galbraith have previously claimed (Weiler, 2019, pp. 319-338; Weiler, 2009, pp. 254-278; Carpenter, 2026; Greasley, 2021).
This essay will discuss the utility and restrictions of Matthew Paris’s works through the following lenses. Firstly, his workspace at St Alban’s being the centre of pilgrims, royal officials and other people feeding information and gossip from Henry’s court and abroad into Matthew’s chronicles (Vaughan, 1958, pp. 4 and 13-7). Some notable informants include Richard, earl of Cornwall, and Henry III himself. Secondly, his attendance at important royal events such as the translation of the Holy Blood relic at Westminster in 1247, meaning that some of his annals were first-hand accounts (Matthew Paris, 1877, pp. 644-645). On the other hand the errors that Matthew makes in his works, his limited coverage of Henry’s reign, and his prejudices against Henry himself, and his foreign advisors limit the accuracy and therefore usefulness of Matthew Paris as a source for historians studying the reign of Henry III.
It is of use to first look at the career of Matthew Paris at St. Albans and his compilations during life. The survival of Matthew Paris’ chronicles is remarkable and offers useful copies of now-lost letters and documents. Throughout his career he produced several works, including the Gesta Abbatum (a history of St Albans abbots), and Vitae for Offa I and II, Edmund Rich, Stephen Langton of Canterbury, Edward the Confessor, St Alban, Thomas Becket, and St Edmund of Canterbury. Works that are relevant here, include primarily the Chronica Majora, the largest of his works, which runs to about 3,500 pages; also the Flores Historiarum; the Historia Anglorum; and finally the Abbreviatio Chronicorum (Weiler, 2009, p. 255; Vaughan, 1958, p. 108). Before Matthew began writing in c. 1240, Roger of Wendover, another St Albans scribe, had compiled the Flores Historiarum, which formed the basis of the earlier parts of the Chronica Majora (pre-1236) (Greasley, 2021, p. 231). This is important to note because the first section of the Chronica Majora (the annals up to early 1236) was based upon Roger’s Flores Historiarum, and therefore, not technically Matthew’s own work. Nathan Greasley argues that the middle section of the Chronica, that is the annals from 1236 to 1250 was ‘Matthew’s own compilation’, which was then continued into a third part from 1251 to 1259 (Greasley, 2021, p. 231). Between 1250-1255, Matthew wrote his own Flores Historiarum, which covered the years 1066-1249, and was ‘in the main abridged from the Chronica’, though some alterations were made as this version of the Chronica was ‘written specially for Westminster’, according to Richard Vaughan (Vaughan, 1958, p. 108). At the same time, Matthew compiled Historia Anglorum, which was also likely to have been abridged from the Chronica. His final work was the Abbreviato Chronicorum, was likely to have been compiled after 1255, and is abridged from both the Historia Anglorum and the Chronica Majora, for the years 1000-1250 (Vaughan, 1958, p. 114). This essay will primarily analyse the Chronica Majora as it formed the foundation for Matthew’s other works on Henry III’s reign. Focusing on this key text provides historical insights into events and Matthew’s portrayal of Henry III across his writings, such as the translation of the Holy Blood relic at Westminster in 1247 and Matthew Paris’ disapproval of foreigners at Henry III’s court.
Matthew Paris’s Chronica is extremely useful for historians studying Henry III’s reign. Its importance partially stems from Matthew’s location. St Albans Abbey was a hub of spiritual life and ecclesiastical affairs in thirteenth century Hertfordshire, as it was well-situated for travellers, pilgrims, and high-status political figures, including the king (Biddle and Kirkpatrick, 2024, pp. 2-3; Probert, 2023, p. 6). This proximity meant that accounts and information easily reached the abbey, especially as it was just twenty-one miles from London. Which, with calculations taken from Philip Harrison and Mark Brayshay’s Post-horse Routes, Royal Progresses and Government Communications in the Reign of James I’, was probably just over a five-hour ride, assuming the party was travelling at a constant speed of 4mph (Harrison and Brayshay, 1997, p. 118). According to Richard Vaughan, Simon Lloyd, and Rebecca Reader, Henry III visited St Albans nine times between 1220 and 1259, staying an average of four days per visit (Vaughan, 1958, pp. 12-3; Lloyd and Reader, 2010). Matthew wrote that Henry III visited St Albans in March 1257 and was ‘constantly with the man who wrote these things [Matthew Paris] at the table, in the palace, and in the chamber, he [Henry] directed the writer’s pen quite diligently and amicably’ (‘Et continuavit ibidem moram hebdomadalem, et cum esset cum ipso continue in mensa, in palatio, et in thalamo qui haec scripsit, direxit scribentis calamum satis diligenter et amicabiliter’) (Matthew Paris, 1872, p. 617). These visits fostered somewhat of a relationship between Henry and Matthew, providing opportunities for discussion where Henry would describe insights that Matthew included in his Chronica. For example, on this visit, Henry told Matthew the list of the canonised kings of England, which Matthew then wrote down in his Chronica (Vaughan, 1958, p. 4).
