Read The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) Online
Authors: Peter Gwyn
The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) (18 page)
In his sermon Colet dwelt not only upon those virtues of Wolsey that had led to
his ‘high and joyous promotion’, but on Henry’s as well, because that promotion had been secured by ‘the great zeal and favour that our holy father, the pope, hath to his grace’ – thereby indicating that he, at least, appreciated that aspect of Wolsey’s elevation which so many historians have missed. He then stressed the need for humility. This has always been taken as a timely warning to a man who was singularly lacking in that quality. He may have intended something of the sort, but it is highly unlikely, and not just because it was hardly the occasion for personal criticism. The point that Colet stressed about humility was service: ‘Remember that our Saviour in his own person said to his disciples: “I came not to be ministered unto but to minister …” My lord cardinal, be glad, and enforce yourself always to do and execute righteousness to rich and poor.’ Justice to rich and poor alike was something that Wolsey always believed in, and as lord chancellor he strove to make it a reality. Colet also stressed ‘the high and great power of a cardinal’ who ‘representeth the order of seraphim, which continually burneth in the love of the glorious Trinity’ and is therefore ‘metely apparelled with red’.
118
Wolsey’s obsession with dressing up in red, along with his love of ceremonial, has come in for a good deal of criticism.
119
It did not worry Colet, and neither is it likely to have worried another great reformer of the time, Giles of Viterbo, who placed a great deal of emphasis upon magnificent church ceremonial.
120
More will be said on the subject of ceremonial later, as also on Wolsey’s relationship with Colet. Meanwhile, the service at Westminster Abbey and the subsequent banquet provide a fitting end to this discussion of the Hunne and Standish affairs and the way in which they helped to mould Henry’s and Wolsey’s policy towards the Church. Most of the leading participants were present, many of whom had taken diametrically opposed views on the issues that had emerged during the course of the year. One would give anything to know what they were all thinking, as Wolsey lay ‘grovelling’ on the floor of the Abbey while they were asked to pray for him.
121
No doubt there was much apprehension, but also hope – hope amongst some that as a prince of the Church he would defend its liberties, and amongst others that as the Crown’s leading councillor he would ensure that the Church did not exceed its proper role. And amongst all shades of opinion there may have been an awareness that things might never be quite the same in the Church. But to discover whether their hopes and fears would be realized they would all have to wait a while. The ceremony was merely symbolic of a new policy. It could only become a reality when Wolsey became legate
a latere
, and that was not to happen until 1518.
1
LP
, ii, 892.
2
For these first efforts back in May 1514 see
LP
, i, 2932 – a letter from Vergil in Rome to Wolsey; for Leo
X
’s early resistance to the idea see
LP
, i, 3300. See also
LP
, i, 3140, 3304, 3495-7.
3
LP
, ii, 374.
4
On the general subject of papal relations with the secular powers in the late Middles Ages see Thomson,
Popes and Princes
.
5
LP
, ii, 960; more generally for Henry’s involvement see
LP
, i, 3140, 3300, 3497; ii, 763.
6
Inter alia
see E. J. Davis,
EHR
,
XXX
(1915); Derrett; Fines,
EHR
, lxxviii (1963);Milsom; M. J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction, pp.127-47; Ogle; Schoeck, ‘Common law and canon law’; Smart; Wunderli.
7
Foxe,
Acts and Monuments
, pp.183-205.
8
More stated that Hunne was ‘well worth a thousand marks’ (More,
CWM
, 6, p.318), that is £666 13
s
. 4
d
. Whether this figure referred to income or capital, it is a considerable amount of money, putting him just below London’s ruling élite of successful overseas merchants.
9
Ogle, pp.55-6; St German,
CWM
, 9, pp.194-5.
10
CWM
, 6, pp.326-7.
11
For the evidence for this, and indeed for all the details of the various cases brought by or against Hunne, see Milsom, pp.80-2.
12
This is argued by J. D. M. Derrett in ‘Hunne and Standish’, pp.222-4, following More’s statement in his
Supplication of Souls
, pp.59-60 that this is precisely what the church authorities did.
13
Baker, ii,
pp.240-1
for the interesting legal aspects of his case.
14
Hall, p.573; Wriothesley, p.9.
15
Baker, ii,
pp
.66-8.
16
‘If any man … dare be so hardy to indict a priest of any such crime, he hath, ere the year go out, such a yoke of heresy laid on his neck, that it maketh him wish that he had not done it … Had not Richard Hunne commenced an action of praemunire against a priest, he had been yet alive, and no heretic at all but an honest man’ – from Fish’s
Supplication for the Beggars
, p.28. See Bowker, ‘Some archdeacons’ court book’, pp.310-12 for the suggestion that there was a widespread dislike of heresy trials, but, leaving the Hunne affair aside, the only evidence that they were rigged or that accusations of heresy were lightly or unfairly made comes in Bishop Nix’s letter to Warham in 1504; see p.45 below.
