THE Jewish community that maintained a precarious existence in England from the close of the eleventh century to the close of the thirteenth was essentially artificial in origin. It was to crated by the Norman and Plantagenet rulers for an express purpose and enjoyed virtually no rights except in connexion with these limited functions, It possessed in consequence a remarkable homogeneity and compactness, and thus has a significance for the historical student out of proportion to its magnitude or its achievements, It may be considered in fact the type of the ‘feudal' Jewry of the Middle Ages, as regards composition, activity, and organization. For this reason, its structure deserves detailed examination. 1 Of the Jewries in the principal countries of western Europe in the Middle Ages, indeed, that of England was indubitably the least important, both numerically and culturally. At the time of the Expulsion of 1290 it was believed to comprise approximately 16,000 souls, but this number is probably far higher than the facts warrant. 2 This body was scattered throughout the country, though most thickly in the eastern and south-eastern counties. In the thirteenth century there were twenty-seven centres in which archae for the registration of Jewish debts were established—Bedford, Bristol Canterbury, Colchester, Devizes, Exeter, Hereford, Huntingdon, Ipswich? Lincoln, London, Northampton, Norwich, Nottingham Oxford, Starnfoisl, Wilton Winchester, and York; Berkhamsted, Cambridge, Gloucester, Marlborough, Sudbury, Wallingford, Warwick, and Worcester. At the time of the Expulsion of 1290 they were excluded from the eight places last mentioned, only nineteen communities then existing. 3 Besides these towns there were a few others where settlements had at one time been found, though not provided with an archa: these comprised Bury St. Edmunds, Leicester, Coventry, Derby, Winchelsea, Bridgnorth, Newcastle, Newport, Wycombe, Southampton, Newbury, and some others. In one or two more centres, such as Lynn, the community exterminated by the massacres of 1190 had never been re-established, though individuals may have managed to obtain a foothold. Before the decree of 1253 limiting residence to those towns where communities were then established, isolated households or groups were to be found also in rural centres throughout the country; subsequently, too, some managed to establish themselves in such places, from which they were periodically expelled. 4 The settlement was thickest in the south and east of England. No community existed north of Newcastle-on-Tyne or west of Exeter, though individuals were certainly to be found in Cornwall. 5 None are encountered in Scotland in pre-Expulsion times but Jewish financiers did business from time to time with the Scottish sovereign, an the were settled in those parts of Wales (Conway, Caernarvon, Chepstow, and Caerleon) which were under English influence. In Ireland—we know little of their condition or distribution, but their numbers justified the establishment of a local branch of the Exchequer of the Jews, presided over by the Warden of the Jews of Ireland. 6 It is by no means easy to gauge the relative density of the various communities. To the 'Northampton Donum' of 1194, that of London contributed rather more than one-quarter—a proportion perhaps unduly high by reason of the concentration there of the greatest capitalists and propinquity to the seat of government. Even if we accept the highest estimates of the total Anglo-Jewish population, the community of the capital cannot have comprised more than 2,000 souls, as contrasted with the 2,000 households who impressed the imagination of the medieval Jewish historians: 7 but one-fifth that number is probably nearer the mark. The two communities next in size, those of Lincoln and Canterbury, were perhaps half as large. At the time of the Expulsion, the former included some sixty persons engaged in business transactions on their own account, in many cases, however, belonging to the same family. 8 The average small community is unlikely to have comprised more than fifty to a hundred souls all told. Medieval English Jewry derived in the main from northern France, like the Norman conquerors in whose wake they followed. Their usual port of embarkation (we are informed in Rabbinic sources) was Dieppe, whence, if the winds were good, the English coast might be reached in one day. 9 Relations were close also with the Rhineland. A minority came from farther afield—from Spain, Italy, Morocco, and even Russia. 10 The original element remained, however, predominant. Among themselves the English Jews spoke and even jested in Norman French. 11 They were generally called, too, by French equivalents to their Hebrew names. For the men we find Deuleben or Benedict (Berechiah, Baruch). Bonevie or Vives (Hayyim, generally rendered as Hagin), 12 Bonenfaund (Tob-Etem), Deulesault (Isaiah), Deulcresse or Cresse (Solomon, sometimes Gedaliah), Diai or Deu-ai (Eleazar), Deudone (Nathaniel), Benjamin) Issaac, in its Hebrew form, was shortened by the omission of the first syllable into Cok or Hak, which might be given the diminutive form Hakelin, while by a similar process Jacob became Conin and Samuel Molkin, So, too, Benjamin was anglicized as Bateman, while Asher with obvious allusion to Genesis xlix, 20, became Sweteman. Purely non-Jewish names, such as Thomas or Peter (corresponding to Perez) are occasionally found, the tendency increasing in the thirteenth century. 13 For women a Hebrew equivalent was considered unnecessary, and we find picturesque appellations such as Belaset (Bellassez), Duzelina Precieuse, Licoricia, Regina, Chera Pasturella, Glorietta, Mirabilia, Brunetta, Bona: with some Anglo-Saxon forms such as Swetecot, Gertelot, or Alfild. 14 Surnames, so far as they were in use, indicated place of origin (Lumbard, Peiteven, Angevin, 15 le Francais, de Hibernia etc.) occupation (le Mire, le Scriveneur or le'Escrivein, le Pointur) 16 or personal peculiarity, (Rufus, le Gros, Le Long, le Enveyse, le Fort, l'Aveugle). Only in a few cases like l’Eveske (Cohen) 17 Comtissa (nessiah): apparently deriving from the name of an ancestress), or Kokhab Star: perhaps applied to as family originating at Estella in Navarre) did they correspond to surnames in the modern sense. More distinctively English in form were the agnomens Russell (Ursel), Bullock, Barlibred, Hanprid, Furmentin, or Bigelm. But it was more usual for a Jew to be distinguished from others of the same name by indicating his city of residence, the name of his father, or, exceptionally (perhaps when the father died young, or was less prominent in business) that of his mother. Rabbis were generally referred to, even in secular records, as 'Master' (Magister). Outwardly the English Jew of the Middle Ages resembled his contemporaries. In the thirteenth century the most usual external garment for was a hooded cloak, through the typical pointed Jewish hat the pileum cornutum (as prescribed by the Council of Vienna in 1267), was also worn. The hair, but not the beard, was allowed to grow long. Women wore the crown-shaped head-dress and wimple characteristic of the period. 18 The superficial resemblance to general population must have indeed been considerable in order to justify the Jewish badge, which was enforced in England earlier and more consistently than any other country in Europe after its establishment by the Lateran Council of 1215. It was first put into vigour in 1218 by the earl marshall, who ordered every Jew, at all times in the city or outside it, walking or riding should wear upon his outer garment a piece of white cloth or parchment whereby he might be distinguished from Christians, the sign was to take the form of the so-called tabula – the legendary shape of the Two Tables of Stone which bore the Ten Commandments – symbolizing the Old Testament. The injunction was repeated in 1222 at the Council of Oxford, when it was enacted that all Jews of either sex should wear on the breast a badge two fingers wide and four long, of a different colour from the rest of the garment. In 1253 Henry III renewed the clause, ordering the tabula to be borne in a prominent position. Edward I returned to the charge in his Statutum de Judeismo of 1275. In order to secure greater prominence, he stipulated the colour of the badge and increased the size. A piece of yellow taffeta, six fingers long and three broad, cut in the same shape as before, was henceforth to be worn over his heart by every Jew above the age of seven years (elsewhere the age-limit was much higher). 