This intimate scene offers historians a rare glimpse into Henry III’s character, which other chroniclers lack. Henry appeared to like Matthew, though it is possible he used Matthew to record what he personally wanted to be documented, in order to secure a legacy of great kingship and regality and, according to James G. Clark, he was relatively successful (Clark, et al., 2026). Even so, it is worth considering why Henry wanted certain details in the Chronica. For instance, the list of canonised English kings could reflect a deliberate attempt by Henry to highlight his legitimacy through royal and holy blood connections. Nevertheless, for historians studying Henry’s reign, Matthew’s work is invaluable due to his relatively close relationship with the king. Henry shared personal views and events with Matthew, offering insights that may be the closest modern-day historians get to speaking to Henry themselves. This makes the source precious for understanding Henry’s character and potential motives behind his decisions.
As mentioned, Henry III was not Matthew’s only informant. Notable figures such as Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King Haakon IV of Norway, royal councillors, and ecclesiastical figures also provided important news and gossip. Some of these figures, such as Richard, earl of Cornwall are known to have visited and stayed at St Albans during the time that Matthew Paris was writing, sometimes visiting more than once. This resulted in ‘a direct and personal means for the transmission of documentary material’, some of which only survive in Matthew’s Chronica, as well as other news and gossip from Henry’s court and abroad (Lloyd and Reader, 2010). These provide different viewpoints of the reign of Henry III, as well as events occurring abroad, which is extremely important when studying the wider picture of Henry’s reign as it pulls together contemporary opinions both for and against Henry being regarded as a good monarch (Phillips, 2017, p. 79). Though this is useful, it is also important to note the problems with such information. As Simon Lloyd and Rebecca Reader have written, ‘they fed his [Matthew’s] voracious appetite for information, some naturally hoping that he would repay his debt in appropriate fashion by means of his pen.’ (Lloyd and Reader, 2010). As mentioned above with Henry, it is important to recognise that these informants may have distorted the truth to enhance their own reputation or discredit their enemies. However, this does not imply that Matthew’s accounts are false- only that historians should approach his works with caution. Despite this, Matthew’s Chronica remains, as Björn Weiler has written, ‘one of the most important surviving documents for the history of Latin Europe during Matthew’s lifetime’ (Weiler, 2009, pp. 254-5).
While Matthew relied on outside sources, he also sometimes witnessed events firsthand. For instance, on 13 October 1247 (on the feast of Edward the Confessor), he wrote his observations of the translation of the Holy Blood relic at Westminster. He explicitly tells the reader:
“And while the king, as had been foretold, was sitting in his royal seat, seeing him who had written these things [Matthew], he called him and ordered him to sit on the step that was halfway between his seat and the floor, saying to him […] ‘I therefore beg and, by supplication, I command that you, that by writing all these things down, may be indelibly committed to memory in this book be expressly and fully written down, lest the memory of them be erased in any way in the future by any age’’ (‘Et dum rex, ut prælibatum est, sederet in sede sua regia, videns illum que et hæc scripsit, advocavit eum, et præcepit residere in gradu qui erat medius inter sedile suum et aream, dicens ei […] ‘Supplico igitur et supplicando præcipio, ut te expresse et plenarie scribente hæc omnia scripto notabili indelebiliter libro commendentur, ne horum memoria aliqua vetustate quomodolibet in posterum deleatur’) (Paris, Laurd, 1877, pp. 644-645).”
