No . 138 The Trusty Servant of Andover could easily have taken a different path .
This is not a simple story . Many of the facts are elusive , and they are likely to remain that way . It might still be useful to set it out in its most speculative form , even if it stretches credibility . In this version , William White was at Winchester at the same time that Robert Lechlade served as a fellow . At New College , he was exposed to the atmosphere of religious debate , in which Lechlade played a key role . Bright and adversarial , he became involved in the controversy , sympathizing with Wyclif ’ s opinions . He left Oxford at a time of increasing persecution , though he kept in contact with other Wycliffites . By 1422 , he was in Kent , preaching without a licence . As a result , he came to the attention of Archbishop Chichele , who was zealously leading episcopal enquiries into Lollardy .
After the trial of his associate Thomas Drayton in 1425 , White and his followers fled to Norfolk , where he continued to attract support . Some of the richest evidence for White ’ s importance as a preacher comes from the Norwich court book , which shows how Lollardy spread to artisanal households , with women playing a significant role through family ties , receiving and supporting preachers , and holding meetings in their homes . In her important study , Margaret Aston underlines White ’ s ‘ very considerable influence ’ as a doctor of the Norfolk Lollards . Copies of his sermons and religious works circulated in Norwich and elsewhere . Like others , he had learnt his Wycliffism in Oxford and he had stayed loyal to these beliefs . But it was not long before he attracted the attention of Bishop Alnwick , who handed him over to the authorities as a relapsed heretic . He was put to death in Norwich in 1428 along with his colleague Hugh Pye and a layman called John Waddon . Margery Baxter , one of White ’ s loyal followers , looked on as he tried to preach from the stake .
This hypothesis obviously rests on the idea that William Whyte of Andover and William White of Kent were the same person . The source of this claim is a single note in the Register . The fact this note is erroneous is only part of the problem . But there is nothing in the evidence of White ’ s career after 1422 to challenge the view that he was an Oxford graduate . In fact , his beliefs , reputation for erudition and associates make it likely that he belonged to a group of Oxford Wycliffites , whose sympathy with Wyclif ’ s arguments persisted and who collaborated in their activities after leaving university . Thomas Netter , who was present at White ’ s trial and had first-hand knowledge of Oxford Wycliffism , regarded William White as a ‘ great satrap ’ and ‘ vassal ’ of Wyclif and as a ‘ doctor ’ of Lollardy . He certainly makes no obvious distinction between White and university-educated Wycliffites .
The Register of Scholars for 1427 , attributing the burning to a younger William Whyte
Nevertheless , it is necessary to offer a note of caution . The reason it is tempting to trust the Register is that , as well as strengthening the case for a link between Wycliffism and later Lollardy , White ’ s presence in Oxford in the early 1400s helps to explain aspects of his subsequent career . It appears to fill a gap , for which there could well be another explanation . The sparseness of the evidence means it is easy to rush into a misjudgement . In the Dictionary of National Biography entry , Norman Tanner describes White ’ s ‘ unknown origins ’, adding there is ‘ no clear evidence that he studied at university ’. This circumspection is reasonable , although we can still consider the possibility that the person who made the note in the Winchester Register knew at least something about White ’ s education and early life .
11