Table Of ContentA STRAYING COLLECTIVE: FAMILISM AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
ORTHODOX BELIEF IN SIXTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
by
Douglas FitzHenry Jones
An Abstract
Of a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Doctor of
Philosophy degree in Religious Studies
in the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
1
May 2011
Thesis Supervisor: Professor Raymond A. Mentzer
1
ABSTRACT
The Family of Love was a religious collective that emerged in the Low Countries
during the Reformation and settled in England in the latter half of the sixteenth century.
It was a casualty of entrenched doctrinal disagreement and the sensationalism of popular
print culture. Yet, there is reason to believe that Familists were very much a part of the
very society that so vehemently condemned them. While earlier scholars have noted the
surprising level to which the group immersed themselves in their local communities, few
have specifically addressed the immersion of Familists in their religious and intellectual
milieu. This dissertation seeks to uncover the worldview that the Elizabethan Family
shared with even its fiercest detractors. Through a close reading of the surviving material,
the following chapters reveal a religious climate in England that was far more porous,
and far less set-in-stone, than many in the period were willing to admit.
In particular, the dissertation focuses on two, related categories: the religious
justifications for outward obedience to authority and the methods of interpreting the
“literal” meaning of sacred writings. Familists were notorious for transgressing the
accepted boundaries of both categories. As those hostile to the group were eager to point
out, they were furtively disobedient and ruthlessly allegorical. My research suggests, to
the contrary, that Familist thought often fell within the accepted boundaries of these two
categories; only the categories themselves were inchoate. In making this point, this
1
dissertation contributes to a broader interest in the reification of religious traditions at the
expense of those less-defined worldviews that contributed to their original development.
Abstract Approved: ____________________________________
Thesis Supervisor
____________________________________
Title and Department
____________________________________
Date
A STRAYING COLLECTIVE: FAMILISM AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
ORTHODOX BELIEF IN SIXTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
by
Douglas FitzHenry Jones
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Doctor of
Philosophy degree in Religious Studies
in the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
1
May 2011
Thesis Supervisor: Professor Raymond A. Mentzer
UMI Number: 3461393
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3461393
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Copyright by
DOUGLAS FITZHENRY JONES
2011
All Rights Reserved
2
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
_______________________
PH.D. THESIS
_______________
This is to certify that the Ph. D. thesis of
Douglas FitzHenry Jones
has been approved by the Examining Committee
for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Religious Studies at the May 2011 graduation.
Thesis Committee: ___________________________________
Raymond A. Mentzer, Thesis Supervisor
___________________________________
Michelene Pesantubbee
___________________________________
Claire Sponsler
___________________________________
Alvin Snider
___________________________________
Kathleen Kamerick
To my mother, father, and sister
2
ii
To see what has become self-evident as something that was not originally self-evident is
the task of all historical reflection.
Hans Blumenberg, The Legitimacy of the Modern Age
3
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the Graduate College at the University of Iowa as well as the
Department of Religious Studies for the generous support I have received over the past
five years. The research necessary for what follows would not have been possible without
funding provided by the Seashore-Ballard Dissertation Fellowship and numerous travel
grants from the Department. I have also benefited from the continued opportunity to
serve as a graduate teaching assistant in areas relevant to my academic interests.
While preparing the dissertation, I have enjoyed the unwavering support of a
number of the faculty in the Department of Religious Studies. In particular, I would like
to thank my advisor, Ray Mentzer, for his instrumental role in reading and offering
valuable comments on my work. His mentorship has been a great benefit throughout my
doctoral career. Michelene Pesantubbee and Maureen Walterhouse have also provided
me with much-needed assistance in varying areas related to the dissertation for which I
am very grateful.
I am also grateful to a number of the faculty in the Department of English at the
University of Iowa who have offered their advice and guidance at various stages of this
dissertation. Claire Sponsler and Alvin Snider both reviewed portions of my work at
different stages in the process and have since given me helpful counsel on the overall
organization of my chapters. Huston Diehl, who sadly passed away in 2010, also offered
4
particularly helpful comments in the early stages of my research.
Finally, I would like to thank the many family and friends who have supported me
in recent years. I owe special thanks to the other graduate students in the Department, as
well as to Amanda Licht who read portions of this work. Most of all, I would like to
thank my father, Mac Jones, for spending numerous hours reading the dissertation. His
own interest in the material has been an inspiration to me.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………...vi
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………..........1
CHAPTER
I. THE CULT OF HN ........................................................................................10
The problem with “HN” .................................................................................13
Hendrik Niclaes, the libertines, and the dreaded puritan ................................22
The cult of HN ................................................................................................32
II. A MYSTERY OR A MUDDLE? ...................................................................44
The divided field .............................................................................................46
The secret mysteries of the Family .................................................................55
Muddled relations to the mainstream .............................................................77
III. THE FAMILY AND ADIAPHORA ..............................................................82
The two schemes of Niclaes’ allegory ............................................................88
Erasmus, Thomas Starkey, and adiaphora ......................................................96
Like a god in earth ........................................................................................116
IV. HERESY AND THE USE OF ALLEGORY ...............................................126
The monstrous brood ....................................................................................136
Familist hermeneutics and the “pattern of love” ..........................................146
The spirit of William Whitaker .....................................................................157
V. A STRAYING COLLECTIVE.....................................................................169
Frank Familist in the seventeenth century ....................................................173
Familist neutrality and Modernity ................................................................192
A straying collective .....................................................................................199
CONCLUSION .………………………………………………………………..............207
BIBLIOGRAPHY .………………………………………………………………..........211
v
