Lollards

← Encyclopedia

The word was thrown at them before it meant anything precise. Lollard comes, most likely, from a Middle Dutch verb for mumbling — lollen, to mutter, to sing under the breath — and it had drifted across the Low Countries as a slur for pious idlers and beguine-adjacent enthusiasts before it crossed the Channel to settle on the followers of an Oxford theologian. To call a man a Lollard was to accuse him of muttering: muttering his prayers in a corner instead of in church, muttering his criticisms of priests where he thought no one heard. The people it named almost never used it of themselves. They called themselves “true men,” and one another “known men” — people who knew, and who recognized each other across a town by what they would and would not say about the bread on the altar.

Ford Madox Brown’s “John Wycliffe Reading His Translation of the Bible to John of Gaunt” (1847-48), a Victorian imagining of the movement’s origin. — Ford Madox Brown, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

What they were against is sharper in the record than what they were for, and for a structural reason: most of what survives about the later movement was written by the church courts that prosecuted it. A heretic’s beliefs reach us through the questions put to him and the answers he was made to abjure. Yet the early movement is not only a courtroom shadow. The Bible the Lollards read, the sermons they copied, the tracts they passed hand to hand — a great deal of it survives in their own words, anonymous and Middle English, and the labor of twentieth-century scholarship has been to read that body of writing alongside the trial records rather than instead of them.

Wycliffe’s root

The intellectual spring was John Wycliffe (c. 1328–1384), an Oxford schoolman of formidable reputation who, in the last decade of his life, turned the tools of scholastic philosophy against the institution that had trained him. His governing claim was a claim about authority: that the ground of religion is Scripture, the law of God, and not the institution that had appointed itself its sole interpreter. From this followed a doctrine of dominion — that lordship, the right to hold and to rule, depends on grace and on righteousness, so that a church grown rich, worldly, and negligent had forfeited its title to its wealth. Disendowment was not, for Wycliffe, an attack on religion but its rescue; a Christ who had nothing should not be served by a clergy that had everything.

John Wycliffe (c. 1328–1384), the Oxford schoolman whose doctrine of Scripture and dominion seeded the movement. — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

From that root grew a cluster of positions that the movement would carry, sometimes in cruder form than their author intended, for a century and a half. That the Bible should stand in English, where a plowman might reach it. That a priest possessed no power the laity lacked — that, in the sharpest version, a virtuous layman might do what a sinful priest could not, and that the keys of the church belonged to the holy and not to the ordained. That pilgrimage and the veneration of images were at best a waste of the poor’s substance and at worst plain idolatry, the worship of “stocks and stones.” That prayers bought for the dead, indulgences, pardons, and the whole economy of purgatory enriched the church while doing the soul no good. And — most dangerous of all, the position that most reliably led to the fire — that the bread of the Mass remains bread, that it does not cease to be bread when the priest pronounces over it, so that the doctrine of a substance changed while the appearances stay was, to Lollard eyes, a philosophical error dressed as a miracle. Wycliffe’s denial was an Oxford argument about substance and accident before it was a heresy; the church heard the heresy first.

The English Bible

The movement’s enduring monument was the first complete English Bible. Two recensions emerged from the Wycliffite circle in the 1380s and 1390s: an Early Version, painfully literal, following the Latin word order of the Vulgate so closely that the English buckles under it, and a Later Version, smoother and genuinely readable, the work of revisers who understood that a translation must serve the ear as well as the text. Nicholas Hereford is associated with the early labor and John Purvey with the revision, though the texts are anonymous and the attributions are reconstructions rather than signatures — no surviving English work can be placed in Wycliffe’s own hand. To put Scripture into English was, in the eyes of the hierarchy, to take the Word out of custody. After it was banned, the manuscripts were copied in secret and owned at lethal risk; more than two hundred survive, an extraordinary number for a forbidden book, attesting how widely it traveled and how stubbornly it was kept.

A folio of a Wycliffite Bible (MS Hunter 191, Glasgow), one of more than two hundred surviving manuscripts of the forbidden English translation. — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

Scholars, knights, and the turn underground

In its first generation the movement was not a thing of cobblers and weavers. It had a footing in the university that bred it and a circle of protectors at court. A group of gentlemen of the royal household under Richard II — the “Lollard Knights” of later naming, among them Sir Lewis Clifford, Sir John Clanvowe, Sir Thomas Latimer, Sir Richard Stury, Sir John Montagu, and Sir William Neville — were marked by hostile chroniclers, above all the unsympathetic Thomas Walsingham, as inclined to Wycliffe’s reform. How heretical they truly were is hard to recover from such witnesses, but their patronage was real, and for a while it gave the movement cover.

