Talk:Lollardy

Stamped out

I don't see how it could be stamped out in the early 15th Century if Thomas Harding was not executed until 1532. -- David Martland 13:51 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My question is also the one above. This should be addressed.

Rlquall 20:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Misc. thoughts

1) Lollardy appears not to have been stamped out, but rather rolled into the English Reformation. However, references to it seem to dribble down after the 15th cent. Erasmus mentions it as suppressed but not extinguished, according to Bartleby: http://www.bartleby.com/212/0216.html.

2) The article should probably clarify the relationship between the Lollards and Wycliffe. My understanding is that the Lollards were direct followers of Wycliffe (source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09333a.htm) (source: http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/varia/lollards/lollards.html).

3) There is a document which purports to be the Lollard confession called the 12 Conclusions of the Lollards. Its source is one hostile to Lollardism (from one Roger Dymok, who presented it for the purpose of refuting the 12 Conclusions), but it is a primary source. Perhaps it should be linked in?

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/varia/lollards/lollconc.htm

4) The withdrawal of John of Gaunt's support is alleged to be the result of Wycliffe's repudiation of transubstantiation. This needs further research. (source: http://www.island-of-freedom.com/WYCLIFFE.HTM)

--jrcagle 21:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A picture source (date even) would be nice. I'm sure it is public domain, but I think as a general policy these things should be acknowledged. Omicron18 13:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The map's title gives the term "Lollardry," with an 'r' -- It certainly sounds like a more likely term. Is it "Lollardy" or "Lollardry"? Vardamana 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment about the lollard support evapourating after gaunt left to Castile is unfounded. The Lollards, especially Hereford, Repingdon, Aston and even Swinderby found much support within the ranks of the so called 'lollard Knights' (see McFarlance 'Lollard Knights'). Also putting the comment straight after 1381 revolt implies that Gaunt left the country that year, which of course he didn't.

Beliefs

Is there any reason to qualify the word 'abortion' with the word 'even'. I really don't know so I didn't take it out. YAC (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good observation. As a Church historian, my understanding is that Lollards did not take a position on abortion because it was not at the time an established clinical procedure; the Catholic Church itself did not decree its specific opposition to such procedures until 1884 (although of course the Church's objections to infanticide, and other general teachings later understood to support its stand against abortion, date back to Roman times). I don't know of any documentation of Lollard expressions of belief about this issue from the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century; if anyone has a citation from a reliable source, they could re-insert and source said claim. Clevelander96 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To those who have re-inserted this passage: there are issues here which self-sourced Wikipedia refs don't really address. The original passage from the Twelve Conclusions reads: "for thou sleying of chidlren or they bin cristened, aborcife and stroying of kinde be medicine ben ful synful", which seems to refer to abortifacient herbs or remedies, the efficacy of which is uncertain. On top of this, the "XII Conclusions" is a document only of what the authorities of the English Church claimed that the Lollards believed, not a statement of the Lollards' own avowed beliefs; it is in essence hearsay. What would be needed here to source the statement as written would be a documented claim by an avowed Lollard or sympathizer that this was in fact their belief. Dr. Anne Hudson's The Premature Reformation (Oxford UP) would be a good source to check. Clevelander96 (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I find your skepticism of the "Twelve Conclusions" odd. The Wikisource page is referenced and matches the other versions that can be found online. While the Conclusions are only preserved in a Lollard opponent's text, I haven't found anything that suggests that they are inaccurately preserved. I haven't found anyone who suggests that the Conclusions are inaccurate, and several other sources use it as a basis for Lollard beliefs. Anne Hudson includes the Conclusions in "Selections from English Wycliffite Writings." (In Google Books, I could read the section with the text but I couldn't read any commentary, so I don't know what Hudson's exact take on the text is).The Conclusions also seem to fit with other sources of Lollard beliefs. Could you provide some reference that indicates that the Conclusions should be treated as "hearsay"? Also, the efficacy of abortifacients does not matter. When a group opposes something, they oppose it--even if it is ineffective.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can obtain Hudson's book in full, you will see the care she takes with this issue. Hudson's view is that we should neither discard the 12 Conclusions nor should we see them as necessarily an accurate description of Lollard beliefs. It's kind of like relying on the McCarthy/HUAC hearings for accurate information about actual American Communists. There are some issues listed among the 12 conclusions which seem to have been important only to a very few "Lollards" (e.g. members of the faculty of theology at Oxford who were among Wycliffe's early supporters) which there are others which seem to have been both widespread and persistent. One should also recall that the claim that persons provided abortifacients were used against the Jews, Gypsies, and old village wise-women, so it may be partly or mostly innuendo. I will have a look at Hudson's book the next time I am at the library and will quote in what I can find where she specifically addresses this specific conclusion. Clevelander96 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point regarding claims of people providing abortifacients. Thanks for looking up the Hudson. I don't have access to a decent library anymore.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Caption of Wycliffe/Lollard picture

