Reach 1

William Reach HISTORY 105 07 May 2010 Prof. Martin Chronicles of an English Heretic: John Purvey The early Lollard movement took place a time of intense political and religious uncertainty in Medieval England. Although many of the movements prominent leaders, such as John Wycliffe and Sir John Oldcastle, have been immortalized in the annals of English history, many smaller, yet equally important, leaders seem to have escaped recognition. One such individual was John Purvey, a religious leader turned revolutionary. The few records of Purveys life provide a compelling and fascinating view into the life of significant, yet relatively unknown, English religious dissenter. Purveys life story allows the historian to observe the Lollard movement from the eyes of a prominent figure unpolluted by fame or myth. A former

priest from Lincolnshire, he contributed greatly to Lollard theology through his authorship and contribution to a number of Lollard sermons and works. Although Purvey briefly recanted his heretical beliefs in the middle of his career as a reformer, he went on to support a Lollard uprising in the mid-1414. Despite the unfortunate lack of documentation concerning his inquisitorial trial, his story gives greater context to this particularly stormy period of English ecclesiastical history. The Lollard movement in which Purvey became so involved sprang to life in the latter half of the 14th century under the auspice of John Wycliffe, a lecturer at Oxford and clergyman. Most historians recognize the movements official inception in 1381, when English peasants under the leadership of revolted against the Crown in The Peasants Rebellion. The rebellion left

Reach 2

the English government shaken and resulted in the death of Archbishop Sudbury, a prominent figure in the Catholic Church in England. Following this revolt, Ecclesiastical authorities identified Lollard beliefs, whether justly or not, as the chief of the cause of the uprising and moved swiftly to prosecute combat it. Wycliffe was barred from teaching at Oxford, and only remained safe from persecution due to political trials (Frederick 14-19). However, Wycliffe and his followers continued to protest what they saw as abuses in papal and ecclesiastical authority. In 1395, Wycliffe published the Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards, whose purpose was to Denuncyn to [th]e lordis and [th]e comunys of [th]e parlement certeyn conclusionis and treuthis for [th]e reformation of holi chirche of Yngelond, (English Wycliffe 24-29). The conclusions highlighted the main tenants, as Wycliffe saw, twelve errors of the Catholic Church. This document served to further heighten tensions between the two parties, as well as clarify the key tenants and beliefs which the Lollards embraced. Despite persecution, however, the Lollard movement continued to grow throughout the late 14th century and early 15th century. The Lollard movement was framed by two pressing crisiss in the English nation and Christendom at large. In 1378, before the movements full conception, the Roman Pope Gregory died, leaving the Roman Catholic Church in a state of disarray. The following struggle for control of the Church emerged between the former Archbishop of Bari and the Cardinal Bishop of Cambray. Both men claimed papal authority, and excommunicated each other and their respective followers (Frederick 22). This newly formed divide in the Church lasted until well into the second decade after the 15th century, and became known as the Great Schism (Ford 7). The Great Schism greatly weakened the Authority of the Catholic Church as a whole, disrupting its ability to effectively address the threat to orthodoxy which the Lollards presented. Furthermore, the abuses of ecclesiastical power which became visible during the served only to