19 Two years later an inquiry was instituted into the manner in which this and other regulations were being obeyed. The result was seen in 1279 when orders were issued once more emphasizing the necessity for Jewish women as well as men to wear the Badge of Shame. The Synod of Exeter, in 1287, repeated the ecclesiastical injunction. There was plainly very little opportunity for forgetfulness; it was not one of the occasions when medieval legislation expressed only an ideal. As elsewhere in Europe in the Middle Ages the Jews were reckonedservi camerae regis, or Serfs of the Royal Chamber. Nowhere, indeed, was this laid down more explicitly. Henry III's 'Mandate to the Justices assigned to the Custody of the Jews' of 1253 started with the specific injunction that 'no Jew remain in England, unless he perform the service of the King: and immediately any Jew shall be born, male or female, he shall serve Us in some manner'. In the so-called 'Laws of Edward the Confessor' (which, though apocryphal, faithfully represent the point of view of the middle of the twelfth century), the constitutional theory of the period is succinctly summed up: 'All Jews, wherever in the realm they are, must be under the King's liege protection and guardianship, nor can any of them put himself under the protection of any powerful person without the King's licence, because the Jews themselves and all their chattels are the King's. If therefore anyone detain them or their money, the King may claim them, if he so desire and if he is able, as his own’. Apart from this general authority, a power yet more absolute was exercised over the king's 'demesne Jews' resident in the royal boroughs or Crown lands. 20 This absolute proprietorship was sometimes demonstrated by the concession of wealthy individuals as a gift to Court favourites, with the sole right of exploitation. Thus, at the close of the reign of Henry III, his son Edmund was presented with Aaron fil' Vives, a conspicuous member of the London community. The latter was unusually fortunate in certain respects, for he received permission to establish himself in any city of the kingdom that he pleased, and was exempted by his new master from all extraordinary financial burdens in return for an annual tribute of a pair of gilt spurs. The profit expected to accrue through his activities must, on the other hand, have been very great, as a special chirograph chest was to be maintained for him wherever he might be resident and an assessor was appointed to act in the Jewish Exchequer in his master's interest should any case concerning 'his' Jew come before it. 21 Magnates indeed regarded the presence of Jews on their demesne as highly desirable, would invite them to settle on payment of a purely nominal tribute (such as a pair of silver spoons), and would obtain from the Crown letters of protection to safeguard them. 22 Even the queen, the papal legate, or the Archbishop of Canterbury did not disdain to solicit special privileges for some favoured individual. 23 As a natural consequence of this state of utter dependence, the Crown expected to profit—and to profit immoderately—at every stage of the life and activity of the Jew. A heavy payment—sometimes as much as 2,000 marks—was exacted from foreigners for permission to reside and carry on business in England. When a business transaction was registered at the archa, a fee was paid by both parties. The profits of justice, if a lawsuit resulted, belonged as a matter of course to the king. Moreover, before initiating judicial proceedings, the Jew had to pay twenty shillings—three times as much as a Christian did in similar circumstances; and if he procured a writ of recovery (costing one bezant) one-tenth of the proceeds devolved on the Exchequer. No acquittance was valid unless properly enrolled, a fee being of course exacted. 24 During the last phase, moreover, each individual had to pay a poll-tax, ultimately devoted to the upkeep of the Domus Conversorum in London. The routine profits of Jewry, during the eight lean years after the Battle of Evesham, amounted on an average to upwards of £400. This regular revenue was, however, only a detail of the total obtained. In certain circumstances a debtor would make a cash payment to the king so as to be absolved from the payment of the interest, or even principal, of his debt to a Jew; alternatively, on a plea of penury, he might obtain an order for an 'extent' or valuation of his means, which would be followed by instructions to his creditor to grant 'reasonable terms' (sometimes derisory) for repayment. Jews, on the other hand, sometimes paid heavy sums for an undertaking, not always observed, that no 'extents' affecting them would be made during a specified period. 25 For a variety of misdemeanours a Jew's entire property might be confiscated, though in exceptional circumstances sufficient would be left for his sustenance. Even when one became converted to Christianity everything he had previously possessed went to the Crown, as having been amassed in sin. 26 Although the third Lateran Council had expressed its disapproval of this practice, it was only under Edward I that the right was waived, the convert being permitted henceforth to retain half while the rest was devoted to the Domus Conversorum. But there was an even more paradoxical practice: if a Jew, excommunicated by his co-religionists, failed to make his peace with them within forty days, the Crown confiscated all his worldly goods. The normal occurrences of life were no less sedulously exploited; and though such payments were not the prerogative of any single section of the nation, the Jew was a far more regular source of profit than his neighbour. He would pay for permission to change his place of abode, or to live in some place where there was no settled community, or to enter into partnership, or to alter his name, 27 or to marry the person of his choice, or to be divorced, or to attend a wedding in London, or to employ a Christian nurse for his son, or to have the custody of children. The communities of the realm would find money for proceedings to be taken against some person whose conduct they considered compromising, or to be withheld from some person whom they thought innocent. Moreover, a levy would be made, from the generality or from individuals, on the occasion of the marriage of a member of the royal family, or when the king returned safe from a journey, or when the queen was in childbed. Sometimes the spoliation called for no excuse at all. 28 From the reign of John the principal source of income from the Jews was by tallage, hitherto regarded as an extraordinary expedient resorted to only in emergency. So commonplace did this become that under Henry III, when a marriage was arranged between young people, it was thought necessary to make special provision to meet this probable contingency: 29 while a London financier, by a species of primitive insurance, paid heavily for a guarantee that he would not be tallaged at a higher rate than 100 marks annually for a specified period of years. 30 There was no limit to the violence that might be employed on the occasion of a levy, the imprisonment of all the Jews or the leading householders, sometimes accompanied by their wives and children, often serving as a preliminary. 31 At times of greater moderation, representatives of the communities of the realm might be summoned together at some central spot to divide the burden among themselves. Alternatively, it would be apportioned by a special commission, consisting sometimes of as few as two, and sometimes of as many as twelve prominent Jews appointed by the Crown; they occasionally acted in conjunction with an elected or co-opted element, which however was always in a minority. 32 Sureties, up to forty in number (sometimes identical with the assessors), would be nominated on occasion and held responsible for the collection of the full amount. In each community there would be a small committee of 'tallagers' in which the three economic classes—wealthy, well-to-do, and poor—might have separate representation: 33 in accordance with Rabbinic law, however, members had to stand aside when the contribution of a close relative came up for consideration. Taxpayers had the right to appeal against their assessment, a mixed jury inquiring into their means. 34 On the other hand, a community which was not represented in the Assessment Commission might make a payment to the king to ensure that one of its members should be present to watch its interests when the time came. 35 Generally speaking, those with a capital of less than forty shillings did not have to contribute, though under John this amount was exacted even from the poorest. The levy was usually preceded by an inspection of the archae, by which it was possible to ascertain what outstanding credits every businessman possessed. In case the full contributions were not paid, the recalcitrant were banished and their property confiscated, unless they had anticipated this by flight—a contingency which the authorities did everything to prevent. The Jews on their side enforced payment by means of excommunication, the only weapon at their command; but this was superfluous when they were in agreement with the authorities, and futile when they were not. 36 The royal prerogatives over the Jew included that of confiscating his property on his death (as on his conversion), on the ground that it had been acquired by sinful methods. This right—which applied to non-Jewish usurers as well—was carried into execution by Henry II in the classic case of Aaron of Lincoln, and was reaffirmed by Henry III a century after as regards real estate. 