Moved from User talk:Jim10701

I just noticed your recent change to the caption in the image in Lollardy. In fact, we do not know the extent of Wycliffe's personal contributions to the first translation of the Bible that came to bear his name; it may be that parts were done under his supervision, but it was (at least principally) the work of Nicholas of Hereford, John Purvey, and possibly John Trevisa. The second version, which was the one actually disseminated by his followers, was almost certainly not his work, as was dead by the time it was completed. Thus, the idea of him personally sending forth "his" Bible into the world is apocryphal, although in symbolic terms quite understandable. The caption was an (perhaps clumsy) attempt to clarify that -- I do think some sort of indication needs to be made. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand and don't altogether disagree with your point, but is it really necessary to make it in the caption of this picture? Maybe I could have explained my change better by saying that the part I removed makes for a very ungainly caption that primarily just distracts from the article in which it appears; it certainly distracted me. You don't contest Wycliffe's influence on the Lollards, so why interject here a detail that is pretty much irrelevant to this article about them? As you noted, the symbolism of the picture is plausible, and that's what seems relevant here.

Information about the extent of Wycliffe's actual contribution to the Bible translation named for him is in the articles about both him and the translation. Besides, saying he had "little to do with" the translation seems execessive. I'm no expert, but at least some who are credit him with translating some or all of the New Testament himself; even if later editors revised his work, that's hardly a "little" contribution. Maybe simply adding a link in the caption to one or both of those articles, where these issues are discussed in more detail, would be a reasonable solution. This caption just doesn't seem like the proper place to address such a complex and contentious issue.

I think you'd agree that it's not entirely absurd that the translation is named for him, since it's unlikely it would have been made otherwise, at least at that time. Putting details about his involvement in this caption, though, seems not unlike reminding readers any time the King James Version is mentioned that King James did not actually translate it himself. That is true too, and there'd be better justification for that than this, in my opinion, but is making that kind of point relevant in every context?

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to come here and express your point so thoroughly and clearly. If you feel strongly enough about it to undo my change, please do so, with my blessing. One of the delights of Wikipedia is that it is and always will be a colossal, imperfect, ever-morphing mess. Why should I object to one slightly imperfect caption?--Jim10701 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I just had another idea. Maybe the caption could say that the event pictured is symbolic, since Wycliffe himself was dead by the time the Lollards began using his translation. That, I think, would address your concern without opening a can of worms.--Jim10701 (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mumbler

If the word Lollard means mumbler, were these followers of Wycliff "charasmatic"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Lollardy" or "Lollardry"?

