Religions Reviewed

The Wycliffite movement of the 14th century lacked the secrecy of later Lollardy. Anne Hudson concludes in her landmark study The Premature Reformation that the early Wycliffites at Oxford, Leicester and Northampton could profess their loyalties openly.  Nicholas Watson has likewise emphasized that in the absence of official suppression during the period 1370-1410, vernacular theology enjoyed a high profile in keeping with its contested status.  Wycliffe himself had contributed to this contestation by publishing some of his theological writings in the vernacular, possibly in broadside form.  Even with the official condemnation of some of Wycliffe’s doctrines in 1382, there was still an arena in which to raise the questions that those doctrines had addressed, and those who considered themselves his followers must have, in principle at least, retained the ideal of publicity in order to incite reform. Wycliffites openly issued a set of “twelve conclusions” in 1395, setting forth their points of doctrinal dispute with the institutional Church.  In the antagonism outlined by Watson, the Wycliffites were on the “evangelical” side, seeking to make scripture openly available rather than “clasped vp, ne closid in no cloister.”  Meanwhile, their conservative opposition argued that technical and social obstacles should prevent vernacular translation of scripture, which was best kept in the restricted custody of priests. 

After the issuance of Arundel’s constitutions of 1407, Lollards throughout England were placed in a position of having to defend themselves against persecution, because heresy charges could be brought for possession of the books or espousal of the views of Wycliffe and for any novel theological discourse in the vernacular that did not have prior authorization from the Church authorities.  The 1401 anti-heretical statute De heretico comburendo provided for the execution of convicted heretics, and so the threat was a mortal one. The simplest method of self-preservation was “priviness” and discretion. Passwords and secret modes of address were in use among the Lollards, at least according to their foes such as Reginald Pecock.  Archbishop Chichesley in 1416 issued a proclamation against those “frequenting…privy conventicles,” among other signals of heresy.  Accusations of secretiveness were used to indicate the culpability of the Lollards, and to paint them as subversive.  At the same time, the evidence of trial testimonies, recantations and relapses strongly suggests that Lollards did often conform to religious conventions in which they disbelieved, in order to avoid detection as heretics.