All we really know about him, is that he made his profession as a monk of St. Alban’s on the 21st January, 1217, and that nineteen years afterwards, that is to say in 1236, he was appointed to succeed Wendover as chronographer to the abbey, in which capacity he must have been busily occupied till his death, or at least for about seventeen years, with one remarkable interruption. In 1248 he was sent by the Pope on a special mission to the monks of Holm, in Norway, but returned after an absence of eighteen months and resumed his duties in the abbey. His death must have occurred between the years 1253 and 1259.

  His History is unpartially and judiciously written (save where he indulgeth too much to monkish Miracles and Visions); and no Writer so plainly discovereth the pride, avarice, and rapine of the Court of Rome, so that he seldome “kisseth the Pope’s toe without biting it.” Nor have the Papists any way to wave his true jeeres, but by suggesting, hæc non ab ipso scripta, serf ab aliis falsò illi ascripta; insinuating a suspicion of forgery in his last edition; understand then in what some 80 years since was set forth by Matthew Parker; whereas it was done with all integrity, according to the best and most ancient Manuscripts, wherein all those Anti-papal passages plainly appear, as since in a latter and exacter Edition, by the care and industry of Dr. William Watts. This Matthew left off living and writing at the same time, viz. anno 1259. I will only adde, that though he had sharp nailes, he had clean hands; strict in his own, as well as striking at the loose conversations of others; and, for his eminent austerity, was employed by Pope Innocent the Fourth, not only to visit the Monkes in the Diocess of Norwich, but also was sent by him into Norway, to reform the discipline in Holui, a fair Convent therein, but much corrupted.

  A work wherein its author has condensed all that former writers had said about the times that preceded, and to which all succeeding writers must have recourse for the history of the period in which its author lived.

  For sincerity of narration, truth of colouring, and extent of information, the “Historia Major” may be justly deemed as valuable a work, as this or any other age had produced. Though Matthew Paris were not the sole author, yet he made it his own; and as he is chargeable with its defects, he is entitled to the praise due to its excellence. If we except, perhaps, the two Williams of Malmesbury and Neuburg; the most Latin of our Latin historiographers is the monk of St. Alban’s. His style, however, is unequal. It is sometimes remarkable for its spirit or its elegance: and at others for its inflation, or its insipidity; or in other words, it is ever in unison with the character of the age. What is most singular in him, redounds much to his praise. He was ever a warm advocate for justice and for truth; whilst abuses, of every description, and from whatever quarter they might proceed, provoked his inexorable enmity. His humour has been thought too severe and caustic: Trojan and Tyrian equally smart under his lash; and it is with strong approbation we see, that when monk, prelate, prince, emperor, or pope, has incurred his displeasure, that is, has deviated from what, in his apprehension, was the line of rectitude; he is unreserved in his censure, and his language is that of vigour and intrepidity. Those who have been too servilely devoted to the Roman court, have blamed this undaunted freedom of the English monk, whom they represent as ill-affected towards their bishop; and have seized with avidity every opportunity of aspersing his fame, vilifying his conduct, exposing his councils, and loading him with invective. “Take from the work,” says the learned Baronius, “these fatal blemishes; and I will call it a golden volume, admirably compiled from authentic documents, and faithfully reporting their contents.”

  Matthew Paris, however in some respects not an absolutely trustworthy authority for events which happened out of England, is the best unquestionably for the rumours and impressions prevalent in Christendom,—rumours, which as rumours, and showing the state of the public mind, are not to be disdained by history.

  Matthew Paris is the greatest, as he in reality is the last, of our monastic historians. The school of St. Alban’s survived indeed till a far later time, but its writers dwindle into mere annalists whose view is bounded by the abbey precincts and whose work is as colourless as it is jejune. In Matthew the breadth and precision of the narrative, the copiousness of his information on topics whether national or European, the general fairness and justice of his comments, are only surpassed by the patriotic fire and enthusiasm of the whole.

  Matthew Paris is among the very best of mediæval historians. His style is vivid and picturesque, and his book gives us a series of brilliant criticisms on the men and events of his time. He is honest in purpose, a lover of truth, a keen observer, and, on the whole, just, though occasionally he gives vent to violent expressions when he feels ecclesiastical interests are at stake. He is practically the only authority for the years of Henry’s reign between 1248 and 1253, and he shows much knowledge of contemporary affairs in the Empire, France, and Rome. He is, as a rule, quite trustworthy, far more so than the forerunners in his school. Where parallel authorities exist they bear out his truthfulness, and recent investigations have in every case confirmed it. He is even more fearless than Wendover in his outspoken blame of those who deserve it, no matter what their position in society.

  He writes clearly and correctly, with much force and picturesque power, and gives many details…. The freshness of his narrative is partly due to the frankness with which he wrote, and partly also to his habit of collecting information from eye-witnesses of the events that he relates…. His narrative may be accepted as thoroughly accurate, though in so large a work as his greater chronicle some slips of course occur.

  He was a much more enthusiastic politician than any of the writers who preceded him; besides being more outspoken in criticism; though he says,—“The case of historical writers is hard. If they will tell the truth, they offend men; if they write what is false, they offend God.” Intensely patriotic, he displays a strong bias against foreign favourites, and has little to say in praise of kings and popes, as a class. He lived in a period when his country was beginning to taste the sweets of liberty; the consummation of which was yet to be struggled for. As an Englishman, he groans under the humiliation and is indignant at the wrongs then endured; and he writes sharp and bitter things.