After Arundel: Religious Writing in Fifteenth-Century England ed. by Vincent Gillespie and Kantik Ghosh (review)

Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury (1396–97, 1399–1414), drafted in 1407 and promulgated in 1409 a set of constitutions that aimed at reform in the English church, especially at suppressing the Wycliffite movement by regulating preaching (and teaching) as well as censoring translations of the Bible and biblical texts into English. In the wake of modern studies of John Wyclif and his influence, some historians have come to see the “stultifying public consequences” (p. 44) of Arundel’s legislation, not only on the production of literature in English but also on the entire religious and intellectual life of fifteenth-century England. It was especially Nicholas Watson’s far-reaching article¹ that argued forcefully that Arundel’s censorship caused profound changes in the production of what Watson calls “vernacular theology”—defined as any kind of writing in the vernacular that communicates theological information, thus covering sermons, pastoral works, and works of devotion. Such changes were seen in the quantity, circulation, and tone of this literature.

Watson’s essay painted a nuanced picture of the effects of Arundel’s legislation on later vernacular religious literature and, by implication, on the entire religious and intellectual life of fifteenth-century England. This picture inspired a 2009 conference in Oxford on the 600th anniversary of Arundel’s Constitutions. The volume under review gathers thirty papers connected with that conference. Some argue that Arundel’s legislation should be seen in the light of a more universal European unease and desire for reform as it was discussed at several general councils, especially Constance and Basel, where English delegates gave important addresses (Vincent Gillespie, Alex Russell). Another essay similarly reminds us of parallels between English and Continental universities in the diminution of academic theological work (Jeremy Catto). On the other hand, several contributors point to such positive developments in fifteenth-century English church life as an “ecclesiastical humanism” at mid-century (Daniel Wakelin, Andrew Cole); the higher intellectual level of the clergy, especially in London (Sheila Lindenbaum); a more intensive care given to the liturgy issuing from Salisbury (David Lepine); and monastic resistance to the political fusion of church and state that one can find in John Lydgate’s legends about saints (Catherine Sanok) or even the establishment of public libraries (James Willoughby). Still other scholars subject specific Middle-English texts of the period to a probing analysis in light of Arundel’s legislation such as the Digby Lyrics (Helen Barr), the poetry of Audelay (Susanna Fein), Lydgate’s revisions (W. H. E. Sweet), translations of the lives of Continental saints (Jennifer Brown), and much else. Attention also is called to the fact that in some manuscripts “orthodox” and “heterodox” texts were copied side by side, probably for use by the same readership—the phenomenon of mixed texts or “hospitality” that had already been discussed by Watson and earlier scholars (Stephen Kelly and Ryan Perry; Amanda Moss).

Although not all essays address Watson’s main argument of Arundel’s negative influence directly, it is likely that in a vote on its merit no clear yes or no would emerge; instead, a more variegated and nuanced view is possible and even required. The volume will probably not be the last word on this issue, but the range and the quality of its scholarship makes an important and welcome contribution to it. It also shows, incidentally, that fifteenth-century English religious literature, certainly in its sociological aspects, has emerged from the shadows in which literary and social studies had kept it for a long time.