STOP
Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world byJSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.istor.org/participate-istor/individuals/early-
journal-content .
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.
Further Note* on the Jews of Angevin England. 51
FURTHER NOTES ON THE JEWS OF ANGEVIN
ENGLAND.
{Continued from Jewish Quarterly Review, IV.)
Jewish Business and Deeds. — It is possible from the
materials given by the records to obtain a tolerably clear
idea of the way in which the Jews conducted their
business of usury. In several instances we have an ex-
tremely full account of the whole history of a transaction
or set of transactions, e.g. those of Richard Anesty, in
Palgrave's Commonwealth of England, ii., pp. xxiv.-xxvii., of
the Abbey of St. Edmond's, in Joce de Brakelond's Cronica,
Cam. Soc, pp. 2-4, or of Benedict Pernaz, in Madox, For-
mulare Anglieanum, p. 77. We can in these cases trace the
whole course of a debt from its beginning to the final pay-
ment to the Jews or to the King.
It may be safely said that the only persons in the King-
dom in want of coined money were of the upper classes,
«.«., the nobles, gentry, and clergy. The vast mass of the
people lived by barter, and had no need of coin. But the
smaller nobles and gentry, if they wished to conduct a
law-suit, or equip their retainers, or go on a crusade or
build a castle — and no less than 1,115 of these were con-
structed in Stephen's reign — or erect a church, would have
to get money from the Jews, who were the only large
holders of it in the Kingdom. There were a few Christians
who lent money without interest, e.g., William Fitz Isabel
was the largest creditor of the Abbey of St. Edmond's
(Brakelond, I.e.), but for the most part resort had to be
made to the Jew.
Note.— As before, numbers are to the items from the Pip© Rolls
in Archaol. Res., Feb. 1889, pagination to my forthcoming Jews of
ATigevin England.
d2
52 The Jewish Quarterli/ Review.
As a general rule the security was good, i.e. landed pro-
perty, but this was of little use to the Jew, who could not
hold it under an overlord. The aim of the Jew, therefore,
was to get a ready money return of some sort, chiefly of
course the rent of the laud usually paid by the vassals of
the debtor. In one case, and that the earliest on record,
the money was to be returned in the form of so many
soams of hay, which was a very marketable commodity :
in this case no mention is made of usury, though probably
the value of the hay was higher than that of the money
lent. Similarly we have frequent mention of loans to be
repaid in a series of years without any payment of usury
if the instalments are paid up to date. In such cases wo
may suspect that the sum mentioned in the deed and to
be repaid was really much more than the sum lent
{cf. remarks in Round, Ancient Deeds, Pipe Roll Soc,
n. 82). Generally, however, usury is to be paid straight-
way, as in the case of Richard Anesty. The amount of
usury varies from twopence in the pound per week {i.e.
about 43 per cent, per annum) to fourpence {i.e. 86 per
cent.), while a penny and threepence also occur.
But this high rate seems only to have been current when
the Jew did not have his pledge and mortgage. It naturally
soon led to a state of affairs where the payment of interest
became intolerable, and the debtor found it necessary to
make a fine with the Jew, i.e., capitalise the interest, add
the principal, and start afresh. He might do this either
allowing interest again to accrue (as was done at St.
Edmond's), or for a time the Jew could collect the rents till
the whole was paid off (187), or the estate was saddled
with a yearly rent to the Jew till the debt could be paid off.
In this case the interest on the capitalised sum was to'e •-
ably moderate ; 12^ per cent., 13i per cent. (Round, I.e.), 10
per cent. (p. 1 88), 7^ per cent. (Hall, Court Life, Hen. II.,
p. 231), though in case of non-payment of the interest
stringent conditions are imposed.
But things did not always go so smoothly in the arrange-
Further Notes on the Jews of Angevin England. 53
ment of a long-standing debt. Merely to have his right to
a debt recognised, the Jew had often to recur to the King's
courts (see Contnbutiom, §§ 15 — 27), as also for a writ to
remind his debtor. When the debtor failed to pay and
incurred forfeiture of his land, the Jew had often to get the
King's court to give him seisin or possession (27, 69), or
applied for an assize of novel disseisin (65). Legal aid was
also at times required to ensure a Jew being recognised as
the owner of a piece of land (90), or to have right against
the estate of a deceased debtor (153). And when the courts
declared for the Jew their assistance had to be invoked to
liave the goods of a debtor distrained (181).
It is clear from the above that there was nothing against
the Jews holding land, at least in the twelfth century. The
records for that period are not at all full ; my extracts are
probably not complete ; we only get information as a roile
when there is some legal dispute about the property. Yet
with all this I have been able to draw up a list of manors^
on which Jews held liens, running to over eighty, in almost
all parts of the country.
The striking thing about this list is the predominance of
Aaron of Lincoln : exactly half of the entries refer to him.
This is due to some extent to the fact that his estates fell
into the King's hands, and therefore were enrolled on the
King's recoi'ds. But it was precisely because of their
magnitude that the King kept them in his own possession,
instead of passing them on for a consideration to Aaron's
son Vives. It is clear on all hands that Aaron was the
leading financier of his time. His treasure, which was
lost in the Channel, must have been very large, and he left
besides nearly £20,000 worth of indebtedness (including
the Cistercian debt) which passed to the King. And
there are certain indications which show in what way his
' When expressly mentioned as mortgaged. It is probable that many
of the manors which gave names to the Jews' debtors were also pledged.
But of this we cannot be certain.
54 Tlie Jewish Quarterly/ Bevietc.
huge wealth was acquired. He organised the Jewry in the
sense of making all the Jews throughout the country his
loan-agents. Thus Solomon of Paris signs a receipt for his
master Aaron ; Peytevin and Leo are only his attorneys.
As early as 1166 we find him doing business (obviously
through agents) in Lincoln, Norfolk, Yorkshire, Hants,
Essex, Rutland, Cambridge, Oxford, and Bucks. His ex-
ample was followed by Isaac fil Rabbi, whom we find in
partnership with him (24), for we find Benedict Bressus
receiving money on behalf of Isaac. The whole body of
Jews were banded together in one banking corporation*
trading in a few names, like Aaron of Lincoln, Isaac fil
Rabbi, Jurnet of Norwich, and Brun of London.
