Middle English Literature

Pilgrimage
The spiritual, moral, physical, and pecuniary aspects of pilgrimages were the
subject of debate throughout the Middle Ages, but contention intensified
in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in England as it did on the Con-
tinent. Archbishops, bishops, and others encouraged the view that pilgrim-
ages were effective in remitting sins, while popular belief in the efficacy of
visiting shrines of saints for curative reasons remained strong. On the other
hand, arguments arose against physical pilgrimages and for the superiority
of an exclusively spiritual journey, which may include enclosed or private
forms of asceticism and hardship as well as penance that did not involve
travel. Also, geographic pilgrimages as penance were not always voluntary
during this period, and it became increasingly common for people to be
sentenced to perform pilgrimages for violations such as adultery, disturbing
the peace, theft, assault, poaching, and even more serious crimes. These
actions fed tensions about class inequities as well as led to concern about the
danger caused by involuntary pilgrims. Corruption and excesses associated
with pilgrimages also received criticism; how important for contrition was
the buying of badges, likenesses of saints, relics, wax talismans, candles, and
other paraphernalia? That both willing and sentenced pilgrims could pay off
their pilgrimage through various forms of donation or by having a proxy
perform the pilgrimage also raised questions about penance as well as social
justice. Uneasiness about the veneration of saints and physical representa-
tions of spiritual figures logically became associated with discussions about
pilgrimages, especially from Lollards. Their criticism of the many aspects of
pilgrimages is one of their most distinctive and common objections (see
“Lollard Trials,” p. 59, and “Plays and Representations,” p. 262).
William Thorpe was educated (possibly at Oxford) and took orders as a
priest. Some time between 1382 and 1386 Robert Braybrooke, bishop of
London (1382–1404), tried Thorpe for heresy and imprisoned him there.
In 1397 he was released from that imprisonment (or possibly a second term
in prison). Ten years later on August 7, 1407, Thorpe was examined before
Thomas Arundel (archbishop of York 1388–97, archbishop of Canterbury
1396–7, 1399–1414) and three clerks in Saltwood Castle in Kent. Accord-
ing to a “litil rolle” in the archbishop’s hands, a bailiff from Shrewsbury
claimed that Thorpe had preached that the sacrament remained material
bread after consecration, that images should not be worshipped, that people
should not go on pilgrimages, that priests have no right to receive tithes,
and that it is not lawful to swear in any manner. Thorpe denies the specific

---

charges in his Testimony and submits himself to God and the Church as
long as they accord with his ideas; his account ends with him being sent to
prison. Thorpe’s Testimony survives in four versions; Rawlinson C.208 is the
earliest.
Whether the events recounted in Thorpe’s text are truthful or not is open
to debate, and the issue becomes even more interesting because of his
realist style: dramatic arguments, detailed depictions of the actions of those
present, descriptions of Thorpe’s own thoughts and feelings. The reasons
why a person would openly proclaim in writing his continuing adherence
to Lollard beliefs are difficult to understand, especially if he recanted. If
Thorpe wrote his account in prison, it is puzzling how such a manuscript
would have circulated.
Primary documents and further reading
Copeland, R. (1996) “William Thorpe and His Lollard Community: Intellectual
Labor and the Representation of Dissent.” In B. A. Hanawalt and D. Wallace (eds.)