Reach 3

strengthen the Lollard cause. The weakening of the churchs power meant that Lollard heresy became an essentially English problem. The chief responsibility of addressing Lollard heresy fell into the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury Arundel, head of the Catholic Church in England. Furthermore, the Lollard movement also occurred during a time of increasing upheaval in Englands politics. In the late 14th century, an English monarch was deposed from the thrown, increasing the political instability in England. Furthermore, the Lollard movement began long after the beginning of the Hundred Years War in 1337. This conflict, which lasted up until 1453, placed a heavy financial burden on English nation as a whole, increasing latent tensions between the lesser educated classes of English society and the educated. These tensions led to The Peasants Rebellion, as well as the increased growth in Lollard philosophy among the common people. Since Lollard philosophies often highlighted the Churchs abuse of money as a need for change, many individuals in the lower classes began to identify with the movement (Ford 7-9). John Purvey made his first foray in this tumultuous scene in 1377. Unfortunately, little is known about his life before this date, although it is almost certain he studied under Wycliffe for some time previously. Some historians suspect that he studied under Wycliffe at Oxford, yet there is no concrete documentation to confirm this fact. It is likely that at some point before 1377 he had exposure to Wycliffe. However, church documents do confirm that he was dismissed from priesthood in 1377/8 in the Lincoln diocese for preaching Lollard principles (Jurkowski 1). He again re-emerges into public records in 1388, when a church communiqu which condemned him and several other prominent heretics, including Wycliffe, for the spreading of heretical texts. Furthermore, the communiqu authorized the destruction his

Reach 4

writings if they were found in private hands. This particular piece of documentation adds insight into the role which Purvey played in shaping the Lollard movement. The document indicates that Purvey at least had a hand in the writing of some significant Lollard texts, although most of the specific texts are unknown (Jurkowski 2). The fact that Purvey was responsible in part for crafting Lollard writings implicates him as a person of power within the Lollard movement. His importance can be corroborated from the testimony of other contemporaries of the time. In 1403, a Carmelite friar wrote a libelli Purvey Lollardi, which pertained to an individual most likely John Purvey. Similar to his first condemnation, Purvey was again censored for teaching heretical beliefs in local villages. (Jurkowski 2) Furthermore, Purvey is listed in a Lollards heresy trial in 1407 by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is interesting to note that Ioon Purueye is listed with the names of other prominent Lollard heretics, all of whom were described as men that weren holden ri[g]twise men and prudent, tau[g]ten and wroten bisili [th]is foreside lore of Wiclef. (English Wycliffe 29-33). Furthermore, Purvey is also accused of authoring several pamphlets and aiding in the crafting of major Lollard works. One particular monk, named Netter, specifically references the work done by Purvey in his book Doctrinale. In this work, Netter attributes the books, De compendiis scripturarum and, paternarum doctrinarum et canonum to Purveys hand (Hudson 95). Unfortunately, none of these manuscripts survive today. Furthermore, Netter writes that the Lollard work Florentum was co-authored by Wycliffe himself, Purvey, and other contributors (Hudson 89-95). However, Wycliffe and Purvey are the only two individuals whom he notes by name. Despite Purveys large contributions to the Lollard cause, he never achieved full prominence in the movement. Perhaps the reason for this was his response to accusations of heresy in 1401.

Reach 5

This incident is one of the most interesting aspects of Purveys life. In February or March of 1401, the Archbishop of Wakefield put Purvey on trial for seven points of heresy. The first charge concerned the ceremony of the Eucharist. The second maintained that Purvey denied the need for confession and private penitence, and asserted that practicing these led to damnation. The third charge that every man was able to administer the sacraments, that priests were also bishops and prelates, and that the humblest and most servant-like in Gods kingdom was the true Pope. The fourth was that clergy who lived unclean lives were servants of hell rather than heaven, and that papal excommunication had no spiritual meaning. The fifth claim was that Purvey believed every man was qualified to teach the word of God, and that every priest had a spiritual duty to preach. The sixth charge denied the importance of chastity vows. Last, Purvey was charged with condemning the Council of Lyons for creating the doctrine of transubstantiation and requiring confession once a year. Furthermore, this last point emphasized that Papal decrees, unless tied to scripture, were irrelevant. The weighty nature of these charges put Purvey in a difficult place in answering to the satisfaction of the church on each count (Hudson 74-89). These charges, however, were not particularly unique in terms of Lollard theology, since similar points are made in Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards, publicly displayed in 1395 by Lollard Heretics (English Wycliffe 24-29). It is certain that Purvey subscribed to these beliefs and helped articulate them through his sermons and literary works. However, the most interesting facet of the trial arrived from Purveys reaction to the charges brought against him. Instead of accepting the consequences of his beliefs, Purvey recanted his beliefs to the court, and identified his former teachings as erroneous heresies.

