on simon de montford

7/30/2019 on simon de montford

1/23

ELSEVIER Journal of Medieval History 21 (1995) 27-49

] o ~ n d o fIw l ed i eva lH i s t o r y

S i m o n d e M o n t f o r t , E a r l o f L e i c e s t e r , a n d t h e u t i l i t y o fs a n c t i t y i n t h i r t e e n t h - c e n t u r y E n g l a n dClaire Valente

Department of History, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Abs t ra c t

Almost immediately after his death, Simon de Montfort, the leader of the Barons'Revolt against Henry III, was revered as a saint. Despite the received historical opinionthat his cult was local, furtive, and brief, it actually received support throughout England ,from the noble and clerical ranks as well as from the peasantry, and lasted into the reign ofEdward I. The manifestations of Earl Si mon's cult reveal that his revolt was popular aswell as noble, that even illegal cults could be profitable for their home shrines, in this casethe abbey of Evesham, and that sanctifying a rebel leader was an effective way of justifyingboth the conti nuati on of a revolt and sympathy for the defeated rebels, in this case theDisinherit ed. On the hagiographical level, Montfort's cult shows the incredibly richdiversity of expression of devotion in medieval cults, and the more practical concerns withadverti sement and profit. On the political level, the cult proves once again that the king didnot control all means of political discourse. The merger of political and religious authority,the importa nce of which has bee n often demonst rated in studies of the king's touch and thel a u d e s ceremonials, affected rebel leaders as well as kings.

S a l v e , S i m o n M o n t i s - fo r t i s t o ti u s f l o s m i l i ti a e .. . P r o t e c t o r ge n t is A n g l i a e . . .S i s p r o n o b i s i n t e r c e ss o r . 1In both l ife and death, Simon de Montfort , ear l of Leicester , leader of the

baronia l m ove men t of re form and rebel l ion d i rec ted against Henr y I I I , was a man

CLAIRE VALENTE s a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of History, Harvard University. She ispresently writing her thesis, entitled 'The heyday of revolt: Rebellion and political society in medievalEngland, 1258-1415'.1 Hymn, part of the divine office of Simon de Montfort, in: The chronicle o f William de Rishanger ofthe barons' wars: The miracles of Simon de Montfort, ed. J.O. HaUiwell (Camden Society, old ser.,15, 1840), 109-10. From here on all references to the chronicle will be referred to as Rishanger, andall references to the miracle collection as Halliwell, Miracles. This hymn was also printed by P.Lefferts, 'Two English motets on Simon de Montfort,' Early Music History 1 (1981) 223.0304-4181/95/$09.50 O 1995 - Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reservedS S D I 0304-4181 (94)007 57-S


2/23

28 C . V a le n te / J o u r n a l o f M e d i e v a l H i s to r y 2 1 ( 1 9 9 5) 2 7 - 4 9

o f p a r a d o x . A F r e n c h m a n b y b i r th , h e h e a d e d a m o v e m e n t w h i c h t r ie d to p r e v e n t' a l i en s ' ( t h o s e n o t n a t i v e En g l i s h men ) f r o m g a i n i n g p r o mi n en ce i n En g l i s hg o v e r n m e n t . T h e b r o t h e r -i n - la w o f H e n r y I I I , h e i m p r i s o n e d t h e k i n g f o r o v e r ay ea r an d r u l ed i n h i s n ame . H e s u f f e r ed a t r a i t o r ' s mu t i l a t i o n , y e t S t u b b sco n s i d e r e d h i m t h e p e r s o n i f i ca t io n o f l o y a l t y t o tr u e En g l i s h v a l u es . Ex c o m m u n i -c a t e d b o t h b e f o r e a n d a f t e r h i s d e a t h , p e a s a n t s p r a y e d t o h i m f o r m i r a c l e s , a n dc l e r ic s , i n d e f i an ce o f p ap a l o r d e r s , p r ea ch e d h is s a in t li n e ss . I t is p e r h ap s t h is l a s tp a r ad o x , t h e s e em i n g l y ex c l u s iv e l y p o l it ic a l c r ea t u r e r ece i v in g r e l ig i o u s v en e r a -t i o n , w h i c h i s m o s t b e w i l d e r i n g . W h y w o u l d a r e b e l a n d t r a i t o r , w h o a p p e a r ss o me t i mes l i k e a b a l d f o r t u n e - h u n t e r , o t h e r t i mes l i k e a s e l f - r i g h t eo u sm eg a l o m an i a c , a t t r ac t a ll s eg m en t s o f t h i r t e en t h - ce n t u r y En g l i sh s o c i e t y t o h isw o r s h i p ?

T o d a t e , f e w h is to r ia n s h a v e r e c o g n i z e d e x a c t l y h o w w i d e s p r e a d S i m o n ' s c u l tw a s , b o t h s o c i a ll y a n d g e o g r a p h i c a l ly , a n d n o o n e h a s a t t e m p t e d t o e x p la i n w h yM o n t f o r t w a s v e n e r a t e d , o r h o w h i s v e n e r a t i o n r e fl e ct s e i t h e r t h e d e t a i ls o f h isr ev o l t o r t h i r te en t h - cen t u r y En g l i s h s o c i e t y i n g en e r a l . I n s t ead , t h o s e w h o h av es t u d i e d t h e c u l t h a v e u s u a l l y i m p l i e d t h a t S i m o n ' s v e n e r a t i o n w a s n o t v e r yi mp o r t an t , mo r e a cu r i o s i t y t h an a t o p i c f o r h i s t o r i ca l an a l y s i s . F o r ex amp l e , t w oo f th e e a r l ie s t m o d e r n s c h o la r s o f M o n t f o r t ' s l if e a n d c a u s e , B l a a u w a n dP r o t h e r o , r e c o u n t e d t h e o d d m a n i f e s ta t io n s o f S i m o n ' s c u lt , b u t d id n o t s e t t h ec u l t in a n y c o n t e m p o r a r y p e r s p e c t iv e . 2 M o r e r e c e n t ly , D . C . C o x , w h o h a s w r i tt e ns e v e r a l w o r k s o n E v e s h a m , m a r s h a l le d a n i m p r e s s iv e n u m b e r o f r e f e r e n c e s t oS i mo n ' s v en e r a t i o n t h e r e , b u t g av e p r i mar i l y a f ac t u a l a cco u n t , n o t an h i s t o r i ca li n t e r p r e t a t i o n , o f w h a t h e co n s i d e r ed a h i g h ly t r an s i t o r y , l a r g e ly l o ca l , cu l t. 3

O t h e r h i s to r ia n s h a v e i n c o r re c t ly s t re s s e d th e p o p u l a r a n d / o r c o n t e n t l e s s n a t u r eo f M o n t f o r t ' s v e n e r a t i o n . M o n t f o r t ' s c h ie f s c h o l a rl y b i o g r a p h e r , B 6 m o n t , d e v o t e dl e s s t h an t w o p ag es t o t h e cu l t , i n w h i ch h e co n c l u d ed t h a t S i mo n ' s mar t y r s t a t u sr e s u l t e d f r o m la cr~dulit~ populaire an d t h e v i o l en t n a t u r e o f h is d ea t h , n o t f r o mh i s p o l it i c a l l e an in g s . 4 S i mi l a rl y , a m o r e r ecen t b i o g r ap h e r , La b a r g e , b r i e fl y s t a t edt h a t " t h e s t o ri e s o f m i ra c l es , t h e p o p u l a r s o n g s , a n d t h e h y m n s t h a t g a t h e r e da r o u n d h is m e m o r y a n d h is b u r ia l p l a c e w e r e t h e c o n t r i b u t io n o f th e l e s s e r f o lk o fEn g l an d . ' '5 A g a i n , G r an s d en , i n s u r v ey i n g t h e h i s to r i ca l l i te r a t u r e o n M o n t f o r t ,a r g u e d t h a t S i m o n ' s " p o s t h u m o u s f a m e . . . o w e d m o r e t o th e v i o le n c e o f h iss l au g h t e r . . . t h a n t o h i s a c t u a l p o l it ic a l o b j ec t i v e s . '6

J . C . R u s s e l l , w h o w ill b e d i s c u ss e d l a te r , d i d r e m a r k o n t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f

2 W. Blaauw, T h e b a r o n s ' w a r s , 2nd edn., ed. C.H. Pearson (London, 1871); and G.W. Prothero,T h e l if e o f S i m o n d e M o n t f o r t (London, 1877).3 D.C. Cox, T h e b a t tl e o f E v e s h a m : A n e w a c c o u n t (Evesham, 1989), esp. 21-6. For a criticism ofCox's dating of the cult, see below, p. 19, n. 90. I am indebted to Cox's work for many of myreferences.

4 C. B6mont, S i m o n d e M o m f o r t (Paris, 1884;-rev. edn., trans. E.F. Jacob, Oxford, 1930), xv-xvi.5 M. Labarge, S i m o n d e M o n ~ o r t (London, 1962), 276.6 A. Gransden , H is to r i c a l w r i t i ng i n Eng lan d , c . 550 to 1307 (London, 1974), 407.


