The Altered Perspective of Thomas Walsingham’s Symbol of Normandy 1

Christopher Guyol

Near the end of a long career as the official chronicler of St. Albans, Thomas Walsingham (c. 1340–c. 1422) compiled a chronicle dedi- cated to the victorious Henry V (1386/7–1422). This work, the Symbol of Normandy (c. 1419), appears to be a fitting gift from an abbey known for its monastic histories, which makes it all the more strange that Walsing- ham avoided his predecessor’s works when compiling the Symbol. In the place of chronicles by St. Albans’ monks such as William Rishanger (1250– c. 1312), (c. 1200–1259), and Roger of Wendover (d. 1236), one finds narratives composed beyond the walls of Walsingham’s monas- tery, written by the likes of (c. 1257–c. 1334), Ralph Diceto (d. 1199/1200), and William of Jumiéges (c. 1000–c. 1070). Walsingham’s choice to abandon works composed at his house, and to revise his own narrative of Ricardian events, can be readily explained: justifications for rebellion voiced by many St. Albans historians were not deemed suitable for a royal audience. While previous chroniclers once conceived of the royal will as justly limited by the need for representative consent, within the Symbol of Normandy limitations placed upon the king are tied to the subversion of right order.2 Only after Walsingham’s death was a differ- ent version of his chronicle compiled, likely for a monastic audience. Known today as the Historia Anglicana (c. 1422), this manuscript returns,

1 following Antonia Gransden, the chronicle published as the Ypodigma Neustriae has been translated as The Symbol of Normandy for the purpose of this paper. 2 The surprisingly royalist tone of Walsingham’s Lancastrian chronicles is noted in A. Gransden, Historical Writings in (2 vols., Ithaca, 1974), vol. 2, p. 136. The drastic differences between the Ricardian and Lancastrian narratives might lead readers to sus- pect that Thomas Walsingham was not the author of each account. However, this essay will be working with the assumption that, stylistically, the two accounts are too similar to have been written by different authors. For an excellent presentation of this argument, see the editors’ introduction to T. Walsingham, The St. Albans Chronicle Volume 1: 1376–1395, ed. J. Taylor, W.R. Childs, and L. Watkiss, (Oxford, 2003), pp. xlii–xlvi. 190 christopher guyol after the glow of Agincourt had faded, to the dissent-filled histories of St. Albans’ past.3 The discrepancies between the Historia Anglicana and Symbol of Nor- mandy require today’s historians to ask difficult questions when drawing upon either work. To what extent do the differences between these two chronicles reflect the concerns of the author’s royal and monastic audi- ences? Did Walsingham’s fear of disendowment lead him to convince Henry V, through the Symbol of Normandy, of the need for a strong asser- tion of personal authority? Did awareness of an image-conscious Lan- castrian audience drive him to downplay still-cherished justifications for dissent, later manifest in the Historia Anglicana? In order to address these questions, this essay will first illustrate the differences between concep- tions of royal authority in the Symbol of Normandy and Historia Anglicana. Subsequently, these discrepancies will be related to the evolving material concerns of the monastery of St. Albans, from Matthew Paris’ fear of royal and papal exactions to Thomas Walsingham’s fear of and disen- dowment. Finally, the significance of a shift in the conveyed conception of royal authority will be discussed, in so far as Walsingham’s histories relate to the more modern idea of Lancastrian ‘constitutionalism’. It will be argued that Walsingham’s choice to present the Symbol of Normandy as a royalist history was made with his own monastery’s material and ideological concerns in mind, and that the positive view of authority that resulted is consistent with Henry V’s own propaganda. This interpreta- tion of Walsingham’s work implies that the author engaged in a conscious project of self-censorship, a conclusion that has troubling implications for historians who rely upon Walsingham’s histories when judging the popu- larity of an orthodox Lancastrian regime.

Rebellion in a Changing History of Royal Authority

According to an early St. Albans tradition, the rebellion of Simon de Montfort (1208–1265) is clearly the fault of Henry III (1207–1272). The earl, always the king’s loyal servant, cannot but help to valiantly intervene

3 Walsingham, The St. Albans Chronicle Volume 1: 1376–1395, pp. cxi–cxii; T. Walsingham, Thomae Walsingham, Quondam Monachi S. Albani, Historia Anglicana (2 vols., London, 1863–1864), vol. 1, p. 1. The Historia Anglicana, although it does not contain Paris’ work, was clearly meant to be a continuation of the chronicle of Matthew Paris. Specifically, the chronicle was written from the time of Henry III, ‘in quo vera illa et fidelis Matthaei Parisii Historia desiit’.