We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Not even the finest network for the dissemination and maintenance of a new orthodox doctrine will serve its purpose as long as the ‘last mile’, actually reaching into the lives of individual parishioners, remains only fitfully under the hierarchy’s control. This essay on the visual imagery of post-Reformation English churches uses the record of church buildings’ walls to track how the national church’s evolving orthodoxies were interpreted by the laypeople who actually created and paid for these images. Once again, church buildings were sites where laypeople could wrest orthodoxy in their own direction. The essay shows that, while policy and practice were not exactly at odds, nor were they in unison: some parishes dragged their feet, while others chose to find ways of implementing the new orthodoxies which ran ahead of, subverted or simply put their own distinctive mark on their bishops’ and archdeacons’ intentions. The hierarchy’s vision of uniform, scripturally driven reform was compelled to negotiate with pre-existing orthodoxies and loyalties.
In 1624 a London printer issued a broadsheet in memory of Dr Thomas Sutton, the godly young lecturer at St Saviour, Southwark who had been drowned the previous year travelling from Newcastle to London. The central panel of the broadsheet shows Moses and Aaron presiding over tablets of the law, with the Lord’s Prayer and the Articles of Belief squeezed in above the image of Sutton with verses in praise of his spiritual leadership (figure 1). The panel has two outer leaves with engravings explaining the two dominical sacraments and the ritual practice of their rites of passage under the old and the new law. The whole image is headed with a note that this ‘Christians Jewell’ should adorn the home of every Protestant, and that it had been ‘taken’ from St Saviour’s church during Sutton’s lectureship. An act of imagination is required to move from the engraving to whatever was ‘taken’ from the church. But we can establish that some sort of Decalogue Board was located there in a prominent position. The enlargement of John Stow’s Survey of London, undertaken by Anthony Munday in the 1630s, remarks on ‘an extraordinary fair and curious Table of the Commandments’ set up, possibly on the screen at the West door, in 1618.
The years between the early fourteenth and the mid sixteenth century are of considerable interest in the history of the prelate. In some respects, this era might be regarded as a golden age of prelacy, culminating in the appearance of great ecclesiastical dignitaries across much of Europe, such as Wolsey, d'Amboise, Cisneros, Lang and Jagiellon. In terms of their political weight, their grandeur and their wide-ranging cultural patronage, these early sixteenth-century ‘cardinal-ministers’ arguably represented a high point in prelatical influence. Nor should they be regarded as wholly distinct from their clerical contemporaries: recent studies of Renaissance cardinals and the early Tudor episcopate indicate that the next rank of senior churchmen were no less concerned to express the importance and dignity of their office. However, the period c. 1300–c. 1560 also witnessed a developing critique of prelacy – not unconnected with these eye-catching assertions of ecclesiastical status and power – with complaints about senior members of the Church hierarchy a commonplace in the literature and preaching of the day. To these criticisms were added attacks on the very concept of the prelate, which was rejected as unscriptural by John Wyclif and his followers: a critique which would be taken up enthusiastically by sixteenth-century reformers in England and Europe.
This volume has grown out of a conference on ‘The Prelate in Late Medieval and Reformation England’, held at the University of Liverpool in September 2011. All the papers delivered at that conference are published below, apart from those given by Natalia Nowakowska and Brigitte Resl. The volume also includes a chapter by Cédric Michon, offered subsequent to the Liverpool conference. I would like to thank the contributors to both the conference and to the volume, all of whom have been stimulating and good-humoured collaborators throughout this project.
I would also like to acknowledge gratefully the work and expert guidance of all those at Boydell & Brewer and York Medieval Press who have been involved with this volume and especially Caroline Palmer, Rohais Haughton and Professor Peter Biller. The Liverpool conference was funded partly by a British Academy Research Development Award, and partly by financial contributions from the department of History of the University of Liverpool and the Liverpool Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, without all of whose generous support the event could not have taken place. This publication has also been made possible by a grant from the Scouloudi Foundation in association with the Institute of Historical Research, acknowledged here with gratitude.
Matthew Parker, Elizabeth's first archbishop of Canterbury, was in love with antiquities. He was also more than half in love with the political and cultural power of printing. Print offered him the possibilities of winning friends and influencing people, promoting the interests of the fledgling Church of England, and displaying his personal engagement with early British history. Elizabeth Evenden's study of John Day, the Protestant printer, has revealed how crucial it was for this erudite archbishop to have the resources of the press at his command. Their relationship evolved in the 1560s and was consolidated by Day's printing of Ælfric's A Testimonie of Antiquitie (1566 or 7) and his development of Anglo-Saxon characters for this and for William Lambarde's edition of early law codes, Archaionomia (1568). Parker financed the new font necessary to print these works, but it was Day whose technical skills ensured their effective presentation, the general accuracy of the print and hence much of the authority of these evidences from the distant national past. The success of these projects encouraged Parker to become a more active patron of the printer, explicitly deploying Day's books as artefacts in the struggle to win active support for the Protestant bishops.
High ecclesiastical office in the Middle Ages inevitably brought power, wealth and patronage. The essays in this volume examine how late medieval and Renaissance prelates deployed the income and influence of their offices, how they understood their role, and how they were viewed by others. Focusing primarily on but not exclusively confined to England, this collection explores the considerable common ground between cardinals, bishops and monastic superiors. Leading authorities on the late medieval and sixteenth-century Church analyse the political, cultural and pastoral activities of high-ranking churchmen, and consider how episcopal and abbatial expenditure was directed, justified and perceived. Overall, the collection enhances our understanding of ecclesiastical wealth and power in an era when the concept and role of the prelate were increasingly contested. Dr Martin Heale is Senior Lecturer in Late Medieval History, University of Liverpool. Contributors: Martin Heale, Michael Carter, James G. Clark, Gwilym Dodd, Felicity Heal, Anne Hudson, Emilia Jamroziak, Cédric Michon, Elizabeth A. New, Wendy Scase, Benjamin Thompson, C.M. Woolgar.