3/23

c . Valente / Journal o f Medieval His tory 21 (1995) 27 -4 9 29M o n t f o r t ' s s a i n t h o o d , i n t h e l a r g e r c o n t e x t o f p o l i ti c a l c a n o n i z a t i o n i n g e n e r a l , y e tw i t h o u t a n y e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e c u l t i ts e lf .7 O n l y t w o h i s to r i an s h a v e d o n e m o r ew i t h M o n t f o r t ' s cult . 7a F i n u c a n e , i n h is M i r a c l e s a n d P i l g r i m s , w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h ef u l le s t s t u d y o f M o n t f o r t ' s s a n c t i t y t o d a t e , p o i n t e d o u t t h a t a l l r a n k s o f s o c i e t yp a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e c u l t, w h i c h h a d a s tr o n g a n d v a r i e d e x i s t e n c e . 8 H e a l so n o t e d ,a l t h o u g h w i t h l it tl e d e ta i l , t h a t t h e q u a n t i t y a n d g e o g r a p h i c a l d i v e r s i t y o fc o n t e m p o r a r y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n M o n t f o r t ' s w o r s h i p w a s c o n n e c t e d w i t h h i s r e b e l l -i o n , a n d " m a y h a v e s t r e n g t h e n e d r e s i s ta n c e " a m o n g h is f o l lo w e r s in a re a s o fc o n f u s i o n a f t e r i ts f a i lu r e . 9 J o h n T h e i l m a n h a s d i s c u s s e d v e n e r a t i o n o f M o n t f o r tv e r y b r i e f l y , a s a p r e l u d e t o a n a l y s i n g t h e p o l it i ca l i m p o r t a n c e o f c a n o n i z a t i o n int h e r e i g n o f R i c h a r d I I . 1 D e s p i t e h is r e c o g n i t i o n o f th e i m p o r t a n c e o f s y m b o l i s ma n d p o l it ic a l c a n o n i z a t i o n , T h e i l m a n n e v e r d i sc u s se d h o w s u c h s y m b o l i s m m i g h th a v e w o r k e d , g a v e l i tt le i n d i c a t io n a s t o th e r e a s o n s f o r t h e c u lt o r h o w i t m i g h th a v e b e e n f u r t h e r e d , a n d s e e m s n o t t o h a v e h e a r d o f t h e D i s i n h e r i te d , t h eM o n t f o r t ia n s w h o r e m a i n e d in r ev o l t a ft e r E v e s h a m .

T h e g e n e r a l ly a c c e p t e d p i c tu r e o f th e v e n e r a t i o n o f M o n t f o r t is a s a re a c t i o n t oh i s m u t i l a t i o n f r o m t h e l o w e r o r d e r s o f E n g l is h s o c i e t y . T h i s d o e s l i tt le c r e d i te i t h e r t o t h e h i g h e r c l a s s e s , w h o w e r e a r t f u l l y b a c k i n g M o n t f o r t ' s c u l t , o r t h el o w e r o r d e r s , w h o w e r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a c r e d u l o u s h e l p l e s s m o b . T h i s d e t a i l e da n a l y s i s o f M o n t f o r t ' s c u l t w i ll r e v e a l i n s t e a d t h e m u l t i f a c e t e d c h a r a c t e r o fM o n t f o r t , t h e m u l t i fa c e t e d m a k e - u p o f h is re b e l li o n , a n d t h e m u l t i f a c e t e d u t i l it yo f h i s s a n c t i t y .

1 . T h e s t o r y o f M o n t f o r t ' s c u l t a n d i t s s u p p o r t e r sT h e s t o ry o f M o n t f o r t ' s c u l t b e g a n w i t h h is a r m y ' s d e f e a t b y r o y a l is t f o rc e s l e d

b y t h e L o r d E d w a r d a t E v e s h a m , 4 A u g u s t 1 26 5. S i m o n h i m s e l f w a s k il le d a n d h isb o d y m u t i l a t e d . H i s h e a d , a d o r n e d w i t h h is t e s ti c le s , w a s se n t a s a t r o p h y t o t h ew i f e o f o n e o f hi s e n e m i e s . 11 T h e i n t e n d e d d i s h o n o u r b a c k f i r e d , f o r t h e m u t i l a t io no f M o n t f o r t ' s b o d y w a s n o t t h e e n d o f h is li fe , b u t r a t h e r t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a n e wi n c a r n a t i o n : S t. S i m o n d e M o n t f o r t . H i s l i m b s , p r e s e r v e d w i t h c a r e b y h isf o l l o w e r s , " q u i c k l y , b y t e r ri b l e s ig n s s h o w n t h r o u g h t h e m , w e r e h e l d i n

7 J.C. Ru ssell, 'The canonization of op position to the king in A nge vin England, ' in: Hask i nsanniversary essays in me die val history (Boston, 1929), 279-90.7a For a recent note on one Mo ntfort pilgrimage, see J.R. Maddicott, "Follower, Leader, Pilgrim,Saint: Rob ert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, at the shrine of Sim on de M ontfort, 1273," E . H . R . , 109(1994), 641-653, which unfortunately appeared after this article was completed.R. Finucane, Miracles a nd pi lgrim s (London, 1973), esp. 131-5. I am indebted to his work formany of my references.

9 Finucane, Miracles, 133.10 J.M. Theilm an, 'Political canonization and political symbolism in m edieval England ,' J ourna l o fBritish Studies 29 (1990) 241-66; on Montfort, see 246-8.11 L ibe r de Ant iqu is Leg ibus , Cronica M aioru m e t Vicecom i tum L ond onia rum , ed. T. Stapleton(Camden Society, old ser., 24, 1846), 75-6.


4/23

30 C. Valente / Journal of Medieval History 21 (1995) 27-49

veneration, '12 primarily at Evesham, where his torso was buried, and at Alnwick,where Simon's foot was preserved. Simon's burial in the Evesham abbey churchwas not permanent, because of royal persecution,13 but his empty tomb remainedto become the center of the cult of the first non-ecclesiastical political saint sinceEarl Waltheof's execution by William the Conqueror. This veneration took placedespite the fact that Simon had been excommunicated twice: once before, onceafter, his death. Montfort's cult quickly provoked governmental persecution, thusgiving us its most well-known record, the order for its suppression. In the Dictumof Kenilworth (31 October 1266), which attempted to reconcile the Montfortianswho had continued to revolt after Evesham, the king and the papal legate jointlyforbade veneration of Simon and the reporting of his miracles.14 Obviously, thecult was not merely a charming popular phenomenon, but of sufficient magnitudeto warrant royal and papal concern. From whom was the cult receiving supportand why?1.1. Local peasants and the abbey of Evesham

There is no doubt that the peasantry was an important element in theveneration of Montfort, especially in his miracle cult. In the miracle bookcompiled at Evesham from 1274 to 1279, which gives names, places, diseases, andranks in life for clergymen, nobles, and artisans,15 all those with no rankmentioned, 60% of the total, were most probably peasants. Their places of originwere small villages, and elements of some of their stories also indicate low status:children rescued from wells; chickens offered in thanksgiving; lame girls conveyedin wheelbarrows to the shrine. Interestingly, a miraculous dream reported atEvesham bears witness to Simon's popularity among the peasantry. The prior of

12 cito, signis terribilibus per ea ostensis, veneration i sunt habita (Chronicon de Lanercost, ed. J.Stevenson (Edinburgh, 1839), 77).

13 'Annals o f Osney,' in: Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard (Rolls Series, 1869), 4.176-7.14 Roga ntes humiliter tam dominum legatum quam dominum regum, ut ipse dominus legatus subdistrictione ecclesiastica prossus inhibeat, ne S. comes Leycestrie a quocumque pro sancto uel iustorepu tet ur, cum in excommunicacione sit defunctus, sicut sancta tenet ecclesia; et mirabilia de eo uanaet fatua ab aliquibus relata nullis unquam labiis proferantur; et dominus rex hec eadem sub penacorporali uelit districte inhibere. ("Humbly begging both the lord legate and the lord king that thelord legate shall absolutely forbid, under distraint of the Church, that Simon, earl of Leicester, beconside red to be holy or just, as he died excommunicate according to the belief of the Holy Church.And that the vain and fatuous miracles told of him by others shall not at any time pass any lips. Andthe lord king shall agree strictly to forbid this under pain of corporal punishment"). Original andtranslation from R.E. Treharne and I.J. Sanders, eds., Documents of the baronial movement of reformand rebellion, 1258-1267 (Oxford, 1973), 322-3.

15 Lon don , British Library Cott on Vespasian A vi, printed as Halliwell, Miracles. The collectiongives us 333 people in 198 cures, with 273 place-names, of which I have identified 237 (in case ofdoubt, always choosing that place closest to Evesham). Although we do not have the original miraclebook, we know that it came from Evesham, because the author witnessed cures there.


5/23

C. Valente / Journal of Medieval History 21 (1995) 27-49 31

Waltham dreamt "that he saw earl Simon among a crowd of poor people, whowere running to him and sweetly embracing him. ''~6

Many of these peasants were locals, from areas close to Evesham. The countybreakdown shows that a large proportion of the places mentioned were inWorcestersh ire (where Evesham is located) and the adjacent counties. ~7 Scatteredmiracles in other counties make up the majority, but the highest concentration ofreports per county came from Worcestershire, even without including the miraclesper for med at Evesham or those of unspecified origin. In fact, the local tradition ofthe Montfort cult had a long arm, so that as late as the turn of this century, thespring which appeared on the site of Simon's death, known as 'Battlewell,' was18still thought to cure weak eyes.

Yet certainly, even on the local level, someone must have been supporting thecult, publicizing the miracles occurring at Simon's tomb in the abbey church andat the place of his death, fulfilling the role of 'impresario. ~'~ The obviouscandidate for advertiser of Simon's miracle cult, the institution which wasresponsible for looking after Simon's shrine and which profited most fromofferings there, was the abbey of Evesham. There are several indications that theabbot and monks of Evesham were pushing Simon's cult, despite the fact that theabbey was under the patronage of the king, and that Ottobuono, the papal legate,came personally to Evesham abbey to appoint the new abbot, William White-church, in 1266.2o First, the miracle book was clearly composed at Evesham,probably by the guardian of Simon's shrine there. Its author witnessed cures atthe tomb and spring and recorded reports of cures which occurred elsewhere.Second, Whitechurch and other monks of Evesham witnessed and even receivedcures in several cases. The abbot of Pershore, where Whitechurch had beenmonk, was also a witness, indicating that Whitechurch publicized the cult tomembers of his former monastery. Finally, the abbey prayed f o r Simon and hiscompanions, the only laymen ment ioned collectively in its obituary calendar otherthan the dead of the battle of Hastings,2~ and prayed to Simon as well~ using aBenedictine motet, S a l v e S y m o n . 22

t6 q u o d v id i t c o m i t e m S y m o n e m i n t e r m u l t i t u d i n e m p a u p e r u m s ib i o c c u r e n t e m e t d u l c i te r a m p l e c -t e n t e m ( H a l l i w e l l , Miracles, 8 4 ) .

w S e e F i g . 1 .~8 L e t t e r t o t h e E v e s h a m J o u r n a l , 1 9 10 , as q u o t e d b y D . C . C o x , The battle of Evesharn ( E v e s h a m ,

1 9 6 4 ) , 1 7 . T h e ' s p r i n g ' is l it tl e m o r e t h a n a n o c c a s i o n a l l y m u d d y p o o l n o w , a l t h o u g h i t m a y h a v e h a dm o r e f o r c e 7 0 0 y e a r s a g o .