The map used in the article uses "Lollardry" with another 'r'.
"Lollardry" sounds, maybe, 100 or 200 times better than "Lollardy", which sounds like it should be a town in France.
A quick check online shows sites using the phrasing "Lollardry or Lollardy", assigning the precedence to the double 'r' version.
So why do we have "Lollardy"?
Varlaam (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"Lollardy" is the correct form. Godtres (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Article's use of theosophical terms

Article uses theosophical terms of the Catholic Church to define beliefs opposed to the Catholic Church. I'd dispute the neutrality of such wording. I think the Lollards' beliefs could be easily explained in "layman's terms", but at present, one must be familiar with Catholic terminology to understand what the Lollards believed. This article: http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/lollardy.html explains it in well enough terms, although I'm not sure its a wiki-friendly source. A big problem that I've noticed is that many articles dealing with the Lollards explain things in Middle English, making the specifics of the matter a bit more confusing. In any case, I think wording such as "the Lollards didn't believe the bread and wine turned into Jesus' blood and body" would be better than using theological terms that the Lollards probably would not have used, or even opposed (Lollards believed the Bible had primary authority; to make it an argument of "transubstantiation vs cosubstatiation" assumes the preliminary status of transubstantiation). This is Wikipedia: therefore, this article should be encyclopedic, neutral, and academic. I'm not sure I used the right wikitag.

Edit: Apparently the problem stems from the overlapping nature of the "doctrine" and "beliefs" section. Consider deleting "doctrine" section or merging.

Edit2: removed doctrine section as it gave no useful breakdown not included in beliefs section. Saving text:

A Lollard blacksmith in Lincolnshire declared that he could make "as good a sacrament between ii yrons as the prest doth upon his auter [altar]".<ref>Confession of William Ayleward, Register of Bishop Chedworth of Lincoln, Lincoln Archive Office REG 20, fol. 61r.</ref>

--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It does seem wise to describe the belief system and terms in as neutral, non loaded language/jargon as possible. Span (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with some of the intent of your edits, but I disagree with much of what you have done and propose. Yes, the article should more clearly define terms, but we should still use theological terms. Every high school or college course one European history will use the term "transubstantiation," so it's completely appropriate to use it here. I also think you are reading way too much into things, such as the use of theological terms neccesarily being "Catholic." Also discussing transubstantiation vs. cosubstatiation does not favor transubstantiation. No, the Lollards didn't use modern terms, but we're not writing this article in Middle English (FWIW I found a Middle English version of the 12 Conclusions of the Lollards here: http://lollardsociety.org/pdfs/Cronin_12_Conclusions.pdf). Any academic source is going to use basic theological terms on this topic, and including these terms lets us link to the articles where readers can find more detailed explanations.

I think the text you removed with "Edit2" should be added. It illustrates the Lollards' views in their own language (as you want).

Merging the doctrine and belief sections is a good idea.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the useful information in the doctrine section can be reintroduced into the 'beliefs' section. Theological terminology should be explained in the article to some extent. I don't like 'forcing' users unfamiliar with a theological concept to go scavenging through other articles, in which they'll find more confusing theological terminology and debate. Obviously the terms shouldn't be removed from the article, I'll see what needs improvement. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I reintroduced some of the bits from "Doctrine", but as I look I can't help but think how redundant or dubious some of the statements seem to be. For example, 'doctrine' says most Lollards believed in consubstantiation, but the beliefs section mentions that one of the Lollard amendments stated that transubstantiation was a non-issue and not mentioned in the scriptures.

Here's my attempt at a more descriptive, simple approach. But its already summarized a bit elsewhere in 'beliefs':

Some Lollards believed that Jesus' blood and body 'mingled' with the bread and wine of communion (consubstantiation), a reinterpretation of the Catholic teaching that Jesus' blood and flesh became the bread and wine (transubstantiation), although some of its followers went further.

In any event, I'm starting to think the 'beliefs' section is a mess and might contradict itself in places. Needs a more organized approach. Also needs more sources --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Eucharist