37 Yet it was seldom so drastic in reality as it was in theory; for it was obviously to the royal interest to leave the heirs sufficient to carry on business and amass taxable profit. Generally, on the death of a wealthy Jew, his estate was attached and liquidated by a mixed jury sitting in conjunction with representatives of the family. A third part would be retained by the Crown, while the rest would be allowed to devolve according to Jewish law of inheritance or the testamentary dispositions of the deceased. 38 It was presumably in order to forestall this right that gifts of houses were sometimes madeinter vivos. Thus, for example, grandparents would transfer rights over their property to a grandson on the express condition that they could continue in occupation as long as they lived. 39 Often the king's portion of the assets of a deceased usurer was commuted by a fine or 'relief'. This was payable by instalments, the estate being released as soon as adequate security was furnished. The amounts thus exacted were huge. When Hamo of Hereford died in 1235 his daughter paid a total of 11,000 marks as a relief, this being nearly six times as much as the maximum which could legally be exacted from the son of an earl. 40 Frequently, moreover, the Crown lawyers might make out a case for complete confiscation on the ground of some alleged misdemeanour. If the deceased left infant children the king assumed the right of wardship as a matter of course, granting release only on the payment of a substantial fine and taking similar toll in the event of marriage. In the case of Aaron of York, Henry III avariciously began the exaction of the death duties before his demise; but this was an unprecedented abuse. Apart from this continual financial exploitation, the Jews of England were submitted to a number of petty vexations. At one time they were prevented from burying their dead until all claims upon the property were settled. (This abuse was specifically prohibited by the traditional charter of liberties.) They were not permitted to sell to Christians meat found ritually unfit for Jewish use. Synagogues, or even private houses, might be seized and destroyed because they were in proximity to Christian churches. 41 As in many places on the Continent—particularly in southern Europe—they were compelled on occasion to act as torturers and executioners, and in this capacity they incurred great obloquy at the close of the reign of John. 42 In certain respects, on the other hand, they enjoyed unmistakable privileges. 43 If they were the property of the king and whatever they possessed or amassed belonged to him, it followed that he was vitally interested in protecting them and giving them facilities to carry on their business. They were the only persons in the country expressly authorized to lend money at interest. They could sue in the royal courts for recovery, and distrain upon their security with the assistance of the royal officers. They were empowered to travel about the country without interference, though not allowed to emigrate unless they had special licence. Up to the middle of the thirteenth century they might settle where they pleased, with the exception of the few towns from which they had been excluded. They were exempt from paying any custom or toll or any due on wine, in just the same way as the king himself whose chattels they were. 44 They followed the royal Court and did business in the royal ante-chamber. Though their conversion was encouraged, the employment of force for that purpose was forbidden; and the children of converts were allowed (nominally at least) to choose freely what religion they desired to follow. 45 To counterbalance the reduction of debts due to Jews, the king might order a commission of 'honest and trustworthy men' to inquire into the means of a recalcitrant debtor, and see whether he was in fact unwilling or unable to pay what he owed. They were consistently protected against violence or attack. The sheriffs and other royal officers always intervened to shield them when necessary, and the royal castles were generally open for them to take refuge in times of emergency. When in 1267 certain Jews paid the king a fine in order to remain at Bridgnorth, they stipulated that they were to be allowed the use of the castle in time of danger. 46 In Winchester Castle their habitual refuge went by the name of the Jews' Tower. 47 In their external relations the Jews were governed in accordance with a somewhat indeterminate body of privileges, regulations, precedents and customary law, probably never codified, known as the Assize of Jewry. 48 They could look, as of right, to the king for justice, which, as Edward I wrote, 49 'we are bound to administer to Jews as well as to Christians'. Jurisdiction in cases in which they were involved was reserved to the Crown—a profitable monopoly, indeed, but one that must necessarily have saved them from much unfair discrimination. 50 In the law-courts the Jew enjoyed certain prescriptive rights. If he summoned a Christian for the payment of a debt, he was allowed to produce in evidence the agreement drawn up between them. In commercial suits a jury composed of twelve Jewish businessmen was assembled to inquire into the facts. Instead of bringing eleven 'compurgators' to attest to his character, a Jewish suspect who found it difficult to muster this number might purge himself by his bare oath while holding a Scroll of the Hebrew Pentateuch—a solemnity regarded with the utmost awe. If, on the other hand, he stood his trial, he enjoyed (except during an interlude after the accession of Edward I) the privilege of having a mixed jury, on which Jews and Christians were represented in equal numbers. In certain cases (such as sacrilege, blasphemy, illicit connexion with a Christian woman, or striking a clerk) the Church claimed jurisdiction. This was hotly disputed by the royal courts, in which the accused might acquit himself if he produced a Christian and a Jew to testify to his innocence, and the question became part of the larger issues between the ecclesiastical and secular tribunals. However, in 1258, at the Council of Merton, it was decided that those who refused to plead before the Bishop's Court in such cases should be placed under an interdict, the faithful being forbidden under pain of excommunication to traffic, contract, or converse with them. 51 A social and commercial boycott of this sort was a very serious matter even for Jews, and it is probable that the attempt to reduce them to obedience was successful. In Oxford there was a prolonged dispute, regarding the jurisdiction in cases between students and their Jewish creditors, between the Constable of the Castle and the Chancellor of the University, but it was ultimately settled in favour of the latter. 52 The main occupation of the Jews of England down to the last years—the pretext for the toleration which they enjoyed and the sole officialraison d'êtreof their existence—was the profession of moneylending, forbidden by canon law yet indispensable for the exigencies of daily life. In this the smooth-tongued infidels were ubiquitous. There was no limit on the nature of the pledges which they were prepared to accept, from wearing apparel to agricultural produce, from jewellery to loads of hay, from books to knightly armour. They would make advances to the king on the security of the ferm of the shire and to the housewife on the security of her household pots. 53 The only restrictions legally imposed were with regard to bloodstained cloth 54 (which might have been acquired as the outcome of violent robbery) and church vessels used in Divine worship. However (as has been seen) the latter restriction was so far neglected under Henry II that they actually made loans on the security of holy relics. 55 Priests and religious houses raised money by pledging their Gospels, Decretals, and theological works. 56 At one time it was averred that the poor students of Oxford had pawned so many of their books with the Jews that they could not go on with their studies. 57 The most lucrative transactions, however, were on the security of land or rent-charges, many houses falling into Jewish hands by this means, especially in London. This continued until late in the reign of Henry III, when the new restrictions virtually confined the erstwhile Jewish financier to pawnbroking. 