~9 P a t r i c k G e a r y c o i n e d t h i s w o r d a s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h o s e s u p p o r t i n g a n d c o n t r o l l i n g c u l ts i n h isp a p e r s a t t h e S e w a n e e M e d i e v a l C o l l o q u i u m , 2 - 3 A p r i l 1 9 93 . It s e e m s p e r fe c t ly t o f it t h e c o m b i n e dr o l e s o f c a r e t a k e r , p u b l i c i st , a n d p r o f i te e r w h i c h g u a r d i a n s o f s h r i n e s u n d e r t o o k .

20 Chronicon Abbat ie de Evesham, e d . W . D . M a e R a y ( R o l l s S e r ie s , 1 8 6 3 ), 2 82 .-'~ Co x, A new account, 2 5 , r e f e r r i n g t o C o t t o n V i t e l li u s E x i i, b u r n t i n t h e C o t t o n i a n f ir e b u tp r e s e r v e d i n a n e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y c o p y ( L o n d o n , B r i ti s h L i b r a r y , L a n s d o w n e 4 2 7) .z2 T h e m i r a c l e b o o k c o n c l u d e s w i t h a n e x c e r p t f r o m t h i s m o t e t , t y p i c a l o f t h e s o r t u s e d o n s a i nt s "

f e a s t s , a n d w i t h a p ra y e r t o S i m o n . T h e h y m n s to S i m o n a r e d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r b e lo w .


6/23

32 C. Valente / Jou rna l o f M ed ieval History 21 (1995) 27-49

; , 7 . 5 ~ , ~ , ; , ~ , / , , . ' . s . ' . .

i ! ! i i i i i i i i i i ! i ! i ! i i i i ,c . 2 0 m i r a c l e s

~ c . 1 5~c. 10

l e s s t h a n 5

oi i ! ' , i ' , i ' , i i i j i i i ! i i i i i iJ,

, s s s I s ~ . s

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0I r I I I I I I Im i l e s

F i g . 1 . C o u n t y b r e a k d o w n o f m i r a cl e s. D i s tr i b u t i o n o f p l a c e s a s m e n t i o n e d i n s e p a r a te m i r a c l e s t o ri e s,i n c l u d i n g th e M e l r o se m i r a c le s , c o u n t in g o n l y o n c e p e r st o ry . ( M y t h a n k s t o A l a n C o o p e r f o r h e l p i np r e p a r i n g t h i s m a p . )

T h e p e o p l e i n t h e m i r ac l e c o l l e c t io n w h o r e c e i v e d o r w i t n e s se d c u r e s r ev e a l t h ee f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e a b b e y ' s s u p p o r t . W i l l i a m B e a u c h a m p , a r o y a l i s t s u p p o s e d l yc o n v e r t e d t o v e n e r a t i o n o f S i m o n b y t h e d i s c o v e r y o f ' B a t t l e w e l l , ' w a s a l o c a l


7/23

C. Valente / Journal o f Medieval His tory 21 (1995) 27-49 33

notable whose family had intimate connections with the abbey.23 The abbey'stenants appeared at its shrine: William Saxilanus, who received a cure, andWilliam Alexander, whose wife did, were both villeins of the abbot. 24 Moreover,thirteen of the towns and villages where miracles occurred were under abbeyinfluence. In one striking case, the abbot owned land in and possessed theadvowson of Bretforton, inhabitants of which received three miracles.25

The abbey must have profited from the fame of the shrine and from theofferings made there. There are no mentions of Montfort's cult or shrine in theEvesham chronicle, an indication that the monks avoided committing themselvesin their official record to supporting what was an illegal cult.26 Other evidence,however, supplies what the monks covered up. Several of the miracle accountsinclude descriptions of thanksgiving offerings to the abbey, mostly of wax, thechief expense in medieval churches. The Lady Chapel at Evesham, built in1275-6, was almost certainly funded by offerings at Simon's shrine.27 Thechronicler of Lanercost noticed the discrepancy between public acknowledgmentby the abbey and the profits it received from the shrine: "I see more signs ofholiness, proving themselves, testified to with speaking voice, like the dailyoblations and the building works; as if while men keep quiet they almost shoutthrough rocks. ''28 Although the monks were clever enough to cover most of thepaper trail for their local advertisement of the curative powers of Simon's cult,they were advertising, and receiving the benefits. Veneration of Montfort atEvesham provides a good example of a typical abbey cult, however atypical thesaint may have been.1 . 2. M o n t f o r t ' s p o l i t i c a l a l l ie s : p e a s a n t s

On the local level, then, worship of Simon took place primarily because of hisreported curative powers; powers advertised by the abbey of Evesham. Yet suchan explanation, though important as one facet of Montfort's cult, leaves many

23 The abbot acted as executor for a Beauchamp will, and Beauchamp sold the manor of Bengworthand land at Baddesey to the abbey. Testarnenta Vetusta, ed. N.H. Nicolas (London, 1826), 51;C hron i c on Abba t i e de Ev e sham, 282, 285.

_,4 W. Dugdale, M onas t i c on Ang l i c arum, 2nd edn. (London, 1819), 2.32.25 Information on abbey lands from lists in: Dugdale, M onas t i c on , 2.1-13; E.J. Rudge, A shor t

account of the history and antiquit ies of Evesham (Evesham, 1820), 44-8; W. Tindal, The history andan ti qu it ie s o f t he Abbe y and Borough o f Ev e sham (Evesham, 1794), 4-5, 50-1, 66-7, 79-87.26 C hron i c on Abba t i e de Ev e sham , passim; there is also no mention of Montfort's shrine orveneration in the Eve sham office book, printed as Offic iurn Ecclesiast icum A bb at um , ed. H.A. Wilson(Henry Bradshaw Society, 6, 1893).

27 Cox, A ne w ac coun t , 25.28 vidimus plures viva voce testificari signa sanitatum in se experta ; sed et oblationes quotid inae etopera fabricae ibi erectae, idem si homines tacuerunt per lapides clamare vide ur (L ane rc os t , 77).


8/23

34 C. Valente / Journal o f Medieval His tory 21 (1995) 27-49o t h e r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f S i m o n ' s w o r s h i p u n a c c o u n t e d f o r . I f o n l y l o c a l p e a s a n t sw e r e a t t e n d i n g t h e s h r i n e , a n d S i m o n ' s p o l i ti c a l r e p u t a t i o n w a s l ar g e ly u n -i n v o l v e d , w h y w e r e t h e k i ng a n d p o p e c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e c u l t' s e x is t en c e ?

I n f a c t , t o a s s u m e t h a t v e n e r a t i o n b y p e a s a n t s w a s n e c e s s a r i l y a p o l i t ic a l isi n c o r r e c t. D a v i d C a r p e n t e r h a s s h o w n r e c e n t l y t h a t p e a s a n t i n v o l v e m e n t inM o n t f o r t ' s r e v o l t w a s h i g h , t h a t t h e r e w e r e s i g ni fi ca n t a t t e m p t s t o a p p e a l t o t h ec o m m u n i t y o f t h e r e a l m i n g en e r a l , a n d t h a t k n o w l e d g e a b o u t M o n t f o r t ' s g o al sd i d p e r c o l a t e t o t h e l o w e r l e v e ls o f E n g l i s h s o c i e ty 7 9 I n t h e l i g h t o f s u c hk n o w l e d g e , i t s h o u l d n o t s u r p r is e u s t o fi n d t h a t t h e p e a s a n t m i r a c l e c u lt w a s n o to n l y , o r e v e n p r i m a r i l y , lo c a l. O v e r h a l f o f t h e p l ac e s m e n t i o n e d i n th e E v e s h a mc o l l e c t i o n a r e o v e r f o r t y m i l e s a w a y f r o m S i m o n ' s t o m b t h e r e , a n d a q u a r t e r a r eo v e r a h u n d r e d m i le s a w a y. P e r h a p s p e a s a n t s c a m e m e r e l y b e c a u s e M o n t f o r t 'sc u r a t i v e p o w e r s w e r e m o r e w i d e ly k n o w n , b u t i t a p p e a r s t h a t h is p o li ti c alr e p u t a t i o n w a s a ls o w e l l k n o w n , a n d p o s i t iv e . F o r o n e t h i n g , M o n t f o r t ' s c u l t h a d as u r p r is i n g d e g r e e o f m a l e i n v o l v e m e n t f o r a m e d i e v a l c u lt ( o v e r h a lf t h e p e o p l em e n t i o n e d ) , w h i c h w a s a r e s u l t o f i ts p o li ti c a l c o n n e c t i o n .

