]o~nd of

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

Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and the utility of sanctity in thirteenth-century England
Claire Valente
Department of History, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Abstract
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 opinion that 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 of Edward I. The manifestations of Earl Simon's cult reveal that his revolt was popular as well as noble, that even illegal cults could be profitable for their home shrines, in this case the abbey of Evesham, and that sanctifying a rebel leader was an effective way of justifying both the continuation of a revolt and sympathy for the defeated rebels, in this case the Disinherited. On the hagiographical level, Montfort's cult shows the incredibly rich diversity of expression of devotion in medieval cults, and the more practical concerns with advertisement and profit. On the political level, the cult proves once again that the king did not control all means of political discourse. The merger of political and religious authority, the importance of which has been often demonstrated in studies of the king's touch and the laudes ceremonials, affected rebel leaders as well as kings.

Salve, S i m o n Montis-fortis totius flos militiae... Protector gentis Angliae... Sis pro nobis intercessor. 1
I n b o t h life a n d d e a t h , S i m o n de M o n t f o r t , earl of Leicester, l e a d e r of the b a r o n i a l m o v e m e n t of r e f o r m a n d r e b e l l i o n directed against H e n r y III, was a m a n CLAIRE VALENTEis a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of History, Harvard University. She is presently writing her thesis, entitled 'The heyday of revolt: Rebellion and political society in medieval England, 1258-1415'. 1Hymn, part of the divine office of Simon de Montfort, in: The chronicle of William de Rishanger of the 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, and all 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 reserved SSDI 0304-4181 (94)00757-S

28

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

of paradox. A Frenchman by birth, he headed a movement which tried to prevent 'aliens' (those not native Englishmen) from gaining prominence in English government. The brother-in-law of Henry III, he imprisoned the king for over a year and ruled in his name. He suffered a traitor's mutilation, yet Stubbs considered him the personification of loyalty to true English values. Excommunicated both before and after his death, peasants prayed to him for miracles, and clerics, in defiance of papal orders, preached his saintliness. It is perhaps this last paradox, the seemingly exclusively political creature receiving religious veneration, which is most bewildering. Why would a rebel and traitor, who appears sometimes like a bald fortune-hunter, other times like a self-righteous megalomaniac, attract all segments of thirteenth-century English society to his worship? To date, few historians have recognized exactly how widespread Simon's cult was, both socially and geographically, and no one has attempted to explain why Montfort was venerated, or how his veneration reflects either the details of his revolt or thirteenth-century English society in general. Instead, those who have studied the cult have usually implied that Simon's veneration was not very important, more a curiosity than a topic for historical analysis. For example, two of the earliest modern scholars of Montfort's life and cause, Blaauw and Prothero, recounted the odd manifestations of Simon's cult, but did not set the cult in any contemporary perspective. 2 More recently, D.C. Cox, who has written several works on Evesham, marshalled an impressive number of references to Simon's veneration there, but gave primarily a factual account, not an historical interpretation, of what he considered a highly transitory, largely local, cult. 3 Other historians have incorrectly stressed the popular and/or contentless nature of Montfort's veneration. Montfort's chief scholarly biographer, B6mont, devoted less than two pages to the cult, in which he concluded that Simon's martyr status resulted from la cr~dulit~ populaire and the violent nature of his death, not from his political leanings. 4 Similarly, a more recent biographer, Labarge, briefly stated that "the stories of miracles, the popular songs, and the hymns that gathered around his memory and his burial place were the contribution of the lesser folk of England. ''5 Again, Gransden, in surveying the historical literature on Montfort, argued that Simon's "posthumous fame...owed more to the violence of his slaughter...than to his actual political objectives. ''6 J.C. Russell, who will be discussed later, did remark on the phenomenon of

2 W. Blaauw, The barons' wars, 2nd edn., ed. C.H. Pearson (London, 1871); and G.W. Prothero, The life o f Simon de Montfort (London, 1877). 3 D.C. Cox, The battle o f Evesham: A new account (Evesham, 1989), esp. 21-6. For a criticism of Cox's dating of the cult, see below, p. 19, n. 90. I am indebted to Cox's work for many of my references. 4 C. B6mont, Simon de Momfort (Paris, 1884;-rev. edn., trans. E.F. Jacob, Oxford, 1930), xv-xvi. 5 M. Labarge, Simon de Mon~ort (London, 1962), 276. 6 A. Gransden, Historical writing in England, c. 550 to 1307 (London, 1974), 407.

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

29

M o n t f o r t ' s sainthood, in the larger context of political canonization in general, yet without any examination of the cult itself. 7 Only two historians have done m o r e with Montfort's c u l t . 7a Finucane, in his M i r a c l e s a n d P i l g r i m s , which includes the fullest study of Montfort's sanctity to date, pointed out that all ranks of society participated in the cult, which had a strong and varied existence. 8 H e also noted, although with little detail, that the quantity and geographical diversity of c o n t e m p o r a r y participation in Montfort's worship was connected with his rebellion, and " m a y have strengthened resistance" a m o n g his followers in areas of confusion after its failure. 9 John Theilman has discussed veneration of Montfort very briefly, as a prelude to analysing the political importance of canonization in the reign of Richard II. 1 Despite his recognition of the importance of symbolism and political canonization, Theilman never discussed how such symbolism might have worked, gave little indication as to the reasons for the cult or how it might have b e e n furthered, and seems not to have heard of the Disinherited, the Montfortians who remained in revolt after Evesham. T h e generally accepted picture of the veneration of Montfort is as a reaction to his mutilation from the lower orders of English society. This does little credit either to the higher classes, who were artfully backing Montfort's cult, or the lower orders, who were not necessarily a credulous helpless mob. This detailed analysis of Montfort's cult will reveal instead the multifaceted character of Montfort, the multifaceted m a k e - u p of his rebellion, and the multifaceted utility of his sanctity.

1. The story of Montfort's cult and its supporters

T h e story of Montfort's cult began with his army's defeat by royalist forces led by the L o r d E d w a r d at E v e s h a m , 4 August 1265. Simon himself was killed and his b o d y mutilated. His head, adorned with his testicles, was sent as a trophy to the wife of one of his enemies. 11 The intended dishonour backfired, for the mutilation of M o n t f o r t ' s body was not the end of his life, but rather the beginning of a new incarnation: St. Simon de Montfort. His limbs, preserved with care by his followers, "quickly, by terrible signs shown through them, were held in 7 J.C. Russell, 'The canonization of opposition to the king in Angevin England,' in: Haskins
anniversary essays in medieval history (Boston, 1929), 279-90.