I agree that the Lollard beliefs on the Eucharist should be discussed in more detail but not in the overview of the beliefs section. This article is still really short! I will work on expanding it starting with a section about the Eucharist. Consubstantian is a bit complicated as scholars have written different things about it, and its influence on Lutheranism. We know Lollardy rejected the Catholic doctrine, this is the most basic version stated in overview encylcopedia articles and I think that is the version suitable for the general beliefs section. I would suggest discussing more complex views that are debated amongst scholars in a separate section, that way readers can read it if they are interested and skip it if they are not, because it is more specialized information and that is how we structure Wikipedia articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Seraphim System! I now understand your point. If you move the facts that prominent Lollards advocated consubstantiation to another party of the article, I can accept that as a compromise. I hope this helps and look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I think consubstantiation is used by the sources, but I see it used in quotation marks, so I've added those. There seems to be some overlap with Lutheranism - the OUP article seems to have trouble distinguishing between them. I get the sense that there may be a backward reading of Lutheranism into Lollardy, as some sources I've seen seem to indicate that Wycliffe himself is something of a mystery - but I will go with how the majority of WP:RS treat it. I will write up something a little more substantial about this after I've reviewed the sources, as our main article on consubstantiation is not in good shape. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That's fine for now. With regard to consubstantiation, it is not a Lutheran doctrine, but a Lollard doctrine. Lutherans teach the doctrine of sacramental union and explicitly reject consubstantiation for a similar reason that they reject transubstantiation--it is a philosophical term that attempts to explain the nature of the real presence. I hope this helps. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 23:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That is not what the sources say "Lutheran consubstantiation" from Cambridge University Press Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A plethora of other sources, such as this one indicate that some erroneously and mistakenly refer to consubstantiation as a Lutheran doctrine, despite the fact that Lutherans have repeatedly rejected it; the Lutheran doctrine is called 'sacramental union'. I hope this helps, Anupam^Talk 00:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 01:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Lollardy → Wycliffite – The article claims "Lollardy" to be derogatory and "Wycliffite" to be neutral. Google Books search is apparently skewed and does not give a number in the results any more, however, Google Scholar gives me 7,380 results for Lollardy and 8,520 for Wycliffite. A normal Google search gives me 82,300 for Lollardy and 391,000 for Wycliffite, so there may be a case for moving this page to apply neutrality. Reference WP:NEUTRAL. ~ R.T.G 20:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Lollard is more common than Wycliffite, see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Lollard is not a derogatory term today; it has become accepted through a process of usage and Reappropriation, the way Quakers started out as a term of ridicule and is now commonly used for the Society of Friends. The John Wycliffe article says, "Wycliffe's followers, known as Lollards..." to confirm the common name. Also, Google searches are not accurate measures of usage, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Google test and WP:GNUM - the article name should remain as "Lollardy" - Epinoia (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Easily the most common name and not considered a derogatory term today. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose when "Lollard" is combined with "Lollardy", it has more Google results that Wycliffite. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Power~enwiki. Lollard on google scholar brings up 13,700 results.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wycliffite and Wycliffites both redirect to John Wycliffe. Also, there were Wycliffites who weren't Lollards, such as many Hussites. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Etymology

Whilst here is reported that the Latin LOLLUM is translated with VETCH, I can give you the Italian meaning of LOLLA which is CHAFF. It was probably an insult to their opinion? Fascinating. Alexem82 (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Lollards attempted to distribute English copies of the Bible

The article says: "Lollards also believed that people deserved access to a copy of their own Bible. Many attempted to distribute translated copies..."

Note that the Latin Vulgate was a translated copy of the Bible, but the Lollards wanted people to have a Bible in their own language. The article says that the Lollards "were certainly considerably energized by the translation of the Bible into the English language." It also says that "Sixteenth-century martyrologist John Foxe described four main beliefs of Lollardy: opposition to pilgrimages and saint worship, denial of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and a demand for English translation of the Scriptures."

Therefore, I propose to replace the words "Many attempted to distribute translated copies" by "Many attempted to distribute English copies". Mksword (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

My drive-by mistake, thanks for clarifying. I restored "English". Eric ^talk 11:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Rename to Lollard

Redirect "Lollardy" to Lollard. I have never heard of Lollardy the practice, only of a "lollard", a lazy person, traceable back to a religious dissident in England as described in the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyvipond (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Lollardy is a common term, so a move should not be made on that ground. As as noted, Lollard has other meanings. On the other hand, I would note that the Hussites article is named after the people, not the movement unlike this one... Godtres (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)