We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
It has recently been observed that ‘the corpus of surviving lollard literature is regrettably small, and it is to be found in the volumes of Wyclif’s so-called English writings and a few other printed and manuscript works’. To one concerned to re-edit the vernacular lollard literature the position seems otherwise: the corpus is formidably large, the printed material inadequately represents the state of the texts so edited, and there are a large number of other works still in manuscript. The printed material, if grouped together, would extend to perhaps five bulky volumes, in all about 2400 pages; a rough estimate of the vernacular texts now known suggests that this is perhaps only a fifth of the evidence available. Moreover, the editors were ignorant of a large number of the manuscripts of the works they printed, and hence could not assess the circulation of the texts: to give an example, Arnold used only one manuscript of what I shall call the standard lollard sermon-cycle, with fitful reference to three others, whereas now thirty manuscripts are known, together with a further three containing a modified series based on the original set. It is also impossible from the existing printed editions to gain any picture of the views of the lollard authors: only extensive commentary will reveal the implications of remarks made and vocabulary used.
page no 147 note 1 Crompton, [J.], [‘Leicestershire Lollards’], Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society, XLIV (Leicester 1968-9) pp 14–15 Google Scholar.
page no 147 note 2 The main printed material is contained in Arnold, [T.], [Select English Works of John Wyclif], 3 vols (Oxford 1869-71)Google Scholar and Matthew, [F. D.], [The English Works of Wyclif hitherto unprinted], Early English Text Society Original Series 74 (London 1880)Google Scholar. For a survey of the other published writings see the bibliography by Talbert, E. W. and Thomson, S.Harrison in A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050-1500, 11, ed Severs, J. Burke (Hamden Conn. 1970) pp 521-33Google Scholar; the list of manuscripts, and of works unprinted, there given requires considerable amplification. For continued help with the paleography, and for knowledge of some of the manuscripts here considered, I am indebted to the great kindness of Dr Ian Doyle.
page no 147 note 3 The sermon-cycle was printed by Arnold in vols I-II of his edition; for full considera tion of the nature of this cycle see my article in Medium Ævum, XL (Oxford 1971) pp 142-56. The modified series is found most completely in Trinity College Dublin MS C.I.22 and in part in St John’s College Cambridge MS G.22 (fols 1-78v) and Cambridge University Library MS Add. 5338; isolated phrases from the cycle version are incorporated into new and longer sermons.
page no 148 note 1 References are too numerous to be given in full; for the early period see Calendar of Patent Rolls 1381-9 (London 1900) pp 427, 430, 448, 468 etc.; for a later form, including the terms of abjuration, the procedural material recorded in Worcester, Register Polton pp 111-12 and in BM MS Harley 2179 fols 157V-159 is typical. Suspicion of all English books is not uncommon: see, for instance, Wells, , Register Stafford for 1441, ed Holmes, T. S., Somerset Record Society, XXXI-XXXII (London 1915-16) 11, p 267 Google Scholar.
page no 148 note 2 For instance William Perchemener and Michael Scryvener, both of Leicester, mentioned in Courtenay’s register in 1389, Dahmus, J.H., The Metropolitan Visitations of William Courtenay Archbishop of Canterbury 1381-1396 (Urbana 1950) pp 164-7Google Scholar; for further early copying in Leicester see further below. For lollard manuscripts of fine quality see, for instance, BM MS Egerton 617-18, Cambridge University Library MSS Dd.1.27 and Mm.2.15 of the Wycliffite Bible, BM MSS Royal 18 B. ix and Additional 40672 and Christ’s College Cambridge MS 7 of the sermon-cycle, or Bodleian MS Bodley 143 of the Glossed Gospels; the list could be considerably extended.
page no 148 note 3 Salisbury, Register Blythe fol 71, the abjuration of two women from the parish of St Giles in Reading. For the later period see Thomson, J. A. F., The Later Lollards 1414-1320 (2 ed Oxford 1967)Google Scholar.
page no 148 note 4 PRO K.B.9. 204/1 nos 10-11.
