Wycliffe and Controversy, Part 1

The Middle English Bible translated from the Vulgate (supposedly by John Wycliffe) wasn't in itself controversial. But Wycliffe wrote De civili dominio ("On Civil Dominion") in 1377, advocating that the Church divest itself of property and live in poverty. He had a powerful ally in John of Gaunt, who disliked the power many clergy had because of revenues from property. This revenue could have instead gone to support royal military needs (the Hundred Years War was an ongoing concern for England).

Pope Gregory XI censured 19 of the points in De civili dominio. The Bishop of London, William Courtenay, summoned Wycliffe to a convocation at St. Paul's Cathedral (shown above in a mural by Ford Madox Brown [link]). Wycliffe was accompanied by an armed John of Gaunt and other nobles. An argument between Gaunt and the bishop took place over whether Wycliffe would be allowed to sit during his investigation. Gaunt made it clear that he supported Wycliffe's suggestions on limiting the clergy and stormed out with Wycliffe.

The Church had its supporters, of course, and there were riots attacking Gaunt's disrespect of the clergy that started the next day.

That was in February. In May, the pope sent a papal bull against Wycliffe to five people, including King Edward III and the chancellor of Oxford. When Wycliffe returned to Oxford he was confined for a time to Black Hall (a college building now memorialized in Blackhall Road in central Oxford). Wycliffe's friends eventually obtained his freedom.

In March 1378 he was again summoned to be questioned for his views. King Edward had died, and his very young grandson Richard II was king. Sir Lewis Clifford confronted the investigation on behalf of the new king's mother, Joan of Kent, and forbade the assembled clergy from condemning Wycliffe. The clergy simply forbade him from speaking out on his controversial views.

Wycliffe instead decided to make new controversies. I'll talk about them tomorrow.

Who Were the Lollards

Was Lollardy popular? Besides for Sir John Oldcastle and John Wycliffe, I mean.

Because Lollards believed that baptism and confession were not necessary for salvation, many people were drawn to Lollardy: it was comforting to know that generations of good people who were never baptized would be welcome into Heaven.

Many priests appreciated Lollardy for its egalitarian and back-to-basics nature: praying to saints and saints' images was idolatry that should be shunned. A Bible in the vernacular was important so that everyone who wished (but did not know Latin) had access to it. All the "smells and bells" trappings of the Roman Catholic Church (bells, organs, holy water, incense, grand buildings), were not Bible-based and just being grandiose for the sake of it. Clerics should not be allowed to hold positions in government and have temporal power.

Lollards did not bother with fasting or abstinence, and they challenged clerical celibacy. They did not recognize any special authority of the pope, and especially of papal pardons. Personal piety was more important than what the Church said it could do for you. This made the individual feel more responsible for and in charge of his life.

This idea of the importance of the individual rather than the importance of the "higher powers" in society was very attractive to the common people, and spilled over to their notions of the need for social and economic reform. Heavy taxation and always being made to feel that you were less important than the nobility started to be questioned. Lollardy's tenets were intimately tied to movements such as the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

Not just commoners were drawn to Lollardy. There was a group of Lollard Knights in the last quarter of the 1300s. Among them were Lewis Clifford, John Clanvowe, and Richard Stury. I mention those names particularly because they were all friends of Geoffrey Chaucer, himself someone who was willing to make fun of the clergy, write about the common man, and write in English (court literature prior was usually in French).

All these men had another person in common, one far more powerful than they. That was John of Gaunt, third son of King Edward III and uncle of King Richard II. Gaunt was at one time the most powerful and influential man in England, but all things come to an end. I'd love to tell you more tomorrow.