They were not, however, allowed by tbe King to have
partnerships. Jurnet and Isaac tried to do so, but were
not allowed (23). The reason is tolerably obvious. When
one of the partners died, debts due to the firm would not
fall into the King's bands, as would be the case with an
ordinary debt due to a single Jew who happened to die.
And it was to the interest of the debtor that the debt
should fall into the King's hands, for he might then com-
pound for the debt at a much smaller sum than was owed
to the Jew. It was doubtless for this reason that debtors
were willing to pay such high interest : if the Jew died
before payment was enforced, the debtor might escape for
a much smaller sum paid to the King. It was, as I have
said, a kind of bet taken against the life of the Jew, and
the York massacres were in this sense a huge case of
" nobbling." On the other hand, it was better business for
the King, in the long run, to pass on the indebtedness to
another Jew (125, 130), for while in the King's hands it
bore no interest.
For this last reason, no obstacles seem to have been
placed in the way of Jews passing on debts from one to
another (cf. 113, 164, 215, 218). In this way a certain
amount of transactions in credit must have gone on, corre-
sponding in a measure with the stock and share markets
Further Notes on the Jews of Angevin England. 65
of later times. The deeds of indebtedness passed from one
Jew to another as a medium of exchange, and thus in-
creased the circulation. We have instances of debts to
Jews in England being collected from debtors in Normandy
(49) ; if such debts also passed from hand to hand among
the Jews, we should have here the germ of bills of exchange.^
It is by no means clear how the somewhat complicated
estimates involved in the calculation of usury were
formed ; probably by means of an abacus (Ball, Mathematics
at Cambridge, p. 2), Cases occur of debts being again de-
manded when already paid (48, cf. 110). To avoid such
an accident debtors often had their Shetars or acquittances
enrolled on the Pipe Roll (163a), or would have a general
acknowledgment similarly inscribed (164a). The accusa-
tion of falsity of charters was frequent against the Jews in
the thirteenth century, but there was scarcely any need for
such means of getting the debtors in the toils. The auto-
matic increase of interest would be sufficient by itself,, and
would naturally give rise to suspicion of foul play in minds
unaccustomed to calculate compound interest.
The Deeds in which these various transactions were
recorded were mainly of two kinds — an acknowledgment
on the part of the debtor, or a release on the side of the
Jew. The former were at first called simply charters
(carta) or deeds, but later became known as cyrographs,
which were in duplicate written on one piece of parchment,
with the two copies of the bond separated by the word
CTROGRAPHVS Written large. This was then cut through
with a zigzag contour, so that the two parts, on being put
together, exactly tallied. This was to prevent the substitu-
tion of a different deed. The Jewish keeper of these deeds
was called a cyrographer.
The receipts of the Jews were called " Stars " (Starrum),
' Dr. Simonsen, of Copenhagen, has suggested to me that the word
"cambire," about the meaning of which I expressed doubts {supra, ir.
p. 646), may mean exchange in this sense. It is, however, difBcolt to
see in what sense it could be made a crime. See in/ra, p. 77.
5G The Jewish Qiiarterhj Jlevicir.
after the Hebrew Shetar, or " contract." As is well known,
the Court of Star Chamber of later times is supposed to
have derived its name from being held in the chamber
where the old Jewish Starrs used to be deposited. This is
to some extent confirmed by the fact that the folk-
etymology of the name refers it to an imaginary sky-blue
ceiling adorned with stars, of which there is no evidence.
It was Blackstone who first suggested the other etymology.
Besides these deeds specially devoted to Jewish debts,
we find Jews concerned in others of a more general
character. Thus we find Jurnet of Norwich occurring in
one of the earliest " Feets of Fine." This is a record of a
fictitious action between landlord and tenant, so as to put
on record the transaction by which the land or house
changed hands. Bat such deeds and others like them, as
mortgages or covenants, have nothing specifically Jewish.
They are merely " common form " of the period, such as
are to be found in the usual law books of the time, by
Glanville or Fleta.
Jewish Contributions to the Treasury. — The sources
of the King's income in Angevin England were of an ex-
tremely miscellaneous character. Almost every event in
the life of an Englishman might be the occasion of claiming
money for him. The classical treatise of Thomas Madox,
The Jlistori/ of the Exchequer, 1707, thus goes over a large
section of the whole of English life. It was the same with
Englishmen of Jewish faith ; their payments to the Ex-
chequer were multifarious in the extreme. It has been
usual to refer to this as evidence that the King's power was
absolute over them, that they were his chattels. But for
nearly every one of the payments made by an English Jew
I can produce evidence of similar fines, etc., made by other
Englishmen. The chief exceptions are payments for
Escuage, Ferms, Aids, and Customs, though the Dona and
Tallages of the Jews may be said to correspond to Aids. I
have drawn up the following list of the various occasions
Furt/ier Notfis on the Jews of Angev'm England. 57
on which we find Jews paying the Royal Treasury during
the period under review, following as far as possible the
order of Madox's treatment, and placing in brackets the
chapter and section of his treatise where the same or
similar exactions from ordinary Englishmen are recorded.
Relief, Wardship, Marriage [X. iv.].
[Relief was a feudal profit paid by a tenant on taking
possession of his estate on the death of the previous owner.
Wardship was the right of custody of a relative's children.]
(1) For a relief, 203. [x. 4.]
(2) To have debts, etc., of deceased father, 26 (£60), 55
(5 m. husband), 66 (20 m. mother), 73 (£6), 76 (15s.), 81
(2 m. father-in-law), 85 (11 m. sou), 86 (20 m. husband),
101 (£500), 116 (100 m.), 119 ('£5, books), 121 (700 m.)
123 (200 m.), 140 (300 m.), 162 (20 m. not relative), [x. 4]
(3) To have custody (wardship) of children, 23, 52, 134 ;
for King to have same, 40. [x. 4.]
(4) For marrying without licence, 15, 58 [xiii. 2] ; not to
wed, 10 ; for a bill of divorce, 38.
(5) To have half of dowry settled on wife, 118 ; to have
dowry returned by son when husband is dead, p. 234.
[xiii. 11.]
Fines [XI.-XIII.].