S e c o n d , a n d m o r e i m p o r t a n t , t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l d i s tr i b u t io n o f p l a c es o u t s id e o fW o r c e s t e r s h i r e m e n t i o n e d i n c u r e s p a r a l le l s c lo s e ly t h e g e o g r a p h y o f M o n t f o r t ' sr e v o l t .3 M o s t o f t h e d e v o t e e s o f S i m o n ' s m i r a c le c u lt w e r e f r o m t h e M i d l a n d s a n dE a s t A n g l i a , t h e a r e a s w h i c h h a d m o s t s t ro n g l y s u p p o r t e d h is r ev o l t . E s p e c i a l lys t r ik i n g is t h e h i g h i n v o l v e m e n t o f K e n t a n d N o r t h a m p t o n in b o t h r e v o l t a n dc u lt . 3~ S e v e r a l p i lg r im s e v e n c a m e f r o m C a n t e r b u r y i ts e lf , d e s p i t e t h e i r p r o x i m i t yt o B e c k e t ' s s h r i n e . T h e e n t i r e v il la g e o f B r i ll , N o r t h a n t s . , w h i c h h a d w h o l e h e a r -t e d l y e m b r a c e d t h e r e f o r m a n d w a s c o n d e m n e d a s ' c o n t u m a c i o u s ' a f t e r t h er e v o l t 32 b o r e w i t n e s s t o t h e c u r e o f i ts r e s id e n t s . S i m i l a r ly , t h e n u m b e r o f p i l g ri m sf r o m L o n d o n r e fl e c ts t h a t c i ty ' s c o n t i n u i n g s u p p o r t f o r th e r e v o l t e v e n a f t e rM o n t f o r t ' s d e a t h . 33 I n c o n t r a s t , r e l a t iv e l y fe w c u r e s i n v o l v e d m e n f r o m t h e N o r t ho r S o u t h w e s t , w h i c h w e r e r o y a l i s t a r e a s . 34 T h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t p e a s a n t s d i d n o tv e n e r a t e S i m o n b e c a u s e o f g e n u i n e r e li g io u s b e l i e f i n th e e f fi c a cy o f p r a y e r t o am a r t y r , b u t t h a t t h o s e w h o d i d a c c e p t e d h i m a s a m a r t y r f o r a r e a s o n , a n d n o t j u s tb e c a u s e o f t h e v i o l e n c e o f his d e a t h . T h i s s u r el y in d i c a te s k n o w l e d g e a n d

29 See D .A. Carpe nter, 'English peasants in p olitics, 1258 -1267,' Past and Present 136 (August,1992) 3-42, wh ere he con clusively proves that the Baron s' Re volt was not m erely baronial.30 See Fig. 1 fo r d istribution.31 The se two counties ha ve the highest concentration of m iracles after W orcestershire (see Fig. 1).Their castles---Rochester, Dover, and Northampton--had been M ontfortian strongholds durin g thewar .32 Finu can e, Miracles, 169; Carp enter, 'English peasants, ' 26, 33.

33 See esp . L i be r de An t i qu i s L e g i bus , 77ff.34 The breakdown of support b y g eography is nicely demonstrated in Blaauw, Barons ' wars , 366,373; and b y D. W illiams, 'Simo n de M onffort and his adherents, ' England in the thirteenth century, ed.W.M . Ormrod (Harlaxton, E ngland, 1985), esp . 172ff.


9/23

C. Valente / Journal of Medieval History 21 (1995) 27-49 35

approval of Simon's character and political aims, resulting in part from peasantparticipation in the revolt, but also from advertisement beyond that of the abbeyof Evesham.

Montfortian propaganda began during the period of reform and continued afterSimon's death, when it largely focussed on the reasons for his saintliness. Thisarticulate support for Montfort's cult, from which the peasant support drewstrength, emanated from two groups which were closely tied with Montfortpolitically: the clergy, especially the Franciscans, and the Disinherited. Bothgroups themselves participated in the miracle cult: of those mentioned in themiracle collection, 10% were nobles (many of which were Simon's former allies),and 25% were clergy. In surviving miracle accounts, Simon had more nobledevotees than Becket, and more upper ecclesiastics as followers than anymedieval English saint other than Becket.351.3. Montfort 's poli t ical all ies: the clergy

The clergy, with their control over history through writing, were probably themost important publicists of Simon's sanctity. This publicity took two forms:mentions of Simon's virtues and the righteousness of his cause in chronicleaccounts, and composition of songs in his honour. A review of clerical prop-aganda not only reveals the clergy's use of Simon's cult, but the reasons why theyand others might have considered Simon a saint.Although there is no vita as such for Simon, semi-hagiographical accountspervade the contemporary chronicles. The accounts in the O p u s cu l u m d e S i m o n e ,contained in the chronicle of Melrose, and in the chronicle of Lanercost, cameclosest to being saint's lives, and were both ultimately, not surprisingly, authouredby Franciscans,36 the clerical order which most strongly supported Montfort'sreform and revolt. Anoth er important account is the De duobus be l l i s apud Lewese t E v e s h a m , by William Rishanger, a monk and one of Matthew Paris's successorsas chronicler of St. Albans.37 Indeed almost every thirteenth-century abbeychronicle, even if it contains only a paragraph on the entire baronial movement of

35 Finucane, Miracles, 135.36A full account of the authorship and date (1280s) of the Opusculum is given by A. and M.

Anderson, eds., Chronicle of Melrose, facsimile edn. ( London , 1936), xix-xx. Dr. J.R. Maddicott hascorrectly pointed out that it is unnecessary to suppose that the entire chronicle was written by aFranciscan who later became a Cistercian, and tha t it suffices that a Cistercian monk was using aFranciscan source. For the authorship of the chronicle of Lanercost, see Gransden, Historical writing,495. The Opusculum recounted five miracles of Montfort (one of which also appeared in the Eveshamcollection).

37 De duobus is in confused order chronologically, but the confusion seems easily rectified by simplyputting the final section further forward. B6mont felt that this final section was an addition of ananonymous writer, who " made such remarkable transformations in the text of the continuation so thatbiography now comes to sound like hagiography" (Simon de Montfort, rev. edn., xxiv). The chronicle


10/23

36 C. Valente / Journal o f Medieval His tory 21 (1995) 27 -4 9

1258-67, gives a favourable portrait of Simon and some mention of his martyrstatus .38This favourable portrait is a uniform one: Simon as martyr for the common

good of England. Simon personally was described as a skilled leader whocombined intelligence and piety with his chief characteristic, steadfastness to hisoath to uphold the Provisions of Oxford. Simon was a v i r Dei , and in the words ofscripture, " t h e m o s t f a i t h f u l i n w o r d a n d i n d eed b e f o r e G o d a n d ever yo n e . ''3 9 TheO p u s c u l u m even compared him at length to Simon Peter: he was inferior, butnonetheless similar.4

Moreover, according to his clerical chroniclers, Simon had a holy cause, that ofthe reform of the realm and the upholding of the law. The 1258 reform, andindeed Montfort's regime of 1264-5, had received episcopal approval andparticipation, and Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, had been Montfort'sclose personal friend. Although Grosseteste died before the revolt, Rishanger stillused the Grosseteste connection to justify Simon's actions as religious, spuriouslyclaiming that the bishop had ordered Simon to rebel, "for remission of his sins ...maintaining that the peace of the English Church could not be defended withoutthe physical sword, and constantly assuring that all dying in her and for her wouldbe crowned with martyrdom. '41 Similarly, even though Simon fought against theking, he was not a traitor, according to the B r u t , because he fought "for thecomenne profite of the ... commens of Englonde. '42 In fact, several chroniclersconsidered his martyrdom for the cause proven by the Crucifixion-like stormswhich broke out at his death.43

The songs written about Simon also reflect the clerical desire to honour him and

is coherent as a whole, however, with other passages on Simon's sanctity in the earlier portions.Several passages bear remarkable resemblance to the continuation of the C hron i ca M aj ora , which waseither by Rishanger or used his works. I see no reason not to attribute the favourable, almosthagiographical, portrayal to Rishanger himself.

38 The exceptions are Thomas Wykes's continuation of the 'Annals of Osney,' and the FloresHi s t o r i a rum, ed. H.R. Luard (Rolls Series, 1890). Even the latter, however, had a pro-Montfort'edition ': the Westminster copy changes details to rescue Montfo rt's reputation from the aspersions ofthe original author.

39 'Annals of Osney,' 170; f ide l iss imus in sermon e e t operibus coram De o e t om ni populo , FloresHi s t o r i a rum, 3.5, n. 1 (Westminster copy) , quoting Luke xxiv.19.40Melrose , 135-40.

41 in remissionem peccatorum suorum ... asserens pacem ecclesiae Anglicanae sine gladio materia linunquam firmari, et constanter affirmans omnes in ea et pro ea morientes martirio coronari,(R i shange r , 7).

42 The Brut , ed. F.W.D. Brie (Early English Text Society, 131, 1906), 1.178.43 Robert of Gl oucester, The m e tr ical chronic le o f Rob er t o f Gloucester , ed. W. A. Wright (Rolls

Series, 1887), 2.765; Flores, 3.5, n. 1 described the storms by quoting Matthew, xxvii.45. TheWorcester annals instead compared the storms with those during the battles of the Maccabees(Anna l e s M onas t i c i , 4.455). The sharing of a name with Simon Maccabee meant the Maccabees werefrequently invoked as comparisons.


11/23

C. Valente / Journal of Medieval History 21 (199.5) 27-49 37

increase his fame.44 Even before his death, songs like the well-known, probablyFranciscan, Song of Lewes treated Simon as a superhuman hero. Among theclerical songs were Latin laments, like Illos salvavit, which, significantly, lamentedthe evil treatment of the Church after Simon's death more than his death assuc h. 45 More important for the cult itself were the hymns addressed to Simon assaint and martyr. The Franciscans wrote a divine office in his honour, whichcontained the usual elements of Montfortian martyrology: Simon as flower ofchivalry, as defender of the Church and of justice, as fighting ad renovandumbritannie regnum, and as martyr , proved by the storm at his death. 46 Twothirteenth-century polyphonic motets, probably from a large Benedictine estab-lishment, also reported, in shorter form, Simon's virtues,a7

Clerics not only wrote these hymns, they used them. Song manuscripts andcalendar entries show that Simon was held in veneration in many religious houses.To name some of the surviving examples: the library at Peterborough had a VitaSymonis de Montforti rhythmica, probably the divine off ice ; 48 on e of theBenedictine motets was known at Evesham and used in devotions on theanniversa ry of the battle , Simon's unofficial feast day; 49 another copy of thismotet, Salve Symon, was in a Durham cathedral priory ~5oanuscript. The BarkingCalendar mentioned his name, albeit without the description sanctus, ~t andWilliam of Worcester recorded an entry for his feast day in the Calendar ofTavistock.52 Thus, Simon was venerated by clerics throughout England and by

44 See Leffe rts, 'Two English motets ,' for a list of all the songs composed about Simon.45 Print ed by Halliwell in an appendix to Rishanger and Miracles, 139-46.46 The part which remains is in a volume which in the fourteenth cen tury was in the Norwich

cathedral library (Lefferts, 'Two English motets,' 211, n. 36). It is printed in Prothero, Life, 388-91.47 Lefferts , 'Two English motets ,' 213. Leffert s also gives reconst ructed music for the motets.48 Lefferts , 'Two English mo tet s,' 211.49 At the end of the miracle book, part of it is introduced by the rubric: Anno Domini M.cc. lx.v

Octavo Symonis Montisfortis sociorumque ejus, pridie nonas Augusti (Halliwell, Miracles, 109-10).The counting of the years since the Provisions of Oxford imitates regnal dating, and perhaps wasmean t to highlighl~ the legitimacy of Simon' s tenure of power. The motet is followed with a versicleprayer, which was "used in memorial and as the bridge between Matins and Lauds in the Office ofmany saints," (Lefferts, 'Two English motets,' 212).