Thus, Matthew tells historians that he writes for accuracy and truth, however, as shall be discussed, this was not done to the expectations of the modern historian. Matthew was asked to perform the same task by Richard of Cornwall in November 1251, who requested a truthful account of the dedication of Hailes Abbey in Gloucester (Lloyd and Reader, 2010). Due to these ‘honest’ accounts V. H. Galbraith remarked that Matthew’s ‘honesty and industry have made Henry III the most understandable of our medieval kings’ (Galbraith, 1982, p.125). The motives of Henry and Richard are clear: Henry sought to emphasise his ties to Edward the Confessor, while Richard likely aimed to present himself as a pious man, securing both his legacy and his place in Heaven. This is extremely useful for historians as it illustrates the ideologies and purpose behind religious ceremonies led by key political figures during Henry’s reign. Through Matthew’s writing, historians may also be able to unpick what this meant to spectators, and its significance and symbolism to the wider audience of contemporaries.
It is likely that Matthew left St. Albans more often than he suggests, as ‘the detail and vividness of his descriptions of some other events, along with the long list of contacts and informants that he acknowledges, suggests strongly that he was more frequently absent from St Albans, meeting members of the English social elite and attending ceremonial gatherings of the court, than he himself reveals’ (Lloyd and Reader, 2010). For example, between 1248-1249, he was sent by Pope Innocent IV to Norway on an ecclesiastical mission to Norway and acted as a messenger between King Hákon and King Louis IX of France (Lloyd and Reader, 2010). Furthermore, he may have been present at the marriage of Henry’s daughter Margaret to King Alexander III of Scotland in 1251 (Lloyd and Reader, 2010). Although Matthew does not always specify how he obtained all of his accounts and information- whether through personal experience or second-hand accounts- this does not diminish the usefulness and value of these sources to historians studying the reign of Henry III.
Despite the importance of the Chronica Majora, historians must be mindful of its limitations as a source. Matthew is known by historians for his prejudices, occasional errors, and shifting opinions, revising his works multiple times towards the end of his life (Lloyd and Reader, 2010; Weiler, 2009, pp. 269-70; Carpenter, 2026, pp. 14-5). His accounts also vary across his other works, such as the Historia Anglorum and the Flores Historiarum. Although his mistakes can be frustrating for historians, they were made through ‘plain carelessness rather than wilful adulteration’ (Lloyd and Reader, 2010; Weiler, 2009, p. 272). This then raises the question of accuracy- can historians fully trust his accounts? Unfortunately, evidence does not allow historians to confidently reach a firm conclusion. As David Carpenter suggested, this is merely because there is a lack of research covering Matthew’s Chronica between the years 1234 and 1259 in terms of accuracy (Carpenter, 2026, p. 37). Comparing the Chronica with multiple other contemporary sources may help determine accuracy of Matthew’s accounts though.
Historians who have examined Matthew Paris’s accuracy have often been critical. Scholars such as Richard Vaughan, Simon Lloyd, Rebecca Reader, H. R. Luard, A. J. Collins, and J. C. Holt considered him unreliable due to errors and tampering of documents such as Magna Carta (Lloyd and Reader, 2010; Holt, 1964, p. 68, Vaughan, 1958, p. 32). For historians, this is something that needs to be taken into consideration when studying Matthew Paris’s sources. One example of his carelessness is his misdating of Henry III’s visit to St. Albans. He wrote:
“And in the same year [1251], namely, on the octave of the birth of the blessed Virgin [15th September], the Lord King came to Saint Albans’ (‘Eodemque anno, in octavis scilicet nativitatis beatæ Virginis, venit dominus rex apud Sanctum Albanum’) (Matthew Paris, 1872, p 257). ”
Yet, according to Carpenter, Henry’s itinerary suggests that Henry actually visited St Albans in late August, between the 28th and the 30th (Carpenter, 2026, p. 37). Though historians such as Vaughan criticise Matthew for mistakes such as these, one must remember as Weiler has rightly argued, there is ‘ample evidence to show that Matthew did indeed try very hard to find authoritative and trustworthy information’, and he also is believed to have taken note of new information as he received it in order to reduce mistakes and inaccuracies (Weiler, 2009, p. 258; Vaughan, 1958, p. 9). Although errors in dating and interpretation raise concerns about the Chronica’s reliability, they do not render it useless. By cross-referencing with other contemporary sources, historians can still extract valuable insights into Henry III’s reign and thirteenth century Britain.