page no 149 note 1 Ownership of Bible manuscripts is dealt with by Deanesly, M., The Lollard Bible (Cambridge 1920) pp 319-50Google Scholar. The most recent hst of manuscripts is by Lindberg, C., ‘The Manuscripts and Versions of the Wycliffite Bible; a preliminary survey’, Studia Neophiblogica, XLII (Uppsala 1970) pp 333-47Google Scholar.
page no 149 note 2 See the commission and abjuration mentioned above, p 148 n 1, also Lincoln, , Register Repingdon 15, fol 152VGoogle Scholar and Chichele’s Register , ed Jacob, E. F., Canterbury and York Society (London/Oxford 1943-7) 111 p 198 Google Scholar; for the English form see Chichele’s Register III, p 207 andEly, Register Grey, fol 133.
page no 149 note 3 Cronin, H. S., ‘The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards’, EHR XXII (1907) pp 292–304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for Patteshull see Walsingham, , Historia Anglicana, ed Riley, H. T., RS 28 (1863-4) 11, pp 158-9Google Scholar; the documents nailed to the door of St Paul’s by Hereford and Repingdon in 1382 – Wilkins, D., Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae (London 1737) 111, p 165 Google Scholar – and Aston’s schedule of the same year – Fasciculi Zizaniorum, ed Shirley, W. W., RS 5 (1858) p 329 Google Scholar – must also have been of this form. Compare alsoLincoln, Register Repingdon 15, fol 173.
page no 149 note 4 The appearance, out of context, of Wyclif’s shorter confession in Bodleian MS Bodley 647, fols 63V-64V, suggests such circulation; the short text, in all about 24 lines, appears in BM MS Harley 2322, fols 87-8, and Bodleian MS Add.B.66, fols 90-90V; many of the texts from the Trinity College Dublin MSS were printed by Arnold, III, and by Matthew but a number of short items from the end of each were unaccountably omitted.
page no 149 note 5 PRO K.B.9.204/1 nos 130 and 141.
page no 150 note 1 Chichele, Register III, p. 67.
page no 150 note 2 For discussion of this manuscript, its form and content, see my article ‘A Lollard Quaternion’, Review of English Studies, new series XXII (Oxford 1971) pp 435-42.
page no 150 note 3 For instance texts on images in Bodleian MS Eng.th.f.39, fols 1-8, 37-8, Trinity College Cambridge MS B.14.50, fols 34-5, BM MS Additional 24202, fols 24r/v, 26-8v; on pilgrimages in Eng.th.f.39, fols 12V-14V, on the eucharist in Trinity College Dublin MS C.5.6, fols 145-6V and Cambridge University Library MS Ff.6.31(3), fols 27V-35V. The material on the necessity of preaching found in Bodleian MS Laud Misc. 210, fols 168-74V, and in Durham University MS Cosin V.v.1. fols 175v-9v, may well be of the same type.
page no 150 note 4 For instance a letter of Alexander [Tottington], bishop of Norwich 1407-13, written into a precedent roll, BM MS Additional 35205, m.xivd; compare also the material cited by Crompton p 19. I have deliberately excluded from consideration here the question of Latin writings produced by lollard centres.
page no 150 note 5 Most recent discussion, and bibliography, is to be found in Fristedt, S. L., The Wycliffe Bible Part II, Stockholm Studies in English, XXI (1969)Google Scholar.
page no 151 note 1 The nature of these has been surveyed by Hargreaves, H., ‘The Marginal Glosses to the Wycliffite New Testament’, Studia Neophilologica, XXIII (1961) pp 285–300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page no 151 note 2 These two were printed by Arnold 11, pp 379-423; of the first fourteen manuscripts are now known, of the second seventeen. The two are related to, though not translations of, Wyclif’s expositions of Matt. 23 and 24, Opera Minora, ed Loserth, J., Wyclif Society (London 1913) pp 313-82Google Scholar. Apart from these, and leaving aside commentaries on certain canticles, prayers and creeds printed by Arnold III, pp 5-116, almost none of the works printed so far is known to survive in more than six manuscripts (the one exception is Arnold III, pp 188-201 found in seven).