17
Derrett, p.217.
18
Foxe,
Acts and Monuments
, iv, pp.183-4, 186-90 for the charges. Foxe transcribed them from Fitzjames’s registers, but they are no longer to be found there. Evidence about Hunne has a tendency to disappear, but for new material for the heresy trial see Fines,
EHR
, xxviii (1963). All these accusations were common Lollard beliefs; see Thomson,
The Later Lollards
, pp.162-70.
19
CWM
, 8, p.126.
20
Ogle, pp.66-8.
21
Foxe,
Acts and Monuments
, iv, p.184.
22
Fines,
EHR
, lxxviii.
23
See p.40 below.
24
On heresy in London see Brigden, ‘The early Reformation in London’, pp.87 ff; Thomson,
The Later Lollards
, pp.139-71 and
EHR
lxxvii (1963); for Fitzjames and heresy see S. Thompson, p.124.
25
S. Thompson, ‘English and Welsh bishops’, pp.166-8. My generally favourable view of Fitzjames owes a good deal to Thompson’s work. (He points out that Fitzjames personally examined candidates for ordination, probably the only bishop at this time to do so. S. Thompson, ‘Bishop in his Diocese’, p.76.)
26
Dickens, pp.66, 91. For Elton, Fitzjames was an ‘old bigot’! (
Reform and Reformation
, p.57).
27
Lack of evidence will probably always prevent this episode from being dealt with satisfactorily but see
inter alia
Allen and Kaufman; for contemporary comment see
CWE
, 2, p.248; 3, pp.48, 296.
28
Thomson,
The Later Lollards
, p.238; S. Thompson, ‘English and Welsh bishops’, p.124 refers to 60 heresy cases in the London diocese for 1510-12.
29
The matter has been complicated by Fish’s statement that Horsey paid £600 for a pardon, but there is no other evidence that he did, and, as More pointed out, since Horsey never received a pardon it would have been difficult for him to pay for one! (
CWM
, 6, 326). Despite this, many historians have accepted that a ‘fine’ was imposed; see Ogle, p.109; Schoeck, p.29.
30
‘The enquirie and verdite of the quest panneld of the death of Richard Hune wich was found hanged in Lolars Tower.’ Probably the only copy now resides in the Parker Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, the BL copy having been destroyed in the war. I am very grateful to the college authorities for allowing me to consult it. It is transcribed in Hall, pp.573-80 and Foxe, iv, pp.190-7. For its dating see E. J. Davis,
EHR
,
XXX
(1915).
31
Thomson,
The Later Lollards
, p.230.
32
For this view and much new information about Joseph, see Wunderli.
33
The parallel might be with Henry II’s famous outburst against Thomas Becket, leading, unintentionally perhaps, to the latter’s martyrdom.
34
Cf. Fitzjames’s contention that Joseph’s accusation against Horsey was only made ‘by pain and durance’ – in his supposed letter to Wolsey printed in ‘The enquirie and verdite’ and quoted in Ogle, pp.81-2.
35
This was More’s contention; see
CWM
, 6, p.326. Certainly there is no evidence for any action being taken against Joseph or his alleged accomplice, John Spalding.
36
A view tentatively put forward by Elton in
Reform and Reformation
, p.53.
37
CWM
, 6, pp.316-30. More’s writing is just as polemical as Fish’s or Foxe’s – but I confess to finding his case more convincing.
38
Ozment, p.213, for a recent general account, in which there is reference to ‘episcopal arrogance’ and ‘damage to lay respect … for many irreversible’.
39
LP
, ii, 215.
40
Vergil, p.229.
41
Wriothesley, p.9.
42
Hall, p.573.
43
Quoted in E. J. Davis,
EHR
XXX
, p.478.
44
CWM
, 6, p.318.
45
LJ
, i, p.41; A. F. Pollard, pp.39-41.
46
Thomson,
The Later Lollards
, p.167.
47
What follows relies very heavily on Brigden, ‘Early Reformation’, and
VCH
,
London
, i, pp.207-87.
48
Brigden,
JEH
, 32 (1981); Thomson,
EHR
, lxviii (1963).
49
Woodcock,
Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts
, pp.89-92.
50
St German
CWM
, 9, p.195; see also Houlbrooke,
Church Courts
, pp.124-6; Haigh,
History
, p.395. But for larger numbers in the archdeaconry of Leicester see Bowker,
The Henrician Reformation
, p.53, though she admits the evidence is ‘scrappy and difficult’. And in ‘Some archdeacons’ court books’ she takes a generally optimistic view of the late medieval Church.
51
St German, p.195.
52
Lehmberg, pp.91-2.