7aFor a recent note on one Montfort pilgrimage, see J.R. Maddicott, "Follower, Leader, Pilgrim, Saint: Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, at the shrine of Simon de Montfort, 1273," E.H.R., 109 (1994), 641-653, which unfortunately appeared after this article was completed. R. Finucane, Miracles and pilgrims (London, 1973), esp. 131-5. I am indebted to his work for many of my references. 9Finucane, Miracles, 133. 10J.M. Theilman, 'Political canonization and political symbolism in medieval England,' Journal of British Studies 29 (1990) 241-66; on Montfort, see 246-8. 11 Liber de Antiquis Legibus, Cronica Maiorum et Vicecomitum Londoniarum, ed. T. Stapleton (Camden Society, old ser., 24, 1846), 75-6.

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 church was not permanent, because of royal persecution,13 but his empty tomb remained to become the center of the cult of the first non-ecclesiastical political saint since Earl Waltheof's execution by William the Conqueror. This veneration took place despite the fact that Simon had been excommunicated twice: once before, once after, his death. Montfort's cult quickly provoked governmental persecution, thus giving us its most well-known record, the order for its suppression. In the Dictum of Kenilworth (31 October 1266), which attempted to reconcile the Montfortians who had continued to revolt after Evesham, the king and the papal legate jointly forbade veneration of Simon and the reporting of his miracles.14 Obviously, the cult was not merely a charming popular phenomenon, but of sufficient magnitude to warrant royal and papal concern. From whom was the cult receiving support and why?

1.1. Local peasants and the abbey of Evesham

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

12 cito, signis terribilibus per ea ostensis, venerationi sunt habita (Chronicon de Lanercost, ed. J. Stevenson (Edinburgh, 1839), 77). 13 'Annals of Osney,' in: Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard (Rolls Series, 1869), 4.176-7. 14 Rogantes humiliter tam dominum legatum quam dominum regum, ut ipse dominus legatus sub districtione ecclesiastica prossus inhibeat, ne S. comes Leycestrie a quocumque pro sancto uel iusto reputetur, cum in excommunicacione sit defunctus, sicut sancta tenet ecclesia; et mirabilia de eo uana et fatua ab aliquibus relata nullis unquam labiis proferantur; et dominus rex hec eadem sub pena corporali uelit districte inhibere. ("Humbly begging both the lord legate and the lord king that the lord legate shall absolutely forbid, under distraint of the Church, that Simon, earl of Leicester, be considered 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. And the lord king shall agree strictly to forbid this under pain of corporal punishment"). Original and translation from R.E. Treharne and I.J. Sanders, eds., Documents of the baronial movement of reform and rebellion, 1258-1267 (Oxford, 1973), 322-3. 15London, British Library Cotton Vespasian A vi, printed as Halliwell, Miracles. The collection gives us 333 people in 198 cures, with 273 place-names, of which I have identified 237 (in case of doubt, always choosing that place closest to Evesham). Although we do not have the original miracle book, we know that it came from Evesham, because the author witnessed cures there.

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

31

Waltham dreamt "that he saw earl Simon among a crowd of poor people, who were running to him and sweetly embracing him. ''~6 Many of these peasants were locals, from areas close to Evesham. The county breakdown shows that a large proportion of the places mentioned were in Worcestershire (where Evesham is located) and the adjacent counties. ~7 Scattered miracles in other counties make up the majority, but the highest concentration of reports per county came from Worcestershire, even without including the miracles performed at Evesham or those of unspecified origin. In fact, the local tradition of the Montfort cult had a long arm, so that as late as the turn of this century, the spring which appeared on the site of Simon's death, known as 'Battlewell,' was still thought to cure weak eyes. 18 Yet certainly, even on the local level, someone must have been supporting the cult, publicizing the miracles occurring at Simon's tomb in the abbey church and at the place of his death, fulfilling the role of 'impresario. '~'~ The obvious candidate for advertiser of Simon's miracle cult, the institution which was responsible for looking after Simon's shrine and which profited most from offerings there, was the abbey of Evesham. There are several indications that the abbot and monks of Evesham were pushing Simon's cult, despite the fact that the abbey was under the patronage of the king, and that Ottobuono, the papal legate, came personally to Evesham abbey to appoint the new abbot, William Whitechurch, 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 at the tomb and spring and recorded reports of cures which occurred elsewhere. Second, Whitechurch and other monks of Evesham witnessed and even received cures in several cases. The abbot of Pershore, where Whitechurch had been monk, was also a witness, indicating that Whitechurch publicized the cult to members of his former monastery. Finally, the abbey prayed f o r Simon and his companions, the only laymen mentioned collectively in its obituary calendar other than the dead of the battle of Hastings,2~ and prayed to Simon as well~ using a Benedictine motet, Salve Symon. 22
t6 q u o d vidit comitem S y m o n e m inter multitudinem p a u p e r u m sibi occurentem et dulciter amplect e n t e m (Halliwell, Miracles, 84). w See Fig. 1. ~8 Letter to the E v e s h a m Journal, 1910, as quoted by D.C. Cox, The battle of Evesharn ( E v e s h a m , 1964), 17. T h e 'spring' is little m o r e than an occasionally m u d d y pool now, although it m a y have had m o r e force 700 years ago. ~9 Patrick G e a r y coined this word as a description of those supporting and controlling cults in his papers at the Sewanee Medieval Colloquium, 2 - 3 April 1993. It s e e m s perfectly to fit the combined roles of caretaker, publicist, and profiteer which guardians of shrines undertook. 20 Chronicon Abbatie de Evesham, ed. W.D. M a e R a y (Rolls Series, 1863), 282. -'~ Cox, A new account, 25, referring to Cotton Vitellius E xii, burnt in the Cottonian fire but preserved in an eighteenth-century copy ( L o n d o n , British Library, L a n s d o w n e 427). z2 T h e miracle book concludes with an excerpt from this motet, typical of the sort used on saints" feasts, and with a prayer to Simon. The h y m n s to Simon are discussed further below.

32

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

;,7.5~,~,;,~,/,,.'.s.'..

i! !iiiiiiiiii!i!i!i i i i ,

~c.

c. 2 0 m i r a c l e s 15

~c.

10
less t h a n 5

iii!',i',i',iiijiii!iiiiii o
J, , s s s I s ~ . s

0 20 40 60 80 I r I I I I I I I miles
Fig. 1. County breakdown of miracles. Distribution of places as mentioned in separate miracle stories, including the Melrose miracles, counting only once per story. (My thanks to Alan Cooper for help in preparing this map.)