The high-water mark of open advocacy came in 1395, when a Lollard manifesto, the Twelve Conclusions, was presented to a sitting Parliament and, by report, nailed to the doors of Westminster Abbey and St Paul’s — placarded in the most public places in the kingdom. The Conclusions condemned the wealth and worldly office of the clergy, clerical celibacy, the doctrine of transubstantiation, the blessing of objects, prayers for the dead, pilgrimages and image-offerings, auricular confession as necessary to salvation, and the trades of war and goldsmithing as contrary to the Gospel. It was a program, posted on a church door, and it provoked the response that programs posted on church doors provoke.

The protection did not hold. Richard II fell in 1399; the new Lancastrian dynasty needed the church’s blessing and was prepared to pay for it in blood. In 1401 the statute De heretico comburendo — “concerning the burning of a heretic” — made the stake the penalty for the obstinate and the relapsed, and handed the convicted over to the secular arm to be burned. The priest William Sawtrey was burned at Smithfield that same year, the first Englishman to die by the new law. In 1409 Archbishop Thomas Arundel’s Constitutions tightened the vise: they forbade unlicensed preaching, the discussion of doctrine by the unauthorized, and — the measure that bit deepest — the translation of any passage of Scripture into English, and the owning of such a translation, made in Wycliffe’s time or since, without a bishop’s express approval. To possess the Word in one’s own tongue was now, in itself, evidence of heresy.

The breaking point came in 1414, with the rising led by Sir John Oldcastle, a soldier and intimate of the young Henry V who had become the movement’s most prominent gentry adherent. The plan — a Lollard muster at St Giles’s Fields outside London, an attempt on the king — was betrayed and collapsed almost at once; Oldcastle escaped, was hunted for years, and was finally caught, hanged, and burned in 1417. After Oldcastle the cause lost its last protectors and its nerve for politics. It did not vanish. It went down into the parishes and the trades, surviving for a hundred years as a quiet lay network — weavers, tailors, cobblers, smiths, the literate and half-literate poor of the towns and the Chiltern villages — meeting in houses to hear the forbidden book read aloud, passing it and the tracts that defended it from hand to trusted hand. Seven regions held the movement longest: Kent, London, the Chilterns, Essex, Bristol, Coventry, and East Anglia. At Coventry alone, some seventy-odd suspected Lollards were brought before Bishop Geoffrey Blythe in 1511 and 1512, a generation before Tyndale’s New Testament — proof that the underground had not run dry.

How organized these later communities were, and how much real continuity ran between Wycliffe’s Oxford and the artisans hauled before fifteenth- and sixteenth-century bishops, is the hardest question the subject poses. The trial records show recurring texts, recurring formulas, recurring names of “known men” who taught and traveled — but they show them through the grid of the interrogators’ questions, and a confession shaped by what the examiner expected to hear is a treacherous witness to what the examined actually thought.

The scholarship and the texts

The modern study of Lollardy is in large part the study of its own surviving writings, set against the records of its suppression. K. B. McFarlane’s John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity (1952) reopened the field by reading Wycliffe inside the ecclesiastical and political quarrels of his own day rather than as a Protestant born early. The decisive work is Anne Hudson’s The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), the fullest reconstruction of the movement’s literature, society, schooling, and biblical scholarship, and the book that gave the field its governing phrase — a reformation that arrived too soon to succeed. Hudson’s earlier Selections from English Wycliffite Writings (1978) gathers twenty-seven Middle English texts — tracts, sermons, trial documents, recantations — that let the movement speak in its own register rather than its enemies’. For the primary corpus and the continuing scholarly apparatus, the Lollard Society’s bibliography maintains the standard catalog of Wycliffite texts and their editions. The great unsettled debate, argued in the reviews and the monographs alike, is how far the surviving sources let us see a coherent organized movement and how far they show us the schematizing categories of the courts that produced most of the evidence.

The proto-Protestant question

They are routinely called proto-Protestants, and the family resemblance is not imagined — the appeal to Scripture over the institution, the suspicion of a mediating priesthood, the hunger for a Bible in the mother tongue, the scorn for pilgrimage, image, and the traffic in pardons, all return when the Reformation reaches England a century and a half on.

The 1897 Wycliffe Memorial at Lutterworth, where Wycliffe was rector; later ages remembered him as the “Morning Star of the Reformation.” — Stephen McKay, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

But resemblance is not descent, and the harder claim — that English reform grew out of Lollardy rather than merely arriving on ground Lollardy had softened — is genuinely contested. When the new doctrine came in under Henry VIII, its leaders found pockets of vernacular Bible-reading already in the soil, especially in Kent and the Chilterns; some of those communities took up the printed Tyndale Testament as the thing they had been waiting for, and the old underground merged into the new movement. Whether they shaped English Protestantism or were simply absorbed by it is a question the evidence will not fully close. What is beyond dispute is narrower and more remarkable: that here, well before Luther, a body of ordinary English people held that a person might read the word of God for themselves and answer to it directly — and were willing to be killed for thinking so.

→ Related: John Knox · Michael Servetus · Jovinianus · Middle Ages · Bible · Idolatry · The Reformation · Heresy · Martin Luther · Reformed Christianity · Christianity