This book is a model of how to write a monograph; it is also one of the best books on medieval heresy to appear for some time. The author may belabor Wittgenstein's “family” model a bit, but it is a useful angle of approach nonetheless. The idea is that connections are more important than logical categories: lollardy reflects “broad attitudes rather than narrow theological propositions” (204). Lollard views varied according to webs of relationships: blood ties, neighbors and friends, exposure to particular clergy, readings, discussions in what we would call house churches, geography, and time. There was a natural difference between the subtle theological arguments of the Oxford scholar John Wycliffe and his intellectual followers on the one hand, and popular anticlericalism on the other, yet the two interwove.
The book shines in a variety of aspects. Most importantly, it takes the beliefs and teachings of the lollards seriously in themselves rather than relegating them to epiphenomena of supposedly “more real” economic and political milieus. It attempts to “rehabilitate doctrine as a locus of scholarly enquiry” (204). Yet it takes worldly matters seriously too, the result being as 3-D a picture of the heretics as possible. For example, the author cites evidence that although the movement tended to be more radical through time, there were many exceptions, and he finds little to support the old view of Protestant historians that Wycliffites and lollards were in any causal way precursors of the Reformation.
Of course the sources are limited, though all historians of heresy would be overjoyed to have as much primary material about their own heretical subjects as the lollards present. The sources go far beyond the often cut-and-dried ecclesiastical accusations, inquiries, and trials to include open statements and writings of the lollards themselves. The author is meticulously familiar with the primary sources and is also keenly aware of all the modern scholarship, which he judges fairly yet critically.
His point in using the lower-case lollard is that what lollards believed varied greatly over time, in different localities, and according to personalities. John Wycliffe's own views differed over the course of his life, and the views of his followers varied even more. The author makes his point through a carefully chosen and effective division of his treatment into chapters on salvation, the Eucharist, marriage and celibacy, the priesthood and hierarchy, and the papacy.
The caution is that what is true of lollards at the time is true in many respects of Catholics (should one say catholics?) at the time. However monolithic a church or sect may look to the casual observer, careful attention reveals its differences and even oppositions. Professor Hornbeck confirms that “Wycliffite” and “lollard” are by no means synonymous, and that lollards often held radically different ideas from one another. But as appropriate as Hornbeck's “splitting” is, splitting can go too far and reduce any movement to individual psychology and circumstances, leaving little room for generalizations about lollards or any other group. The single unifying attitude that Hornbeck finds among the lollards is that they all saw themselves as “part of a group outside the religious mainstream” (8).
Still, the variety among the lollards is striking. On the Eucharist, they were in agreement in rejecting transubstantiation, but their views ranged whole spectrum from consubstantiation to bare memorial; many (including Wycliffe himself) affirmed the Real Presence of Christ while others denied it. On priesthood, most believed that the clergy needed only reforming, while a very few believed in the priesthood of any “just man, whatever his learning” (166). Wycliffe himself was unclear about clerical marriage, but many lollards believed that celibacy should be voluntary. Some believed that the priesthood might best be abolished, and most agreed that preaching by laypersons was to be encouraged. About the papacy, lollards were much more conservative than they have usually been presented. Most of them thought that the papacy was a good institution that just needed to be reformed, though theories ran the gamut all the way to asserting that the pope was the Antichrist.
Wycliffe and many of his followers insisted that a valid pope had to be one of the elect. This idea appears both in Hornbeck's treatment of the papacy and his treatment of salvation. Although many lollards were not predestinarians, predestination was characteristic of much of the movement. The works–grace debate has always occupied theologians, and it was an issue especially alive from the fourteenth through seventeenth centuries. The Catholic Church is generally seen as works-oriented in the later Middle Ages, but that is true only with enormous reservations. At any rate, Wycliffe perceived it as such, as did Luther and Calvin later. Most contemporary orthodox theologians did not believe that humans could add to their merits by good works in addition to the grace of Christ, but the efficacy of works was often preached at local levels, and it was anathema to Wycliffe.
Professor Hornbeck's book is extremely important in many ways. It is the best book to date on lollardy. Next, its methodological treatment of the lollards can be profitably extended to the study of other religious movements, both dissenting and (to some extent) orthodox. Further, it is exceptionally readable for such a detailed monograph. Although its theological precision and ready use of Latin and Middle English texts make it difficult for a general audience, every scholar interested in the history of heresy and, indeed, of Christianity in general will find it a treasure. It is an ideal combination of precise scholarship, sophisticated understanding of issues, open-minded investigation, and sharp awareness of how the subject relates to wider issues in both theology and historiography.