58 So closely did the details of the process of lending money on landed security resemble the later system of mortgage that it is not wholly unreasonable to trace its origin to these Jewish transactions. There was a considerable co-operative element in this activity. Not only did the greater of the financiers maintain local agents everywhere, but also—in part for convenience, in part for security, in part because of the difficulty of providing large sums at short notice—they worked in close collaboration, sometimes amounting almost to partnership, with one another. There thus came into existence an elaborate system of interrelated loan offices, always prepared to furnish reciprocal assistance for any lucrative transaction. The recurrence on the records of certain names, time after time—e.g. in the thirteenth century, those of Aaron of York, David of Oxford, Moses of London, or Hamo of Hereford—suggests that the most important business was carried on in the name of a few leading personalities, the capital used by whom represented the united riches of the entire nexus at the head of which they stood. Every son and son-in-law would in due course enter into the family business, each thus having at his command what appeared to his simple clients to be unlimited resources. 59 The rate of interest was high, though it tended to decrease after one or two preliminary operations had instilled mutual confidence. 60 Exceptionally it would reach 6o per cent. or even 87 per cent., though there would be special reasons for so high a rate. 61 More usually it varied between one penny and twopence in the pound weekly, or 21 2/3 to 43 1/3 per cent. per annum. This last figure, recognized as a fair charge in the twelfth century, was fixed under Henry III as the maximum rate even for Oxford students. 62 In consideration of the extreme uncertainty that always prevailed, and the crushingly heavy dues exacted by the Crown, this was not excessive, even by modern standards. 63 Moreover, even in the case of Jewish loans, interest nominally began to run (at least on some occasions) only after the lapse of five or six months, so as to avoid the appearance of usury. 64 Compound interest on the other hand was strictly forbidden. This fact obviously caused a greater rapacity or greater disingenuousness on the part of the creditor, for whom a fresh operation with enhanced capital was far more profitable than a protraction of the old one. Notwithstanding all these restrictions, a sum lent out at the legal rate would double itself in a couple of years. This fact explains what appeared to be the unlimited resources of the Jews and their prodigious power of recovery. After a year and a day, the Jewish creditor had the right to realize the pledge deposited with him. Sometimes, accompanied by the royal officers, he would go to distrain upon the property which was now legally his own; an operation which invariably led to resentment and sometimes to blows. In the case of real estate, he took formal 'seisin', and received the fealty of the tenants. 65 Since, however, a Jew could not hold land in fee 66 he would either sell his acquisition after holding it for a year to establish his claim, or else administer it and recoup himself out of the income. In the first part of the reign of Henry III the former process led to considerable transference of property, to the detriment in some cases of the feudal prerogatives of the Crown. As has been seen, the right to make loans on the security of real estate was from this period progressively restricted. 67 Even before this it had become usual, in disposing of property, to bar subsequent re-transfer to Jews (as to the Church) which might result in the loss of feudal rights by the tenant-in-chief; and over a long period the insertion of the clauseexceptis locis religiosis et judeismowas customary in all such contracts. 68 As elsewhere in Europe, the financial operations of the Jews were not looked upon with unmitigated odium, the methods of their irregular Christian competitors being even more disliked. Robert Grosseteste, the great bishop of Lincoln, scornfully compared the fixed rate of interest charged by Jewish moneylenders with the crafty system of the Cahorsins, who would make out a bond for half as much again as the amount of the loan, payable at the end of the year, thus exacting 50 per cent. interest for however short a period. 69 Another method practised by the latter was to lend the amount free of interest for the first three months, but to charge as much as 50 per cent. for every three months afterwards. It is noteworthy that, in the petition of the barons presented in 1258 at Oxford, complaint was made of the grinding activities of the Christian usurers only: with respect to the Jews the solitary abuse mentioned was that the great magnates to whom they sold their debts abused their position, by absorbing the pledged property into their demesne farms. In the thirteenth century, the notorious Chamberlain of the Exchequer, Adam de Stratton, made a practice of buying up Jewish' debts as extensively as possible, leaving them in the names of the former principals. The latter thus became mere collectors on behalf of a Gentile, Stratton being in effect one of the most important money-lenders of his day. Great magnates also bought up debts owing to Jews which they exacted themselves—for example, William of Valence, Henry III's half-brother, or even the notorious Jew- baiter Gilbert Clare, earl of Gloucester. 70 The economic function performed by the Jews could not easily have been dispensed with. Thus at Oxford, it was only after 1262, when the St. Frideswide's Chest and similar funds were founded, that the needy student had any alternative but recourse to them when he required assistance; and it was some time before the new public institutions were able to replace them adequately. For two major occupations of the Middle Ages—building and warfare—the assistance of the Jew was indispensable. The great English capitalists of the twelfth century, such as Aaron of Lincoln, were responsible in part for a good deal of the ecclesiastical construction which characterized that period. A Jew advanced money to Strongbow at the time of his raid on Ireland; and the Third Crusade, from which the Jews of England suffered so terribly, was rendered possible largely by their monetary assistance. In normal times they were resorted to by the baronage for ready money to defray their 'scutage', whereby they acquitted themselves of their obligations to the Crown without direct military service. Jewish activities thus assisted in a certain measure in building up a strong central authority on the ruins of the feudal system. The unending expenses of medieval litigation could sometimes be met only with the help of some accommodating Jew. Thus at each stage of the long process between 1159 and 1163 by which the young aristocrat Richard of Anesty recovered his family lands—obtaining the king's writ from across the sea, sending his clerks to Rome, pleading in the various courts, having his writ of appeal sealed, making payments to the Exchequer, and every other point of the interminable procedure—it was to some Jewish financier that he turned for help. 71 And it was to Jews, too, that the king regularly resorted for crude gold for his personal use, so that in the thirteenth century they filled a function almost equivalent to that of official bullion-brokers to the Crown. 72 From the period of the reorganization under Richard I these activities were carefully regulated and controlled. In each of the major communities of the country a so-called archa or chirograph chest was established. This was administered by four 'chirographers', of whom two were Jews and two Christians, assisted by two copyists and a Clerk of the Escheats. The chirographers were chosen by mixed juries summoned by the sheriffs, consisting of Jews and Christians in equal number, and on election were required to find sureties for their good conduct. 73 In their presence all contracts between Christians and Jews had to be drawn up and registered. 74 These were in the form of an indenture, the bond being written on a strip of parchment, together with a duplicate copy or memorandum to the same effect. The two sections would be divided by cutting in an irregular line through the word Chirographum written in bold characters across the entire width. The original was sealed and delivered to the creditor, the duplicate retained by the debtor or deposited in the archa constituting a safeguard against fraudulent alteration. 75 In the middle of the thirteenth century the practice was altered, the sealed part being retained by the chirographers and counterparts issued to both of the parties concerned. Each transaction was, moreover, recorded in three special rolls—one kept by the clerks, one by the Christian chirographers, and one by their Jewish associates (in this case, in Hebrew). 