No CrossRef data available.
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.
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
Why, at the Reformation in England, did the king rather than the archbishop of Canterbury become head of the church? Why, with so little distress, did the English accept an autonomous national church? To a medievalist such a development seems startling. Though late medieval kings might manipulate the appointment of bishops or regulate provisions they did not dictate to their subjects what constitutes Christian faith or practice. Late medieval churchmen did not believe in autonomous national churches but in a body whose visible institutional unity is linked with obedience to the pope, and in theory it was scandalous when in the Great Schism individual rulers decided for their subjects which pope was to be obeyed or became neutral. In late fourteenth century England only a tiny minority of lollards would have dispensed with the papacy and all other solutions to the schism intended to restore the system, not to abandon it.
1 This paper summarises material I hope to publish in a book. I would like to thank Professor D. M. Loades and Dr A. W. Orde for a great deal of help.
2 From the covering letter to the king in Ullerston’s Petitiones [quoad reformationem ecclesie militantis], in Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 89 fols 31r/v. The Petitiones, without the covering letter, are printed in Hardt, H.Von der, Magnum Oecumencum Constantientie Concilium, 4 vols, (Frankfurt/Leipzig 1700) 1 cols 1126-71Google Scholar.
3 Crowder, C.M. D., ‘Henry V, Sigismund and the Council of Constance, a re-examination’, Hist St 4 (1963) pp 93–110 Google Scholar.
4 Rotuli Parliamentorum (London 1783) 3 p 48; Statutes of the Realm, (London 1816) 2 p 11. I have discussed the question of the case for Urban in [‘The case for Urban VI in England to 1390’], Genèse et Débuts [du Grand Schisme D’Occident, 1362-1394, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Rechérche Scientifique, N0 586 (Paris 1980)] pp 541-60.
5 The Chronicles of Froissart, trans John Bourchier, Lord Berners, (Globe edition 1913) p 295 (chapter 428). The chapters are not identical with the original divisions. Chroniques de J. Froissart, ed Raynaud, G., (Paris 1899) 2, bk 2 cap 359 p 86 Google Scholar.
6 Eulogium Historiarum, [ed Haydon], F.S., 3 vols, RS 9 (London 1863) 3 pp 346-7Google Scholar.
7 Walsingham, [T.,] Historia Anglicana, [ed Riley], H.T., 2 Vols RS 28 (London 1863) I p 381 Google Scholar. The cardinals’ bull was probably Exigit Sancte, printed from Sudbury’s register, Wilkins 3 pp 128-9.
8 See Historia Anglicana I pp 381-2 for a typical view. For views of leading Englishmen in Rome see Macfarlane, [L.] [‘An English account of the election of Urban VI, 1378,’] BIHR 26 (1953) p 80 Google Scholar.
9 For English attitudes to the cardinals see Easton’s view, Macfarlane p 84.
10 Summary of Sudbury’s sermon at the parliament, The Anonimalle Chronicle 1333-81, ed Galbraith, V.H (Manchester 1927) p 119 Google Scholar.
11 There are many examples of Wycliffe’s initial enthusiasm for Urban. See for instance Letter to Pope Urban, Wycliffe, J., Opera Minora ed Loserth, J., Wy clij Society (London 1913) pp 1–2 Google Scholar.
11 See Genèse et Débuts for argument that the English were very well informed.
12 Roger Foucault, the cardinals’ envoy, said in 1386 that his processus, seized by the English government, made no mention of the election of Clement VII: A[rchivo] S[egreto] V[aticano] Arm 54 Vol 16 fol 144v.
14 Perroy, E., ‘Gras profits et rançons pendant la guerre de cent ans: l’affaire du comte du Denia’, Mélanges d’Histoire du Moyen Age, dédiés à la memoire de Louis Halphen (Paris 195l)pp 573-86Google Scholar.
15 This is implied by Wycliffe, J., De potestate Papae,ed Loserth, J., Wyclif Society (London 1907) pp 251-5Google Scholar.