The people in the miracle collection who received or witnessed cures reveal the effectiveness of the abbey's support. William Beauchamp, a royalist supposedly converted to veneration of Simon by the discovery of 'Battlewell,' was a local

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

33

notable whose family had intimate connections with the abbey.23 The abbey's tenants appeared at its shrine: William Saxilanus, who received a cure, and William Alexander, whose wife did, were both villeins of the abbot. 24 Moreover, thirteen of the towns and villages where miracles occurred were under abbey influence. In one striking case, the abbot owned land in and possessed the advowson of Bretforton, inhabitants of which received three miracles.25 The abbey must have profited from the fame of the shrine and from the offerings made there. There are no mentions of Montfort's cult or shrine in the Evesham chronicle, an indication that the monks avoided committing themselves in their official record to supporting what was an illegal cult.26 Other evidence, however, supplies what the monks covered up. Several of the miracle accounts include descriptions of thanksgiving offerings to the abbey, mostly of wax, the chief expense in medieval churches. The Lady Chapel at Evesham, built in 1275-6, was almost certainly funded by offerings at Simon's shrine.27 The chronicler of Lanercost noticed the discrepancy between public acknowledgment by the abbey and the profits it received from the shrine: "I see more signs of holiness, proving themselves, testified to with speaking voice, like the daily oblations and the building works; as if while men keep quiet they almost shout through rocks. ''28 Although the monks were clever enough to cover most of the paper trail for their local advertisement of the curative powers of Simon's cult, they were advertising, and receiving the benefits. Veneration of Montfort at Evesham provides a good example of a typical abbey cult, however atypical the saint may have been.

1.2. Montfort' s political allies: peasants

On the local level, then, worship of Simon took place primarily because of his reported curative powers; powers advertised by the abbey of Evesham. Yet such an 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 Bengworth and land at Baddesey to the abbey. Testarnenta Vetusta, ed. N.H. Nicolas (London, 1826), 51; Chronicon Abbatie de Evesham, 282, 285. _,4W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicarum, 2nd edn. (London, 1819), 2.32. 25 Information on abbey lands from lists in: Dugdale, Monasticon, 2.1-13; E.J. Rudge, A short account of the history and antiquities of Evesham (Evesham, 1820), 44-8; W. Tindal, The history and antiquities of the Abbey and Borough of Evesham (Evesham, 1794), 4-5, 50-1, 66-7, 79-87. 26 Chronicon Abbatie de Evesham, passim; there is also no mention of Montfort's shrine or veneration in the Evesham office book, printed as Officiurn Ecclesiasticum Abbatum, ed. H.A. Wilson (Henry Bradshaw Society, 6, 1893). 27 Cox, A new account, 25. 28 vidimus plures viva voce testificari signa sanitatum in se experta; sed et oblationes quotidinae et opera fabricae ibi erectae, idem si homines tacuerunt per lapides clamare vide tur (Lanercost, 77).

34

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

other manifestations of Simon's worship unaccounted for. If only local peasants were attending the shrine, and Simon's political reputation was largely uninvolved, why were the king and pope concerned about the cult's existence? In fact, to assume that veneration by peasants was necessarily apolitical is incorrect. David Carpenter has shown recently that peasant involvement in Montfort's revolt was high, that there were significant attempts to appeal to the community of the realm in general, and that knowledge about Montfort's goals did percolate to the lower levels of English society79 In the light of such knowledge, it should not surprise us to find that the peasant miracle cult was not only, or even primarily, local. Over half of the places mentioned in the Evesham collection are over forty miles away from Simon's tomb there, and a quarter are over a hundred miles away. Perhaps peasants came merely because Montfort's curative powers were more widely known, but it appears that his political reputation was also well known, and positive. For one thing, Montfort's cult had a surprising degree of male involvement for a medieval cult (over half the people mentioned), which was a result of its political connection. Second, and more important, the geographical distribution of places outside of Worcestershire mentioned in cures parallels closely the geography of Montfort's revolt. 3 Most of the devotees of Simon's miracle cult were from the Midlands and East Anglia, the areas which had most strongly supported his revolt. Especially striking is the high involvement of Kent and Northampton in both revolt and cult. 3~ Several pilgrims even came from Canterbury itself, despite their proximity to Becket's shrine. The entire village of Brill, Northants., which had wholeheartedly embraced the reform and was condemned as 'contumacious' after the revolt 32 bore witness to the cure of its residents. Similarly, the number of pilgrims from L o n d o n reflects that city's continuing support for the revolt even after Montfort's death. 33 In contrast, relatively few cures involved men from the North or Southwest, which were royalist areas. 34 This is not to say that peasants did not venerate Simon because of genuine religious belief in the efficacy of prayer to a martyr, but that those who did accepted him as a martyr for a reason, and not just because of the violence of his death. This surely indicates knowledge and

29See D.A. Carpenter, 'English peasants in politics, 1258-1267,' Past and Present 136 (August, 1992) 3-42, where he conclusivelyproves that the Barons' Revolt was not merely baronial. 30See Fig. 1 for distribution. 31These two counties have the highest concentration of miracles after Worcestershire (see Fig. 1). Their castles---Rochester, Dover, and Northampton--had been Montfortian strongholds during the
war.

32Finucane, Miracles, 169; Carpenter, 'English peasants,' 26, 33. 33See esp. Liber de Antiquis Legibus, 77ff. 34The breakdown of support by geography is nicely demonstrated in Blaauw, Barons' wars, 366, 373; and by D. Williams, 'Simon de Monffort and his adherents,' England in the thirteenth century, ed. W.M. Ormrod (Harlaxton, England, 1985), esp. 172ff.

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

35

approval of Simon's character and political aims, resulting in part from peasant participation in the revolt, but also from advertisement beyond that of the abbey of Evesham. Montfortian propaganda began during the period of reform and continued after Simon's death, when it largely focussed on the reasons for his saintliness. This articulate support for Montfort's cult, from which the peasant support drew strength, emanated from two groups which were closely tied with Montfort politically: the clergy, especially the Franciscans, and the Disinherited. Both groups themselves participated in the miracle cult: of those mentioned in the miracle collection, 10% were nobles (many of which were Simon's former allies), and 25% were clergy. In surviving miracle accounts, Simon had more noble devotees than Becket, and more upper ecclesiastics as followers than any medieval English saint other than Becket.35

1.3. Montfort's political allies: the clergy

The clergy, with their control over history through writing, were probably the most important publicists of Simon's sanctity. This publicity took two forms: mentions of Simon's virtues and the righteousness of his cause in chronicle accounts, and composition of songs in his honour. A review of clerical propaganda not only reveals the clergy's use of Simon's cult, but the reasons why they and others might have considered Simon a saint. Although there is no vita as such for Simon, semi-hagiographical accounts pervade the contemporary chronicles. The accounts in the Opusculum de Simone, contained in the chronicle of Melrose, and in the chronicle of Lanercost, came closest to being saint's lives, and were both ultimately, not surprisingly, authoured by Franciscans,36 the clerical order which most strongly supported Montfort's reform and revolt. Another important account is the De duobus bellis apud Lewes et Evesham, by William Rishanger, a monk and one of Matthew Paris's successors as chronicler of St. Albans. 37 Indeed almost every thirteenth-century abbey chronicle, 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 has correctly pointed out that it is unnecessary to suppose that the entire chronicle was written by a Franciscan who later became a Cistercian, and that it suffices that a Cistercian monk was using a Franciscan 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 Evesham collection). 37De duobus is in confused order chronologically, but the confusion seems easily rectified by simply putting the final section further forward. B6mont felt that this final section was an addition of an anonymous writer, who "made such remarkable transformations in the text of the continuation so that biography now comes to sound like hagiography" (Simon de Montfort, rev. edn., xxiv). The chronicle