76 Later, yet a fourth was prepared, for consultation in case of need by the Clerk of the Escheats. The presence of a majority of the officials was necessary for any valid transaction. On the repayment of the loan the Jew would make out an acquittance. This was called by the Hebrew term Shetar, which, under its Latin form Starrum, passed into general currency, and may possibly have given its title to the notorious Star Chamber at Westminster. 77 These documents were generally written in Hebrew with a Latin transcript, sometimes in Latin alone—in one or two instances in Hebrew characters—occasionally in Norman French. They were signed by the creditor in Hebrew, and his seal was appended (English restrictions in this respect did not go quite as far as those in France, where after 1223 the use of seals by Jews was forbidden). A receipt of this nature entitled the debtor to the cancellation and delivery of thepes, or foot, of the original bond of indebtedness. However, from the middle of the thirteenth century at least, no acquittance was valid unless enrolled at the Exchequer of the Jews—a regulation which incidentally brought considerable profit to the Treasury. Sometimes the receipts would be given in the form of a wooden 'tally' with notches and cuts indicating the amount, which was split longitudinally so as to make a duplicate record. Some hundreds of these, recording Jewish transactions or payments, are still preserved. 78 As co-ordinating authority over the provincial archae, the Exchequer of the Jews (Scaccarium Judaeorum) established under Richard I, continued its activities in its official chamber on the west side of Westminster Hall. 79 Its functions were threefold. In the first place there was the financial side, as it supervised the collection of tallages and other income derived from Jewry. 80 Secondly, it was an administrative body, acting as the channel of communication between the Crown and the Jewish communities, all new members of which had to present themselves before it for enrolment. Finally, it was a judicial body, deciding in disputes involving Jews or those which arose, directly or indirectly, out of transactions between them and Gentiles. 81 It had cognizance ultimately in all cases in which property once in Jewish hands was concerned. Thus it played quite an important part in the judicial administration of the country, sometimes in matters in which Jews were not immediately implicated, a large part of its business dealing with land transferred to fresh ownership because of the activities of Jewish financiers. At its head, as we have seen, were the Wardens or Justices of the Jews(Custodes Judaeorum, Justitiarii ad custodiam judaeorum as signati, &c.) varying in number between two and five. Sometimes, though not always, there was nominally included among them the Presbyter Judaeorum, who attended their sessions as technical adviser in specifically Jewish matters and kept certain records. 82 If he were unable to be present, he had to appoint a deputy. 83 One of the Jewish chirographers of the London archa generally acted as clerk of the court, while there was also a Jewish escheater to supervise the liquidation of those estates which fell into the king's hands, and an assessor to collect theaurum reginae, of 10 per cent. on the renewal of leases and granting of charters, which was due to the queen. 84 The Justices of the Jews were, however, subordinated, on one occasion at least, to a higher official more directly amenable to control, to whom the king 'committed the superior care of his Jewry'. 85 A branch of the Scaccarium Judaeorum, presided over by its own Warden (usually non-resident, and identical with one of the Justices), supervised the affairs of the handful of Jews in Ireland. The careful system of recording all operations carried on by Jews, to which the Jewish Exchequer owed its origin, was of considerable importance. Through this it became possible for the wealth of the financiers to be assessed and taxed without any possibility of evasion. Moreover, henceforth the levies were not necessarily paid in cash. When it was desired to exact a new tallage, the archae could be impounded and bonds to the desired amount sent to the Exchequer in a closed pyx. 86 Ultimately the Crown preferred to levy its dues in the form of well-secured debts rather than promissory notes which might not be met punctually. Again, it was by no means unusual for bonds of indebtedness to change hands, by purchase or otherwise. They served almost as banknotes, and their existence considerably increased the available currency. 87 It is not difficult to imagine that a Jew of London, whose business took him to Exeter, would purchase from one of his co-religionists a well-secured debt registered in the local archa. The bond relating to this (suitably endorsed) he would take with him to cash or to discount upon his arrival. In this way the Jews stimulated the development of the credit system of the country as a whole. It is out of the question that the entirety of English Jewry can have been engaged in the predominant occupation of moneylending. The communal magnates were certainly financiers. Dependent upon them, however, directly or indirectly, there would necessarily be numerous subordinates, agents and clerks to help in their business, synagogal officials to carry out divine worship, scribes to draw up their business documents or to copy out their literary and devotional compositions, attendants to perform the household services forbidden by the Church to Gentiles. No roll of the community of London, in the twelfth century, contains more than forty names, but it can hardly be doubted that this represents only a minority of the total number of heads of family. Some of the great financiers—Jacob of London or Benedict of York—seem to have maintained numerous household staffs. Aaron of Lincoln and his homonym, Aaron of York, had their agents all over England. Though the overwhelming majority of the documents at our disposal deal with the financiers, a minority was engaged in other professions. The records furnish the names of at least twelve physicians. We meet with one even at a small place such as Lynn, where his practice must have been almost exclusively amongst the general population: while at Norwich, in the thirteenth century, the profession was hereditary in one family. 88 Master Elias (Elijah Menahem) of London, just before the Expulsion, enjoyed such reputation that he was summoned by the Count of Hainault to go overseas to attend upon him. 89 An occasional Jewish goldsmith is encountered, including one in the service of King John. 90 If the admission of Benedict fil' Abraham to the merchant-gild at Winchester in 1268 was not an empty compliment, it is obvious that he must have engaged in trade. 91 At Norwich we encounter Diaia le Scalarius ('the ladder-maker'), and at Gloucester Abraham le Skirmiseur, or fencing-master. 92 The moneylenders, too, might be involved in commercial operations when the pledges in their hands—especially jewels and luxury articles—remained unredeemed. Some persons, up to 1271 at least, could have lived comfortably from their rent-rolls, though from the close of the reign of Henry III there was an increasing tendency to confiscate all real estate in a Jew's hands on his death. 93 Hebrew sources indicate that the Jews in England, as elsewhere, were engaged to some extent in peddling, particularly of cloth; 93B and they certainly imported wine on a large scale, and not only for their own use. 94 After the Statutum de Judeismo, as has been seen, the Jews tended to engage especially in the corn and wool trades. A legend of some antiquity preserves the name even of a Jewish artist, Marlibrun of Billingsgate, who, like his contemporaries in Spain, did not scruple to paint holy images. 95 Several suggestively Biblical names, such as Isaac of York, figure on the coinage of the twelfth century as minters, in which calling a Canterbury convert was certainly engaged at this time. 96 Jewesses played a significant part in economic life. Every roll of English Jewry mentions the names of women who contributed important sums to the Exchequer—not always the widows of dead financiers, but frequently wives or perhaps even spinsters in business on their own account. Belaset of Wallingford, and Licoricia, widow of David of Oxford, were among the most active English financiers of the thirteenth century. Even Margaret, daughter of Jurnet of Norwich and a Christian heiress, 97 is found engaging in independent business transactions. Such activity was assisted by the conspicuously high judicial and social status of women in Jewish life, which compared very favourably with that of the ordinary Englishwoman of the period. While completely subject to the Crown in external matters, the Jewish communities of the kingdom enjoyed amongst themselves a considerable degree of autonomy. As elsewhere, they exercised the right of levying domestic taxation. 98 Their communal regulations, licensed by the Crown on the payment of the inevitable fee, were enforced even by the civil power. Domestic disputes were decided by their own authorities in accordance with Talmudic law—a right envied by the Church which was apparently granted by Henry II, confirmed by John, and utilized when convenient by the authorities. On one occasion, for example, application was made to the 'Masters of the Law' for a ruling upon the vexed question, whether it was permissible for one Jew to take usury from another, 99 and on another, they were allowed to decide that a person who did not intimate his religious allegiance immediately he was questioned could no longer be considered a Jew. 100 The Jewish courts were regularly resorted to for decision in matrimonial cases, and institutions of Jewish civil law (such as the right of a widow to a prior claim on her late husband's chattels for the repayment of her dowry 101 or the Rabbinic institution of usucaption or prescriptive right) 102 were unquestioningly admitted by the authorities. However (by a sort of counterpart of the law of praemunire, which forbade recourse to ecclesiastical tribunals abroad), steps were taken to keep such jurisdiction within the realm and to prevent appeal from the English Rabbis to authorities on the Continent. 103 This judicial autonomy was qualified only in cases of the so-called 'pleas of the Crown' (homicide, assault, rape, housebreaking, larceny, arson, treasure trove, and mayhem) which always had to be tried before the royal justices. In many cases an exclusively Jewish jury of twelve persons was sworn, it being presumed that they would have a greater knowledge of the facts. All legal documents between Jew and Jew were drawn up in Hebrew, and according to the Rabbinic formulae. Their wills, made in accordance with the Talmudic prescriptions, were recognized as valid by the courts, while if a person died intestate, his property was divided among his heirs in accordance with Jewish practice. 104 The ultimate sanction for the enforcement of internal regulations was that of excommunication, which was recognized by and on occasion turned to the profit of the Crown. (As we have seen, a person who remained under the ban for more than forty days had his property confiscated to the exchequer.) More than once licence was given for putting under the ban those who failed to pay the amounts promised for the upkeep of the cemetery in London, with the proviso that any eventual profits should accrue to the king. 105 The Jews of every city claimed a voice in determining the composition of the community. Thus, in 1266, those of Canterbury bound themselves by oath not to allow any 'liar, improper person or slanderer' from another town to come to live there, and stipulated what should be done in case some undesirable immigrant were provided with royal licence. 106 The internal organization of English Jewry in the Middle Ages was very similar to that which prevailed elsewhere in Europe. Life centred about the synagogues (scholae judaeorum), 107 of which, down to the close of the thirteenth century, all the important communities had more than one. These were mostly small establishments, often maintained by wealthy magnates in their own houses. 108 Here, as places of general assembly, communal meetings would be held, excommunications fulminated, and announcements made. The synagogue formed also the channel of communication with the civil authorities, necessary proclamations being made in it, both in Latin and in Hebrew, 109 on two or three Sabbaths in succession. Inquiries were made in it, too, concerning outstanding debts. If a man were banished he had to 'abjure the realm' there publicly, holding a Scroll of the Law in his arms. At the head of the community (UniversitasorCommunitas judaeorum) of each place stood itsbaillivus, corresponding to the Hebrewparnas(‘Pernaz' in the records). The gabbai, or Treasurer, is also mentioned frequently. The salaried officials included theshohetor ritual butcher, thehazanor reader ('Chanteur'), and presumably the sexton ('Chapeleyn', 'Capellanus'). 110 The institution of the professional Rabbi had barely made its appearance, though 'masters of the Jewish law' (well-known business magnates in some cases, as well as scholars) were to be found in most places. 111 The authority they exercised was principally moral, though none the less effective: yet they claimed the power to inflict physical punishment on stubborn members of their flock. 112 England had its representatives of the German ascetico-mystical school of Hasidim (literally 'pious'), who, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, are found in more than one centre. 113 The average English Jew of the Middle Ages followed the hardly less strenuous path of normal observance, though there were occasional instances of laxity. The synagogue ritual was very similar to that followed in France, though not lacking independent features. 114 Up to the reaction at the close of the twelfth century the Jews seem to have lived on excellent terms with their neighbours. They discussed religious questions together in a friendly spirit. To the surprise of Jewish authorities they drank together (the specially prepared wine for their use being imported normally from France or Germany). 115 They rode together on journeys. 116 No objection was raised even to their presence in churches and monasteries, where they sent their chattels confidently for safe keeping. 117 They might enter into arrangements with their debtors even in the ante-chamber of the Archbishop of York. 118 Cases of intermarriage were not altogether unknown. Converts Judaism, included clerics as well as laymen some, of whom apparently escaped untoward consequences. 119 Down to the very end the wheel did not turn full circle. It was possible for a Jew of Oxford to find twelve burghers to testify that he had been 'brought up amongst them from infancy, and bore himself ever leally in all manner of lealty'. 120 In Winchester Benedict fil' Abraham was admitted in 1268 into 'full membership of the liberty of the city, and citizenship, and gild rights in the Merchant Gild, with all the privileges in the said liberty'. 121 A Jewess of the same city, in 1258, bequeathed a ring to the king, as though he were the most benevolent of monarchs. 122 Conversely, the royal charity extended even to a Jewish cripple. 123 In 1277 there was a famous case at Colchester, when Jews and Christians were arraigned together for the offence of chasing a deer through the town. 124 As late as 1286, when the gloomiest period in the history of English Jewry had dawned, a wealthy financier of Hereford invited his Christian friends to his daughter's wedding, which was celebrated with great pomp. Bishop Swinfield, aghast at such conviviality, prohibited attendance under pain of excommunication, but even this was an insufficient deterrent. 125 Down to the eve of the Expulsion, despite the attempt to enforce segregation, Jewish visitors to London would lodge with their attendants and horses at the houses of Christians. 126 During the unrest at the time of the Barons' Wars they were frequently able to take refuge in the houses of their neighbours, or deposit property with them. Sometimes, indeed, the latter would place it with their own in church, where it would be safe from molestation. 127 When order was restored, it was a friendly Gentile who was sent abroad to bring the infant son of the martyred Cok fil' Aaron back to England. 128 Generally speaking, crimes of violence against the Jews were punished like any others, though the system of frank-pledge (or mutual responsibility among members of a tithing) did not apply in the case of members of the Jewish cornmunity. 129 Inevitably the English Jews shared the prejudices and superstitions of their environment. Eminent scholars, such as Rabbi Elijah Menahem of London, dabbled in magical prescriptions for medical purposes, or to save houses from fire; and the imprisonment of a demon in a signet-ring was an achievement credited to one English Jew of the period. In cases of sickness they might resort to the care of Christian women who specialized in charms, though it was more common for Christians to consult them regarding their future fate and actions. 130 They were quite prepared to regard barnacle geese as a vegetable product, though not with quite the same credulity as their neighbours, who, in controversy with them, adduced the same mythical creature as proof of the possibility of the Virgin Birth. 