Reach 6

One may only speculate on the motivation for Purveys sudden denial of his lifes work. The most convincing argument may be that Purvey acted simply out of self-preservation. The most authorial text used for the prosecution of heretics at that time was the Decretum (Forrest 23-33). St. Augustine of Hippo established that heretics were individuals tried in court, who refused to recant from their beliefs. The trial of a heretic, therefore, was rather first correct an errant individual than immediately punish them. It is highly likely that Purvey was tried for heresy under the definition set forth in the Decretum. As a clergyman, it is likely that he would have come into contact with the Decretum before, and understand how best to escape punishment. And while French legal texts on heresy were just being introduced to England, the Decretum remained the final authority on the treatment of heretics. Therefore, by claiming recanting from his heretical beliefs, Purvey ensured that he would avoid penalty (Forrest 23-33). Furthermore, the ecclesiastical trials had already provided plenty of motivation for individuals to try to escape punishment. Purveys trial actions took place after the passage of the de heretic comburendo which authorized the church to prosecute and punish heretics by burning at the stake (Rex 54). Therefore, considering that Purveys only alternative to recantation was death, there was ample motivation for him to renounce his beliefs, at least temporarily. Regardless of the motivation behind Purveys renunciation of the seven points of heresy, his willingness to recant drew attention from his accusers. According to commentator Anne Hudson, Purvey received a position as a tithes collector from Archbishop Arundel for the near Saltwood after the trial. However, it is clear that the Arundel gave little credence to Purveys denial of heresy. The most prominent feature of Saltwood was a prison which was often used for the imprisonment of heretics, a clear reminder to Purvey that refrain from any more heretical

Reach 7

teachings. (Hudson 86-89). Arundel himself commented on Purveys lack of conviction during the trial. During the trial of a Lollard, Arundel commented that Purvey He shewi[d] now himself to be nei[th]er hoot ne coold, and was a Fals harlot, (English Wycliffe 29-33). Despite his commission as tithes collector, Purvey resigned his commission and left Saltwood (Jurkowski 6). The most likely reason for his sudden departure was his desire to contribute to Lollard theology and the movement. Despite the lack documents regarding his sudden disappearance, Purvey emerged again preaching the same heresies he had denied shortly before. It is highly likely that this denial of fundamental beliefs led to Purveys temporary decline in the significance of the Lollard movement. Whether his denial of Lollard principles alienated him with other Lollards, or Purvey limited his role in the movement to avoid further retribution from the church remains a mystery. In any case, Purveys actions remained unrecorded. After this departure, Purvey disappeared again from the annals of history for over a decade. During this time however, the transformation which he underwent seemed to have dramatically altered his life and perspective. The next known record confirming Purveys activities can be found amongst secular trial documents for attempting to overthrow the crown on January 10th, 1414. Suddenly, it appeared the lukewarm heretic described by Arundel transformed into a veritable Lollard incendiary. However, Purvey is not named explicitly as having participated in the event, since his trial records and incitement did not survive, but rather he is mentioned through the trial of other menRobert Harley, Richard Morley, and the leader of the rebellion, Sir John Oldcastle. (Thompson 1-9). Oldcastle, once a favorite of the court, had been accused of harboring Lollard sympathies by prominent clergyman. After a personal appeal to the king was denied, Oldcastle was forced