[In later legal phraseology Fines refer chiefly to final
agreements for the transfer of real estate ; in earlier usage
the term was used for almost any kind of offering made to
the King.]
(6) For waste and purpresture (encroachment on forest)
80. [xi. 1,]
(7) To have dispute about forest rights heai'd in King's
court, 204.
[These are the only two items referring to forest rights
and wrongs, showing that Jews were little concerned with
bunting.]
58 The Jewish Quarterly Bevieic.
For Law Proceedings. [XII.]
(8) To have justice, 46 [xii. 1] ; to have writs for justice,
160.
(9) To have pleas, 2, 21 [xii. 2] ; in common, 75 ; to hear
plea against Jews, 43.
(10) To have inquiry whether Jew may take usury
from Jew, 128 ; whether father died Christian, 161. [Cf.
xii. 2.]
(11) To have agreement heard, 195 ; dispute heard, 204.
(12) To have summons before Chief Justice instead of
Justices in Eyre, 91.
(13) To have case between Jews heard in King's court,
98.
(14) To have respite of plea, 38, 146, p. 211 [xii. 4] ;
between Jews, 34, 50,
For Debte. [XII. v.]
[Here, as natural, we have the larger number of cases
which cannot be paralleled from Madox.]
(15) To have right to recover debts, 32 (25 per cent,
paid King), 49 (in Normandy), 55 bis (12 per cent.), 60
(50), 61 (30). 78, 99b (18), 113 bis (33, 54), 126 (33), 132 ter
(22, 30, 20), 153 (13-3), 156 bis (10, 9), 158 (11), 191, 192,
194, 195 (16 per cent.), 197. [xii. 5.]
(16) To have right to recover debt against Jew, 64
(400 per cent, paid to King), 94 (14 per cent.), 147 (50 per
cent.), 152 (250 per cent).
(17) To have debts, 14, 48a, 51, 54, 79 (and chattels), 94
(and pledges) 171, 191, 192. [xiii. 6.]
(18) To have help to recover debt, 4, 5 [xiii. 6] ; to have
debtor distrained, 181.
(19) To have writ to recover debt, 113, p. 202 [xiii. 9] ;
to remind debtor, p. 200.
(20) To have right against estate of deceased debtor,
153.
Further Notes on the Jews of Angevin England. 59
(21) To have county record of debt against Jew, 160.
[xii. 2.]
(22) To have mortgage, 51 bis [xii. 5] ; to have pledge,
190 ; to be recognised as owner of land, 90.
(23) To have disputed mortgage kept in King's hand,
210.
(24) To get deeds from sheriff, 68 ; for a deed, 72.
(25) To have starrs and acquittances of deceased Jews
inspected by Justices of Jews, p. 211.
(26) To have agreement with a Christian about a debt,
202.
(27) To have debts of Aaron of Lincoln, 106, 111, 125,
125a, 130, 135, 136, 143, 150, 163, 165, 174, 175, p. 211,
180, p. 238, 1905, 210 ; for fine to have one of his debts,
125 (500 m. for £500), 130 ; to have one of his houses,
125a, 131.
For Licences, etc. [XIII. iv.-viii.]
(28) To have an agreement among themselves, 20, 88,
199. [xiii. 4.]
(29) To have partnership, 22, 39, 83, 84 (concurrent,
xiii. 13), 182. [xiii. 4.]
(30) To have residence with good- will of King, 87. [xiii. 5.]
(31) To have house bought but deprived of, 57.
(32) To have seisin of land mortgaged, 27, 69. [xiii. 8.]
For Legal Offences, etc. [XIII. ix.-xii.]
[See also Amerciaments, Nos. 37 seq."]
(33) To be replevied (bailed out), 126; (for burglary),
151. [xiii. 9.]
(34) To be surety, 127, 150 (for mother) [xiii. 10] ; for
offering money to redeem another Jew, 198.
(35) To be quits of pledges, 33 [xiii. 10] ; not to be
prosecuted, 88, 141 ter.
(36) To be quits of appeal between Jews, 35, 172, p. 200
[xiii. 11] ; to be quits of a charge [ibid.l ; to be put on oath,
154, 183 ; for not keeping fine, 79.
60 The Jeteish Quarterly Review.
Amerciaments. [XIV.]
[When a person -was found guilty of a charge he was at
the King's mere}'- (" in misericordia "), and could only obtain
this by paying an amerciament : it is often difficult to dis-
tinguish these from fines.]
(37) For an amerciament, 13 (£2,000), 28, 55 (£6,000)
[xiv. 5] ; fine for amerciament, 97.
(38) For killing sick man, 3 (£2,000 !) [xiv. 6] ; for strik-
ing knight, 45, 46 ; for taking off priest's cap, 72. [xiv. 15.]
(39) For personation, 57 ; for being party to illegal con-
tract, 44. [xiv. 7.]
(40) For denying what he had said before, 48, 113, 133
ter. [xiv. 7.]
(41) For being accused of being of the society of out-
laws, 145. [xiv. 7.]
(42) For lending money to men under King's displeasure,
16. [xiv. 7] : on sacred garments, 17, 53.
(43) For a novel disseissin, 65. [xiv. 8.]
(44) For a default (or forfeiture), 3G. [xiv. 11.]
(45) For withdrawing from court without licence. 197,
211. [xiv. 11.]
(46) For false charge, 141. [xiv. 13.]
(47) For suborning evidence, 189fl. [xiv. 13.]
(48) For calling warrant illegally, 993. [xiv. 12.]
(49) For a stupid saying, 148 [xiv. 15] ; for not having
proper information in deed, 92.
(50) For buying treasure trove without permission, 93 ;
for detaining rent of land, 91.
(51) For keeping back acquitted charters, 62; for de-
manding debt already paid, 48, 110.
(52) For failing to convict charter of falsity, 77 ; for
not giving up debt to another Jew, 113.
(53) Not to be impleaded for concealing charters, 123,
146 ; for carrying off goods on which another Jew has
sui-eties, 194.
Further Notes on the Jews of Angevin England. 61
(54) For lands unjustly pledged, 201 ; to have another
Jew kept in custody for clipping, p. 233.
Tallage. [XVIL]
(55) Dona, 7, 9, 105 (2,000 m.), p. 162. [xvii. 2.]