50 Leffer ts, 'Two English motet s,' 225-6.51 The ordinale and customary of the Benedictine nuns of Barking Abbey, ed. J.B.L. Tolhurst

(Henry Bradshaw Society, 65, 1927), 8. I am indebt ed for this reference to Richard Pfaff, professor ofhistory at the University of North Carolina.

52 R. Stanton, Supplement to the menology of England and Wales (London, 1872), 751. Simon didnot make the original menology, nor did he get further than the 'rejected' list in Acta Sanctorum,August, 1.311. Lefferts also mentioned an entry of 4 August as Simon's feast day in a latethirteenth-century monastic calendar of an unknown, probably large, Benedictine establishment(Lefferts, 'Two English motet s,' 210). There was also an entry, again probably late thirteen th century,of the date of Simon's murder (occisus est Simon de Monte forti) to the calendar of feast days at theend of one copy of the Sarum Missal (London, British Library, Harley 2951, f. 129v).


12/23

38 C. Valente / Journal of Medieval History 21 (1995) 27-49members of many orders: Benedictine monks and nuns, Franciscans, and Austincanons.

The similarities between the songs and the chronicles in language and themeshow that the literature of Montfort's cult circulated, at least among the clergy.That they were actively promoting material on Simon is indicated by theOpusculum's statement that the friars minor 'published' (ediderunt) a history ofSimon's martyrdom in readings, responses, verses, and hymns, i.e. throughwriting the divine office mentioned above.53 This information about Simon's lifecontained in martyrology undoubtedly went beyond the clergy as well. We knowthat they preached in Simon's support while he lived, and the prohibition ofveneration in the Dictum of Kenilworth indicates that they continued to do soafter he died.

Simon's clerical supporters did not think of Simon as an unimportant peasantsaint. They loved to compare him with Becket, the greatest of English saints.54Men were as willing to go to Simon's tomb as to Canterbury, the Opusculumclaimed, because "no t less did Simon die for the just order of the rightfulpossessions of England than Thomas had once died for the lawful order of thechurches of England. ''55

Why were the clergy so concerned to portray Simon as saint, to give othersreasons to venerate him? They were clearly not being completely 'objective' intheir portraits: we have enough sources other than their chronicles to know thatSimon was not exactly the paragon they imply. In order to build a saintly image,they expunged any negative or worldly features from the record, put stirringspeeches accepting martyrdom into his mouth, and emphasized the religiousaspects of a basically secular revolt. Why this "almost mystical attitude toSimon"? 56

In fact, the clerical authors were not completely fabricating their accounts ofMontfort and his life. Simon truly was a devout man. The consistency of portraitin unrelated chronicles, and the detailed nature of the information given suggeststhat some of what the clerical chroniclers report is at least plausible. For example,Simon's wearing of a hairshirt is mentioned in several different sources. Rishanger

53 "Af te r the prema ture killing of Simon, the friars minor ... published a history, that is readings,responses, verses, a hymn, and other things which pertained to the glory and honour of a martyr,"Melrose, 140. There is also a note in the margin that: [fra]tres minores [s]cripserunt [l]itturgiamSimonis [de] Monte forti ("the friars minor wrote a liturgy of Simon de Montfort").

s4 See, e.g. , Simon 's divine office, which called Thomas the sun o f the east, Simon the star of thewest, each fighting for justice (Prothero, Life, 390).

55 non minus occibuit Simon pro iusta rat ione legitamarum possess ionum Anglie quam Thomas prolegitima ratione ecclesiarum Anglie olim occubuerat (Melrose, 140). It is interesting that the evidenceof the Evesham miracle collection corroborates the claim: several Canterbury and Kentish residentsdid in fact go to Simon's tomb.56 Gransden, Historical writing, 407.


13/23

C . Va le n t e / J ou rna l o f M e d ie v a l H i s to ry 21 (1995 ) 27 - 49 39

is on the whole a sober and reliable chronicler, in the St. Albans historiographicaltradition, and thus his assertion that Simon knew the entire Psalter and used tostay up late at night praying gains credence.57 Moreover, the clerics were buildingon Simon's own self-portrait: he considered himself a crusader, constantly usingcrusade ideology in the language and symbols of the revolt, most obviously in thewearing of surcoats with white crosses.58 As a crusader who suffered and died inorder to uphold an oath, he could validly be considered a martyr.

Perhaps most importantly, during his life, Simon associated with men ofimpeccable religious credentials. He carried on extensive correspondence, con-cerning both personal and public issues, with Adam Marsh, head of theFranciscan community at Oxford, and Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln,who was himself considered bea tus in the thirteenth century. Another unofficialbea tus , Walter Cantilupe, bishop of Worcester, was closely involved with much ofthe reform, and served as spiritual adviser for Montfort's troops during the revolt.

Thus, Simon's devotion, his friendship with beat i , and his death for a righteouscause made it possible to define him as a martyr. But this does not explain why somany clerics did so, and turned their efforts to embroidering his tale. To a certainextent, the explanation may lie in an emotional response to the death of a laymanwhom they considered their friend. Yet the concern to develop a martyrology alsohad at least in part a political basis. It represents a continuat ion of the politicalstance many of the clergy had taken during Simon's revolt. During his lifetime,the English clergy had preached on his behalf so openly that the pope intervenedto stop them.59 Several major bishops, like Stephen Berksted of Chichester, andother clerics, like Thomas Cantilupe, later bishop of Hereford, participated in hisgovernment. Simon had always worked closely with ecclesiastical leaders andseemed concerned for the Church's liberties at a time when Henry III was veryclose to the pope and his legate, and perhaps not as deferential to native Englishclergy as they would have liked.

The clergy's support of Montfort's sanctity, partly devout, partly political,accomplished several things. Functionally, it provided the biographical materialon which veneration could be based, and gave the cult a semi-official status whichhelped preserve it in the face of royal and papal attempts at suppression.Self-reflectively, it justified clerical participation in the revolt, which had resulted

57 Rish ang er , 6 . I a m g r a t e f u l t o D r . M a d d i c o t t f o r h a v i n g l e t m e s e e t h a t p o r t i o n o f h i s f o r t h c o m i n gb i o g r a p h y o f S i m o n d e a l i n g w i t h S i m o n ' s p i e t y .5 S F o r a m o r e c o m p l e t e d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s p o i n t , s e e C . T y e r m a n , E n g l a n d a n d t h e c r u s a d e s( C h ic a go , 1989 ) , 147 - 9 ; s e e a lso S. L loyd , ' P o l i t i c a l c r u sa de s i n En g la n d , c . 1215 - 7 a nd c . 1263 - 5 , ' i n :P e t e r W . E d b u r y , e d . , C rusade and se t t l e m e n t (Cardi f f , 1985) , 116, 119. Lloyd d iscusses theM o n t f o r t i a n m o v e m e n t a s c r u s a d e , a n d s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r o y a l i s t o p p o s i t i o n m a y a l s o , a n d m o r el e g i t i m a t e l y , h a v e b e e n p r e a c h e d a s a c r u s a d e b y t h e p a p a l l e g a t e .59 L e s R ~ g i s t r e s d e C l e m e n t I V ( 1 2 6 5 - 1 2 6 8 ) , e d . M . E . J o r d a n ( B i b l i o t h 6 q u e d e s l ~ co l es F r a n q a i s e sd ' A t h 6 n e s e t d e R o m e , 2 e s e r . , 1 1 , 1 8 9 3 - 1 9 4 5 ) , 6 4 .


14/23

40 C. Valente / Journal of Medieval History 21 (1995) 27-49

in some reprisals after the king regained power.6 Ideologically, and mostimportantly, it invested a secular reform and revolt with religious, in factotherworldly, authority.1 .4 . Mon t fo r t ' s po l i t i ca l a l l i e s : the D is inher i ted

The clergy were not the only group to benefit politically and ideologically fromsupport of Montfort's sanctity. The group which had the most to gain was theDisinherited. Montfort's rebellion, as E.F. Jacob discovered long ago, had notended with his death. After Evesham, his followers had their lands confiscated,and in response entrenched themselves, especially in the castle of Kenilworth. Forover a year hostilities continued, until under the influence of Ottobuono, thepapal legate, negotiations were opened which resulted in the Dictum of Kenil-worth. Under the terms of the settlement, rebels surrendered in exchange forbeing able to redeem their lands by paying fines. Even indirect supporters andunwilling participants had to pay certain amounts. The harshness of the settle-ment, especially as few rebels had the funds with which to pay their fines andwere unwilling to mortgage their lands to their opponents, meant continuedrevolt, based primarily in the isle of Ely. It was not until the summer of 1267,after Gilbert de Clare had revolted again on behalf of the Disinherited and heldLondon for six weeks, that overt peace returned to the country.

Besieged on all sides, and with little hope of aid in this world, the Disinheritedused Simon's sanctity to keep their aims alive and in public view. The nature ofthe miracles reported of Montfor t justified resistance to royalist oppressors of theDisinherited by showing Simon taking an active hand in continuing the fight.Simon punished his (unnamed) killer by causing him to be drowned; 61 a knightwho had fought for the king at Evesham and disregarded warnings to repent burntin a fire, with all his family.62 Other former enemies, like Peter Saltmarsh andOsbert Giffard, were made to acknowledge Simon's sanctity and, by implication,the justness of his cause. It was Saltmarsh who discovered 'Battlewell' by mockingwhile passing that battlefield that if Simon was a saint, water would spring fromdry land (it did).63 Giffard also implicitly mocked Simon: he had taken some ofSimon's armor at Evesham and stuck it under his bed. He became ill, and onlyafter he put the armor in a place of honour, responding to admonition fromSimon in a dream, did he get well . 64

60 Those bishops who had willingly atte nded Montfor t's parliament and council meetings weresuspended, although they later regained their offices. Others, like the abbot of Peterborough, wereforced to pay fines to regain the king's peace.61Lanercost, 95; Melrose, 141,

62 Hall iwel i, Miracles, 80.63 Hall iwel l, Miracles, 67-8.64 Hall iwel l, Miracles, 92-3.


15/23

C. Valente / Journal o f Medieval His tory 21 (1995) 27-49 41

Simon's followers, in contrast, received and witnessed cures.65 Henry dePomeroy, one of Simon's knights whose lands were confiscated after Evesham,witnessed a miracle, and the daughter of Hugh Peverel of Devon, another of hisknights, received one. The seneschal of Thomas Cantilupe, who had beenMontfort's chancellor, was cured, as was one of Thomas's hawks. Joan Cantilupe,Walter Cantilupe's great-niece, who witnessed a cure, was also the wife of HenryHastings, the commander at Kenilworth castle, and an important leader in the isleof Ely. Others cured were Simon de Pateshull and John ritz John, two Montfor-tians who were captured at Evesham and active among the Disinherited. Theycame in person to Evesham to report their cures. Gregory of Grandun, rector ofSapcote, reported that he had been cured after the war by sitting in the earl'schair at Kenilworth, presumably during the siege there in 1266.66

Most importantly, two of Simon's allies who continued longest in rebellionpossessed actual relics. Llewellyn, prince of Wales and Simon's posthumousson-in-law, received Simon's hand, and John de Vescy, a major leader in the isleof Ely, retrieved Simon's foot from the battlefield.67 Vescy, lord of Alnwick,donated the foot to the canons of Alnwick, thus starting a northern, though lessvibrant, miracle cult. It was because of Disinherited publicity that miracles wererecorded from two royalist counties: Northumberland, where Alnwick is located,and Devon, where Henry de Pomeroy and Hugh Peverel held lands. All of thisreveals that the Disinherited did more than benefit from Simon's miraculouspowers: they frequented his shrine and helped to promote his worship.The songs of Simon's cult, like the miracles, also publicized concern for theDisinherited and their oppression by the royalists. Chaunter m 'es to i t , a Frenchlament and thus probably of lay rather than clerical composition, asked Jesus tocare for rebels who were still in prison.68 The divine office offered comfort forSimon's oppressed supporters by portraying Simon as confounding his enemiesand helping his friends, and asking him to save England and harm his enemiesuntil they reformed.

Finally, the clerical chroniclers also openly linked Simon's sanctity with supportfor the Disinherited. Rishanger wrote that Simon's miracles comforted hisfollowers who remained on earth.69 The author of the Brut recorded that Simon"was dede for the comenne profite ... and therefore God hathe schewed ffor himmany grete miracules to diverse ffolkes of her maladies and grevawnce, werefore

65 For a list of Simon's followers, see especially Appendix G of Blaauw, Barons" wars, compiled byPearson, which gives royalist and baronial nobles and knights.66 Hall iwel l, Miracles, 87.

67Melr os e , 132, 135.68 This lament is printed both in H. Shields, 'The lament for Simon de Mo ntfort, ' M e d i u m A e v u m ,

41 (1972), 202-7, and in Anglo-Norman pol i t ical songs , ed. I. Aspin (Anglo-Norma n Text Society,11, 1953), 28-32. The text in Shields omits specific refer ence to those in prison , indicating that thesong was still sung in altered form after the 1267 settlement.69Rishanger , 49.


16/23

4 2 C . V a l e n t e / J o u r n a l o f M e d i e v a l H i s t o r y 2 1 ( 1 9 9 5 ) 2 7 - 4 9

thei have be heledde. '7 Furthermore, it was probably to bolster Monffortiansstill in arms, and thus presumably at risk of death, that all of the men killed atEvesham on Simon's side were portrayed as martyrs. The chief of Simon'sfollowers killed at Evesham, Hugh Despenser, who had been baronial chiefjusticiar, had his own personal shrine at his tomb in the abbey, where the blindand lame came to be cured.71 The rest, although excommunicated by the legate,"prove by signs that they are not reproved by God, nor ... have they ceased to behonoured by men. ''72 The miracles, the songs, the chronicles, showed St. Simon'sconcern for his supporters and their otherworldly success at a time when mostlacked success in this world. The Disinherited could both take heart and gainpopular support from having a saint behind them.

Simon's cult, then, was not purely local or purely popular and contentless.Even some of the popular element had a political basis. The cult thrived becausea large part of the clerical and noble ranks actively publicized it. Their supportclosely parallels the political support for Montfort's revolt. The cult then was usedto snatch a religious victory from the Montfortian defeat, to hold up Montfort'ssanctity as a clear symbol of which side God and right had been on, and in turn toprovide moral backing for Montfort's followers in their continuing struggle. It isclear that Simon's veneration, peasant, clerical, and noble, reflected both thecontemporary perception of Montfort's character and aims and the levels ofparticipation in his revolt, and was useful both for justifying past and presentsupport and for comforting this-worldly failure.

2 . The suppress ion and death of Montfor t ' s cu l tThe longevity of Montfort's cult is uncertain. In 1323, when Edward II was in

the Yorkshire, he was entertained by two women chanting songs of Simon deMontfort.73 These were probably the more popular songs of the barons and notthe hymns, but the incident shows that Simon was still a legendary figure,remembered at a time soon after Thomas of Lancaster died in a revolt verysimilar to Montfort's, which looked to him for inspiration. The manuscripttradition also shows later interest. The Evesham miracle collection was recopiedin the late fourteenth century, and evidently not at Evesham. M The fragmentary

70 The Br ut , 178.71 T he h i s to r i c a l w ork s o f G e rv ase o f C an te rbury , e d . W . S t u b b s ( R o l l s S e r i e s , 1 8 8 0 ) , 2 . 24 3 ; M e l r o s e ,

1 3 2 .72 s i g ni s s e p r o b a n t a D e o n o n r e p r o b a r i , n e c a b h o m i n i b u s . .. c e s s a n t h o n o r a r i ( L ane rc os t , 7 7 ) .73 T h e H o n o r a n d F o r e s t o f P i c k e r in g , e d . R . B . T u r t o n ( N o r t h R i d i n g R e c o r d S o c i e t y , 3 , 1 89 6 ),2 2 5 - 6 ; f r o m r o y a l h o u s e h o l d a c c o u n t s . It is o d d t h a t E d w a r d s h o u l d h a v e w a n t e d t o h e a r s u c h s o n g s ,

e s p e c ia l l y s o c l o se t o P o n t e f r a c t w h e r e T h o m a s o f L a n c a s t e r h a d r e c e n t l y b e e n b e h e a d e d f o r tr e a s o n .74 N . K e r , S u p p l e m e n t t o t h e m e d i e v a l l ib r a ri e s o f G r e a t B r i ta i n , e d . A . W a t s o n ( L o n d o n , 1 9 87 ), 3 6.


17/23

C. Valente / Journal o f Medieval His tory 21 (1995) 27 -4 9 43

Barking calendar dates from the end of the fourteenth century; 75 the devotionalat Norwich dates from the fourteenth century and the devotional at Cologne fromthe fifteenth;76 the Sarum Missal Harley 2951 was still being used in 1430.77Richard Fox mentioned the well and the chapel in 1448, a gift was made at thewell in 1457, and a missal was donated to the chapel of l e Ba t t e l e We l l e around1500.78

Nonetheless, most of the evidence for Simon's cult disappears in the latethirteenth century. Miracles at Evesham, although they continued for at least tenyears after Montfort's death, were no longer collected by the monks there afterthe late 1270s. The hagiographical chronicle accounts date from the 1270s and1280s, as do the songs and hymns. The obituary calendar of the abbey ofEvesham which mentioned Simon and his companions fell into disuse in the firsthalf of the fourteenth century.79 The polyphonic motets on Montfort, althoughoriginally part of a larger collection for saints' days, by 1300 were flyleaves forother manuscripts.8 Even the references mentioned above do not necessarilyprove later veneration of Simon, for the chapel, once built, would presumablyhave continued to be used, even after the cult had died, and the manuscripts,

7~ Ordinale and Custom ary , xi.76 Leffert s, 'Two English mot ets ,' 210-11.77 When John Bojuy let's name was enter ed, f. 126v.78 Cox, A ne w ac c oun t, 24, 26. Its existence is also known from Lanercos t , which mentions an

orator ium built on the site of Simon's death (77). No official records of the chapel or masonry remain,although there is some eighteenth-century evidence of its ruins (Cox, 26). One bit of Montfortianarchitecture has survived to the present day: an early fourteent h-century, stained-glass window in thechurch of St. John the Baptist in Fladbury, three miles north of Evesham. Now in the north window ofthe chancel, it displays Montfor t's arms, Gules, a lion rampant queue rich& Argent, surrounded withthe arms of Hugh Despenser, Henry de Montfort, Ernaud de Blois (hereditary steward to the earls ofLeicester), Roger Mortimer, and the family of Boteler (M.D. Anderson, History and imagery inBri t i sh churches , (London, 1971), 266, n. 13). Simon, his justiciar, his steward, and his son all died atEvesham, and Mort imer was Montfort's mutilator. The window clearly has something to do with thebattle. The inclusion of Mortimer's arms is strange, but perhaps c ommemora ted that he inflicted themartyrdom, or more practically, might have disguised a monument to the Montfortians under cover ofa more general memorial of the battle. Why the arms of Boteler appear is also unclear, but threeBotelers from towns in Worcestershire appear in the Evesham miracle collection (Halliwell, Miracles,71, 107). A Botel er may have commissi oned the window (surely Mortimer would not, and of the restonly the Despensers, not a Worcestershire family, still survived). At the very least the window showshistorical interest in Montfort and his fate some fifty years after his death, and it is tempting toconsider it the only physical evidence remaining of Simon's cult. For more on the window, see also N.Pevsner, Worcestershire, in Bui l d i ngs o f Eng l and (London , 1968), 154; T. Nash, Hi s t ory o fWorcestershire (London, 1781), 1.449; Tindal, History and antiquit ies, 310; and Cox, A ne w ac c oun t ,33 (where he argues unconvincingly that the window is not related to the battle).79 Cot ton Vitellius E xii apparen tly fell into disuse after the death of abbot John de Brochampton(1316), and was used again after the mid-fifteenth century. Anot her Evesham calendar, Cot tonVitellius E xvii, badly burn t but also copied into Lansdowne 427, was more like a saints' calendar withobits in it. It again was used until soon after Brochampton's death, but interestingly has no entryreferring to Montfort or the battle of Evesham.80 Leffert s, 'Two Engl ish mote ts, ' 221. Such musical collections were, however, frequently des troyedand used as flyleaves.