Reach 8

to choose between ecclesiastical prosecution and revolt (Taylor 157-159). For whatever reason, Purvey joined the group of conspirators seeking to overthrow the English government and its accompanying and religious structure. Jurowski concludes that Purvey was present at the armed confrontation between the rebels and the kings forces at St. Giles fields, but unfortunately Oldcastle failed to carry the day. Other court records indicate that he was sheltered after the battle by rebel sympathizers. Prison records show that Purvey was taken to the Newgate gaol on January 12th. Although no written record expressly indicates Purveys motive for taking part in such a rebellion, it has been speculated that Purvey was motivated to express his belief that the layman had a right to preach and lead a spiritual life based off of his understanding of the scripture. Therefore, this conviction could have compelled him to rebel against the ecclesiastical struggle (Jurkowski 8). This belief certainly is plausible, for a number of reasons. First, Purvey seems to have lived the lifestyle of an impoverished priest. The inventory of items seized on the authority of the crown confirms indicate that Purvey lived a basic lifestyle, in accordance with the Lollard practice that priests live humble existences. The noticeable absence of luxurious possessions placed Purvey on roughly the same level of lifestyle as a well-off peasant. Furthermore, the Lollard movement in the mid 1410s had begun to attract a broader swath of followers. Unlike the original core movement, which consisted mainly of Wycliffe and his intellectual followers, Lollard doctrine had also begun to attract a wider number of lower class followers. Many of the Lollard doctrines resonated with the lower classes, overburdened with ecclesiastical and war taxes levied to pay for Englands frequent battles in France. Lollard priests, exemplifying humility and preaching the equanimity of man in the eyes of God, were

Reach 9

welcomed by English peasants (Ford 4-6). This caused large numbers of illiterate individuals to adopt the label of Lollard, without understanding the full complexity of the movement. Therefore, had Purvey been devoted to the cause of improved rights for peasants, he could not have found a better movement to join. Furthermore, Purvey had written explicitly about the rights of the common man in his two works de compendiis scripturarum and paternarum doctrinarium et canonum, mentioned previously by Netter. It is possible he felt so strongly on behalf of the oppressed lower classes that he felt Oldcastles revolt could potentially forge a new government separate from the ecclesiastical rulings of the Catholic church, and better able to serve the need of the common Englishman (Hudson 84-94). There are some potential problems with this understanding of Purveys motivation. While it is entirely possible that Purvey acted out of his desire to aid the English peasants, it is unlikely that this was his primary impetus for risking his life in such a manner. Second of all, most of the evidence surrounding Purvey shows a man more equipped for theological sermons and ethical treaties than a champion of the people. Considering that Purvey had denounced his beliefs earlier, presumably to save his own life, it is surprising and improbable that he would champion the cause of the lower class man. Perhaps a much more likely explanation is that Purvey was again acting out of selfinterest. If Purvey had once again openly embraced Lollard doctrine, then it is quite possible that he found himself again in trouble with the ecclesiastical authorities in England. Furthermore, Purvey must have been well aware that he would find no mercy at the hands of the religious inquisition had he been forced to stand trial for heresy again. Therefore, Purvey might have found it expedient to ally himself with one of the most powerful individuals who could resist the

Reach 10

pressure of the clergy and crown: Sir John Oldcastle. Although the odds must have been slim, it is quite likely that Purvey was prepared to fight for his beliefs rather than face certain death at the hands of the inquisitorial court. It is clear from records after the battle that the English ecclesiastical authorities deemed Purvey a prisoner of importance. Eighty men were captured on the battlefield or in hiding afterwards, of which sixty-nine were charged with treason against the crown, including Purvey. Yet Purvey remained imprisoned with 11 of the ringleaders of the rebellion (Thompson 11). Perhaps the reason for Purveys survival was the interest which ecclesiastical authorities seemed to have found in him. During the early part of the Middle Ages, heretics and religious dissenters were prosecuted jointly by both the Church and government. While most of the other rebels convicted solely of treason against the crown were executed almost immediately in secular courts, Purvey was subjected to a different trial procedure, since he was guilty of both spiritual and temporal sins. Typical English heresy proceedings began when secular authorities seized the suspected offender, after which he was given a thorough religious trial. At the end of the trial, the heretic would be handed over to secular authorities to carry out his sentence. Furthermore, while the offender was contained within secular prisons, judicial figures within the clergy were able to access the prisoner (Forrest 23). Evidence of this procedure is apparent in the executions which followed the rebellion against the crown. Over the following weeks after the rebellion, over 40 individuals were executed against treason, including Sir John Oldcastles chief lieutenant. However, the last two executions conducted were of Priests convicted of heresy. Their longer trials indicate they were probably given ecclesiastical trials instead of secular trials (Thompson 7). Although no records of Purveys trial remain, it can be assumed with relative safety he

