St Andrews Research Repository

St Andrews University Home
View Item 
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • History (School of)
  • Mediaeval History
  • Mediaeval History Theses
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • History (School of)
  • Mediaeval History
  • Mediaeval History Theses
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • History (School of)
  • Mediaeval History
  • Mediaeval History Theses
  • View Item
  • Login
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

The influence of 'Lollardy' and reformist ideas on English legislation, c.1376 - c.1422

Thumbnail
View/Open
NicholasEFoulserPhDThesis.pdf (71.42Mb)
Date
2005
Author
Foulser, Nicholas E.
Supervisor
Given-Wilson, Chris
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
This thesis explores the potential influence of 'Lollardy' and reformist ideas on English legislation in the period c.1376 to c.1422. It focuses on a comparison between the ideas expressed in a variety of Wycliffite works, most especially the tracts that were reportedly presented to parliament, and the ideas contained within parliamentary legislative activity. The aim of the thesis is to shed light on the extent to which the political community shared the ideas expressed in 'heterodox' works and the extent to which the debate over 'Lollardy' informed the debates over other issues within parliament. It begins with an introductory section which explores the nature of 'Lollardy', the potential of the parliamentary and statute rolls as sources for the impact of reformist ideas, and an examination of what can be gleaned from other sources as regards the attitudes of the political community to reform. It then moves on to explore legislative activity on a variety of issues including papal provisions, vagrancy, appropriation, non-residence and pluralism, hospitals and fraternal recruitment practices - on a primarily chapter by chapter basis, exploring the ideas and arguments as they developed chronologically and mapping these, as far as possible, against the known chronology of 'Lollardy'. It also makes comparisons between the petitions and the government's response, in order to determine the dynamics of 'Lollardy's' influence. Did the commons have an underlying programme of reform? If so, did this programme bear any relationship to the programme of reform advocated by the Wycliffites and the protagonists of disendowment? How committed were the commons to the ideas they espoused? Did the Church accept a level of parliamentary interference to stave off the threat of 'Lollardy'? What was the government's attitude to reform? These are some of the central questions of this thesis.
Type
Thesis, PhD Doctor of Philosophy
Collections
  • Mediaeval History Theses
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10023/13641

Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Advanced Search

Browse

All of RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunderThis CollectionBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunder

My Account

Login

Open Access

To find out how you can benefit from open access to research, see our library web pages and Open Access blog. For open access help contact: openaccess@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Accessibility

Read our Accessibility statement.

How to submit research papers

The full text of research papers can be submitted to the repository via Pure, the University's research information system. For help see our guide: How to deposit in Pure.

Electronic thesis deposit

Help with deposit.

Repository help

For repository help contact: Digital-Repository@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Give Feedback

Cookie policy

This site may use cookies. Please see Terms and Conditions.

Usage statistics

COUNTER-compliant statistics on downloads from the repository are available from the IRUS-UK Service. Contact us for information.

© University of St Andrews Library

University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013532.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter