Regulating the Printing Press

Controlling a New Technology - Part 1 - 1475 - 1536

A Note to My Readers

Thanks for reading my material and thanks, too, to those who have subscribed.

This post is the first of six. It is available for free.

The following five posts in the series will be published over the next four weeks. They will be for paid subscribers only. If you sign up as a paid subscriber for a month at a cost of $US8.00 you will have access to the whole series of six.

The printing press – developed by John Gutenberg of Mainz in about 1450 – spread through Europe and was brought to England in 1475 by William Caxton during the reign of Edward IV. The advantages of the new technology became apparent as did some of the problems that it posed. The ability to make multiple copies and to disseminate content widely challenged earlier assumptions about information communication and availability that had developed over the centuries of the manuscript culture. The challenge was in regulating and controlling the technology or its output.

The attempts that were undertaken by the Tudors and early Stuarts to regulate the printing press were unsuccessful. Even by the totalitarian standards of the day, the efforts were ad hoc in nature, inconsistent in application, opportunistic, ineffective and suffered from uneven enforcement.

In addition to all these problems there was a more basic one. The fundamental structure upon which all efforts to regulate the new technology were based originated some fifty or so years before printing was invented. This structure was designed to deal with the dissemination of information in the manuscript culture and was ill-equipped to deal with a new technology that was not only mobile but which possessed characteristics that differed from the manuscript “technology”, not the least being a semi-mechanised out-put coupled with a vastly superior ability to effect speedy dissemination to many readers.

My view is that the most effective way to use law to regulate an emerging technology is to first understand the fundamental nature and implications of the technology and craft a regulatory structure that recognizes those fundamentals.

The Tudor and Stuart efforts to regulate a new technology attempted to engraft an existing system developed for a different communications system, coupled with an enforcement organization whose goals and interests were not always at one with those of the State. It was not going to succeed in its goals nor was it going to fulfil the policies of those who put it in place.

The fundamental structure that was developed between the early fifteenth century and that paused for a short period following the abolition of Star Chamber remains with us in the classification system contained the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 and the same problems faced in the Tudor-Stuart period remain. Heresy and sedition have been replaced with pornography, and mis/disinformation

The difficulties that were encountered monitoring the increasing output of printed material are matched today with the problems associated with detecting and classifying suspect material. The same scheme and the same discords are with us five hundred years later.

Most discussions of the regulation of the new communications technology of print have focused upon one aspect of the overall picture and that is content regulation. These discussions have become clouded and have lost focus as the argument has raged between the various schools of historical analysis, primarily as to whether the use of censorship by the State was repressive or whether this has been over-emphasised by “Whig” historians.

This discussion is sometimes a part of a wider agenda in considering the society of the times and the way it dealt with dissent of whatever nature, whether “received wisdom” about the “totalitarian nature” of the Tudor and Stuart regimes can be justified, or whether, in fact, communication of information was not as regulated or suppressed as may have earlier been thought. The various agendas underlying these disputes have overstated content regulation as part of overall efforts to regulate the new communications technology.

Content regulation is only part of the picture but of necessity it will be touched upon in this discussion.

It is suggested, however, that most of the direct attempts by the State to regulate the printing press were not primarily about content regulation but about trade regulation, initially in the use of statute to regulate alien participation in the printing trade between 1484 and 1536, and subsequently, at the behest of the Stationers Company, by two decisions of the Court of Star Chamber in 1586 and 1637. 

Other statutory regulation of the content of printed material is vague and imprecise and is part and parcel of the various efforts of the Crown to stem treason, sedition and heresy. Although it became an element of those three offences to write certain material, the possession of such writings was viewed more as supporting evidence of other major charges in indictments alleging treasonous or heretical acts.

Another way of regulating printing was by means of proclamation, a less legally sound but more immediate way of addressing urgent issues of content regulation. In the reign of Henry VIII there were a number of proclamations that addressed and banned specific titles. In the reign of Elizabeth I there was but one.

The final way in which the Crown was able to directly affect the printing trade was by use of the Royal Prerogative and the grant of exclusive rights to print particular titles or classes of titles. These patent privileges had a detrimental impact upon the printing trade and indirectly resulted in the establishment of the “English Stock” which although intended for the benefit of poor printer, enriched and empowered the Stationers Company. Dissatisfaction with the patent system, along with other concerns about the trade itself, led to Star Chamber litigation with the resulting decisions of 1586 and 1637.

The Content Control Model : The Constitutions of Oxford 1407 and The Stationers Guild

The teachings of John Wyclif, his English translation of the Bible and the rise of the Lollard movement in England gave rise to the first structured approach to the regulation of information, and this was on the initiative of the Church.

Even although Wyclif was officially discredited in 1382 and he died in 1384^[1] his ideas continued to spread in England by his Lollard followers and in Europe by John Hus. Although England had largely been free of heresy in the fourteenth century^[2] the advent of Wyclif, the continuing dislocation of society following the Black Death and the instability of government accompanying the final years of the reign of Richard II encouraged dissent and challenges to established ecclesiastical doctrine^[3] allowed the Lollards to continue to disseminate their teachings. The accession of the Lancastrian Henry IV to the throne in 1399 was followed by efforts to restore the constitutional authority of the State and the Church.

In order to address religious opposition to the State, to support the Church, and with the support of the authoritative Archbishop of Canterbury, Arundel, the Statute “De Heretico Comburendo” was passed in 1401^[4]. The preamble to the Statute provides that it was directed against a certain new sect “who do perversely and maliciously in divers places within the said Realm under the Colour of dissembled holiness, preach and teach these days openly and privily divers new doctrines and wicked heretical and erroneous opinions”. The preamble also notes that in addition to preaching, the sect made unlawful conventicals and confederacies, held schools and made and wrote books. Lollardy was a sect that developed a small but potentially influential literature which was seen as a means of transmitting their “heretical” views.^[5]  

The aim of the Act was to safeguard the Church, the “merit of our Sovereign Lord the King”, to eliminate potential dissension and division in the realm so that “this wicked Sect, Preachings, Doctrines and Opinions should from henceforth cease and be utterly destroyed.” No one could preach openly or privately without a licence obtained from a Bishop. Ecclesiastical licensing was soon to be extended further. Six hundred years later similar rhetoric about “social cohesion” and the threats of disinformation have replaced the elimination of “ potential dissension and division in the realm” and “wicked heretical and erroneous opinions”. The words have changed but the song remains the same.

In addition the making or writing of any book contrary to the “Catholic Faith and the Determination of the Holy Church” was prohibited. There is particular attention to books, emphasizing the importance that the Statute attached to ensuring the elimination of this means of dissemination of Lollard teaching. Anyone having prohibited books or writings was required to deliver them to the “Diocesan of the same place within 40 days from the time of the Proclamation of this Ordinance and Statute”, and those who failed to do so were liable to arrest and could be held until “canonically purged.”

Bishops were empowered to arrest, imprison and examine offenders. They could deal with the makers and writers of heretical books by open trial in diocesan courts and hand over those who relapsed or refused to abjure to the secular authorities. The condemned were to be burnt “in an high place” before the people “that such Punishment may strike Fear in the minds of other, whereby no such wicked Doctrine and heretical and erroneous Opinions…….be sustained or in any wise suffered”.

The passage of the Statute was immediately followed by the execution of William Sawtrey, a London priest who had abjured but relapsed and refused to declare his belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation or recognize the authority of the Church.

The Statute De Heretico was the first step in the re-establishment of Church power and was followed in 1407 with a synod at Oxford under Arundel’s presidency  which passed a number of constitutions to regulate the preaching, translation and use of the scriptures, as well as the theological education at schools and University. The Constitutions prohibited the translation of the Bible into English, or the teaching writing of theology by the unlicensed laity, unless it had first been submitted for examination and approval.^[6]  The Council also provided that censors appointed by the Universities were to be appointed to approve books that were to be copied.

The particular wording of Clauses VI and VII relating to approvals and licensing is important.

Clause VI provides “that no book or tract written by Johnn Wickliff or any other person in Wickliff’s time or since, or who, for the future shall write any book upon a subject in Divinity shall be suffered to be read either in schools, Halls or any other Places within our Province of Canterbury, unless such books shall be first examined by the University of Oxford or Cambridge or at least by Twelve such persons as shall be pitch’d upon for that purpose by both or one of the Universities, according as ourselves or our successors direct. And after the Examination and Approbation of us, our Successors, and the Parties abovementioned, the said tracts shall be delivered to the Stationers, to be faithfully  copied  before they are sold, or otherwise disposed of and the Original to be laid up and kept in a Chest of the University”^[7]

This clause was clear in its target. Nothing by Wyclif, nor anything written on Divinity since his time should be read in the schools or elsewhere until it had been examined and found to conform with doctrine. In addition, approval had to be unanimous.

Clause VII then goes on to forbid translation of any text of sacred scripture into English, and the ownership of any translation of the Bible made in the time of Wyclif or later without the express permission of the diocesan. This permission would only be given after the translation had been inspected.

“Neither shall any such book, libel or treatise, made either in Wicliff's time or since, be read, either in whole or in part, publicly or privately, under the penalty of the greater excommunication, till the said translation shall be approved either by the bishop of the diocese or a provincial council, as occasion shall require”

Hudson is of the view that a later gloss brings Clause VII into line with Clause VI – any book in Latin or in English dealing with matters of theology or Church affairs may only be used after the archbishop or his appointees had approved it.^[8] Of equal significance is the approval regime that is beginning to develop. The concept of licensing of those people who could disseminate religious information in De Heretico Comburendo is, by the Constitutions, extended to books about divinity and Holy Scripture. Arundel was determined to limit the dissemination of dissenting opinion and to ensure dissemination of the orthodox view in every way that he could^[9].

In this respect  the second part of Clause VI falls into focus and it could  well be overlooked. It  contains the requirement that once a work had been approved, it had to be delivered to and faithfully copied by the Stationers before it was sold.  The Stationers were seen as a reputable organisation which  could be entrusted with the task of ensuring that error free and approved copies were made available for public consumption.

The Early Stationers

Who, then, were the Stationers? The Guild of Stationers was a recently formed trade organisation that was later to become pivotal in the development and use of the printing technology in the future. But in 1408 the Guild had been in existence only for a few years.

Books were published prior to the invention of the printing press, although the process was lengthy, the output was very small and the entire process of book production was a manual one. Craft guilds had developed, even for those involved in the book production trade. The writers of Court Hand, text letters and limners had their own separate guilds. On 20 May 1357 it was ordered by the Mayor and Aldermen of London that they should not be summoned as jurors^[10] in proceedings in the Sheriff’s Courts, a recognition of their status.^[11] Manuscript producers had been civic recognition as a separate craft in the days of Chaucer and William Longland.^[12]

On 12 July 1403 members of the Crafts of Text-letter writers, limners and others who were involved in book binding petitioned the Mayor of London for leave to elect to Wardens of their trades, one a limner, the other a text letter writer.^[13]  The civic ordinances of incorporation were duly granted. Thus the trade interests of manuscript artists (limners), text-letter writers as well as binders and booksellers in London were brought together and by the 1440’s were known as “The Mistery of Stationers”^[14] although their appellation as Stationers^[15] was known in 1407 by Arundel and those who settled the Constitutions of Oxford. The Guild did not, however, incorporate the Scriveners or Writers of the Court Letter^[16]. The Scriveners Guild maintained a separate identity and received its own Royal Charter of Incorporation from James I on 28 January 1617. This Company, like the Company of Stationers, is still in existence.^[17]

The formation of the Guild is important for a number of reasons. It suggests that the book trade was well-developed and sufficiently competitive to make a form of governance desirable.^[18] Furthermore it suggests sufficient numbers of artisans and booksellers to justify a Guild, and records suggest that the area surrounding old St Paul’s Cathedral had, by the 1390’s, emerged as the book-craft area of London. Between 1404 and 1410 shops are recorded as owned by stationers, text-writers, book-binders and limners numbering in total sixteen in a small lane north of the Cathedral Churchyard known as Paternoster Row. Nearby, in the vicinity of Holborn and Chancery Lane were located the literate communities of lawyers, Chancery masters and scribes and who were served by legal scriveners who, by 1373 had formed their own Mistery of Writers of Court letter who also took up residence near St Pauls.^[19]

The Guild itself was significant. Guilds were more than simple trade fellowships. They were a significant part of the political life of the City. They acquired significant property and in time the Stationers themselves would have headquarters in Abergavenny House that had formerly belonged to the Earls of Pembroke, and later to the Neville family,on the corner of  Ave Maria Lane and Amen Corner which latter street was the termination of Paternoster Row^[20].

Guilds also protected crafts and industries. The right to trade in the City was granted only to free men of the guilds and the status of free man had to be earned by a lengthy period of apprenticeship in a livery company. The Guilds provided elected officers to civic posts and thus, having an interest in the affairs of the City, defended its rights as well as ensuring the maintenance of the privileged position of guilds and their members. Those who were not free men of the Guild could not trade under their own name nor operate their own business. To have any chance of a commercial career in London, one had to belong to a Guild^[21].

Although the activities of the Guild were restricted to London they could and did regulate the sale of books beyond the city. In the suburbs and in those parts of the City known as “liberties” which were exempt from City jurisdiction, anyone could practice a trade without guild regulation. However, in the main most of those involved in the trade were in the City of London^[22].

This then was the organisation to whom Arundel delegated the production of copies of approved books and it was this organisation, in a much more sophisticated and powerful form, that was to provide one of the arms of the regulatory systems that were used to deal with printed books. Clearly the Stationers were an organisation that had credit. In addition they were centrally located making control and surveillance of their activities easy. The final checking system lay in the deposit of an “authorised” copy in  a “chest of the University.”

In 1414 legislation was enacted by Parliament directly aimed at the suppression of the Lollards^[23]. It was designed to provide a “more open remedy and punishment than hath been had and use in the case heretofore, so that for fear of the same Laws and punishment, such heresies and Lollardries may rather cease in time to come.”

The Chancellor, Judges and law enforcement officers were required to tale an oath to use “their whole power and diligence to put out and destroy all manner of Heresies and errors….within the places where they exercise their offices and occupations from time to time” and that they assist the Ordinaries and their Commissaries as often as required by them. They were to enforce those Statutes which had not been repealed for the correction and punishment of heretics.^[24]  Ecclesiasticial officers could proceed against the makers and writers of heretical books in the King’s Courts. The statute thus allowed the enforcement of laws regarding the dissemination of heretical material in the Kings Courts as well as those of the ecclesiastical authorities^[25]. In addition a number of penalties additional to that contained in De Heretico Comburendo were provided including the forfeiture of land and goods of those convicted of heresy.

Thus a series of Statutes and Constitutions brought together Church and State to ensure control of the writing, possession and dissemination of questionable material regarding religious doctrine. A scheme was put in place for the approval or licensing of that material which could be published and a craft guild, the recently founded Guild of Stationers was charged with ensuring that correct copies were made available. It was this system that formed the basis and model for the all the subsequent regulation of the new information technology that was to be developed by Gutenberg in 1450, the products of which were to trickle into England thereafter, and which was to arrive in Westminster in 1476.

The 1520’s – Revival of the Constitutions of Oxford

Luther had commented that the printing press was the gift of God for the spread of his teachings and by the same token the nature of print itself posed serious threats for the “establishment”. In addition to the wide dissemination of multiple copies, those who received the books and pamphlets were able to read them for themselves and pass them on to friends in far greater numbers that had been the case in the scribal culture. In addition the ability to read and absorb material and to contemplate what was written avoided the disputatious nature of a dialogue. Thus ideas spread without answer. Associated with the concerns about maintaining theological orthodoxy were the fears that criticism of the established order would follow fast behind.

Dr. D.M. Loades characterizes concerns about establishment criticism as arising out of the concept of the “body politic” that underpinned late medieval and early modern society where relationships were permanent and foreordained with the King at the head, a situation which reflected the Will of God. Thus, to sow discord in society, setting member against member or a member against the head was not just criminal but an offence against God.^[26] Coupled with this was a developing move towards a dependence upon public authority for the resolution of issues along with strains that were put upon traditional allegiances during the years of Henry VIII and his heirs. The historical circumstances by which the Tudors acquired the Crown in the first place, and the need to bring firm measures to bear against any form of discord and strife lest it revive old challenges to Royal authority meant that as well as establishing a significant propaganda regime there was considerable underlying insecurity for the regime. This, along with the responsibility of the monarch to protect society from disruptive influences leads Dr Loades to suggest that censorship was inevitable^[27].

Certainly, the very advantages that the new technology presented to the regime were also available to its opponents and critics, and there were well-known remedies in place such as Scandalum Magnatum that arose from a group of statutes.^[28] Scandalum Magnatum could be used as an alternative to treason which, in terms of publication, presented some difficulties. Under the definition in 25 Edward III cap 2 (1352) one of three acts were required to establish treason.

1. To imagine or compass the death of the king,

2. To make war against him, or

3. To aid his enemies.

In each case, it was necessary to prove an overt act. Many publications may be critical of the authorities but did not go so far as to qualify as an overt act. Thus it was difficult for traditional treason laws to be used to control the press.^[29] Thus in 1534, an Act passed by Henry VIII’s Parliament^[30] made it possible to commit treason “by words in writing”. But at this stage the campaign against the circulation of works which attacked the Church, and by implication the State, was in full swing.

Before the 1520’s there seems to have been very little active or systematic regulation of the contents of books printed in England. Rules there were, asnd their breach could have serious consequences but they were known to printers and it was not necessary for the authorities to insist on examining every manuscript of every kind before it was printed. Authors and printers did not want to be even suspected of sedition or heresy. It has been suggested that their instincts for self-preservation resulted in effective self-censorship[31].

The move towards State control or regulation of printed content commenced in earnest in July 1520 with the Bull Exurge Domine by Leo X condemning the writings of Luther and ordering their confiscation and burning.

In May 1521, Luther’s works were burned at St Paul’s Cross after a sermon by Bishop Fisher declaring Luther a heretic.^[32] However, Lutheran books continued to find their way into England. Cardinal Wolsey arranged a second book burning in February 1524 and on 12 October 1524 the London booksellers were summoned by the Bishop Tunstall of London and warned against:

“importing into England books printed in Germany or any other books whatever containing Lutheran heresies, or selling or parting with any such books already imported under pain of the law; and further he warned them that should they import new books into England or buy books already imported, provided that these were newly composed and made, they were not to sell or part with them unless they first showed them either to the Lord Cardinal, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London or the Bishop of Rochester”^[33] (the italics are mine)

It is clear that by referring to what was effectively the need to obtain an ecclesiastical imprimatur on “new books…….or books…already imported” but it only applied to books that came in from abroad^[34]. At this stage nothing was mentioned about domestically produced books. Bishop Tunstall was invoking the power of ecclesiastical licensing that was instituted in Archbishop Arundel’s Constitutions of Oxford and especially Constitutions 6 and 7. However, 1524 was not the start of this process. Reed notes a licence granted before the publication of Luther’s theses in 1514 by the Bishop of London for a devotional work by Symon which was printed by Wynkyn de Worde. The licence which appears in the colophon of the Treatise reads as follows:

“Here endeth the Treatyse called the Fruyte of Redemption, whiche devoute Treatyse I Rycharde unworthy Bysschop of London have studiously radde and overseen, and the same approve as moche as in me is to be radde of the true Servantes of Swete Jhesu, to theyr grete Conslacyon and ghostly Comforte and to the meryte of the devoute Fader Compunder of the same”^[35]

Acting under the authority of the Constitutions of Oxford and empowered by the Statutes of Henry IV and Henry V^[36] charges were brought requiring printers to show cause why they had printed certain works. In October 1525 Wynkyn de Worde and John Gough were summoned to answer in respect of a book entitled The Image of Love which was alleged to contain heretical matter and in March 1526 Thomas Berthelet was required to explain the publication of three works of Erasmus. There was no issue of heresy and Berthelet’s error was technical in that he had failed to produce his copies before the consistory and although there was no questionable content, the absence of a licence was sufficient for Berthelet to be at fault and he was admonished^[37].

However, the presence of a licence did not of itself ensure that the content would be approved. In 1633 William Prynne printed Historio-mastix which had been properly licensed. Retrospectively the Court of Star Chamber determined that the license should not have been issued, Prynne was pilloried and both his ears were cut off. The existence of a licence did not prove to be a complete shield. The absence of a licence for printed books rendered one liable to answer before the authorities.

Despite what appears to be a considerable amount of activity on the part of the Church, printed material still circulated, some of it printed locally and much of it imported. Copies of Tyndale’s New Testament were coming into England in large quantities. In 1528 a London stationer named Van Ruremond caused 1500 copies of Tyndale to be printed in Antwerp, 500 of which were imported and was required to abjure in 1528.^[38] This would have been of concern to the authorities in light of a second admonition to a number of booksellers (of which Van Ruremond was not one).