Another indispensable limitation of Matthew Paris as a contemporary source for Henry III’s reign is the fact that his own work that he produced himself only covers twenty-four years of Henry’s reign between 1236-1259 (Galbraith, 1982, p. 24). Henry’s reign spanned a huge fifty-six years from 1216 until his death in 1272, meaning that Matthew Paris missed the last thirteen years of Henry’s reign, thus providing no account for civil war between 1263-1267, and political instability of his personal rule in his final years.
As mentioned previously, Matthew’s work is, in many ways, shaped by his prejudices, particularly his xenophobic views, which influence his portrayal of Henry III and his governance. Although Matthew may have been close to Henry at times, especially during the king’s visits to St Albans, this did not prevent him from voicing his criticisms. While his commentary offers insight into contemporary opinions of Henry, Matthew Paris was, as Galbraith described, extravagant in his prejudices and his works suffer from the ‘constant intrusion of his own personality’ (Galbraith, 1982, p. 13). For example when describing the ‘Sicilian Business’, Matthew portrays Henry as simple, and that Pope Innocent IV took advantage of his simplicity (‘simplicitatem ejus circumveniret’) because ‘he knew that he seemed prone and credulous to his own harm’, offered him the kingdom of Sicily and Apulia (Matthew Paris, 1872, p. 457; Powicke, 1947, pp. 347 and 370). Furthermore, to add to these insults, Matthew blames Henry for turning his men from:
“their main purpose, namely that they should not cross over to the Holy Land, but that they should all in common follow the king of England, and help him to obtain Sicily and Apulia’ (‘Retorqueret enim omnes erucesignatos a principali eorum proposito, videlicet ne transfretarent in Terram Sactam, sed omnes communiter regem Angliæsequerentur, et juvarent Siciliam et Apuliam adepturum’) (Matthew Paris, 1872, p. 457).”
This account is not only a criticism of Henry’s character and governance, but also that of Pope Innocent IV. While it provides valuable insight into contemporary English perspectives on Henry’s decision, it is heavily biased and distorts the full picture. Unfortunately, this is not the only time that Matthew does this in his works, as written by Lloyd and Reader, ‘Paris found intrusion of private thought and prejudices upon his works remarkably easy’, thus limiting the usefulness of his Chronica for historians studying Henry’s reign, as ‘Henry suffered a barrage of criticisms, ranging from poor financial management to cowardice and self-indulgence’ (Lloyd and Reader, 2010). This is all evident in the Sicily account: financial mismanagement in agreeing to pay for Sicily, cowardice in using Sicily as a distraction from his duty to the Holy Land (in Matthew’s view), and self-indulgence in pursuing Sicily while also attempting to reclaim Gascony and other French territories (Powicke, 1947, pp. 370-1).
Another frequent target of Matthew’s criticism, rooted in his prejudices and xenophobia, is Henry’s reliance on foreign advisors- a point highlighted by historians such as Lloyd, Reader, Vaughan, Weiler, and Carpenter (Lloyd and Reader, 2010; Vaughan, 1958, p. 142; Weiler, 2009, pp. 269-270; Carpenter, 2026, p. 39). On numerous occasions, Matthew blames Henry and his foreign advisors for problems in England; one notable example being Matthew’s account of the great council at Westminster palace in 1237. According to Matthew, the English barons attacked Henry’s governance, declaring that:
“it would be unworthy of them, and injurious to allow a king, who was so easily led astray’ brought the kingdom of England ‘under the rule of foreigners, to so often extort so much money from them [the English], his natural subjects, as though they were slaves of the lowest degree, to their own loss and to the advantage of foreigners’ (Hutton, 1913, p. 22).”
This was likely a reference to the Poitevins, Provençals, and Savoyards- relatives of Queen Eleanor- who gained influence in Henry’s court after their marriage in 1236 (Vaughan, 1958, p. 142).
