The St Albans Chronicle: The Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham, Vol. II: 1394–1422 (review)

Chronicle-writing in later medieval England was dominated by the Benedictine abbey of St. Albans. Initiated by Roger of Wendover and then continued by Matthew Paris, this rich tradition was revitalized in the later years of the fourteenth century by Thomas Walsingham (c. 1340–c. 1420). Throughout his long affiliation with St. Albans, Walsingham produced a large contemporary history, the Chronica maiora, covering events from 1376 to 1422. At the same time the St. Albans scriptorium also produced an abridged version of this text, the so-called Short Chronicle. These histories were written contemporaneously with the events they describe, and circulated in numerous overlapping and often repetitive drafts. Owing to this complex manuscript tradition, versions of both the longer and shorter histories appeared in several clumsily edited Rolls Series editions published in the 1860s and 1870s. The first sustained effort to correct the errors in the Rolls Series editions was made by Vivian H. Galbraith, with his edition of The St Albans Chronicle 1406–1420 (Oxford, 1937). Galbraith’s groundbreaking work was continued by his student, the late John Taylor, whose comprehensive understanding of fourteenth-century chronicles was unparalled. Together with Wendy Childs and Leslie Watkiss, Taylor has edited the portion of the Chronica maiora extending from 1376 to 1394 in volume I (2002). Now, with the appearance of volume II (1394–1422), the editors have at long last provided scholars with a single, unified text of this important chronicle.

In their lengthy introduction the editors address several interrelated problems associated with the Chronica maiora. After deftly disentangling the complex manuscript tradition conveying versions of both the Chronica maiora and the Short Chronicle, the editors explain their rationale for basing this edition primarily on Bodley MS 462, collated with two related manuscripts, Faustina B. IX, and CCCC 7 (2). The editors next explore the knotty problem of authorship. Although in their estimation Walsingham was the sole author of the narrative extending from 1376 to 1393 (found in BL, Royal MS 13. E. IX), alterations in both the manuscript tradition and the narrative style in the later segment from 1394 to 1422 raise the possibility of multiple authorship. After noting that “evidence of his participation in the writing of this part of chronicle is hard to come by” (p. xlii), the editors then note that Walsingham “remains . . . in all probability, the sole author of the Chronica maiora” (p. xlvi). The editors then turn their attention to the character of the narrative and its historical value. The narrative focuses on the last years of King Richard II’s reign, whose “actions are portrayed in a uniformly unfavourable light” (p. liv). This is especially evident in the extended narrative concerning Richard’s deposition and the accession of King Henry IV, where extensive reliance on the Record and Process betrays a clear Lancastrian bias. For its account of the Lancastrian regime the Chronica maiora provides important and in many places unique versions of principal events, especially concerning King Henry V’s campaigns in France and the Lollard movement.

Thanks to the editors’ expertise, scholars are now availed of the full narrative, with English translation, of the St. Albans chronicle extending from 1376 to 1422. All the same, because many of the editors’ interpretations advert to the views expressed by Galbraith in the 1930s, a few of which have been challenged—if not overturned—by subsequent scholarship, some of their conclusions do not necessarily represent the final word. Thus, the editors’ observations regarding the dating, sequencing, and relationships among the several manuscripts conveying both the Chronica maiora and the Short Chronicle are not altogether convincing. It is not altogether clear, for instance, whether Walsingham (assuming he was the sole author) first compiled the Chronica maiora, and then subsequently drafted an abridged version—or vice versa. Nor is the...