18/23

44 C. Valente / Journal o f Medieval History 21 (1995) 27 -4 9especially the devotionals, may have been used or recopied for their other parts.Simon's veneration received its last clear mention in the historical record in 1307.During the hearings on the sanctity of Thomas Cantilupe, a story was told of amerchant in 1289, who, when told to pray to Thomas Cantilupe, replied, "I thinkindeed that he is as much as saint, as is that Simon de Montfort, whom youan no un ce as a saint. ''81

Why did Simon's cult fade, if not immediately, at least relatively quickly? Aneasy generalization that political cults do not last is untrue: the cult of Thomas ofLancas ter continued until the eve of the Refor mati on without slackening. 82Simon's cult, however, faced far more severe and continuous attempts atsuppression, especially as his cause was never publicly vindicated as wasLancaster's in 1327. Henry III not only declared the cult illegal in the Dictum, heprovided measures to back up the declaration. Simon's body was dug up andburied in a secret place. Several chroniclers reported that the miracles were notspoken of, for fear of the king. Edward continued his father's policy. He was stillprotesting against Amaury de Montfort's attempts to obtain church burial for hisfather's body as late as 1283, and persecuted the Montfort family when he could.83The O p u s c u l u m lamented that because Edward ruled the kingdom, the service forSimon, "as had been hoped, will not obtain perf ormanc e in the church of God. ' '84Of course, St. Simon did sometimes act to protect his devotees. He changed hisspring water to beer for a girl stopped by hostile soldiers, apparently with ordersto arrest pilgrims, and then back to wa ter to cure t he girl's mother. 85

Even given that Simon could not be there all the time to rescue his followersfrom the king or his representatives, the decline in his veneration could not haveresulted from royal hostility alone. Pilgrims came in great numbers despite theord er for suppr ession, and travelled at night to avoid capture. 86 Nor could thechance of punishment have been very great, especially after the revolt ended in1267. Although the author of the O p u s c u l u m recorded Edward's displeasure with

8~ Cogito quidem, quod talis est ille Sanctus, qualis est ille Simon de Monte forti, quem Sanctametiam nuncapastis (Acta Sanctorum, October (Antwerp, 1765), 1.671). The merchant's statement isproblematic--it could be a straightforward indication of Simon's importance in publicly being called asaint and having a comparison made by Cantilupe's followers. But the clerk recording the wordswrote: ille illusorie sic stulte respondit. This makes it seem that either the merchant was covering histracks by referring to an ambiguous saint, or did not believe and was mocking both saints. At the endof the story, St. Thomas appeared to the man in a dream and said: Amice, noli amplius illudere ServisDei tuis sermonibus imperitis. He then cured him, but unfortunately gave no hint of divine opinion ofSimon's sanctity.82 J.R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster (Oxford, 1970), 329.83 Having captured Amaury and his sister Eleanor in 1275, he refused to release them in 1276despite a papal request, and wrote a lengthy diatribe about the evils Simon had caused in England, inletter 23, in Liber de epistolaris o f Richard o f Bury, ed. N. Denholm-Young (Roxburghe Club, 1950),14-17.84 ut speratur, non optinebunt in ecclesia dei decantacionem (Melrose, 140).85 Halliwell, Miracles, 69.86Lanercost, 77.


19/23

C. Valente / Journal o f Medieval History 21 (1995) 27 -49 45

the cult, he did not fear writing the most hagiographical account of Simon's lifeand death.

Of course, to royal suppression was added papal suppression. Clement IV sentOttobuono to England to excommunicate the rebels and punish the bishops whohad supported Simon. The legate went to Evesham in person to appoint a newabbot, removing the Evesham monk, William of Marlborough, who had beenabbot elect since 1263.87 Clement IV was particularly and personally hostile toMontfort, who had denied him entry to England as papal legate in 1264, and evenwrote to Louis IX urging him not to shelter Simon's widow and son because ofSimon's wrongs.88 The abbey of Evesham felt it had to conceal its interest inMontfort. Not only did its chronicle fail to mention the cult, it completely omittedan account of William of Marlborough's abbacy, and indeed of the battle ofEvesham.Yet the church suppression also was at its height in the early years alone.Ottobuono may even have posthumously absolved Simon and his followers in1268. 89 Nor was suppression necessarily effective. The abbey of Evesham, despitesilence in its official records, did support its shrine, as did the abbot whomOttobuono had appointed. Since the records of the cult indicate a gradual fadingin the 1270s and 1280s, not an immediate decline in 1266-7, royal and papalhostility could not have had much impact,9 other than preventing an institutional

87 W.H. Bliss, ed., Calendar of entries in the papal registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland.papal letters (London, 1893), 1.392, 420.88 R~gistres de Clement IV, 124.89 As claimed (unique ly) in Gervase of Canterbury, 2.247. If the story was untrue, it is still

interesting that such a rumor circulated: another example of clerics bolstering Montfort's memory?90 The only dating of the decline of the cult so far has been by Cox, A new account, 21-3 (and

notes), with whom I substantially disagree. He argued that the miracles were written downcontemporaneously , and that the dated miracles could be used as markers for the cult's vibrancy. Thedat ed miracles appear in this sequence: No. 1/1274, No. 5/1259, No. 15/1265, No. 24/1258, No.35/1259, No. 107/1280 (wri tten as sexagesimo xx), No. 115/1267, No. 122/1265, No. 146/1269, No.159/1265 or soon after, No. 176/1272, No. 188/1273, No. 190/1273, No. 191/1274, No. 195/1276, No.196/1279, No. 198/1277. Cox threw out the first date as ambiguous at best. Cox argued that the armyit mentions must have been that of the Disinherited, still at large, and thus that the miracle must havetaken place before the Dictum of Kenilworth (1266). Miracles Nos. 5, 24, and 35 must be, and 107probably was, scribal error. Cox assumed that another out of sequence miracle, No. 115, was an erroras well. Through these corrections, he obtained a chronological sequence, argued for contempora-neous composition, and posited that governmental suppression had caused the quick death o f the cult,which declined from 135 miracles in 1265-66, to fewer than 13 in 1267-68, and a trickle thereafteruntil the end of the 1270s. I feel that Cox's assumptions are unwarrented, and that he hasunderestimated the longevity of Simon's cult. The first miracle concerns the discovery of a spring onthe site of Simon's death, and is dated in the manuscript anno revoluto in E. secundo A. . Thereappears little doubt that this should be expanded as in Edwardi secundo anno, as Halliwell did in hisedition. Thus the first miracle in the collection took place after the New Year in the second year ofEdward, i.e. in 1274. At the very least, the acount was written down in that year. Unless the scribe gotthe wrong king, it is unlikely that this dating represents copyist's error. Six spring cures followimmediately, then reports on other cures, from the t omb and elsewhere, several of which have earlierdates. Spring cures do not re appear until miracle No. 155. Chronological order appears at the end of


20/23

4 6 C. Valente / Journal of Medieval History 21 (1995) 27-49entrenchment which might have allowed the cult to survive longer. Reasons forthe timing of the decline must be sought elsewhere.

Once again, the continuation of Montfort's revolt and the Disinherited are ofconsequence. As political support for Montfort had much to do with the cult'sappearance , so reintegration of his followers into English society and politics hadmuch to do with its disappearance. This was not an instantaneous result of theDictum of Kenilworth or the peace of 1267, but rather a process that stretchedover a decade.91 The rebels only gradually redeemed their lands from the king andthe men to whom he had granted them, and did not immediately live on peacefulterms with their former enemies. Even when they recovered their lands andre-entered public life, there was a good deal of bitterness and hostility. At HenryIII's death in 1272, there was still an expectation of rebellion and magnateconflict.92 Simon de Montfort's sons were also bent on revenge, which theypartially achieved by viciously murdering Henry of Almain in 1271. Yet reintegra-tion was ultimately successful, and by the end of the 1270s the Disinherited nolonger existed as a group, and had rejoined magnate society. The clergy too hadmade their peace, and Edward I allowed Montfort's chancellor, Thomas Can-tilupe, to become bishop of Hereford.

After their personal reintegration, many of the political grievances of theMontfortians were redressed as well. Edward I made a conscious effort to restorepeace, distribute patronage more evenly, and listen to complaints concerning localgovernment. The Statute of the Jewry was possibly a concession to those whoselands had fallen into Jewish hands as a result of the fines imposed by the Dictumof Kenilwor th. Various of Edward's reforms were based on the ones of 1258-60for which Montfort had fought so strenuously.93 As Montfort's goals wereachieved by more peaceful means, the memory of his willingness to sacrificehimself for them probably receded, taking with it the political ramifications of hiscult, and to a certain extent the cult itself.

By the 1280s, there was no segment of English society other than peasantsinterested in supporting Montfort's cult. The king, accomplishing Montfort'sgoals, was explicitly hostile to the cult. The Disinherited were no more. The

t h e c o l l e c t i o n , f r o m 1 2 73 t h r o u g h 1 2 79 . I t h i n k t h e m i r a c l e b o o k w a s fi rs t c o m p i l e d s o o n a f t e r t h ed i s c o v e r y o f t h e s p r i ng , i n 12 74 . T h e b o o k w a s n o t m a i n t a i n e d c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y , b u t r a t h e r m i r a c l e sw e r e a d d e d i n g r o u p s a f t e r s o m e t i m e , f r o m o t h e r r e c o r d s k e p t a t t h e s h r i n e . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s iss t r e n g t h e n e d b y t h e d a t i n g o f m i r a c l e N o . 1 5 9 , hoc cito post mortem Comitis, w h i c h c a n n o t r e p r e s e n ts c r ib a l e r ro r . T h e d a t e s t h u s c a n n o t b e u s e d a s c o u n t m a r k e r s , a n d a s t h e y n o w s t a n d s h o w m e r e l y t h a tt h e c u l t f a d e d , n o t t h a t i t di d s o i m m e d i a t e l y . T h u s , g o v e r n m e n t a l s u p p r e s s i o n c a n n o t b e t h e o n l y , o re v e n t h e c h i e f , r e a s o n f o r t h e d e c l i n e e v e n o f t h e m i r a c l e c u lt , l e t a lo n e o f t h e o t h e r r e p o r t s o f S i m o n ' sv e n e r a t i o n , m o s t o f w h i c h c o m e f r o m t h e 1 2 7 0s .

