This work is a long-awaited and welcome addition to scholarship of the late medieval period in England. The St. Albans chronicler Thomas Walsingham's work has long been recognized as one of the most significant narrative histories for the period 1376–1422. In spite of the value of this chronicle, until the twenty-first century only small portions of the work have ever appeared in translation. The best-known editions of Walsingham's work are two: one edited by Henry Thomas Riley and Edward Maunde Thompson, in a two-volume work entitled Chronicon Angliae and Historia Anglilcana printed in the Rolls Series in the 1860s; and the second (containing a portion of the chronicle from a different manuscript) by Vivian Galbraith in 1937 under the title The St. Albans Chronicle. Preest's translation is drawn from these two printed editions.

The work begins with a thorough introduction by James Clark on the tradition of chronicle writing at St. Albans Abbey that is coupled with a discussion of a life of Thomas Walsingham, the scope of the Chronica Maiora, and the sources Walsingham might have used for this chronicle and that concludes with a brief discussion of the manuscript tradition and the history of the various editions of the chronicle. The work then turns to Preest's translation. The text begins in 1376, which is the year from which Walsingham actually began to compose the chronicle without the benefit of another chronicle source until the death of Henry V in 1422. As the translator admits, his work is intended to be “readable throughout” the text rather than a faithful critical edition of the manuscripts and an exacting translation. Preest's translation is supplemented by substantial footnotes provided by Clark to aid the reader with historiographic context as well as point out items of historical interest such as dates of certain parliaments or treaties, as well as birth and death dates concerning popes, bishops, dukes, and earls. The work concludes with a brief guide to further reading divided by topic rather than reign. The authors also provide a substantial and complete index that is very helpful to the reader. Major figures, such as Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, and minor figures, such as Simon de Cramaud, patriarch of Alexandria, who appear in the text are referenced in the index. These index references not only denote their appearance in Walsingham's text, but the index also directs the reader to footnote references that concern these individuals.

On the whole this is a very fine work and one that is readily helpful to any scholars or students interested in the period. This translation gives both undergraduates and specialists easy access to one of the most significant chronicle sources of the period. Having said this, however, there are some points of critique that should be noted. The fact that Preest did not return to the manuscript sources is unfortunate. Indeed, a full critical edition of the manuscript sources lay beyond the desire of the translator, but sole reliance on the texts edited by Riley and Thompson and Galbraith places too much emphasis on the veracity of their editions. These previous editions may indeed be excellent transcriptions, but it would have been more comforting if the translator had at least consulted the original manuscripts for some of the more important episodes in the text. On the whole the translation is good and reads well. It is not always an exacting translation, but, given the desire of the translator to have the text read well over a long strand of text, the style is more than acceptable.

The largest concern for this historian lies in the footnotes. To be sure, the notes are substantial in number, and their content, based on who the people named in the text were, is of high quality. But the notes do not reflect much of the current state of scholarship. Within the last decade there has been a great deal of work produced that covers this period, in monographs, collections of essays, and journals. Unfortunately, the bibliography is rather thin, especially among research that has appeared in journals on both sides of the Atlantic, and it will be difficult for students as well as practicing scholars using this work to find some of the most important secondary works that inform our understanding of this period.

These critiques, however, are minor ones in comparison to the great service that Preest and Clark have done for students and scholars of the period. Their work is an important addition to the corpus of translated source material from the late medieval period and one that can and will be often used in the future by students and specialists alike.