36

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

1258-67, gives a favourable portrait of Simon and some mention of his martyr status .38 This favourable portrait is a uniform one: Simon as martyr for the common good of England. Simon personally was described as a skilled leader who combined intelligence and piety with his chief characteristic, steadfastness to his oath to uphold the Provisions of Oxford. Simon was a vir Dei, and in the words of scripture, "the most faithful in word and in deed before God and everyone. ''39 The Opusculum even compared him at length to Simon Peter: he was inferior, but nonetheless similar.4 Moreover, according to his clerical chroniclers, Simon had a holy cause, that of the reform of the realm and the upholding of the law. The 1258 reform, and indeed Montfort's regime of 1264-5, had received episcopal approval and participation, and Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, had been Montfort's close personal friend. Although Grosseteste died before the revolt, Rishanger still used the Grosseteste connection to justify Simon's actions as religious, spuriously claiming 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 without the physical sword, and constantly assuring that all dying in her and for her would be crowned with martyrdom. ''41 Similarly, even though Simon fought against the king, he was not a traitor, according to the Brut, because he fought "for the comenne profite of the ... commens of Englonde. ''42 In fact, several chroniclers considered his martyrdom for the cause proven by the Crucifixion-like storms which 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 Chronica Majora, which was either by Rishanger or used his works. I see no reason not to attribute the favourable, almost hagiographical, portrayal to Rishanger himself. 38The exceptions are Thomas Wykes's continuation of the 'Annals of Osney,' and the Flores Historiarum, ed. H.R. Luard (Rolls Series, 1890). Even the latter, however, had a pro-Montfort 'edition': the Westminster copy changes details to rescue Montfort's reputation from the aspersions of the original author. 39 'Annals of Osney,' 170; fidelissimus in sermone et operibus coram Deo et omni populo, Flores Historiarum, 3.5, n. 1 (Westminster copy), quoting Luke xxiv.19. 40 Melrose, 135-40. 41 in remissionem peccatorum suorum ... asserens pacem ecclesiae Anglicanae sine gladio materiali nunquam firmari, et constanter affirmans omnes in ea et pro ea morientes martirio coronari, (Rishanger, 7). 42 The Brut, ed. F.W.D. Brie (Early English Text Society, 131, 1906), 1.178. 43 Robert of Gloucester, The metrical chronicle of Robert of Gloucester, ed. W. A. Wright (Rolls Series, 1887), 2.765; Flores, 3.5, n. 1 described the storms by quoting Matthew, xxvii.45. The Worcester annals instead compared the storms with those during the battles of the Maccabees (Annales Monastici, 4.455). The sharing of a name with Simon Maccabee meant the Maccabees were frequently invoked as comparisons.

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, probably Franciscan, Song of Lewes treated Simon as a superhuman hero. Among the clerical songs were Latin laments, like Illos salvavit, which, significantly, lamented the evil treatment of the Church after Simon's death more than his death as s u c h . 45 More important for the cult itself were the hymns addressed to Simon as saint and martyr. The Franciscans wrote a divine office in his honour, which contained the usual elements of Montfortian martyrology: Simon as flower of chivalry, as defender of the Church and of justice, as fighting ad renovandum britannie regnum, and as martyr, proved by the storm at his death. 46 Two thirteenth-century polyphonic motets, probably from a large Benedictine establishment, also reported, in shorter form, Simon's virtues,a7 Clerics not only wrote these hymns, they used them. Song manuscripts and calendar 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 Vita Symonis de Montforti rhythmica, probably the divine o f f i c e ; 48 o n e of the Benedictine motets was known at Evesham and used in devotions on the anniversary of the battle, Simon's unofficial feast day; 49 another copy of this motet, Salve Symon, was in a Durham cathedral priory manuscript. ~5o The Barking Calendar mentioned his name, albeit without the description sanctus, ~t and William of Worcester recorded an entry for his feast day in the Calendar of Tavistock.52 Thus, Simon was venerated by clerics throughout England and by

44 See Lefferts, 'Two English motets,' for a list of all the songs composed about Simon. 45 Printed by Halliwell in an appendix to Rishanger and Miracles, 139-46. 46The part which remains is in a volume which in the fourteenth century 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. Lefferts also gives reconstructed music for the motets. 48 Lefferts, 'Two English motets,' 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 was meant to highlighl~ the legitimacy of Simon's tenure of power. The motet is followed with a versicle prayer, which was "used in memorial and as the bridge between Matins and Lauds in the Office of many saints," (Lefferts, 'Two English motets,' 212). 50 Lefferts, 'Two English motets,' 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 indebted for this reference to Richard Pfaff, professor of history at the University of North Carolina. 52 R. Stanton, Supplement to the menology of England and Wales (London, 1872), 751. Simon did not 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 late thirteenth-century monastic calendar of an unknown, probably large, Benedictine establishment (Lefferts, 'Two English motets,' 210). There was also an entry, again probably late thirteenth century, of the date of Simon's murder (occisus est Simon de Monteforti) to the calendar of feast days at the end of one copy of the Sarum Missal (London, British Library, Harley 2951, f. 129v).

38

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

members of many orders: Benedictine monks and nuns, Franciscans, and Austin canons. The similarities between the songs and the chronicles in language and theme show that the literature of Montfort's cult circulated, at least among the clergy. That they were actively promoting material on Simon is indicated by the Opusculum's statement that the friars minor 'published' (ediderunt) a history of Simon's martyrdom in readings, responses, verses, and hymns, i.e. through writing the divine office mentioned above.53 This information about Simon's life contained in martyrology undoubtedly went beyond the clergy as well. We know that they preached in Simon's support while he lived, and the prohibition of veneration in the Dictum of Kenilworth indicates that they continued to do so after he died. Simon's clerical supporters did not think of Simon as an unimportant peasant saint. They loved to compare him with Becket, the greatest of English saints.54 Men were as willing to go to Simon's tomb as to Canterbury, the Opusculum claimed, because "not less did Simon die for the just order of the rightful possessions of England than Thomas had once died for the lawful order of the churches of England. ''55 Why were the clergy so concerned to portray Simon as saint, to give others reasons to venerate him? They were clearly not being completely 'objective' in their portraits: we have enough sources other than their chronicles to know that Simon 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 stirring speeches accepting martyrdom into his mouth, and emphasized the religious aspects of a basically secular revolt. Why this "almost mystical attitude to Simon"? 56 In fact, the clerical authors were not completely fabricating their accounts of Montfort and his life. Simon truly was a devout man. The consistency of portrait in unrelated chronicles, and the detailed nature of the information given suggests that 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 "After the premature 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]itturgiam Simonis [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 of the east, Simon the star of the west, each fighting for justice (Prothero, Life, 390). 55 non minus occibuit Simon pro iusta ratione legitamarum possessionum Anglie quam Thomas pro legitima ratione ecclesiarum Anglie olim occubuerat (Melrose, 140). It is interesting that the evidence of the Evesham miracle collection corroborates the claim: several Canterbury and Kentish residents did in fact go to Simon's tomb. 56 Gransden, Historical writing, 407.

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

39

is on the whole a sober and reliable chronicler, in the St. Albans historiographical tradition, and thus his assertion that Simon knew the entire Psalter and used to stay up late at night praying gains credence.57 Moreover, the clerics were building on Simon's own self-portrait: he considered himself a crusader, constantly using crusade ideology in the language and symbols of the revolt, most obviously in the wearing of surcoats with white crosses.58 As a crusader who suffered and died in order to uphold an oath, he could validly be considered a martyr. Perhaps most importantly, during his life, Simon associated with men of impeccable religious credentials. He carried on extensive correspondence, concerning both personal and public issues, with Adam Marsh, head of the Franciscan community at Oxford, and Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, who was himself considered beatus in the thirteenth century. Another unofficial beatus, Walter Cantilupe, bishop of Worcester, was closely involved with much of the reform, and served as spiritual adviser for Montfort's troops during the revolt. Thus, Simon's devotion, his friendship with beati, and his death for a righteous cause made it possible to define him as a martyr. But this does not explain why so many clerics did so, and turned their efforts to embroidering his tale. To a certain extent, the explanation may lie in an emotional response to the death of a layman whom they considered their friend. Yet the concern to develop a martyrology also had at least in part a political basis. It represents a continuation of the political stance 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 intervened to stop them. 59 Several major bishops, like Stephen Berksted of Chichester, and other clerics, like Thomas Cantilupe, later bishop of Hereford, participated in his government. Simon had always worked closely with ecclesiastical leaders and seemed concerned for the Church's liberties at a time when Henry III was very close to the pope and his legate, and perhaps not as deferential to native English clergy 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 material on which veneration could be based, and gave the cult a semi-official status which helped 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 Rishanger, 6. I am grateful to Dr. Maddicott for having let me see that portion of his forthcoming biography of Simon dealing with Simon's piety. 5SFor a more complete discussion of this point, see C. Tyerman, England and the crusades (Chicago, 1989), 147-9; see also S. Lloyd, 'Political crusades in England, c. 1215-7 and c. 1263-5,' in: Peter W. Edbury, ed., Crusade and settlement (Cardiff, 1985), 116, 119. Lloyd discusses the Montfortian movement as crusade, and suggests that the royalist opposition may also, and more legitimately, have been preached as a crusade by the papal legate. 59 Les R~gistres de Clement I V (1265-1268), ed. M. E. Jordan (Biblioth6que des l~coles Franqaises d'Ath6nes et de Rome, 2 e ser., 11, 1893-1945), 64.

40

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

in some reprisals after the king regained power. 6 Ideologically, and most importantly, it invested a secular reform and revolt with religious, in fact otherworldly, authority.

1.4. Montfort's political allies: the Disinherited

The clergy were not the only group to benefit politically and ideologically from support of Montfort's sanctity. The group which had the most to gain was the Disinherited. Montfort's rebellion, as E.F. Jacob discovered long ago, had not ended with his death. After Evesham, his followers had their lands confiscated, and in response entrenched themselves, especially in the castle of Kenilworth. For over a year hostilities continued, until under the influence of Ottobuono, the papal legate, negotiations were opened which resulted in the Dictum of Kenilworth. Under the terms of the settlement, rebels surrendered in exchange for being able to redeem their lands by paying fines. Even indirect supporters and unwilling participants had to pay certain amounts. The harshness of the settlement, especially as few rebels had the funds with which to pay their fines and were unwilling to mortgage their lands to their opponents, meant continued revolt, 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 held London for six weeks, that overt peace returned to the country. Besieged on all sides, and with little hope of aid in this world, the Disinherited used Simon's sanctity to keep their aims alive and in public view. The nature of the miracles reported of Montfort justified resistance to royalist oppressors of the Disinherited by showing Simon taking an active hand in continuing the fight. Simon punished his (unnamed) killer by causing him to be drowned; 61 a knight who had fought for the king at Evesham and disregarded warnings to repent burnt in a fire, with all his family.62 Other former enemies, like Peter Saltmarsh and Osbert Giffard, were made to acknowledge Simon's sanctity and, by implication, the justness of his cause. It was Saltmarsh who discovered 'Battlewell' by mocking while passing that battlefield that if Simon was a saint, water would spring from dry land (it did).63 Giffard also implicitly mocked Simon: he had taken some of Simon's armor at Evesham and stuck it under his bed. He became ill, and only after he put the armor in a place of honour, responding to admonition from Simon in a dream, did he get w e l l . 64

60 Those bishops who had willingly attended Montfort's parliament and council meetings were suspended, although they later regained their offices. Others, like the abbot of Peterborough, were forced to pay fines to regain the king's peace. 61 Lanercost, 95; Melrose, 141, 62 Halliweli, Miracles, 80. 63 Halliwell, Miracles, 67-8. 64 Halliwell, Miracles, 92-3.

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

41

Simon's followers, in contrast, received and witnessed cures.65 Henry de Pomeroy, one of Simon's knights whose lands were confiscated after Evesham, witnessed a miracle, and the daughter of Hugh Peverel of Devon, another of his knights, received one. The seneschal of Thomas Cantilupe, who had been Montfort'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 Henry Hastings, the commander at Kenilworth castle, and an important leader in the isle of Ely. Others cured were Simon de Pateshull and John ritz John, two Montfortians who were captured at Evesham and active among the Disinherited. They came in person to Evesham to report their cures. Gregory of Grandun, rector of Sapcote, reported that he had been cured after the war by sitting in the earl's chair at Kenilworth, presumably during the siege there in 1266.66 Most importantly, two of Simon's allies who continued longest in rebellion possessed actual relics. Llewellyn, prince of Wales and Simon's posthumous son-in-law, received Simon's hand, and John de Vescy, a major leader in the isle of 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 less vibrant, miracle cult. It was because of Disinherited publicity that miracles were recorded from two royalist counties: Northumberland, where Alnwick is located, and Devon, where Henry de Pomeroy and Hugh Peverel held lands. All of this reveals that the Disinherited did more than benefit from Simon's miraculous powers: they frequented his shrine and helped to promote his worship. The songs of Simon's cult, like the miracles, also publicized concern for the Disinherited and their oppression by the royalists. Chaunter m'estoit, a French lament and thus probably of lay rather than clerical composition, asked Jesus to care for rebels who were still in prison.68 The divine office offered comfort for Simon's oppressed supporters by portraying Simon as confounding his enemies and helping his friends, and asking him to save England and harm his enemies until they reformed. Finally, the clerical chroniclers also openly linked Simon's sanctity with support for the Disinherited. Rishanger wrote that Simon's miracles comforted his followers 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 him many 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 by Pearson, which gives royalist and baronial nobles and knights. 66 Halliwell, Miracles, 87. 67 Melrose, 132, 135. 68 This lament is printed both in H. Shields, 'The lament for Simon de Montfort,' Medium Aevum, 41 (1972), 202-7, and in Anglo-Norman political songs, ed. I. Aspin (Anglo-Norman Text Society, 11, 1953), 28-32. The text in Shields omits specific reference to those in prison, indicating that the song was still sung in altered form after the 1267 settlement. 69 Rishanger, 49.