(56) Tallage, Guildford, p. 88, 89, 107, 166, 167, 213, 214,
215. [xvii. 6.]
(57) Quarter of chattels, 71. [xvii. 2.]
(58) To be quit of Tallage, 89. [xvii. 7.]
It would be of interest to ascertain what was the average
amount of income that the King derived from his Jewish
subjects from these reliefs, fines, amerciaments, and tallages.
It is, however, very difficult to ascertain this, since for a
large part of the period we have no Fine Rolls, which often
give information of sums paid to the King otherwise than
through the Sheriffs to which the entries in the Pipe
Rolls are confined. The Tallages and Dona were mainly
accounted for on separate rolls and do not appear except
by accident on tlie Pipe Rolls (there is no reference, e.g., to
the Northampton Donum in the Pipe Rolls). I have not
given details of all my extracts from the Pipe Rolls (many
more occur in the Name List) and I cannot claim to have
extracted all the Jewish items. There must obviously have
been more " reliefs " than the fifteen enumerated above.
Altogether any estimate founded on my extracts can only
profess to represent the minimum.
There is further the difficulty that we do not always
know if some of the larger sums mentioned in the records
were fully paid. It is certainly desirable to separate these
special entries from the more ordinary items.
Amerciament (3) £2,000
Abraham fil Rabbi 2,000
Transfretation (29, 42) 4,066
Jurnet's fine (67) 4,000
Jurnet's licence to reside (87) 1,200
Guildford Tallage 60,000
Cistercian fine 1,000
31
Hen. I.
Hen. II.
23
it
32
))
35
JJ
35
»>
1
Ric. I.
62 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
3 Ric. I. Debts of Aaron (106) £15,000
3 „ Second Thousand Marks (105) 1,366
3 „ Tallage 6,666
5 „ Northampton Donum 3,666
Donum referred to 2,000
2 Jo. Charters 2,666
Taking these separately, as well as the sums paid in the
earlier period to Jews by the sheriffs, probably for value
received by the King, we may sum up the receipts recorded
in the Pipe Rolls as follows in pounds sterling.
Beign.
Ordinary.
Sheriffs.
Special.
Total.
Hen. I.
208
—
2,000
2,208
Hen. II. 2-36
2,030
2,702
94,300
99,030
Ric. I. 1-10
2,710
40
5,666
8,416
Jo. 1-7
350
—
2,666
3,016
It is clear that the averages for Henry II. and John are
too small, the former becau.se my extracts were less com-
plete, the latter because the items relating to Jews had
been removed to special rolls. For John's reign this
is to some degree compensated for by the items from
the Fine Rolls, which reach £449 for the seven years,
besides £531 for the Royal Ten per Cent, for the two
years, 5-7 Jo. This would seem to show that the
average business of the whole English Jewry only reached
£2,500 per annum, which is clearly much below the mark.
The Royal Ten per Cent, only applied to debts recovered
through the courts. If we could assume that about £300
per annum was the average of ordinary P. R. items, as in
Ric. I., and £250 those of the Fine Rolls not extant for
Henry II. and Ric. I., we should obtain something like
the following revenue from Jews for the 51 years between
2 Hen. II. and Jo. 7 (1156-1206 ; the solitary year of
Hen. I. need not be considered) : —
Pipe Roll ordinary items... £15,300
Fines and Royal Ten per Cent 13,250
Sheriffs' payments ... ... ... 2,742
Special Amerciaments, Tallages, etc. ... 102,632
Total, £1394
Further Notes on the Jews of Angevin England. 63
From this has to be subtracted £9,452 not paid and
removed to Jews' Rolls by Benedict de Talemund in 10
Eic. I., and £4,500 of Aaron's debt still owing in 3 Jo.,
leaving a balance of almost exactly £120,000 for the 51
years. To this has to be added the unknown quantity of
Aaron's cash treasure, lost in transit from England to
Normandy. This would probably raise the average con-
tribution of the Jews to the English Treasury to about
£2,500 annually, and allowing for tallages, etc., not recorded
during the years for which the Fine Rolls are not extant
{e.g., the price of the charters was probably the same in
2 Hen. II. and 2 Ric. I. as in 2 Jo., i.e., 4,000 marks), we
may assume, I think, that the average contribution was as
near as possible £3,000 per annum. Taking an "index-
number " of 30 for the present century this would corre-
spond to £90,000 at present, which does not seem a very
important item of the revenue. But it is probable that
such an "index number" is more and more inadequate
when applied to larger sums. The whole treasure left by
Henry II. was only 100,000 marks, the same sum as the
ransom set on King Richard (Macpherson Annals, 1189,
1193). Towards this sum the City of London gave or
promised only 1,500 marks, the English Jewry no less than
5,000. The total trade of England was only £100,000 ^;er
annum (Macpherson, Ic, 1208), it is nowadays 10,000 times
as much. The £3,000 contributed by the Jews to the
Treasury must have loomed in the eyes of the king's
treasurer much more largely than perhaps a thousand
times that sum in the present day.
What was the complete revenue of Angevin England ?
The estimate generally accepted is that of £65,000, given
by Bishop Stubbs ; but that is for Edward I., a century-
later than the period we are considering. The Pipe Roll
of 2 Hen. II. gives a revenue of only £22,000 ; that of 1
Ric. I. of £50,000. The last is too large, as it contains the
new and extra aids given to the King on his accession. It
would be safe, I fancy, to take £35,000 as the average
64 T/ie Jeuish Quarterly Review.
revenue, so that the Jewish contribution was about one-
twelfth of the whole.