Reach 11

was investigated thoroughly by the church. However, it is unclear why Purvey was not executed swiftly, like the other two clergymen caught in the rebellion. It is likely, however, that Purvey would have undergone further interrogation by church authorities as to the nature and significance of his writings. After his capture, Purveys possessions were seized by the English authorities and catalogued. The list provides an interesting glimpse into his personal life. As previously noted, the majority of items on the list were common household items, such as a materas and a pair blanket. These attest to Purveys relatively poor and simple lifestyle. However, the most interesting, and most valuable asset which Purvey had in his belongings was his extensive library. Purvey had in his possession 19 books, all of which are in some way connected to ecclesiastical liturgy or the studies of the scriptures. The library, in terms of monetary wealth, contrasts greatly with Purveys meager lifestyle, indicating the value which Purvey placed on his ecclesiastical education (Jurkowski 11-13). However, as Jurkowski comments, the majority these works were common for priests of the period to own. Purvey possessed a bible, breviary, books of the gospel, and epistles. Furthermore, canonical law and patristic works were also the favorite of Lollard writers, (Kurkowski 12). Therefore, it is only fitting that he should have such works in his possession. However, many other works seem to pertain heavily to Lollard ideology. Purvey had at least two books of his own writing in his collection, the de compendiis scripturarum and paternarum doctrinarium et canonum, which dealt heavily with Lombard preaching statutes, particularly the belief that lay individuals had the authority to preach to others if they felt so compelled. This particular idea was one of the seven points of heresy for which Purvey had been charged earlier in 1401, an interesting counterpoint to his earlier denial of this philosophy.

Reach 12

However, the last three works in Purveys possession are not readily identifiable texts. The works, written in Latin, are titled liber sanctorum in sermonum, liber de proprietate, and liber de Evangelia dominicalia. They appear to be some type of sermon set. However, one possible explanation is that Purvey himself authored these works, since they cannot be crossreferenced with other Lollard texts (Jurkowski 11-13). Unfortunately, the answers which Purvey would have given about his reasoning for rebelling against the government and his other philosophies are lost, since the records from his trial have sadly disappeared from public records. Thus, the most important document in learning to understand how Purvey thought, felt, and responded to the inquisitorial process. Despite the large gaps in John Purveys biography, the existing documentation provides a unique view of ecclesiastical dealings during the turn of the 14th century. For the first time in its history, the church of England was dealing with a large-scale heretical movement. This movement, which grew at one of the most perilous times in English history, challenged the manner in which the English church dealt with heretics. Through Purveys experience with the Lollard theology, the modern historian can gain better perspective on this unique time period, as well as the role which some of its most devoted members played in shaping it.

Reach 13

Works Cited Ford, Judy. John Mirk's Festival: Orthodoxy, Lollardy and the Common People. Worstershire: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print. Forrest, Ian. The Detection of Heresy in Late Medieval England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005. Print. Frederick, P.W. John Wyclif and the First English Bible. Fremont: Woodward Printing Co., 1957. Print. Hudson, Anne. Lollards and Their Books. London: Robert Hartnoll Ltd., 1985. Print. Jurkowski, Maureen. "New Light on John Purvey." English Historical Review 110.439 (1995): 1180-1190. Web. 22 Apr 2010. Selections from English Wycliffite Writings. London: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Print. Rex, Richard. The Lollards. New York: Palgrave Distribution, 2002. Print. Taylor, Matthew. Englands Bloody Tribunal. Cooke Publishers. London, 1769. Thompson, John. The Later Lollards 1414-1520. London: Oxford University Press, 1965. Print.