Abstract
That Wyclif’s ideas should have spread beyond the academic environment in which they were originally conceived was far from inevitable. It was not usual for the squabbles of the schools to trouble the outside world. Indeed, the theory that popular heresy was inspired by Wyclif, despite the fact that it was widely held at the time, has been called into question for precisely that reason. J. A. F. Thomson concluded from his work on later Lollardy that the popular heresy was too diverse to be viewed even as a single movement, much less as a movement derived from the teachings of a single theologian.1 The anti-Wycliffite case depends on counting all dissent as ‘lollardy’ and then noting that there was a reasonable number of dissenters whose views bear no relation to Wyclif’s. There is something to be said for this approach, in that ‘lollardy’ is nothing more than a synonym for ‘heresy’ or ‘dissent’ in the records of this period. However, it is not merely imposing an alien interpretative framework on to the data to observe that there is a larger group of ‘lollards’ whose views are similar to those of Wyclif and his immediate disciples, who tend to cluster in particular areas, often areas which can in turn be connected with those disciples; and a smaller number of stray individuals, often isolated cases from places far removed from dissident communities and with no known links to Wyclif’s disciples, whose views are extremely heterogeneous. The former represent a Wycliffite movement, the latter are eccentrics or misfits fortuitously swept up in the panic over the former.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Andrew Brown, Popular Piety in Late Medieval England (Oxford, 1995), p. 222.
W. J. Dohar, The Black Death and Pastoral Leadership (Philadelphia, PA, 1995), p. 144.
M. Jurkowski, ‘Lancastrian royal service, Lollardy and forgery: The career of Thomas Tykhill’, in Crown, Government and People in the Fifteenth Century, ed. R. A. Archer (Stroud, 1995), pp. 33–52, at p. 38.
For the towns, see Maurice Keen, English Society in the Later Middle Ages, 1348–1500 (London, 1990), p. 87.
Peter McNiven, Heresy and Politics in the Reign of Henry IV (Woodbridge, 1987), p. 117.
L. R. Poos, A Rural Society after the Black Death: Essex, 1350–1525 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 264–5.
E. J. B. Reid, ‘Lollards at Colchester in 1414’, English Historical Review 29 (1914), pp. 101–4.
M. Aston, Thomas Arundel (Oxford, 1967), pp. 330–1.
R. L. Storey, Thomas Langley and the Bishopric of Durham, 1406–1437 (London, 1961), p. 206.
M. Aston, England’s Iconoclasts. Vol.1. Laws against Images (Oxford, 1988), p. 133.
Maureen Jurkowski, ‘New light on John Purvey’, English Historical Review 110 (1995), pp. 1180–90, at p. 1182.
M. T. Brady, ‘The Pore Caitif: An introductory study’, Traditio 10 (1954), pp. 529–48
M. T. Brady, ‘Lollard sources of The Pore Caitif’, Traditio 44 (1988), pp. 389–418. See also Hudson, Premature Reformation, pp. 422–9.
Sandra Raban, Mortmain Legislation and the English Church, 1279–1500 (Cambridge, 1982), p. 139.
Copyright information
© 2002 Richard Rex
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rex, R. (2002). The Early Diffusion of Lollardy. In: The Lollards. Social History in Perspective. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-21269-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-21269-5_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-59752-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-21269-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)