Jewish Population. — It would be, of course, of interest
to ascertain the number of Jews in England during the
twelfth century, but the materials at our disposal are
scarcely adequate for the purpose. I have compiled a list
of all the names mentioned in the records, and this runs
to some 750. But these are of various generations, and
were not all living simultaneously, nor do they give more
than the heads of families. If we divide them into four
generations— (1) 1100-1153 A.D., (2) 1154-1173, (3) 1174-
1193, (4) 1194-1206, a rough calculation gives 15, 45, 300,
390, as the approximative number of names known in each
generation, and indicates rather our relative knowledge of
the various periods than the actual population. For the
fourth period we are lucky in possessing a name-list of the
Jews subscribing to the ransom of Richard I. at Northamp-
ton in 1194. This gives nearly 270 names of heads of
families throughout the country. As, however, the sum voted
was 5,000 marks (£3,666), and the sums mentioned in the
roll reach only about £1,800, it is probable that it contains
only the better half of the whole collection. As a matter
of fact, for many of the towns I could supplement the list
considerably. Altogether, I reckon that some 500 Jewish
families were at that date, 1194, in England, probably
amounting to some 2,000 souls. In the preceding genera-
tion their numbers were probably equally great, but the
natural increase was cut short by the massacres of 1190,
which probably removed nearly 500 victims. The Jewish
accounts give 150 as the number killed in York ; Ralph
Disset mentions 57 slain at Bury St. Edmund's, and the
emeutes at London, Lynn, Norfolk, and Stamford must
have largely increased the total.
I do not think the total number can have much exceeded
2,000, at this time, as the total population of England
seems not to have been greater than a million and a-half.
Further Notes on the Jews of Angevin England. 65
and it does not seem likely that this small population
could have maintained much more than one per cent, of
bankers or " usurers," especially as most of the business
of the country was performed by barter. As it was,
the resources of the country must have been severely
taxed to support such a large number of unproductive
persons, though incidentally the banking facilities they
offered may have encouraged trade ia the building of
castles, convents, &c.
We may from the list enumerate, at any rate, the
English towns where Jews are known to have existed
in the twelfth century, with the number of Jews occurring:
in my Xame-list in each case : —
110, London.
82, Lincoln.
42, Norwich.
40, Gloucester.
39, Northampton.
36, Winchester.
32, Cambridge.
22, Oxford.
18, Bristol.
16, Colchester.
14, Chichester.
13, Bedford, York.
12, Canterbury, Worces-
ter.
11, Hertford.
9, Bungay, Exeter.
7, Nottingham.
6, Edmondsbury.
5, Stamford.
4, Hertford.
3, Dunstable, Ipswich,
Leicester, Rising,
Wallingford.
2, Beverley, Birdfield,
Bonham, Doncas-
ter, Eye, Lynn,
Newport, Roches-
ter.
1, Arundel, Devizes,
Faversham, Finch-
lefield, Grimsby,
Hamton, New-
land, Newcastle,
Reading, Thetford,
Wells, Westminster,
Wilton, Windsor.
The comparative density of the Jewish population fol-
lows the density of the general population, being thickest
in the South and East, sparsest in North and West.
VOL. V. E
66 Tlie Jewish Quarterhj Meview.
The Jews' Houses. — It is rare, even in conservative
England, for a private dwelling-house to exist, in however
battered a condition, after so long a period as seven centuries.
This is specially the case with private houses, as the large
majority of them were constructed of wood, as London
knew to its cost in the great fire of 1136. But the twelfth
century was the beginning of better days in domestic
architecture, and stone houses for private dwellings prac-
tically date from this period. Among the earliest to use
the new luxury — for luxury it was — were the Jews. It is
by no means accidental that three out of the .scanty remains
of the domestic architecture of the twelfth century are
known as " Jews' houses." There are two at Lincoln and
one at Bury St. Edmund's.
Of the two at Lincoln, that in the High Street is the better
known, and has frequently been described, among others,
by Turner, in the first volume of his Domestic Architectnre,
pp. 7, 41, from whom I derive the following details : — The
principal dwelling-room was on the first floor, probably for
protection. The fireplace is on the side towards the street,
the chimney being corbelled out over the door, the lower
part of it, with the corbels, forming a sort of canopy over
the doorway. This is richly decorated, the ornamentation
being similar to that of Bishop Alexander's work in Lincoln
Cathedral. Some of the windows are good Norman ones,
of two lights, with a shaft between. The staircase seems
to have been internal, and the house is small, of two rooms
only. All authorities on architecture date it as of the
twelfth century, though historically it is connected with
the name of a Lincoln Jewess, named Belaset of Walling-
ford, w^ho was hanged for clipping the coinage a few years
before the Expulsion. It is, however, similar in style and
appearance to what the other Jew's house of Lincoln must
have been.
This is of far more historic interest, and has the advan-
tage that it can be definitely dated. It is situated on the
Steep Hill, at Lincoln, on the i-ight-hand side going up, and
Further Notes on the Jews of Angevin England. 67
tradition has always associated the house with the name
of Aaron of Lincoln, the great Jewish financier of the
twelfth century, who died in 1187. Unfortunately the
building suffered much at the hands of successive tenants ;
the roof, some of the windows, the doors, and most of the
walls have been restored ; all the rest is the original house-
This consists chiefly of a window, similar in every way to
those of Belaset's house, and an external chimney project-
ing over the doorway in much the same way. Turner re-
marks that a Norman ornamented string, on a level with
the floor, may be traced along two sides of the house. I
have had it photographed and engraved for my forth-
coming book. It is undoubtedly the earliest historic build-
ing of Jewish interest in England.
Moyse Hall, at Bury St. Edmund's, is also called the
Jews' Synagogue in local tradition. It is of late Norman,
partly of Transition character, the lower story being vaulted,
while the arch-ribs are pointed. This also appears to have
had no windows on the ground floor. On the upper floor
there are two good Transition Norman windows, each of
two lights, square-headed and plain, under a round arch,
with mouldings and shafts in the jambs, having capitals of
almost Early English character. Internally the masonry
is not carried up all the way to the sill of the window, so
that a bench of stone is formed on each side of it. It is
an early instance of the square-headed window, divided by
a muUion under a semicircular arch. Some antiquaries
believe that the building once possessed a tower. It was
used last century as a bridewell, and is still in use as
a police station. It is possible, I think, that it was used
as a school, having just the arrangement, in two storeis,
contemplated by the code of the period. If so, it is
the earliest school building in existence in the country,
as the Jews were expelled from Bury St. Edmund's in
1190.
The historians of the period refer to the luxurious
character of the Jews' bouses of the time, those of Jooe
E 2
68 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
and Benedict, the chief Jews of York, being likened to
residences of princes. Their solid character may have
been intended for safety as much as for luxury, and they
resisted the attacks of the rioters in the imeutes of 1189-90,
till fire was set to their thatched roofs.