131 The standard of conduct amongst English Jews was not supernaturally perfect. The majority of the offences encountered amongst them were naturally connected with their business, 132 though there can be no doubt that at the close some were driven to the sordid offence of coin-clipping. Crimes of violence were not rare, the medieval English Jew not being by any means a paragon of meekness, whether his own co-religionists or Gentiles—even soldiers 133 —were involved. We find a few cases of murder 134 and some trespasses against the Forest Laws. 135 Sexual offences are not common, and the most circumstantial allegation on record failed to result in a conviction. 136 Though the Assize of Arms deprived them after 1181 of the possession of weapons, some English Jews had no objection to settling their differences by the ordeal of battle, like true sons of their age. 137 That they were not lacking in military proficiency is apparent from the fact that a French Jew named Hanuchin was given special licence to live in England because of the good service he had done during the wars in Normandy under King John. 138 They seem to have been found particularly suitable as cross-bowmen and sergeants-at-arms, who needed special technical training and did not form part of the feudal levy; and several converts from Judaism are found serving in these capacities. 139 As was customary at the period betrothals were arranged between children too young to undertake the responsibilities of marriage, the ceremony being deferred as long as four years after the preliminaries. 140 After the wedding the young couple would live in the house of the bride's father for a year or more, the latter undertaking to provide them with food and clothing, to discharge any tallage which might be imposed during that period, and even to engage a teacher with whom his son-in-law might continue to study. 141 If a girl were left an orphan her brothers would bind themselves by deed to find her a 'becoming and pleasant spouse' and to give her an adequate dowry, as well as to make proper provision for their mother. 142 The marriage settlement made by the bridegroom would normally amount to as much as £100 'according to the custom of the Isle'—a striking commentary upon the general prosperity of the community. 143 The Jews were pioneers in the art of domestic architecture. Their high standard of comfort, their foreign connexions and experience, and above all their need of security, all combined to bring this about. They were apparently among the first to introduce the use of stone houses for ordinary occupation into England, and in the capital their residences were sufficiently desirable to be taken over by some of the wealthiest among the nobility. Throughout the country the Jews long remained associated in popular lore with certain ancient dwelling-houses, for no apparent reason other than their solidity of construction. The authentic examples at Lincoln are the oldest private residences in this country still in occupation. 144 Generally, the infidels lived by themselves in a special street, even before the canon of the Third Lateran Council which made it obligatory. This was universally known as the Jewry (from the Old French juierie), a term which continues to the present time as a street-name in several of the older English cities. This was not a Ghetto in the technical sense, nor were the Jews confined to it by law. In York, indeed, they were specifically allowed to live where they pleased, even so late as 1278; 145 and the great magnates had their residences in the heart of the city—in Micklegate, Feltergayle and elsewhere—as well as in the main Jewish quarter in Coney Street. Lincoln Jewry had its centre in one of the principal roads leading up to the Minster, where the architectural relics to which reference has been made may still be seen. In London the original Jewry extended from Cheapside across Lothbury to what is now Coleman-street, and into the adjacent Ironmonger-lane, where the first synagogue was situated. At a later period they seem to have been crowded out of this area, the 'Old Jewry' (as it is still termed) being superseded even before the Expulsion of 1290. The Church made a point of establishing centres of activity amongst the infidel (the Hospital of St. Thomas of Acre, or Acon, on the site of the birthplace of Thomas Becket, and two ordinary places of worship, were introduced in the course of the twelfth century alone). In addition, the barons who desired lodgings near the tilting-ground in the Cheap seem to have been especially attracted by the mansions of the wealthy Jews. In the year of Magna Carta, no fewer than three earls were occupying houses formerly in the possession of members of the community. As a result, the centre moved a little westwards, up Cat-street and Lad-lane (now Gresham-street, where the church of St. Lawrence Jewry bears witness to their numbers) and down the side turnings about the Cheap, especially Milk-street and Wood-street. In the turbulent times which followed, a few Jews seem to have taken refuge in the salutary neighbourhood of the Tower, where Jewry-street (formerly known as 'Poor Jewry') off Aldgate, is believed to preserve the memory. 146 The standard of education was characteristically high. We do not meet a single illiterate Jew in the considerable mass of documents of the period which have survived. 147 Even an isolated householder, living in a country village, would have a tutor for the instruction of his children. 148 In a famous Lincoln case of 1271 the most important item in the bride's dowry was a beautiful Massoretic Bible. 149 English liturgical codices were known in France, 150 and the beauty of the manuscripts looted at York excited the admiration of the Jews of Cologne, whither they were brought for sale. 151 A few Anglo-Jewish manuscripts of this period have survived to the present day. 152 Josephus was also familiar to English Jews. 153 The religious practices current in 'the isle of the sea' (as it was generally called) 154 were quoted with approval by the continental authorities, though it was regarded as a matter of surprise that they did not scruple to drink wine prepared by Gentiles and in their company, or even to make use of signet-rings which contained the likeness of the human figure (the practice, as we know from actual example, of Aaron of York). Though as a rule the Jews were unable to write in Latin characters, whether French, English, or Latin were in question, they could generally decipher (and, exceptionally, even forge) 155 those languages. All contracts between themselves, and their own set of the rolls recording their transactions, were drawn up in Hebrew, in which tongue they usually endorsed Latin deeds when necessary. Master Elias of London, however, corresponded freely in French. 156 Women were not overlooked in the educational system. Nevertheless, it was found necessary to translate the domestic service on Passover Eve into the vernacular, for their benefit and that of the children. 157 From the literary standpoint, the status of English Jewry was not remarkable. In this respect too they were on the whole an offshoot of the communities of northern France, upon which their literature continued to be dependent. Many of their foremost intellectual figures came from abroad, such as the first Anglo-Jewish scholar known to us by name, Rabbi Joseph or 'Rubi Gotsce', who played a leading role in the London community in the time of Henry I. Thereafter several businessmen mentioned in the English records are distinguished by the title of 'Magister', indicating prominence in Rabbinic (or possibly medical) studies. Under Henry II numerous foreign scholars visited England. Foremost among them was the famous Abraham ibn Ezra, that restless, versatile Spaniard who wrote on almost every subject which could interest the medieval mind, and had at least a glimmer of the principles of Higher Criticism. He was in London (whither, indeed, he is said to have returned to die) in 1168, writing there his Jesod Morah (‘Foundation of Reverence') and probably his Iggereth haShabbath ('Sabbath Epistle'), under the patronage of Joseph de Moreil. 158 Jacob of Orleans, a distinguished Tosaphist, 159 perished in the London massacre of 1189; Yom-Tob of Joigny, a liturgical poet whose hymns are even now recited in the synagogue, was the central figure in the tragic events which took place at York in the following year; Berechiah haNakdan, author of the famous Fox Fables, and translator into Hebrew of the Quaestiones Naturales of Adelard of Bath, may perhaps be identical with Benedict le Pointur of Oxford. 160 The following generation witnessed a greater degree of indigenous activity, stimulated no doubt by this influx of scholars. 