Richardson, H. G., 'Heresy and the Lay Power under Richard II', The English Historical Review 51 (1936), 1-28

-

Quick Summary

Richard II and his government were determined to repress the Lollard heresy but resisted pressure to introduce the death penalty

  • Under Richard II the church tried to introduce the death penalty for heresy
  • From 1382 the king’s council took on new responsibilities for dealing with heresy
  • Existing legal procedures were slow and ineffectual against determined heretics
Key Conclusion

Richardson explores the development of legal procedures to deal with heresy in England during the reign of Richard II. Richardson concludes that the state, at the behest of the church, began to play a more direct role in taking action against organised heretical teaching. However, despite pressure from the church to introduce the death penalty, the English government continued to rely on ‘imprisonment and the threat of confiscation to induce submission’ (p. 24). Although Richard II and his government were determined to repress Lollardy ‘by all the means in their power’, there is no evidence to suggest that they sought the ‘acquiescence of parliament in the infliction of the ultimate penalty’ (p. 25).

Content Overview

Up until 1382, heresy was treated in the same way as any other crime that fell under the jurisdiction of the church courts. If the church was unable to deal with the ‘occasional heretics who troubled them’, legal procedures provided for the excommunication and imprisonment of the offending individual. From 1382, a new legal procedure was introduced whereby the church could ‘enlist the aid of the civil authorities in the apprehension of suspects and, from 1388, in the search for heretical writings’ (p. 24). The king’s council exercised supervision over this new development, and assumed the right to examine those suspects of Lollardy. This included periodic orders to bring anyone found to be a Lollard before the council for punishment.

Further Findings

Richardson questions why fresh measures against heresy were necessary in 1382 when the existing legal procedure already allowed bishops to excommunicate and imprison heretics? Aside from the background considerations such as the growth of the Lollard heresy and its perceived link to the Peasants’ Revolt (p. 10), Richardson argues that the existing measures were essentially ineffective against determined heretics. Aside from being sluggish, the existing measures were based on the assumption that the offender would be ‘anxious to carry on, without interruption, his mundane affairs’. They were far less effective against offenders prepared to pass from shire to shire, ‘to whom the things of this world mattered very little’ (p. 7).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theilmann, John M., 'Stubbs, Shakespeare, and Recent Historians of Richard II', Albion 8 (1976), 107-124

-
Quick Summary The idea that Richard II was a tyrant persists even though a satisfactory history of his reign is yet to be written According to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy, Richard II was a coldly calculating king A revision to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy cast Richard II as insane Existing research distorts history by its fixation on constitutional issues Key Conclusion Theilmann explores the historiography of Richard II’s reign from the 1890s to the 1970s and, in particular, the verdict reached by historians about his approach to kingship. This historiographical review leads Theilmann to conclude that the traditional interpretation of Richard’s reign – the ‘Stubbsean Orthodoxy’ – has been slowly challenged but its influence remains strong. According to this Orthodoxy, Richard II was a ‘coldly calculating king’ (p. 110). He was a tyrant determined to diminish parliament and destroy constitutional government. Theilmann notes that while more recent research h...
Read more

Phillpotts, Christopher, 'The fate of the truce of Paris, 1396-1415', Journal of Medieval History 24 (1998), 61-80

-
Quick Summary The Truce of Paris (1396) formed a framework to reduce the level of warfare between England and France up until 1415 The focus of the truce changed depending on the particular ambitions of subsequent English kings Richard II maintained the truce after 1397 to secure dowry payments from France Henry IV and Charles VI put their differences aside to establish a peace between kingdoms Key Conclusion Phillpotts explores the longest truce of the Hundred Years War, agreed at Paris between Richard II of England and Charles VI of France in 1396, and its subsequent extension, redefinition and clarification until 1415. Truces reduced the level of warfare, rather than ended it, and needed to be periodically renegotiated to be effective. Phillpotts concludes that the truce of 1396 ‘formed the central framework of a series of general and particular truces’. The focus of the truce changed between 1396 and 1314, from Richard II’s initial concern to p...
Read more

Wilkinson, B., 'The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381', Speculum 15 (1940), 12-35

-
Quick Summary The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 was primarily a ‘movement of reaction’ against John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster Historians have paid too much attention to one particular source Common hatred of John of Gaunt brought the Londoners and the rebels together After the destruction of Gaunt’s palace in London the Peasants’ Revolt began to wane Key Conclusion Wilkinson provides a revisionist interpretation of the events in London during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Wilkinson contends that historians have paid too much attention to one particular source – the return of the jurors in the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions of 1382. The evidence presented to the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions was ‘thoroughly and, it seems likely, intentionally misleading’ (p. 12), since the London jurors ‘did their best to conceal the powerful support which Londoners themselves gave to the revolt’ (p. 29). Wilkinson concludes that the revolt was primarily a ‘movement of reaction against J...
Read more