On 25 October 1526, 31 booksellers appeared before the Bishop of London and his pro-registrar and they were warned against selling, directly or indirectly any books containing “Lutheran heresies” in Latin or English. They could not print nor cause to be printed “any other works” whatever, except works previously approved by the Church, unless they exhibited them before the Lord Legate (Wolsey), the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London.

“Exhibiting” the books was a shorthand way of saying that the book had to be presented for approval by way of license before printing. The booksellers were warned that they could not import any book or works redacted in Latin or English (the vulgar tongue) that had been printed overseas, nor could they buy up and resell any imported books unless they exhibited them to the authorities. Failure to abide by this admonition would expose them to “pain of suspicion of heresy”^[39]

The admonition and the threatened penalty for non-compliance demonstrates how seriously the ecclesiastical authorities viewed the printing and distribution of printed matter. Although their primary concerns were with Lutheran writings, their interest in Tyndale’s English translation was a continuation of the control of the dissemination of vernacular scripture that was the object of the Constitutions of Oxford 1407.

The restrictions that were imposed were more extensive than those of 1521, demonstrating a heightened concern by the authorities and indicating that earlier measures were not effective. Most significantly it brings the printing and sale of all books which had not been approved, whether or English or foreign origin, under the control of the ecclesiastical licensing system.

The basis for the authority of the Church derived from the Statute De Heretico , the provisions of the Constitutions of Oxford  and the subsequent Statute of 1414 which effectively was a conformation of the power of the Church to use the Court to prosecute offenders. If the threat of “suspicion of heresy” was not enough, the Church could utilise the Courts to enforce its decrees.

The Stationers were charged with making the faithful copies under the Constitutions of Oxford and were perceived as a reliable organisation for this purpose.

It is ironic, therefore, that of those who were summoned to Bishop Tunstall’s admonition in October 1526, most were members of the Stationers Guild and many were later to achieve high status in that organisation. Included among them were Richard Pynson, Robert Redman^[40], Thomas Bartlett (Berthelet)^[41] and Master Rastell^[42].

They were not summoned in their capacity as members of the Guild but as members of book trade, although Henry Pepwell and Lewis Sutton (named in the list as Nichas Sutton) were Wardens of the Company at the time. However, they are not noted not distinguished as such on the list so it can be assumed they were present in other than an official Guild capacity.

There was only one recorded inquiry under the 1526 admonition involving a printer named Robert Wyer. Wyer had translated and printed a work entitled Symbolum Apostolicum. He acknowledged that he was aware of the admonition, and in contempt thereof (in ridiculum  eiusdem)^[43] had printed the book nonetheless and without a licence. He was required to appear before the Vicar-General and exhibit all such books in his possession and return the rest that had been sold. When Wyer next appeared he exhibited 29 books containing Symbolum

It can be observed, therefore, that 50 years after the introduction of the printing press to England, the initial control of the dissemination of printed material was in the hands of ecclesiastical authorities whose principle objective was to stop the spread of Lutheran materials and vernacular Bibles but who extended their reach to cover all books, locally printed or imported.

The method of control was to require that a copy of a book should be submitted for approval (exhibited) to the Lord Legate, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London. Clearly not every book would receive the personal attention of these individuals, and would probably have been “vetted” by members of their staff. The work could be printed if it was approved.

The method of indicating approval was haphazard. Some books contained the approval as a part of the colophon. Many did not. But ecclesiastical licensing was shortly to be overtaken as the interests of the Henrician establishment in the utilisation and control of the printing press came to the fore.

---

[1] Wyclif was buried at Lutterworth but the Council of Constance in 1415 ordered his remains to be exhumed, his bones burned and cast out. This decree was carried out in 1428 by Bishop Robert Fleming of Lincoln

[2] The Manichaen movements of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which threatened the Church in Southern Europe, and which had appeared in Northern France and Flanders made little impression in England. Those heretics found in England were foreigners and had little following.

[3] Contained in the Twenty Four Conclusions of Wyclif which included attacks upon the celibacy of the clergy, the miracle of the sacrament, indulgences and the benefits of pilgrimage

[4] 2 Hen IV c.15

[5] See generally Hudson, Anne Lollards and their Books London, Hambledon Press 1985

[6] Clause VII of the Constitutions stated 'It is a dangerous undertaking, as blessed St. Jerome assures us, to translate the text of the Holy Scriptures out of one tongue into another: for in the translation of the same sense is not always easily kept as the same Saint Jerome confesses that although he were inspired, yet often in this he erred. We therefore decree and ordain henecforward man hereafter by his own authority shall translate any text of Holy Scripture into English, or any other language, under any form of book, libell or treatise. Neither shall any such book, libel or treatise, made either in Wicliffe's time or since, be read, either in whole or in part, publicly or privately, under the penalty of the greater excommunication, till the said translation shall be approved either by the bishop of the diocese or a provincial council, as occasion shall require. Those who offend will be punished as a favourer of heresy and error.”

[7]Collier, Jeremy An Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain London, Samuel Keble and Benjamin Took, 1708 – 14 Electronic Reproduction Farmington Hills, Michigan: Thomson Gale 2003  Book VII p.626

[8] Hudson, Anne Lollards and their Books p. 149

[9]  The Constitutions were not given statutory effect.  A.W. Reed Early Tudor Drama London, Methuen 1926 p. 161 – 2. suggests that the Constitutions were sanctioned by Statute in 1410, known as the Statute “Ex Officio” and which provided for books as follows:

“That none hereafter do – make or write any book contrary to the catholic faith and determination of the Holy Church – and further that no man hereafter shall by any means, favour – any such book maker or writer – and that all persons having any of the said books writings or schedules containing the said wicked doctrines and opinions shall within 40 days deliver them to the ordinary of the same place. And if any person do attempt any manner of thing contrary to the statute then the ordinary of the same place in his own diocese by authority of  the same proclamation and Statute shall cause to be arrested and detained under safe custody the said person in this case defamed and evidently suspected. And that the said ordinary by himself or his Commissaries, proceed openly and judicially to all the effect of law against the said persons so arrested.”

A review of the Statutes of Henry IV reveals no such statute of 1410.  The wording used by Reed is very similar to a part of 2 Hen IV c15 the statute De Heretico . This is the same Statute that is referred to as ex officio in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs at pge 481 and the wording is remarkably similar to that contained in the text. It may be that Reed transposed the name Ex Officio from Foxe (or the source from which he obtained the quote used Foxe for both name and quote. There is no reference in Foxe to the fact that the statute was passed in 1410. In fact in Foxe, the section on the Constitutions of Arundel follow the text and commentary upon the Statute

[10] “On inquisitions” is the term used

[11] Stationers Company Letter Book G, folio lxi printed in  Arber  Transcript of the Stationers’ Registers 1554-1640  Volume 1 xxii (Arber's Transcripts of the Stationers' Registers will be referenced hereafter by volume number and page - e.g. 1 Arber xxii

[12] 1 Arber xxii

[13] 1 Arber xxiii; Blagden, Cyprian The Stationers’ Company – A History 1403 – 1956 London, Allen & Unwin 1960 p. 22  The Wardens elected were sworn before the Mayor that they would oversee the work and behaviour of the members of the Guild in the interests both of the Guild and the City. The Wardens could present “bad and disloyal” men to the Chamberlain at Guildhall for punishment. After Incorporation in 1557 the Stationers were empowered to develop and apply their own disciplinary procedures.

[14] Christianson, C. Paul The Rise of London’s Book-Trade in Hellinga L and Trapp J.B. The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain – Volume III – 1400 – 1557 , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1999 p. 128

[15] Blagden observes that the word stationarius was being used in Oxford and Cambridge as early as the thirteenth century and appears in the records of London and York at the beginning of the fourteenth century. It describes a person who has a fixed place of business – a stall holder rather than a hawker. It became attached to members of the book trade first in the University towns and by the fourteenth century the word had general use in London as an alternative to one of the four trades involved in book production – the parchminer who supplied parchment; the scrivener or text writer who wrote the text, the limner who added the illuminations and the bookbinder. The stationer may have been a mmkember of one of these crafts but was principally a shopkeeper who could arrange and co-ordinate the various steps in making a book required by a customer. Blagden, p. 22

[16] In 1373 the scriveners had petitioned for and had obtained the right to their own organization, the Scrivener’s Company together with the limners. The limners soon parted company with them to form their own Guild which later became part of the Stationers’ Guild.

[17]

http://www.scriveners.org.uk/

(Last accessed 25 May 2023) For a short history of the Worshipful Company of Scriveners of the City of London see  https://www.scriveners.org.uk/History    (Last accessed 25 May 2023)

[18] Christianson The Rise of London’s Book-Trade  supra 128

[19] Christianson The Rise of London’s Book-Trade supra 129

[20] Blagden, The Stationers’ Company – A History 1403 – 1956 pp 212 et seq

[21] Feather, John A History of British Publishing London, Croom Helm 1988 pp 29 - 30

[22] Feather A History of British Publishing p. 30

[23] 2 Henry V, 1, c.7

[24] A clear reference to De Heretico Comburendo

[25] The clause in the statute reads. “And moreover that the Justices of the Kings Bench, and Justices of the Peace, and Justices of Assize have full power to enquire of all them which hold any errors or , as Lollards, and be their maintainers, receivers, favourers and sustainers, common writers of such books as well of the sermons as of their schools, conventicles, congregations and confederacies.”

[26] Loades, D.M The Theory and Practice of Censorship in Sixteenth Century England 24 Transactions of Royal Historical Society (5^th Series) 141 (1974) p. 141

[27] Loades The Theory and Practice of Censorship in Sixteenth Century England (supra) p. 142

[28] 3 Edward I c. 34 (1275); 2 Richard II c. 5 (1378); 12 Richard II c. 11 (1388) and later 1&2 Philip and Mary c. 3 (1554) and 1 Elizabeth I c. 6 (1559)

[29] Hamburger, Philip The Development of the Law of Seditious Libel and the Control of the Press 37 Stan. L.R. 661 (1985)

[30] 26 Henry VIII c. 13 - for a discussion of the development of Henry VIII's Treason Statute see Elton, G.F. Policy and Police: The Enforcement of the Reformation in the Age of Thomas Cromwell Cambridge; Cambridge University Press 1972 especially at Chapter 7.

[31] Peter W.M. Blayney The Stationers Company and the Printers of London 1501 – 1557 Volume 1 1501 – 1546 (Cambridge, Cambridge2013 p. 173.

[32] STC 10898

[33]  Reed p.165-6

[34] Reed  Early Tudor Drama p. 166 It is noted in Bennett, H.S. English Books and Readers – 1475 – 1557 Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1952 that Reed suggests that after the 1524 admonition no new book whatever was to be printed without authority and unless approved by the Church. And that “for the first time in England the printer was restricted in the choice of what he should print (1 Bennett supra 33) With respect that is not a good reading of Reed not is it what was recorded in the transcription of the notes of Richard Foxford, Vicar-General of London  upon whom Reed relies. Reed makes it clear that the “monition says nothing of the licensing of books produced at home”

[35]  Reed Early Tudor Drama supra p. 163

[36] Vide supra

[37] Bennett, H.S. English Books and Readers – 1475 – 1557 Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1952 33-34) - in future Bennett's references will be by volume. Volume 2 (1965) covers the period 1558 - 1603. Volume 3 (1970) covers the period 1603 - 1640 Volume - hence 1 Bennett 33 - 34; Reed 166-170

[38] 1 Bennett p. 34

[39] Reed Early Tudor Drama p. 173 - 4

[40] Who later printed the Great Boke of Statutes 1530 – 33  the first printing

in English of the pre-Tudor Nova Statuta (1327-1483), in “our tonge maternall”

[41] Of all the early Tudor printer, it is Berthelet’s name that is exposed to a number of different (and potentially confusing) spellings

[42] John Rastell, who published his statutory abridgement in 1519 and who, in 1525, published the first English translation of Littleton’s Tenures. He is distinguished as a lawyer in the list by use of the honorific and by the fact that his name is noted last, and is not in alphabetical sequence

[43] Reed Early Tudor Drama suggests that this phrase may mean that the book itself was a parody, but favours it as an expression of contempt for the admonition. If the work had been a parody it would not have been noted as “containing many errors” which suggests that the work, as a translation of the original, was inaccurate as well as unlicensed.