The York Riots. — The outbreak of fanatic fury against
the Jews of England during the winter and spring of
1189-90, was the most striking incident in the mediaeval
history of the English Jews. And of the whole series of
incidents the most striking episode was the sublime self-
sacrifice of the York Jews, which was the final act of the
tragedy. There was a dignified sense of personal honour
shown in the attitude of the besieged that recalls the
heroes of antiquity. Observers at the time recognised the
analogy with the last daj's of Jerusalem, and the com-
parison does not strike one as incongruous, looking back
upon the scene across the centuries. Men who could dare
so greatly for an ideal cause, men who could die rather
than forswear their faith, must have been something other
than mere greedy usurers.
We have very full accounts of the tragedy, the fullest
being written by William of Newbury, who was himself a
Yorkshireman, who lived and died at Bridlington within
eight years of the tragedy. He is, strictly speaking, a
contemporary witness, and was fully conscious of the im-
portance and significance of the story he was telling. Yet
notwithstanding the detail with which he writes, there are
not a few points which remain doubtful, while the whole
inner history of the tragedy has to be sought for in the
significance of the names of the murderers given in the
records.
The actual scene of the final act of self-sacrifice can
scarcely be doubted, though it is by no means distinctly
described by the historian, who speaks as if it were the
whole of York Castle that was held by the Jews, Yet it
is unlikely that the sheriff" should have handed over to the
Further Notes on the Jcics of AiKjecin England. 69
Jews the custody of the whole castle, which would involve
Av-^ithdrawing the garrison. It is much more probable that
he set aside the isolated outwork known as Clifford's
Tower for their reception. This was a building ei-ected
on a high mound, and strongly fortified ; tradition has it
that it was built by the Conqueror (Drake, Ebor., p. 289).
It was originally of two stories, but the interior was blown
up in 1687, and is now in ruins. This, by its isolation and
impregnable position, was the most suitable place of safety
for the Jews. But if so, their numbers could scarcely have
been so great as 500, which William of Newbury fixes upon,
since so large a number could not have been easily received
within Clifford's Tower. I am confirmed in this correction
of William of Newbury's figures by the more moderate
estimate of Ephraim of Bonn, who in the Hebrew martyro-
logy which he wrote fixes the number at 150. It is pro-
bable enough that he had before him an actual list of the
martyrs, and it is not impossible that the York Memorbuch^
as such lists are called in Germany, may be found. At
present we know only four names : Joce the head of the
York Jews, Anna his wife, R. Yomtob of Joigny, who, as
Ephraim of Bonn informs us, was martyred at York
(Aborak he calls it), and R. Elias, who is mentioned in the
Tosaphoth (Joma 27", Sebach 14'') as the martyr of Aborak,
i.e., Everwic or Eboi'acum, the original name of York.
There can be little doubt that R. Yomtob of Joigny was
"the elder from beyond the sea," who had so much authority
with the York Jews, and counselled them to slay them-
selves rather than disown their faith. The speech given by
William of Newbury is probably fictitious, after the manner
of Livy ; he owns indebtedness to Josephus for the idea.
But some such stirring address would be consonant with
Yomtob's skill as a Hebrew writer. This is proved by
the fact that even to this day, the most striking hymn
of the Day of Atonement service — that beginning with
p DaaS and ending each verse with the refrain Tinbo, " I
have forgiven " — was written by Yomtob of York. He is
70 Tlie Jeicish Quarterly Review.
frequently mentioned in the Tosaphoth (see Zunz Zur
Gesck, 62), and was clearly one of the most distinguished
Jews of North Europe in the twelfth century — a fitting
person to form the central figure in the most striking
episode of Jewish history in that century.
Of the rioters and their leaders we know far more,
thanks to the fulness of the public records of the period.
I have discovered in the Pipe Eolls (No. 102, 2 Kic. I.,
Everwich) the names of fifty-one prominent citizens of
York who were fined altogether 342 marks (£228) for
complicity in the riots. But another item (124) gives us
more important information as to the leaders of the whole
movement, whose lands were seized by William Long-
champ when he visited York in the Easter of 1190 with a
large force (costing £60, Pipe Koll, 1 Ric. I., Everwich) to
punish the rioters, and bring back to London the few Jews
who remained alive after the catastrophe (their transport
cost only 8s., P. R, item 96). Their names were Richard
Malebisse, Kt., and his squires, Walter de Carton and
Richard de Cuckney, Sir William de Percy and Picot de
Percy, Roger de Ripun and Alan Malekake. To these
names the Meaux Chronicle (ed. Bond, i., 155) adds
those of Philip de Fauconbridge and Marmaduke Darell.
To readers of the nineteenth century these names would
be names and nothing more. But to Bishop Stubbs, who
has lived as much in the twelfth as in the nineteenth
century, the names implied much more, and have suggested
the clue to the whole riot. For he found several of the
names associated together in Dugdale and other Cartu-
laries, and observed that some of them were connected
with the Percy and Pudsey families, who were then the
ruling spirits of the North Countrie (see his note on Roger
Howden, Vol. IIL, p. xlv.). Following up the hint thus
given, I have further extended the evidence of the close
connection of these various names in Dugdale's Monasticon
(D.) and Whitby (W.), and Finchdale Cartularies (F.)
published by the Surtees Society. Thus Alan Malekake
Further Notes on the Jews of Angevin England. 71
occurs as <a co-signatory with Malebysse (W. No. cxii.,
p. 95), and with Picot de Percy (F. x., p. 10), who else-
where signs with Malebysse (F. xvi.). Richard de
Kakenai (mis-spelt Kadenai) signs with both Picot and
Alan (F. xxii.), while we know he was squire to Richard
Malebysse, with whom, and with Picot de Percy, he signs
F. No. Ixii. Then the Fauconbridges had inter-married
with the De Cuckneys (D. vi., 873), while Agnes Percy
gives a manor " nepoti meo Ric. Malebysse " (D. v., 513).
And almost all these deeds are connected with the wide-
reaching transactions of the Pudsey family, who followed
the lead of Hugh Pudsey, the masterful old Prince-Bishop
of Durham (Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
ii., 283, seq.).