page no 151 note 3 Unfortunately, the manuscript is defective at both ends; but sufficient of the conclusion remains for an assessment of the work’s nature to be made. The relevant material is (fol 100v) ‘ Now sires, ϸe dai is al ydo and I mai tarie 3ou no lenger, and I haue no tyme to make now a recapitulacioun of my sermoun. Neϸeles I purpose to leue it writun among 3ou, and whoso likiϸ mai ouerse it.. .And certis if I haue seid ony ϸing amys, and I mai now haue redi knowleche ϸerof, I shal amende it er I go; and if I haue such knouleche herafter, I shal wiϸ beter will come and amende my fautis’.
page no 151 note 4 Edited Swinburn, L. M., EETS, OS 151 (1917)Google Scholar; a second manuscript, BM MS Harley 6613, and the print of [1530?] by Redman should be added. The evidence for dating, between 1409 and 1415, is summarised on pp viii–xiii. The dating of most vernacular lollard works from internal evidence is very difficult, because the abuses mentioned are normally persistent and not isolated ones.
page no 152 note 1 A case in point would be BM MS Additional 24202, containing, amongst other items, tracts against miracle plays, printed in Reliquiœ Antiquœ ed Wright, T. and Halliwell, J. O. (London 1841-3) 11, pp 42–57 Google Scholar, against dicing, on tithes, on the duties of priests, and a section of a longer treatise against the religious orders.
page no 152 note 2 In Bodleian MS Douce 321, fol 65V, appears the rubric ‘Expliciunt tam epistole quam Euangelia Dominicalia secundum exposicionem Doctoris euangelij’; this manuscript, probably of the early fifteenth century, was in quality over-estimated by Arnold (1, pp xiii, xviii-xix) as a full collation reveals. Wyclif‘s name appears also in New College Oxford MS 95, but not attached to these sermons. In Corpus Christi College Cambridge MS 336, p 475, the Ferial set ends with the enigmatic note ‘Expliciunt euangelia ferialia secundum M.J.’ by the original scribe. The evidence of Netter (cited by Arnold, 11, p V) is probably to be ascribed to his knowledge of some relationship between the vernacular sermons and Wyclif’s own, but cannot on its own account be regarded as decisive.
page no 152 note 3 For evidence that the cycle must be considered as a unit see the article mentioned above, p 143 n 3; these arguments must be taken to modify the discussion of Talbert, E.W., ‘The Date of the Composition of the English Wyclifite Collection of Sermons’, Speculum, XII (1937) pp 464-74CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Ransom, M. W., ‘The Chronology of Wyclif’s English Sermons’, Washington State College Research Studies, XVI (1948) pp 67–114 Google Scholar.
page no 153 note 1 Sermones 1–111, ed Loserth, J., Wyclif Society (London 1887-9)Google Scholar contain Wyclif’s Latin sermons on the Sunday Gospels, Commune and Proprium Sanctorum and Sunday Epistles; it should be noted that no Latin source is available for the lengthy vernacular Ferial set and that many of the English Sunday Epistle sermons bear no relation to the Latin work for the equivalent occasion.
page no 153 note 2 Arnold printed MS Bodley 788; in his list of other manuscripts known to him (1, pp xvii-xx) he admitted that he had not seen all, and had only examined most cursorily. Somewhat fitfully, he records identification of patristic references in the text, but many allusions pass unremarked.
page no 153 note 3 The single manuscript in complete agreement is Leicester Wyggeston Hospital 10.D.34/6, unknown to Arnold; Trinity College Cambridge MS B.2.17 agrees in the order of the first four sets but lacks the last, whilst Corpus Christi College Cambridge MS 336, wanting sets 1 and 5, contains sets 2, 3 and 4 in that order.
page no 153 note 4 Namely Bodleian MS Douce 321, BM MS Cotton Claudius D.viii, Robert Taylor MS Princeton (once Wrest Park 32), Lambeth MS 1149 and Bodleian MS Don.c.13.
page no 153 note 5 The arrangement is found complete in BM MS Royal 18 B.ix and, though now mutilated by later loss of leaves, St John’s College Cambridge MS C.8; BM MS Harley 2396 contains this arrangement for the period between Advent and the fourth Sunday after the octave of Epiphany.
page no 154 note 1 This is particularly obvious in the case of the first arrangement: discrepancy in ordering, resulting from two faulty but independent attempts at alternation, are found in the Taylor manuscript and in Bodleian MS Don.c.13; similarly, the text of Lambeth MS 1149 is very closely related to that of BM MS Additional 40672, itself having the five sets separate.
