--Rishanger, _Political Songs_. [47] Stubbs. [48] “The Song of Lewes”--_Political Songs_. [49] I am indebted to my friend Fr. Bede Jarrett, O.P., for this interesting and, I believe, hitherto unpublished suggestion. [50] It was to a Dominican Convent at Montargis that Simon’s widow, the Princess Eleanor, retired after the fatal battle of Evesham. [51] An appeal was lodged at Rome by several English bishops against the threatened excommunication, but the papal legate himself became pope early in 1265, and, as Pope Clement V., was the strongest enemy of Simon and the national cause. It was only after Evesham and the death of Simon that Clement urged a wise policy of mercy on Henry and the royalists. [52] “In this year, while Edward, the king’s son, was still held in ward in the Castle of Hereford, dissension arose between Simon, Earl of Leicester, and Gilbert, Earl of Gloucester.... “For which cause the old friendship was turned into hate, so much so that neither the consideration of his oath nor former devotion could thenceforth pacify the said Gilbert.... An endeavour was made by certain prelates to restore the Earls of Leicester and Gloucester to their former union; but they could in no wise succeed.”--W. Rishanger. [53] J. R. Green, “The Ban of Kenilworth,” _Historical Studies_. [54] “The triumph over Earl Simon had been a triumph over the religious sentiment of the time, and religion avenged itself in its own way. Everywhere the earl’s death was viewed as a martyrdom, and monk and friar, however they might quarrel on other points, united in praying for the souls of the dead as for ‘soldiers of Christ.’”--J. R. Green, “The Ban of Kenilworth,” _Historical Studies_. [55] _Chronicles of Melrose._ [56] _Ibid._ [57] Wright, _Political Songs_. [58] See J. R. Green, “Annals of Osney and Wykes,” _Historical Studies_. [59] “The project was clearly to set up a new order of things founded on social equality--a theory which in the whole history of the Middle Ages appears for the first time in connection with this movement.”--Gairdner. [60] It may be said that to-day the idea of political and social equality is generally accepted and that of brotherhood denied. In the fourteenth century brotherhood was esteemed, but equality was a strange, intruding notion. [61] “The bias of Wyclif in theory and practice is secular, and aristocratic, and royalist: it is not really socialistic or politically revolutionary,”--Figgis, _Studies of Political Thought_. Nevertheless, many writers have tried to discredit Lollardy by associating it with social revolt, just as others have tried to discredit John Ball by making him out a “heretic,” and a follower of Wycliff. [62] Froissart seems to be mainly responsible for the belief that this John Tyler became the great leader of the movement, confusing him with Wat Tyler, of Maidstone, the real leader. Several writers allege the indecency of the tax-collectors.