42

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

thei have be heledde. ''7 Furthermore, it was probably to bolster Monffortians still in arms, and thus presumably at risk of death, that all of the men killed at Evesham on Simon's side were portrayed as martyrs. The chief of Simon's followers killed at Evesham, Hugh Despenser, who had been baronial chief justiciar, had his own personal shrine at his tomb in the abbey, where the blind and 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 be honoured by men. ''72 The miracles, the songs, the chronicles, showed St. Simon's concern for his supporters and their otherworldly success at a time when most lacked success in this world. The Disinherited could both take heart and gain popular 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 because a large part of the clerical and noble ranks actively publicized it. Their support closely parallels the political support for Montfort's revolt. The cult then was used to snatch a religious victory from the Montfortian defeat, to hold up Montfort's sanctity as a clear symbol of which side God and right had been on, and in turn to provide moral backing for Montfort's followers in their continuing struggle. It is clear that Simon's veneration, peasant, clerical, and noble, reflected both the contemporary perception of Montfort's character and aims and the levels of participation in his revolt, and was useful both for justifying past and present support and for comforting this-worldly failure.

2. The suppression and death of Montfort's cult The 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 de Montfort.73 These were probably the more popular songs of the barons and not the 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 very similar to Montfort's, which looked to him for inspiration. The manuscript tradition also shows later interest. The Evesham miracle collection was recopied in the late fourteenth century, and evidently not at Evesham.TM The fragmentary

70 The Brut, 178. 71 The historical works o f Gervase o f Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs (Rolls Series, 1880), 2.243; Melrose, 132. 72 signis se probant a Deo non reprobari, nec ab hominibus ... cessant honorari (Lanercost, 77). 73 The Honor and Forest o f Pickering, ed. R.B. Turton (North Riding Record Society, 3, 1896), 225-6; from royal household accounts. It is odd that Edward should have wanted to hear such songs, especially so close to Pontefract where Thomas of Lancaster had recently been beheaded for treason. 74 N. Ker, Supplement to the medieval libraries o f Great Britain, ed. A. Watson (London, 1987), 36.

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

43

Barking calendar dates from the end of the fourteenth century; 75 the devotional at Norwich dates from the fourteenth century and the devotional at Cologne from the fifteenth;76 the Sarum Missal Harley 2951 was still being used in 1430.77 Richard Fox mentioned the well and the chapel in 1448, a gift was made at the well in 1457, and a missal was donated to the chapel of le Battele Welle around 1500.78 Nonetheless, most of the evidence for Simon's cult disappears in the late thirteenth century. Miracles at Evesham, although they continued for at least ten years after Montfort's death, were no longer collected by the monks there after the late 1270s. The hagiographical chronicle accounts date from the 1270s and 1280s, as do the songs and hymns. The obituary calendar of the abbey of Evesham which mentioned Simon and his companions fell into disuse in the first half of the fourteenth century.79 The polyphonic motets on Montfort, although originally part of a larger collection for saints' days, by 1300 were flyleaves for other manuscripts.8 Even the references mentioned above do not necessarily prove later veneration of Simon, for the chapel, once built, would presumably have continued to be used, even after the cult had died, and the manuscripts,
7~ Ordinale and Customary, xi.
76 Lefferts, 'Two English motets,' 210-11. 77 When John Bojuylet's name was entered, f. 126v. 78 Cox, A new account, 24, 26. Its existence is also known from Lanercost, which mentions an oratorium 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 Montfortian architecture has survived to the present day: an early fourteenth-century, stained-glass window in the church of St. John the Baptist in Fladbury, three miles north of Evesham. Now in the north window of the chancel, it displays Montfort's arms, Gules, a lion rampant queue rich& Argent, surrounded with the arms of Hugh Despenser, Henry de Montfort, Ernaud de Blois (hereditary steward to the earls of Leicester), Roger Mortimer, and the family of Boteler (M.D. Anderson, History and imagery in British churches, (London, 1971), 266, n. 13). Simon, his justiciar, his steward, and his son all died at Evesham, and Mortimer was Montfort's mutilator. The window clearly has something to do with the battle. The inclusion of Mortimer's arms is strange, but perhaps commemorated that he inflicted the martyrdom, or more practically, might have disguised a monument to the Montfortians under cover of a more general memorial of the battle. Why the arms of Boteler appear is also unclear, but three Botelers from towns in Worcestershire appear in the Evesham miracle collection (Halliwell, Miracles, 71, 107). A Boteler may have commissioned the window (surely Mortimer would not, and of the rest only the Despensers, not a Worcestershire family, still survived). At the very least the window shows historical interest in Montfort and his fate some fifty years after his death, and it is tempting to consider it the only physical evidence remaining of Simon's cult. For more on the window, see also N. Pevsner, Worcestershire, in Buildings of England (London, 1968), 154; T. Nash, History of Worcestershire (London, 1781), 1.449; Tindal, History and antiquities, 310; and Cox, A new account, 33 (where he argues unconvincingly that the window is not related to the battle). 79 Cotton Vitellius E xii apparently fell into disuse after the death of abbot John de Brochampton (1316), and was used again after the mid-fifteenth century. Another Evesham calendar, Cotton Vitellius E xvii, badly burnt but also copied into Lansdowne 427, was more like a saints' calendar with obits in it. It again was used until soon after Brochampton's death, but interestingly has no entry referring to Montfort or the battle of Evesham. 80 Lefferts, 'Two English motets,' 221. Such musical collections were, however, frequently destroyed and used as flyleaves.