page no 154 note 2 Vernacular manuscripts of this period rarely show this combination of care for the accuracy of the text together with attention to its appearance. The quality of lollard manuscripts even aroused comment from an investigating authority in the case of John Galle, priest of London, in 1428, found to possess ‘quidam liber in vulgari de evangeliis bene scriptus’ (Chichele, Register 111, p 190); compare also the Pauline epistles ‘in amplo volumine’ recorded in Fines, J., ‘Heresy Trials in the Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield 1511-12’, JEH, XIV (1963) p 165 Google Scholar.
page no 154 note 3 Leicester Old Town Hall MS 3, fol 216v; the claim cannot fully be justified until further work has been done on the text, but the correction has certainly been carefully done.
page no 154 note 4 The first is Trinity College Cambridge MS B.14.38, the second Sidney Sussex College Cambridge MS 74; for its text see E. W. Talbert, ‘A Fifteenth-Century Lollard Sermon Cycle’, University of Texas Studies in English (1939) pp 5-30, the third New College Oxford MS 95.
page no 155 note 1 The hand of BM MS Harley 2396 appears in part of Gonville and Caius College Cambridge MS 179/212, containing a fragment of the Gospels in the later Wycliffite version.
page no 155 note 2 Exceptions are the scribe of Bodleian MS Don.c.13, clearly a northerner, and that of Trinity College Cambridge MS B.14.38, who must have come from the south-west. I am grateful to professor Mclntosh for discussing linguistic questions about these manuscripts with me.
page no 155 note 3 The English dialect of Oxford can be roughly gauged from the evidence presented by Meech, S. B., ‘Nicholas Bishop, an exemplar of the Oxford dialect of the fifteenth century’, Publications of the Modern Language Association, XLIX (Menasha 1934) pp 443-59Google Scholar. The evidence concerning the preaching expedition of Hereford, Aston and others in the Winchester diocese in 1382 makes no mention of written material: see Wykeham’s Register, ed Kirby, T. F., Hampshire Record Society (London 1896-9) 11, pp 337-8Google Scholar.
page no 155 note 4 For the relevant period the persistence of Lollardy in Northampton and Leicester is well established: for Northampton in 1389 by the Courtenay register (above, p 148 n 2) p 169, for 1392-3 by Lincoln, , Register Buckingham 12, fols 398 Google Scholar, 406, and the document printed by Powell, E. and Trevelyan, G. M., The Peasants’Rising and the Lollards (London 1899) pp 45–50 Google Scholar, and for 1416 by Lincoln, , Register Repingdon 15, fol 176VGoogle Scholar; for the Leicester material see the article by Crompton. For Braybrooke, and its lord Sir Thomas Latimer, see McFarlane, K. B., John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity (London 1952) pp 146, 173 and 178Google Scholar. Note also the mention of Thomas Scot of Braybrooke, scriveyn, in the 1414 return, PRO K.B.9.204/1 no 111.
page no 155 note 5 Namely Leicester Old Town Hall MS 3 and Leicester Wyggeston Hospital MS 10.D.34/6.
page no 156 note 1 See Emden, A.B., A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500, 11 (Oxford 1958) p 670 Google Scholar.
page no 156 note 2 Hallum, Register, fol 127; Chaundler, Register pt 11, fols 17V-18; Nevili, Register pt 11, fol 77V, with which compare the acknowledgement of a man from Devizes, fol 57V, that he ‘was woned an vsed to here in secret place, yn holkys and hyrnes, the redyng of the byble yn Englyssh’.
page no 156 note 3 Ayscough, Register pt 11, fol 52V; further confessions appear on fols 52V-54V.
page no 156 note 4 Beauchamp, Register pt 11, fol 17V for 1478; Langton, Register pt 11, fols 35 and 38V, compare also fols 36 and 40V.
page no 157 note 1 Above, p 148 n 3. Blythe, Register, fol 74v.
page no 157 note 2 Guildhall, London, Register Fitzjames, fol 27; for the group see Trinity College Dublin MS D.3.4, fols 122V-124V.
