ABSTRACT

Among the historians of the twelfth century, Godfrey of Viterbo is commonly considered to be an outsider. A savant cleric, chaplain and notary at the court of Conrad III (1138–52), Frederick I Barbarossa (1152–90) and the young king Henry VI (1190–97), he wrote a number of Latin chronicles, partly in verse and partly in prose, after his retirement from active court service. These universal chronicles were intended both to instruct and entertain their audience among the high nobility of the empire. For this purpose Godfrey mixed his historical narrative, derived from a great variety of sources, with numerous stories of – as we consider it today – imaginary content. Due to this at times confused mixture of historical events and fables, Godfrey’s works were criticized for their lack of factual accuracy by scholars, especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, who estimated his historical writings to be at best of literary interest. 1 In their view the author of the Pantheon and several other historical works dedicated to Henry VI and his father Frederick I was a mere compiler, not concerned with contemporary political problems or even aware of concepts of power and authority in general. 2 But only a few years ago, efforts were made to show the absence of specific ideas on the German Empire and the universal sovereignty of its rulers in the author’s mind. 3 Nevertheless, Godfrey had probably been involved in the political affairs and decisions of the Hohenstaufen rulers. As ambassador and diplomat in the emperor’s service, he was intimately familiar with other European courts of nobility as well as with religious and ecclesiastical institutions including the papal curia. Furthermore, he is thought to have been an important ‘architect’ of Hohenstaufen political propaganda. 4 But did Godfrey’s writings exert any influence on the perpetuation and transmission of imperial rule at all? And if so, what sort of influence might it have been? What possible interests could the court of Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI otherwise have had in Godfrey’s historical works? Even though a conclusive analysis may not be possible here, these questions will be examined in this chapter.