44

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

especially 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 a merchant in 1289, who, when told to pray to Thomas Cantilupe, replied, "I think indeed that he is as much as saint, as is that Simon de Montfort, whom you announce as a saint. ''81 W h y did Simon's cult fade, if not immediately, at least relatively quickly? A n easy generalization that political cults do not last is untrue: the cult of Thomas of Lancaster continued until the eve of the Reformation without slackening. 82 Simon's cult, however, faced far more severe and continuous attempts at suppression, especially as his cause was never publicly vindicated as was Lancaster's in 1327. H e n r y III not only declared the cult illegal in the Dictum, he provided measures to back up the declaration. Simon's body was dug up and buried in a secret place. Several chroniclers reported that the miracles were not spoken of, for fear of the king. Edward continued his father's policy. He was still protesting against A m a u r y de Montfort's attempts to obtain church burial for his father's body as late as 1283, and persecuted the Montfort family when he could. 83 The O p u s c u l u m lamented that because Edward ruled the kingdom, the service for Simon, "as had been hoped, will not obtain performance in the church of God. ''84 O f course, St. Simon did sometimes act to protect his devotees. He changed his spring water to beer for a girl stopped by hostile soldiers, apparently with orders to arrest pilgrims, and then back to water to cure the girl's mother. 85 Even given that Simon could not be there all the time to rescue his followers from the king or his representatives, the decline in his veneration could not have resulted from royal hostility alone. Pilgrims came in great numbers despite the order for suppression, and travelled at night to avoid capture. 86 Nor could the chance of punishment have been very great, especially after the revolt ended in 1267. 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 Sanctam etiam nuncapastis (Acta Sanctorum, October (Antwerp, 1765), 1.671). The merchant's statement is problematic--it could be a straightforward indication of Simon's importance in publicly being called a saint and having a comparison made by Cantilupe's followers. But the clerk recording the words wrote: ille illusorie sic stulte respondit. This makes it seem that either the merchant was covering his tracks by referring to an ambiguous saint, or did not believe and was mockingboth saints. At the end of the story, St. Thomas appeared to the man in a dream and said: Amice, noli amplius illudere Servis Dei tuis sermonibus imperitis. He then cured him, but unfortunately gave no hint of divine opinion of Simon's sanctity. 82J.R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster (Oxford, 1970), 329. 83Having captured Amaury and his sister Eleanor in 1275, he refused to release them in 1276 despite a papal request, and wrote a lengthy diatribe about the evils Simon had caused in England, in letter 23, in Liber de epistolaris of Richard of Bury, ed. N. Denholm-Young(Roxburghe Club, 1950), 14-17. 84ut speratur, non optinebunt in ecclesia dei decantacionem (Melrose, 140). 85Halliwell, Miracles, 69. 86Lanercost, 77.

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

45

the cult, he did not fear writing the most hagiographical account of Simon's life and death. Of course, to royal suppression was added papal suppression. Clement IV sent Ottobuono to England to excommunicate the rebels and punish the bishops who had supported Simon. The legate went to Evesham in person to appoint a new abbot, removing the Evesham monk, William of Marlborough, who had been abbot elect since 1263.87 Clement IV was particularly and personally hostile to Montfort, who had denied him entry to England as papal legate in 1264, and even wrote to Louis IX urging him not to shelter Simon's widow and son because of Simon's wrongs.88 The abbey of Evesham felt it had to conceal its interest in Montfort. Not only did its chronicle fail to mention the cult, it completely omitted an account of William of Marlborough's abbacy, and indeed of the battle of Evesham. Yet the church suppression also was at its height in the early years alone. Ottobuono may even have posthumously absolved Simon and his followers in 1268.89 Nor was suppression necessarily effective. The abbey of Evesham, despite silence in its official records, did support its shrine, as did the abbot whom Ottobuono had appointed. Since the records of the cult indicate a gradual fading in the 1270s and 1280s, not an immediate decline in 1266-7, royal and papal hostility 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 (uniquely) 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? 90The 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 down contemporaneously, and that the dated miracles could be used as markers for the cult's vibrancy. The dated miracles appear in this sequence: No. 1/1274, No. 5/1259, No. 15/1265, No. 24/1258, No. 35/1259, No. 107/1280 (written 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 army it mentions must have been that of the Disinherited, still at large, and thus that the miracle must have taken place before the Dictum of Kenilworth (1266). Miracles Nos. 5, 24, and 35 must be, and 107 probably was, scribal error. Cox assumed that another out of sequence miracle, No. 115, was an error as well. Through these corrections, he obtained a chronological sequence, argued for contemporaneous composition, and posited that governmental suppression had caused the quick death of the cult, which declined from 135 miracles in 1265-66, to fewer than 13 in 1267-68, and a trickle thereafter until the end of the 1270s. I feel that Cox's assumptions are unwarrented, and that he has underestimated the longevity of Simon's cult. The first miracle concerns the discovery of a spring on the site of Simon's death, and is dated in the manuscript anno revoluto in E. secundo A.. There appears little doubt that this should be expanded as in Edwardi secundo anno, as Halliwell did in his edition. Thus the first miracle in the collection took place after the New Year in the second year of Edward, i.e. in 1274. At the very least, the acount was written down in that year. Unless the scribe got the wrong king, it is unlikely that this dating represents copyist's error. Six spring cures follow immediately, then reports on other cures, from the tomb and elsewhere, several of which have earlier dates. Spring cures do not reappear until miracle No. 155. Chronological order appears at the end of

46

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

entrenchment which might have allowed the cult to survive longer. Reasons for the timing of the decline must be sought elsewhere. Once again, the continuation of Montfort's revolt and the Disinherited are of consequence. As political support for Montfort had much to do with the cult's appearance, so reintegration of his followers into English society and politics had much to do with its disappearance. This was not an instantaneous result of the Dictum of Kenilworth or the peace of 1267, but rather a process that stretched over a decade.91 The rebels only gradually redeemed their lands from the king and the men to whom he had granted them, and did not immediately live on peaceful terms with their former enemies. Even when they recovered their lands and re-entered public life, there was a good deal of bitterness and hostility. At Henry III's death in 1272, there was still an expectation of rebellion and magnate conflict.92 Simon de Montfort's sons were also bent on revenge, which they partially achieved by viciously murdering Henry of Almain in 1271. Yet reintegration was ultimately successful, and by the end of the 1270s the Disinherited no longer existed as a group, and had rejoined magnate society. The clergy too had made their peace, and Edward I allowed Montfort's chancellor, Thomas Cantilupe, to become bishop of Hereford. After their personal reintegration, many of the political grievances of the Montfortians were redressed as well. Edward I made a conscious effort to restore peace, distribute patronage more evenly, and listen to complaints concerning local government. The Statute of the Jewry was possibly a concession to those whose lands had fallen into Jewish hands as a result of the fines imposed by the Dictum of Kenilworth. Various of Edward's reforms were based on the ones of 1258-60 for which Montfort had fought so strenuously.93 As Montfort's goals were achieved by more peaceful means, the memory of his willingness to sacrifice himself for them probably receded, taking with it the political ramifications of his cult, and to a certain extent the cult itself. By the 1280s, there was no segment of English society other than peasants interested in supporting Montfort's cult. The king, accomplishing Montfort's goals, was explicitly hostile to the cult. The Disinherited were no more. The

t h e collection, from 1273 through 1279. I think the miracle book was first compiled soon after the discovery of the spring, in 1274. T h e book was not maintained contemporaneously, but rather miracles were a d d e d in groups after s o m e time, from other records kept at the shrine. This hypothesis is s t r e n g t h e n e d by the dating of miracle No. 159, hoc cito post mortem Comitis, which cannot represent scribal error. T h e dates thus cannot be used as count markers, and as they now stand show merely that t h e cult faded, not that it did so immediately. T h u s , governmental suppression cannot be the only, or even the chief, reason for the decline even of the miracle cult, let alone of the other reports of Simon's veneration, most of which come from the 1270s. 91 For a detailed account, see C.H. Knowles, ' T h e resettlement of England after the Barons' war, 1264-1267,' Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 32 (1982) 25-41. 9z Knowles, ' T h e resettlement,' 37. 93 J.R. Maddicott, 'Edward I and the lessons of baronial reform: Local g o v e r n m e n t , 1258-1280,' Thirteenth-century England, 1, eds. P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1986), 9.