There was another bond between these men w^hich had
a more direct bearing on the York tragedy. The Percy
family were in debt to the Jews ; Richard Percy yielded
two bovates of land to Whitby Abbey for assistance
afforded him in releasing him and his lands "de Judaismo"
(W. No. cccxxxiv., p. 387), and he was directly connected
with Malebysse (D. iv., 75, W. 293 n.). The Darells again
were equally embarrassed, as we learn from the Meaux
Chronicle (i., 315). About the leader of the whole attack,
Richard Malebysse, the man specially mentioned by
William of Newbury as the leader, we have much more
explicit information as to his indebtedness to the Jews.
As early as 1182 we find a receipt of Solomon of Paris,
acting on behalf of Aaron of Lincoln, of £4 " out of the
great debt which he owes to my master Aai'on " (Brit. Mus.
Add. Chart., 1251), though he had only come into his
property six years before (Pipe Roll, 22 Hen. II., Honour
of Eye). By a kind of premonition, Solomon of Paris, in
the Hebrew receipt with which he endorses the Latin
document (Davis, Shetaroth, 288) punningly translates his
name^n3>"i TVU, Evil Beast, anticipating William of New-
bury, who refers to him as "Ricardus vero cognomine
Mala Bestia."
72 The Jeimh Quarterly Mevieip.
William of Newbury distinctly states that the riots
were instigated by a number of the nobles who were
heavily indebted to the Jews, or were pressed by the Royal
Treasury, which had taken up the debts to deceased Jews.
The final act of the tragedy was the rush to the Minster,
where the deeds of the Jews had been sent, probably for
safety ; these were sacrilegiously burned within the pre-
cincts of the Minster itself. We may conjecture that the
real object of the siege of Clifford's Tower was to get
possession of these deeds. Only after the tragedy did the
besiegers learn, probably from one of the few surviving
Jews, that their trouble had been useless, and that the
deeds were at the Minster. Thither thej'^ rushed and
effected the main object of the riot by destroying the
evidence of their indebtedness to the hated Jews. Even
this was in vain, for duplicates existed elsewhere, and we
find several instances of indebtedness to Joce and others
of the slain Jews of York long after the massacre (P. R.,
items, Nos. 109, 121). The debts fell into the King's hands
as universal legatee of the martyrs.
Though it was undoubtedly a deliberate plan of the
leaders to get rid of their indebtedness to the Jews, the York
riot would not have been possible but for the religious
prejudices of the mob, upon which they played. These had
been raised to fever heat by the enthusiasm for the Third
Crusade, on which Richard CcBur-de-Lion was just starting.
It was possible that even the leaders of the riot were com-
bining business and religion in their attack on the Jews.
They were all connected with various abbeys, and their
names occur in the Abbey Cartularies, as we have seen.
The Fauconbridges were the great patrons of the Abbey of
Welbeck, and Malebysse himself was afterwards the founder
of Newbo, CO. Lincoln. This religious side of the attack
was led by a white-robed monk of the Premonstrateusian
order, who was the most conspicuous figure in the attack
throughout the two or three days it lasted. Now Welbeck
was one of the few Premonstrateusian abbeys in England,
Ftirther Notes on the Jens o/Auffetin England.
►to
and it is not stretching the point too far to suggest that this
monk was a relation of the Fauconbcidges, or perhaps of
the De Cuckneys, Cuckney being a village near Welbeck.
It was the death of this monk that exasperated the leaders
so much and gave an incentive to the final cruel and
treacherous scenes.
The punishment inflicted upon the rioters was by no means
adequate to their offence. Richard was doubly incensed, at
the loss to the Royal Treasury, and the oflfence to the royal
dignity. And his Chancellor, William Longchamp, under-
took the task of punishment with the more zeal, as the
leaders were, as we have seen, all of the party of Hugh
Pudsey, Bishop of Durham, and Longchamp's chief rival
(Norgate, l.c. ii., 28G). But Longchamp's rule was short, and
Prince John reinstated Pudsey, and we find immediately
afterwards Richard Malebysse restored to his forest rights,
and even by paying a fine was granted possession of his
land taken from him by the king (P.R., item 124).
Of Richard Malebysse's after fate we have abundant
evidence; it was uniformly successful to the end, one
regrets to observe. In 1200 he gets wai-ren for his land at
Acastre, Cemannsthorp, Scalton, and Alby (Rot. Lit. CI.,
51i). A year later, we find him making arrangements
about other lands in Marton and Tolesby, Newenham,
Baggely, Scalton, Halmby, Dale. He obtains "rectum
frussiandi" in Usan and Coldric {Oblates, p. 55, cf. 379).
These and other places mentioned in Pipe Rolls 3 and 10,
Ric. I. (Gatesbris, Kepwick, Torinton, Steniton) are all in
Yorkshire, and one of them to this day preserves, written
as it were on English soil, a record of the arch villain of the
York tragedy in the village of Acaster Malbis, five miles
south of York.
He was clearly a large landed proprietor, and it is not
surprising to find him sent as ambassador to the King of
Scots in 1200 (Close Roll, p. 99), and appointed Chief
Justice of the York Assize, 4 Jo. (Foster, Yorkshire Pedigrees >
" Beckwith of Clint "), and he showed his zeal for religion
74 The Jeickh Quarterly Review.
by founding the monastery of Newbo, co. Lincoln, in 1198.
He had sons who succeeded him, but the family ultimately
were incorporated, by a female descendant, into that of the
Beckwiths of Clint.
Yet he did not go altogether unpunished for his dastardly
attack on a set of defenceless and harmless strangers. It
was for money that he planned the deed, and in his hopes of
freeing himself from debt to the Jews he was disappointed.
As late as 1205 we find him being freed from all usuries to
the Jews w^hile he was in the King's service (Close Roll,
586), probably in Scotland, whither ho was sent as ambas-
sador as we have seen.
The York riot is the central fact in the pre-expulsion
history of the Jews of England. Their position worsened
from that date till their expulsion one hundred years later.
Yet it was a scene in which the Jews came out in far
brighter colours than their enemies, animated as they were
by the highest motives, while the besiegers of Clifford's
Tower were mainly, as we have seen, animated by a desire
to evade their just debts.