16 Exceptions were made for political expediencey. See the treatment of the Hospitallers, who acknowledged the anti-pope, Tipton, C.L., ‘The English Hospital during the Great Schism’, Studies in Mediaeval and Renaissance History 4 (Lincoln, Nebraska 1967) pp 91–124 Google Scholar, esp p 99. For attitudes to schismatics see letter of Oxford University, 1396, Ouy, [G.], [‘Gerson et L’Angleterre’, Humanism in France,ed Levi, A.H.T.] (Manchester 1970) p 62 Google Scholar. The Lollards were condemned for suggesting that no pope was needed, but that we could live more Grecorum, Fasiculi [Zizaniorum, ed Shirley, W.W RS 5 (London 1858)] p 494 Google Scholar.
17 Foucault was temporarily imprisoned, Perroy, [E.], L’Angleterre [et le Grand Schisme] (Paris 1933) pp 56-7Google Scholar; the cardinal of Poitiers was refused entry in December 1378, Valois, [N.], [La France et le Grand Schisme], 4 vols (Paris 1896) 1 pp 154, 243Google Scholar; two other envoys ended in the Tower in 1379, Valois 1 p 243; William Buxton, OP, was arrested in 1384, Wilkins 3 pp 191-2.
18 Historia Anglicana, I p 382, 393-4 is typical.
19 For Despenser’s crusade see Perroy, L’Angleterre pp 166-209; Aston, M., ‘The impeachment of Bishop Despenser’, BIHR 38 (1965) pp 127-48Google Scholar. For Gaunt’s crusade see Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp 211-68; Russell, P.E., English intervention in Spain and Portugal in the time of Edward HI and Richard II (Oxford 1955) pp 400-48Google Scholar, esp p 409.
20 Fragment of a sermon, Fasciculi pp 506-11.
21 Tierney, B., Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Cambridge 1955)Google Scholar.
22 The latest supporter of this view is Swanson, R.N., Universities, Academics and the Great Schism (Cambridge 1979) p 23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Ullmann, W., The origins of the Great Schism (London 1948) pp v–vi.Google Scholar
23 This date is disputed by Palmer, J.J.N., ‘England and the Great Western Schism’, EHR 83 (1968) pp 516—18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, but for purposes of this paper his argument would strengthen mine, since he contends that it was the English government which took the lead in the moves to end the schism, even from 1389.
24 Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp 338-9.
25 For the earlier discussion in Oxford in 1395 see Harvey, M., ‘Two questione; on the Great Schism by Nicholas Fakenham, OFM.’, AFH 70 (1977) pp 102-8Google Scholar.
26 The key letter from Paris was Quoniam Fideles, of 26 August 1395. I have used Paris BN Fonds Lat. 12542 fols 11-16v, with Lambeth Palace 194 fols 1-13v and BL Royal MS 6 E III fols 77-80. See Perroy, L’Angletene pp 366-7; Valois 3 p 70 n3; Jacob, E.F., Essays in the Conciliar Epoch (Manchester 1953) pp 61-2Google Scholar.
27 Printed Ouy pp 56-73.
28 Ouy p 57, citing Decretum c 23 q 5 c 20.
29 On lollardy in general see Aston, M., ‘Lollardy and sedition’, either in PP 17 (1960) pp 1–44 Google Scholar or in Peasants, knights and heretics, ed Hilton, R.H (Cambridge 1976) pp 273–318 Google Scholar. For the connection between lollardy and schism see Bodleian Library, Oxford, Digby MS 188 fols 62-6, a fragment of a questio by a canonist referring to lollardy fols 66r/v. See also Nicholas Radcliffe, an opinio in BL Royal MS 6D X, esp fol 282v asking secular rulers to use force to help pope Boniface IX and the church, now oppressed with schism and lollardy.
30 McFarlane, K.B., John Wycliffe and the beginnings of English Non-conformity (London 1952) p 89 Google Scholar.
31 Above note 29.
32 Ouy p 57.
33 PRO E 403/554 m.8, writ from Richard II dated 23 October 1395 summoning from different parts of England suitable doctors of law and other clerics of Oxford to appear before him on 30 November.
34 Harvey, [M.], ‘The letter [of Oxford University on the Schism, 5 February 1399’, A[nnuarium] H[istoriae] C[onciliorum] 6 (Paderborn 1974) p 129 Google Scholar.
35 Swanson pp 112-13.
36 See discussion of this, Harvey, , ‘The letters [of the University of Oxford on withdrawal of obedience from pope Boniface IX’,] SCH 11 (1975) pp 187-98Google Scholar, esp p 188.
