cal holdings. He also supported the right of the Crown
to levy taxes on church holdings. This garnered him
powerful court supporters, including Richard II, the
Black Prince, and John of Gaunt. Wycliffe also pro-
moted lay education, particularly citing the need for a
VERNACULAR translation of the Bible. He began a transla-
tion in 1381 and had most of the Old Testament and
the Gospels completed before his death in 1384. Lol-
lardism grew apart from Wycliffe’s positions after his
death. In particular, practitioners came to reject all
spiritual practices not found in the Bible, including the
sacraments, and to sanction the priesthood of all
believers.
Lollardism was political from its inception, having
its basis in Wycliffe’s discontent with his career, and its
initial alignment was with state funding. As Wycliffe
grew more radical—for example, rejecting the doctrine
of transubstantiation (the belief that bread and wine
become the actual body and blood of Christ)—the
aristocracy distanced themselves from Lollards, while
the gentry and artisan classes moved to embrace it.
Many of the anticlerical points raised during the PEAS-
ANTS’ REVOLT of 1381 were attributed to Lollardism,
and it became feared as a synonym for anarchy and a
basis for rebellion. Henry IV was particularly vigorous
in his efforts to suppress Lollardism, though it contin-
ued to be prosecuted into the 16th century.
Lollardism deeply affected English literature. In
particular, the fi rst complete translation of the Bible
into English was a major accomplishment that kin-
dled the laity’s desire to be educated. The widespread
infl uence of the movement is also noticeable in popu-
lar literature, such as WILLIAM LANGLAND’s PIERS PLOW-
MAN, as well as other works within the PIERS PLOWMAN
TRADITION or related to it, including PIERCE THE PLOW-
MAN’S CREDE, MUM AND THE SOTHSEGGER, and Richard
the Redeless. Another Lollard text, Jack up Lande, was
erroneously attributed to GEOFFREY CHAUCER in the
16th century, even being published as a “lost” Can-
terbury Tale. Though that was disproved, Chaucer’s
works contain allusions to Lollardism, such as the
Host’s exclaimation in the epilogue to “The MAN OF
LAW’S TALE: “ ‘I smelle a Lollere in the wynd’, quod he
... This Lollere heer wil prechen us somewhat” (ll.
1173, 1177).
FURTHER READING
Aston, Margaret E. Lollards and Reformers. London: Hamble-
don, 1984.
Lollard Society, The. Homepage. Available online. URL:
http://www.lollardsociety.org. Downloaded on February 2,
2007.
McSheffrey, Shannon. Gender and Heresy: Women and Men
in Lollard Communities. 1420–1530. Philadelphia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press, 1995.
Rex, Richard. The Lollards. New York: Palgrave, 2002.“LONDON, HAST THOU ACCUSED ME”
HENRY HOWARD, EARL OF SURREY (1543) HENRY
HOWARD, EARL OF SURREY wrote “London, hast though
accused me” while inside London’s notorious Fleet
prison. In this 68-line poem, the 26-year-old earl
attempts to justify the actions that had resulted in his
being locked up: breaking Lenten fast, running riot
with a group of companions through the streets of
London, and assaulting its citizens.
The poem, which begins, “London, hast thou accused
me / Of breech of laws, the root of strife” asserts that
the poet was not really breaking the laws of city, but
was attempting to warn its populace of the coming
wrath of God for their own lawlessness. The next lines
contain an allusion in which Surrey claims that he had
become “A fi gure of the Lord’s behest” (l. 21), a type of
Jeremiah sent to reprove his people of their dissolute
ways. The poem features an enumeration (ll. 28–41) of
the SEVEN DEADLY SINS (pride, envy, wrath, sloth, covet-
ousness, lechery, gluttony), indicating how the poet
wished his late-night rampage to have been a curative
to London’s “proud people that dread no fall, / Clothed
with falsehood and unright” (ll. 45–46). The poem’s
other major structural feature comes as a kind of cli-
max in the form of a series of BIBLICAL ALLUSIONS (ll.
56–64) that predict London’s apocalyptic fall. In the
end, Surrey predicts “none thy ruin shall bemoan” (l.
65), because no one except the righteous shall remain.
Critics of the poem come in two varieties: those who
see it as a lark and those who see it as something seri-
ous. The former often claim that Surrey wrote the
poem to refl ect the mood with which he had enjoyed
his revels; the latter point to its intricate and sophisti-
cated poetic qualities, even likening its structure to the“LONDON, HAST THOU ACCUSED ME” 249