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

47

support of the clergy, especially the Franciscans, had never been officially organized and was also no longer politically necessary. Evesham abbey feared too much publicity, and Willaim Whitechurch, the abbot who had done so much covertly to support Montfort's shrine, died in 1282.94 Moreover, Montfort's cult never had familial backing, because by 1300, Montfort's entire immediate family had disappeared, not only from England, but from history.95 Thus the cult of Simon de Montfort sprang up quickly and thrived for approximately ten years, with the help of the abbey and of Montfortian sympathizers. When the impressario abbot died, and as Montfort's followers personally and politically came to peace with their enemies in the course of the 1270s, the cult died a natural death. Lingering nostalgia among Montfort's clerical followers meant they recorded his sanctity in their histories written in the 1280s and 1290s. The local cult possibly survived longer, and peasant devotees may have continued to frequent Simon's shrine long after their masters lost interest. But once the cult lost its external reason for existence and lost its widespread usefulness, it gradually disappeared.

3. The utility of sanctity

As 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 violent death, and look for a cure from him when they had nowhere else to turn. Peasant participants in the rebellion would feel protected by their great leader despite, or perhaps because of, his catastrophic death. Other peasants would have heard of Simon's reputation as political martyr for the commons of the realm and of the miracles he was performing, and choose him in preference to more ordinary saints. The monks of Evesham, caretakers of Simon's shrine, obtained prestige and income from a major saint's cult, yet without taking major political risks. Clerics throughout England, especially Franciscans, kept alive the memory of his holiness and his clerical backing, with which his reform aims were naturally to be associated. Perhaps most importantly, they and the Disinherited successfully linked rebellion and sanctity, justifying their past and present actions, and influencing public opinion in their favour. It is possible, although not perhaps probable, that if political conditions had been more favourable, Simon would have entered the ranks of established medieval English saints. His followers certainly thought that he should take his place with Becket, another great defender of liberty against royal tyranny. Nor

94In March 1283, Martin IV confirmed the election of John de Brochampton as new abbot
(Calendar of papal entries, 1.467).

9sExcept for the daughter of Llewelyn and Simon's daughter Eleanor, whom Edward I had enclosed in a convent. See F.M. Powicke, Henry III and the Lord Edward (Oxford, 1947). 2.684-5.

48

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

was 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 to result in a 'cult of political sainthood' in the thirteenth and fourteenth century. Montfort, for example, was compared to Becket, had intimate links with Grosseteste and the two Cantilupe bishops (one unofficially beatus, the other officially canonized), and served as a model for Lancaster.96 Russell was correct to point out the importance of political canonization, yet he incorrectly lumped together clerics and laymen. There is a difference between the canonization of a cleric like Thomas Cantilupe primarily for his holy life as bishop of Hereford, and that of lay rebels like Montfort and Thomas of Lancaster. These lay rebel cults were based on an explicit secular reason for sanctity. Piety and devotion played a part, but were not primary focuses. Montfort's followers consciously made a link between (justified) rebellion and reverence. According to the Opusculum, Simon was to be venerated because of his austere life, proven by his hairshirt, but more importantly because he had died "for the just cause of the inhabitants of England, the defense of which he had taken up by f o r c e . ''97 Such cults as St. Simon's reveal to us that rebels in medieval England tried to plug into religious authority, in this world and the next, to justify the otherwise unjustifiable proceeding of taking up arms against an anointed king. Political and religious authority were fundamentally intertwined in medieval Europe. Works like Bloch's Les Rois Thaumaturges and Kantorowicz's The King's Two Bodies have shown the importance of this melding with regard to properly established royal authority. We can now see that it applied beyond legitimate authority, and affected illegitimate, or, as Montfort's followers would, and did, argue, truly legal authority set up against illegal actions by the king. This sanctification of rebels operated historically, to prove the divine sanction of technically illegal acts, and contemporaneously, to encourage support for continuing revolt and boost morale for those suffering the effects of failure. This is not to say that reverence was simply a political tool to justify revolt and keep it alive after its leader's death. The very interconnection of politics and religion enabled devotees to operate in several categories at once: revere Simon as pious layman, as upholder of clerical rights, as self-sacrificing rebel. It was not merely clever manipulation which produced the cult of Simon de Montfort. Even those 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 many characteristics typical of saints: piety, single-mindedness, self-righteousness, and a noble cause given by God. The recognition of Simon's saintliness in the thirteenth
96 Russell, 'The canonization of opposition,' 245. 97 propter justissimam causarn indigenarum Anglie, quam manu susceperat defendendam (Melrose, 140).

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

49

century frequently appears completely geniune. One medieval reader, c o m m e n t ing in the margin on letters exchanged at Lewes, set down his faith, presumably for his eyes only: Beatus es S y m o n Barjona. 98 Similarly, an owner of the 1263 A n g l o - N o r m a n p o e m 'Song of the Barons' wrote next to the stanzas concerning Simon, f u i t h o m o a D e o mis[sus] m o [ d o ] erat Johannes. 99 Finally, the emphasis on Simon as miracle-worker, rather than as martyr alone, indicates that Simon was in at least one way a typical saint: the true utility of his sanctity was the power he had to put his faithful followers directly in touch with God.
Ora p r o nobis, beate S y m o n ! ut digni efficiamur p r o m i s s i o n i b u s Christi)

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Miss Barbara Harvey, Somerville College, Oxford, Professors T.N. Bisson and Michael McCormick, H a r v a r d University, J a m e s Livesey, Trinity College, Dublin, and most especially Dr. J.R. Maddicott, Exeter College, Oxford, at whose suggestion and under whose supervision I u n d e r t o o k this research, for all their help and criticism at various stages and drafts. A portion of this work was presented to the Sewanee Medieval Colloquium, 1993, and to the H a r v a r d Medieval Society, the m e m b e r s of which also deserve my gratitude.

~8"Blest are you, Simon, Bar-Jona" (Matt. xvi. 17, likening Montfort again to Simon Peter), Canterbury, Dean and Chapter, Ancient 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 the gospel of John, i.6. London, British Library Add. MS 23986, now missing but available as microfilm 2026. The handwriting of the comment is of the late thirteenth century. 10oConcluding prayer of Halliwell, Miracles, 110.