37 For example Jacob, Essays, p 64 ‘Richard was out of sympathy with the line taken by Oxford’.
38 Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp 376-7; Valois 3 p 78; Chronique du Religieux de S Denys, edBellaguet, L., 6 Vols Documents Inédits sur l’histoire de France 6 (Paris 1840) 2 pp 432-4.Google Scholar
39 For instance ASV Arm 54 vol 24 fol 248v, a refutation of the French attack on the via justitiae. The French had said that kings would not accept it but ‘Rex Anglorum et sui subjecti eciam hoc requirunt, ut apparet ex epistola per eos missa Regi Francorum.’
40 At least seven continental manuscripts: a large number for an English work on the schism.
41 Ouy p 66.
42 Harvey, ‘The letters’, p 188.
43 Details Harvey, ‘The letters’, pp 190-8. For edition see note 34 above.
44 Harvey, ‘The letters’, pp 188-9 for details.
45 Harvey ‘The letters’, pp 189-90 for some details of the evidence that the English did not agree to withdraw.
46 The instructions are ASV Arm 54 vol 28 fols 211-12v.
47 Details, Harvey, , ‘The letter’, AHC pp 130-2Google Scholar.
48 Harvey, , ‘England and the Council of Pisa, [some new information’], AHC 2 (1970) pp 276-8Google Scholar.
49 Eulogium, 3 p 412.
50 See the letters of credence for Henry’s envoys returning from Gregory, BN Fonds Lat 12542 fol 109v and Henry’s reply B. L. Harley 431 fols 14v-15v.
51 Harvey, ‘England and the Council of Pisa’, p 280.
52 The king had sent his requisicio before the orders went to the convocations but of course the results of the requisicio could not have been known before the clergy met to choose delegates, Harvey, ‘England and the Council of Pisa’, p 281-2.
53 For convocations ‘England and the Council of Pisa’, p 282.
54 Some details are available in my thesis (DPhil 1964) in the Bodleian Library, Appendix I B.
55 ‘unus de procuratoribus ex voluntate regis Anglie pro provincia Cantuariensis ecclesie’, Thomas Chillenden signed thus and included Robert Hallum and Henry Chichele in this category, Vincke, J., Shrifistücke zum Pisaner Konzil, Beiträge zur Kirchen und Rechtsgeschichte 3 (Bonn 1942) p 198 no 170Google Scholar. They were the delegates chosen by the Canterbury province.
56 Included in the account of convocation was a procuratorium to dissent ‘hiis que inibi, quod absit, in corone regni Anglie, sive regalie domini nostri regis prejudicium fuerint tractata . . .’ with orders to work for the revocation of any prejudicial measures, Wilkins 3 p 312. What seems to be the purely ecclesiastical procuratorium follows in Arundel’s register headed Aliud procuratorium ad interessendum in Concilio Pisano, Wilkins 3 pp 313-14; Arundel’s register (Lambeth Palace Library, London) fol 9. This latter is the procuratorium which appears in foreign sources.
57 Petitiones as note 2 above. For Ullerston see Emden (P 3 pp 1928-9, and my thesis, with also Hudson, A., ‘The debate on bible translation, Oxford 1401’, EHR 90 (1975) pp 1–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 From the covering letter to the king as note 2 above.
59 News of Alexander V’s election was sent to Henry on 26 June, BL Harley MS 431 fols 32v—33v. On 18 August Henry allowed money to be collected for the curia, Calendar of] P[atent] R[olls (London 1901) 1408-13 p 101, Calendar of] C[lose] R[olls (London 1902)] 1405-9 p 516; Lunt, W.E., Financial Relations of the Papacy with England, 2 vols (Cambridge, Mass., 1962) 2 pp 413-14Google Scholar. The announcement to Arundel that Alexander V was going to be recognised is dated 17 October, CCR 1409-13 pp 2-3. On 22 October all sheriffs were ordered to recognise Alexander, CCR 1409-13 p 67. After this Arundel ordered the bishops to proclaim Alexander, Wilkins 3 pp 321-2.
60 The comments of Storey, R.L., Diocesan Administration in fifieenth Century England, Borthwick Papers, 16 (2 ed York 1972) pp 19–31 Google Scholar are illuminating.