Historians have debated the origins of Matthew’s xenophobia. Vaughan attributed it to his monastic background and national identity, while Reader and Lloyd argued that ‘Paris’s xenophobia did not feed upon ride patriotism’ (Lloyd and Reader, 2010, Vaughan, 1958, p. 141). A more modern interpretation, and one that seems most likely is argued by Weiler: it was an expression of contemporary fears of the ‘wider world […] threatening to engulf the realm of England’ (Weiler, 2009, pp. 254-278). Ultimately, as Weiler argues, these prejudices ‘shines a light on fundamental moral failings: undue foreign influence, papal corruption, moneylending, and a refusal to take counsel’ (Weiler, 2019, p. 320). While these factors limit the usefulness of Matthew’s sources for historians studying the reign of Henry III, it opens up a better understanding of contemporary fears and thoughts on government and the wider world in general, which is vital when understanding England in the thirteenth century.
To conclude, Matthew Paris’s Chronica Majora is a pivotally important source for any historian studying the reign of King Henry III of England. Matthew’s connections to Henry through St. Albans Abbey bleeds valuable information into the pages of Matthew’s manuscripts. His connections with other informants including Richard, Earl of Cornwall, also provides differing perspectives of Henry’s reign, which is extremely useful to historians. Furthermore, Matthew’s own ability to attend certain events himself, such as the translation of the Holy Blood relic, and write somewhat reliable accounts is immensely important. Though, as mentioned, it is also necessary to be aware of his limitations as a source. Naturally, the most limiting factor is the fact that Matthew’s sources only cover up to 1259, excluding the final thirteen years of Henry’s reign, and thus providing no information for reign-shaping events such as the Second Baron’s War. Moreover, Matthew’s extreme prejudices, xenophobia, and occasional errors in his work, lessen his reliability as a source. However, regardless of these limitations, Matthew Paris’s Chronica Majora remains an essential source when studying the reign of Henry III, if it is used with caution, critically, and alongside other contemporary sources. Ultimately, one must agree with Björn Weiler because when used properly and cautiously, Matthew Paris’s Chronica Majora remains ‘one of the most important surviving documents for the history of Latin Europe during Matthew’s lifetime’ (Weiler, 2009, pp. 254-5).
Bibliography
Paris, Matthew. Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Majora, edited by H. R. Luard, vol. 4. London: Longman & Co., 1877.
Paris, Matthew. Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Majora, edited by H. R. Luard, vol. 5. London: Longman & Co., 1872.
Carpenter, David. ‘Matthew Paris and the Chronica maiora: Chronology, Truth and the Crisis of 1258’. In The Cambridge Companion to Matthew Paris, edited by J. G. Clark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2026.
Clark, J. G. ‘Matthew Paris and the Plantagenet Regime’. In The Cambridge Companion to Matthew Paris, edited by J. G. Clark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2026.
Galbraith, V. H. Kings and Chroniclers: Essays in English Medieval History. London: Hambledon Press, 1982.
Greasley, N. ‘Revisiting the Compilation of Matthew Paris’s Chronica Majora: New Textual and Manuscript Evidence’. Journal of Medieval History. 47, no. 2 (2021): 230-256.
Harrison, P., and M. Brayshay. ‘Post-horse Routes, Royal Progresses and Government Communications in the Reign of James I’. The Journal of Transport History. 18, no. 2 (1997): 116-133.
Holt, J. C. ‘The St Albans Chroniclers and Magna Carta’. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 14 (1964): 67-88.
Hutton, W. H. The Misrule of Henry III. London: Kessinger Publishing, 1913.
Lloyd, S., and R. Reader. ‘Matthew Paris (c. 1200-1259)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. online edn, https://www-oxforddnb-com.bangor.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-21268?rskey=m0HfiN&result=2 (accessed 13/03/2026).
Phillips, Katie. ‘Devotion by Donation: the Alms-Giving and Religious Foundations of Henry III’. Reading Medieval Studies. 43 (2017): 79-98.
Powicke, F. M. King Henry III and the Lord Edward: The Community of the Realm in the Thirteenth Century, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947.
Probert, A. ‘Richard Fox of St Albans: The Life, Work, and Connections of a Fifteenth-Century Chronicler’ Medievalista. 34 (2023): 229-251.
Vaughan, R. Matthew Paris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.
Weiler, B. ‘Historical Writing in Medieval Britain: The Case of Matthew Paris’. In Medieval Historical Writing: Britain and Ireland, 500-1500, edited by J. Jaher, E. Steiner, and E. M. Tyler. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Weiler, B. ‘Matthew Paris on the Writing of History’. Journal of Medieval History. 35 (2009): 254-278.