161 Jacob ben Judah, thehazanor reader in the synagogue of London, composed a code of religious law known asEtz Hayyim('The Tree of Life'), which incidentally comprises the text of the Jewish liturgy in use in pre-Expulsion England, and one or two original hymns. Rabbi Yom-Tob ben Moses of Bristol was the author of a work, probably juristic, entitledSepher ha Tannaim('The Book of Conditions'). Moses haNakdan, his son (subsequently of London), wrote a treatise on Hebrew punctuation and grammar which became a standard work. He was the pupil, apparently, of Rabbi Samuel haNakdan, author of a similar work entitled Deyakut ('Minutiae'), and presumably to be identified with the Samuel le Pointur of Bristol whose name figures in a tax-roll of 1194. Among Moses of London's pupils was Moses ben Isaac haNessiah (grandson of the woman financier Comitissa of Cambridge): he wrote not only an introduction to Hebrew grammar, Leshon Limmudim ('Tongue of Instruction') now lost, but also the well-known lexicographical composition, Sepher haShoham, or Onyx Book—the most important work produced in its field at this period, which vividly illustrates the range of knowledge of medieval English Jewry. Another outstanding figure was Elijah Menahem (Elias) of London, who, besides enjoying a considerable reputation as a physician, composed a notable commentary on the Mishnah (the second-century code which lies at the basis of the Talmud), much used by subsequent scholars. Another erudite descendant of Yom-Tob of Bristol was Moses ben Jacob of London, a victim of the Expulsion of 1290, who wrote a grammatical work the manuscript of which incidentally contains a record of five generations of his family who lived in England. Rabbi Meir of Angleterre composed a handbook of the laws incumbent upon a mourner, and is possibly identical with that Meir ben Elijah of Norwich who wrote some involved liturgical and didactic poems. 162 The names or opinions of a few other scholars, who left no independent works, are also remembered. The sages of Norwich, 163 of whom the poet Meir was presumably one, are mentioned with deference in theTosaphoth. So also is the martyred Rabbi Elijah of York, another victim of the massacres of 1190, 164 and Berechiah of Nicole, or Lincoln, a further grandson of Yom-Tob of Bristol. Rabbi Benjamin of Canterbury, or rather Cambridge (the spelling of the two place-names in Hebrew is almost identical) is probably to be identified with the Magister Benjamin who flourished in the last-named city in the reigns of Richard I and John. Rabbis Aaron of Canterbury, Jekuthiel of London, Eleazar of London, Joseph of Lincoln, Vives of York, Elijah of Warwick, and Joseph of Bristol were also authorities of note in their day, though now no more than names. The conjectured connexion with England of Joseph Behor-Shor of Orleans, Sir Leon of Paris and other Tosaphists ; of Elhanan ben Isaac, the liturgical poet and author of Sod halbbur ('Secret of Lunar Intercalation'); of Hagin, who translated the Image du Monde and other works of Abraham ibn Ezra into French; and of a number of other celebrities claimed by patriotic Anglo-Jewish scholars, 165 is open to considerable doubt. In spite of the comparative paucity of names in this list, it is possible to see that the intellectual horizon of English Jewry was by no means restricted. They cultivated poetry, biblical exegesis, belles-lettres, and above all, grammar, in which their contributions were of solid importance. A minority were interested in philosophy, for there were followers of Moses Maimonides at Oxford, and the first part of a new translation of Judah haLevi's Kuzari was brought to England before the work was completed. 166 But—true to the tradition of Franco-German Jewry, to which the English communities owed their origin, and with which they continued so closely associated— their interests were, above all, devoted to the study and formulation of religious law and practice. Pope Honorius, in his mandate to the archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1286, complained of the influence in England of the book commonly called 'Thalamud', which the Jews of the realm put forth as being of greater authority than the law of Moses. 167 Correspondence was carried on with, and inquiries addressed to, all the greatest rabbinical authorities of the age, from Jacob ben Meir of Ramerupt ('Rabbenu Tam') to Meir of Rothenburg. Through the former's means, the persecutions on the Continent soon became known to the inhabitants of the 'Isle of the Sea', who mourned them wholeheartedly, 168 while on the other hand English massacres were commemorated in the Franco-German martyrologies and dirges. 169 In non-Jewish circles, knowledge of Hebrew was still at a low ebb. It was indeed an Englishman, Roger Bacon, who set the example to medieval Europe for the scientific study of the sacred tongue, 170 and recent investigations have revealed a praiseworthy zeal among the Friars for the study of the Old Testament in the original. 171 Yet interest in Jewish lore was mainly prompted by controversial and conversionist motives. As early as the reign of William Rufus, Gilbert Crispin, abbot of Westminster, set down the tenor of a religious discussion that had taken place in London between him and a certain Jew educated in the famous rabbinical school of Mainz. 172 A less capable controversialist imitated this some thirty or forty years later in theAltercatio judaei cum christiano de fide christiana, addressed to Alexander, bishop of Lincoln. 173 Towards the close of the century Baldwin, the crusading archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1190) included a polemical sermon on Jewish blindness in hisLiber de commendatione fidei, 174 while Peter of Blois, then archdeacon of London, wrote his Liber contra perfidiam judaeorum at the express request of the Bishop of Worcester for use in discussion with argumentative Jews. 175 Robert of Cricklade, prior of St. Frideswide and chancellor of the University of Oxford, endeavoured to convince the Jews of the error of their reasoning on the authority of the suspected Christological passage of Josephus. Robert Grosseteste, the great bishop of Lincoln, composed his famous treatiseDe cessatione legaliumwith similar conversionist intentions, besides translating the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, beloved of medieval theologians,ad majorem judaeorum confusionem. 176 William de Arundel, archdeacon of Huntingdon, was so optimistic as to try to get a conversionist pamphlet, which he completed in 1240, translated into Hebrew. Duns Scotus, though imbued with the ideas of the Hebrew Avicebron (Ibn Gabirol), did not waste his time on controversy, but advocated forcible baptism for the Jewish children, and the exercise of threats to persuade their fathers to follow the example. 177 Few English writers of the medieval period show indeed much sympathy with the Jews, though the historian Thomas de Wykes, commenting on the London Massacre of 1263, says:
The foregoing gives some idea of the nature and the composition of the Anglo-Jewish community in the Middle Ages. It presents, indeed, few points of differentiation from the greater Jewish agglomerations of the Continent. Its importance consists rather in its typical character. It is rigidly self-contained, within the boundaries of the Norman Conquest on the one hand and the Expulsion of 1290 on the other, with just sufficient qualification at either extremity to remind us that in Jewish, as in all history, it is impossible to generalize too sweepingly. The community was immersed in, and indeed given its economic justification by, the profession characteristic of the Jews of the medieval world, more exclusively than was the case in any other country of western Europe; but at the same time, there were enough exceptions to prove that wider interests were not excluded. Its components were all of recent origin in the country; there was thus no ancient settlement, as was the case elsewhere, to continue association with the soil. The royal control was peculiarly close and comprehensive. The strength of the central government was such as to ensure uniformity of treatment and thus to facilitate generalization. Moreover, thanks to the magnificent preservation of the English records, we are particularly well informed on the subject. Every characteristic facet of medieval Jewish history, moreover, finds its reflection in England during the two centuries in which the Jews were settled in the country—encouragement degenerating into persecution, which finally culminated in expulsion, of which England provided the first general example. Even in their intellectual activities, the Jews of the country were eclectic, immersing themselves—without important consequences, and with a strong bias in certain specific directions —in all current branches of Hebrew literature and thought. It is because of this typical character that medieval Anglo-Jewish history has its individual quality and interest. FootnotesChapter 5
|