Isaac of York.— In 1864 a great " find " of 6,000 of
what are called "short-cross" pennies (silver) was made
at Eccles. These are so called to distinguish them from
the later long-cross pennies where the cross on the reverse
of the coin reaches the rim, so as to enable clipping to be
easily detected. This expedient was adopted in 1247, so
that the short-cross pennies are prior to that date. Their
peculiarity is, however, that they all bear the head and
superscription of Henry II., none being known with those
of Richard or John. It is clear that Henry's name and
counterfeit presentment was used on the coins of his two
sons. The distinguishing mark of the coinage consists in
the name of the moneyer, which is invariably placed on
the reverse; there are no less than 240 different names
included in the Eccles find from about twenty local mints.
(See the list in the late W. S. W. Vaux's Paper on the
Further Notes on the Jews of Angevin England. 75
Eccles find, Numismatic Chronicle, New Series, V., pp.
219-254.)
From the large number and variety of the coins in the
Eccles find, Dr. (now Sir) John Evans was enabled to make
a number of inductions, which gave an almost complete
answer to what has been known among English numis-
matists as " The Short Cross Question " (Niimism. Chron.,
/.c, pp. 219-254). From certain minute variations in the
effigy of Henry II. on the coins, arrangement of hair, etc.,
he was enabled to distinguish five different types, ranging
from 1180 to 1247, while from the few names of moneyers
known from the Eecords, Pipe Rolls, etc., he was enabled
to distinguish the chronological sequence of the types.
Besides this, he determined the date of an earlier find of
6,000 pennies of Henry II. at Tealby described in Archaohgxa
xviii., 1-S as being from the earliest dies of Henry's reign,
and dating therefore from 1158-70. His investigations
have since 1865, the date of liis Paper, been regarded
as decisive and epochmaking.
Among the coins in the Eccles find were several with
the moneyer's name ISSQ ON ^VaRWIQ, Isaac of (on)
Everwic or York. Mr. Hubert Hall, in his Court Life under
the Plantagenets, has regarded this moneyer as a Jew, and the
question is of the greater interest owing to the coincidence
of the name with that chosen by Sir Walter Scott for the
principal Jew in his Ivanhoe. The point in favour of the
identification, besides the probability of a connection be-
tween Jews and money, is the Biblical name, but these
were by no means uncommon among Englishmen. At any
rate, if this is to be considered at all decisive, it seems
worth while considering it with the other Biblical or
Jewish-looking names among the moneyers whose names
are found on the short-cross pennies among Mr. Vaux's and
Sir J. Evans's lists : they are as follows, placing them in
alphabetical order, with the inscription and place of coin-
age, together with the types of coinage with which each
name is associated. I. refers to coins minted 1180-90 ;
76
The Jewish Qaarierlij Bevteic.
IL, 1190-1205; III, IV., 1205-1216; V., 1216-47. It is
obviously only the first two of these types which concern
«s here.
B^N^IT OX
LVND^
London
It.
Dxvr
^V^RWia
York
II. III. .IV
DXVI
LVND
London
IL
isxa
^V^RWia
York
I.
NiaHOLe „
aSNT
Canterbury
IV. V.
NiaOL^ „
LYN
Lynn
IIL
xiaoLq „
evERwia
Y'ork
IIL
SSMV^L „
asNT
Canterbnry
II. IIL IV.
SSL^MV „
axNT
»>
IIL
SIMON
aiag
Chichester
III. V.
SIMVN
ax NT
Canterbury
IL IIL IV. V
!Now if these were all Jews it would be strange if we
could not identify some of them at least with the names
mentioned in the Records. There is a Benedict of London
mentioned in Richard of Anesty's account, c. 1160. There
is a Josce fil David of London mentioned in the first list
of London Jews, 1186. There is an Isaac fil Mosse of York
mentioned in the Pipe Rolls, 3 Ric. I., and an Isaac Blund
of York mentioned in the Fine Rolls of 1205. There is a
Samuel fil Jacob of Canterbury mentioned in the North-
ampton Donum of 1194, as well as a Simon, nephew of
Jacob of Canterbury. But none of these are mentioned
as " monetarii," and it was a law of Henry I. "Quod nuUus
ausus sit cambire denarios nisi monetarius regis " (Ruding,
Annals of Coinage, ii. 138) . Not a single one of the names can,
therefore, be identified with any probability with the name
of a known Jew of the twelfth century, and the possibility of
any single one of them being a Jew is almost annihilated
by this fact.^ I think we may take it for granted that a
Jew could not be a moneyer. The reason was, I imagine,
' None of the 92 moneyers whose names are mentioned as occurring on
the coins found at 1e:a\hy (^Avchaiologia, I.e.) are at all Jewish. This,
however, mi^ht be merely due to the less importance of the Jews in the
earlier part of Henry II's reign (1158-70) and is so far a point in favour
of the later names being those of Jews.
Further Notes on the Jens of Angevin England. 77
that moneyers had to take the oath of fealty (Sir John
Evans, I.e., p. 290), and this included a Christian formula
which a Jew could not take. The whole inquiry throws
light on a mysterious passage of the Pipe Roll for 27
Hen. II., in which Isaac of Rochester and Isaac of Russia
(Isaac of Tchernigoff mentioned by the author of the
8epher Mashoham), and Isaac of Beverley are fined because
they are said to have exchanged or minted {camhkme).
The former could not well be an offence, but the latter
was, according to the law of Henry II. quoted above from
Ruding, and we may be tolerably certain that none of the
three Isaacs or any other Jew would be allowed to mint,
possibly for fear of false coinage. The whole investigation
proves, I think, that we may nail the so-called Jewish coins
of Isaac of York to the counter of numismatic inquiry.
I may add that Scott was unfortunate in naming his
chief Jewish character Isaac of York, as at the time at
which he places the action of his novel, viz.: in 1194, the
date of Richard's return, there were no Jews at York
>
owing to the scare caused by the massacre of 1190. They
are conspicuous by their absence from the list of names
of the contributories to the Northamj)ton Donum. Rebecca
also was a name unknown among English Jewesses of the
twelfth century, the nearest approach being Biket, a
servant in London, 118G. Kirjath Jearim, the name of
one of the minor Jews, is the name of a town not of a
person, and, as Mr. Abrahams has shown, was taken from
Marlowe's " Jew of Malta."
Joseph Jacobs.