91 F o r a d e t a i le d a c c o u n t , s e e C . H . K n o w l e s , ' T h e r e s e t t l e m e n t o f E n g l a n d a f t e r t h e B a r o n s ' w a r ,1 2 6 4 - 1 2 6 7 , ' Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 3 2 ( 1 9 8 2 ) 2 5 - 4 1 .9z K n o w l e s , ' T h e r e s e t t l e m e n t , ' 3 7 .93 J . R . M a d d i c o t t , ' E d w a r d I a n d t h e l e s s o n s o f b a r o n ia l r e f o r m : L o c a l g o v e r n m e n t , 1 2 5 8 - 1 2 8 0 , 'Thirteenth-century England, 1 , e d s . P . R . C o s s a n d S . D . L l o y d ( W o o d b r i d g e , S u f f o l k , 1 9 8 6) , 9 .


21/23

c . Valente / Journal o f Medieval His tory 21 (1995) 27 -4 9 47support of the clergy, especially the Franciscans, had never been officiallyorganized and was also no longer politically necessary. Evesham abbey feared toomuch publicity, and Willaim Whitechurch, the abbot who had done so muchcovertly to support Montfort's shrine, died in 1282.94 Moreover, Montfort's cultnever had familial backing, because by 1300, Montfort's entire immediate familyhad disappeared, not only from England, but from history.95

Thus the cult of Simon de Montfort sprang up quickly and thrived forapproximately ten years, with the help of the abbey and of Montfortiansympathizers. When the impressario abbot died, and as Montfort's followerspersonally and politically came to peace with their enemies in the course of the1270s, the cult died a natura l death. Lingering nostalgia among Montfort's clericalfollowers meant they recorded his sanctity in their histories written in the 1280sand 1290s. The local cult possibly survived longer, and peasant devotees may havecontinued to frequent Simon's shrine long after their masters lost interest. Butonce the cult lost its external reason for existence and lost its widespreadusefulness, it gradually disappeared.

3 . T h e u t i l ity o f sa n ct i tyAs long as it was necessary, Simon's cult was very useful, on a number of

levels. Local peasants might be impressed with Simon's self-sacrifice and violentdeath, and look for a cure from him when they had nowhere else to turn. Peasantparticipants in the rebellion would feel protected by their great leader despite, orperhaps because of, his catastrophic death. Other peasants would have heard ofSimon's reputation as political martyr for the commons of the realm and of themiracles he was performing, and choose him in preference to more ordinarysaints. The monks of Evesham, caretakers of Simon's shrine, obtained prestigeand income from a major saint's cult, yet without taking major political risks.Clerics throughout England, especially Franciscans, kept alive the memory of hisholiness and his clerical backing, with which his reform aims were naturally to beassociated. Perhaps most importantly, they and the Disinherited successfullylinked rebellion and sanctity, justifying their past and present actions, andinfluencing public opinion in their favour.

It is possible, although not perhaps probable, that if political conditions hadbeen more favourable, Simon would have entered the ranks of establishedmedieval English saints. His followers certainly thought that he should take hisplace with Becket, another great defender of liberty against royal tyranny. Nor

94 In March 1283, Martin IV confirmed the election of John de Brochampton as new abbot(Calendar o f papa l entr ies , 1.467).9s Except for the daughter of Llewelyn and Simon's daughter Eleanor, whom Edward I hadenclosed in a convent. See F.M. Powicke,He nry I I I and t he L ord Edw ard (Oxford, 1947). 2.684-5.


22/23

4 8 C. Valente / Journal of Medieval History 21 (1995) 27 -4 9was he alone as a political saint in medieval England: according to J.C. Russell,the numbers and links among several men, canonized officially or unofficially,whose main achievement was resistance to royal authority, are strong enough toresult in a 'cult of political sainthood' in the thirteenth and fourteenth century.Montfort, for example, was compared to Becket, had intimate links withGrosseteste and the two Cantilupe bishops (one unofficially beatus , the otherofficially canonized), and served as a model for Lancaster.96

Russell was correct to point out the importance of political canonization , yet heincorrectly lumped together clerics and laymen. There is a difference between thecanonization of a cleric like Thomas Cantilupe primarily for his holy life as bishopof Hereford, and that of lay rebels like Montfort and Thomas of Lancaster. Theselay rebel cults were based on an explicit secular reason for sanctity. Piety anddevotion played a part, but were not primary focuses. Montfort's followersconsciously made a link between (justified) rebellion and reverence. According tothe O p u s c u l u m , Simon was to be venerated because of his austere life, proven byhis hairshirt, but more importantly because he had died "for the just cause of theinhabitants of England, the defense of which he had taken up by f o r c e . ' ' 9 7

Such cults as St. Simon's reveal to us that rebels in medieval England tried toplug into religious authority, in this world and the next, to justify the otherwiseunjustifiable proceeding of taking up arms against an anointed king. Political andreligious authority were fundamentally intertwined in medieval Europe. Workslike Bloch's Les R o i s Th a u m a t u r g es and Kantorowicz's Th e K i n g ' s Two B o d i e shave shown the importance of this melding with regard to properly establishedroyal authority. We can now see that it applied beyond legitimate authority, andaffec ted illegitimate, or, as Montfort's followers would, and did, argue, truly legalauthority set up against illegal actions by the king. This sanctification of rebelsoperated historically, to prove the divine sanction of technically illegal acts, andcontemporaneously, to encourage support for continuing revolt and boost moralefor those suffering the effects of failure.

This is not to say that reverence was simply a political tool to justify revolt andkeep it alive after its leader's death. The very interconnection of politics andreligion enabled devotees to operate in several categories at once: revere Simonas pious layman, as upholder of clerical rights, as self-sacrificing rebel. It was notmerely clever manipulation which produced the cult of Simon de Montfort. Eventhose with most reason to push Simon's cult, the Disinherited, had valid reasons,in their minds, to believe that their leader was in fact a saint. He had manycharacteristics typical of saints: piety, single-mindedness, self-righteousness, and anoble cause given by God. The recognition of Simon's saintliness in the thir teenth

96 R u s s e l l , ' T h e c a n o n i z a t i o n o f o p p o s i t i o n , ' 2 4 5 .97 p r o p t e r j u s ti s s im a m c a u sa r n i n d i g e n a r u m A n g l i e , q u a m m a n u s u s c e p e r at d e f e n d e n d a m (Melrose,1 4 0 ) .


23/23

c. Valente / Journal of Medieval History 21 (1995) 27-49 49c e n t u r y f re q u e n t ly a p p e a r s c o m p l e t e l y g e n iu n e . O n e m e d i e v a l r e a d e r , c o m m e n t -i ng in t h e m a r g i n o n l e t t er s e x c h a n g e d a t L e w e s , s e t d o w n h is f a it h , p r e s u m a b l yf o r h i s e y e s o n l y : Beatus es S ym on Barjona. 98 S i m i l a r ly , a n o w n e r o f t h e 1 26 3A n g l o - N o r m a n p o e m ' S o n g o f t h e B a r o n s ' w r o t e n e x t to t he s t an z a s c o n c e r n in gS i m o n , fui t h om o a Deo mis[sus] mo[do] erat Johannes. 99 F i n a l l y , t h e e m p h a s i so n S i m o n a s m i r a c l e - w o r k e r , r a t h e r t h a n a s m a r t y r a l o n e , i n d ic a t es t h a t S i m o nw a s i n a t l e a s t o n e w a y a ty p i c a l s a in t : t h e t r u e u t i li t y o f h i s s a n c t i t y w a s t h e p o w e rh e h a d t o p u t h i s f a i t h f u l f o l l o w e r s d i r e c t l y i n t o u c h w i t h G o d .

Ora pro nobis, beate Sy mo n! ut digni efficiamur prom iss ioni bus Christi)

AcknowledgementsI w o u l d l ik e to t h a n k M i ss B a r b a r a H a r v e y , S o m e r v i l l e C o l l e g e , O x f o r d ,

P r o f e s s o r s T . N . B i ss o n a n d M i c h ae l M c C o r m i c k , H a r v a r d U n i v e rs i ty , J a m e sL i v e s e y , T r in i t y C o l l e g e , D u b l i n , a n d m o s t es p e c ia l ly D r . J . R . M a d d i c o t t , E x e t e rC o l l e g e , O x f o r d , a t w h o s e s u g g e s t io n a n d u n d e r w h o s e s u p e r v i si o n I u n d e r t o o kt h is r e s e a r c h , f o r a ll t h e i r h e l p a n d c r i ti c i sm a t v a r i o u s s t a g e s a n d d r a f ts . Ap o r t i o n o f t hi s w o r k w a s p r e s e n t e d t o th e S e w a n e e M e d i e v a l C o l l o q u i u m , 1 99 3,a n d t o t h e H a r v a r d M e d i e v a l S o c i e ty , t h e m e m b e r s o f w h i c h a ls o d e s e r v e m yg r a t i t u d e .

~8 "Blest are you, Simon, Bar-Jona" (Matt. xv i. 17, likening Montfort ag ain to Sim on Peter),Canterbury, Dean and Chapter, A ncient Charters, K .2, as described in HMC , 5th Report, Appendix 2(1876), 455.99 "He was a man sent by God, as was John," quoting the description of John the Baptist in thegospel of John, i .6. London, British Library Add. MS 23986, now missing but available as microfilm2026. The handwriting of the com ment is of the late thirteenth century.10o Con cluding prayer of Halliwe ll, Miracles, 110.