top of page
< Back

A magnate among the marchers: Hamo of Hereford, his family and clients, 1218-1253

Joe Hillaby

<plain_text><page sequence="1">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford, his family and clients, 1218-1253* JOE HILLABY The Commune Iudeorum of 13th-century England was made up of a series of interlocking urban communities.1 By 1221 seventeen had received official recognition in the form of a chest in which details of all loans had to be lodged. A number of others were recognized for short periods subsequently (Fig. I).2 In 1275 the Jewries in Queen Eleanor's dower towns - Worcester, Gloucester, Cambridge and Marlborough - were closed, and the residents transferred to neighbouring communities - Hereford, Bristol, Norwich and Devizes; the remaining Jewries continued to function until the general expulsion in 1290.3 Surprisingly few of these seventeen communities have been subjected to detailed scrutiny. Two major studies have appeared: Cecil Roth's Jews of Medieval Oxford (1951) and, under the auspices of this Society, Vivian Lipman's The Jews of Medieval Norwich (1967). In the 1930s Michael Adler provided short accounts of the medieval Jewries of Canterbury, Exeter and Bristol. Further evidence as to the topography of the Canterbury Jewry is to be found in Urry's magisterial survey of Angevin Canterbury, The Cambridge community was described by Stokes in 1913. Hill's volume on Medieval Lincoln (1948) includes a chapter on the Jewry. A study of the Worcester Jewry has just been completed. The topography of the Winchester Jewry is described in the Survey of Medieval Winchester, I, edited by D. Keene. Professor Dobson has written on two aspects of the York community - of the 1190 massacre and of its decline and expulsion - and Marjorie Honeybourne of the pre-expulsion cemetery in London (1959 61 ).4 Of other communities we have but a slight knowledge.5 Why, then, select the Hereford Jewry, one of the least known and most remote of these communities, for detailed examination? The initial reason was that the site was threatened by large-scale commercial development. Sadly, despite highly vocal objection and a successful outcome at one public inquiry, the Norwich Union pushed forward regardless with a plan which has destroyed, irrevocably, a street pattern which went back to the 11th and 12th centuries (Plates 1 and 2). An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Society on 16 November 1989. 23</page><page sequence="2">Joe Hillaby THE DATE IS THE EARLIEST INDICATING SETTLEMENT Fig 1. Jewish communities in England, late-12th and 13th centuries. However, it soon became clear that there was a wealth of documentary evidence available for the history of the Hereford Jewry, of which the most significant was a list of debts owing to H?mo of Hereford and his 24</page><page sequence="3">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford family in the Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews for 1244. When this list was published in the first volume of this Society's Calendar, it was described by the editor as 'first in importance* in the records of that court.6 Analysis of the text showed the highly unusual, possibly unique, position of the Hereford Jewry in respect of its clients, in the early years of Henry Ill's reign. Further, the Plea Rolls, together with other evidence, confirm that H?mo was indeed one of the wealthiest members of the English community. However, with the death of the last of Hamo's sons in 1253 his wealth was exhausted and, for a short time, the Hereford community lapsed once more into obscurity. The first reference to a Jew at Hereford is in the Pipe Rolls for 1178-9 when Moses paid 2.5 marks for his right to debts of ?7 6s 8d owed by Henry 'de Minariis' and ?3 6s 8d by Henry Beauchamp.7 The mark was a money of account, or a bar of silver, of the value of 160 silver pennies (13s 4d). In 1194 the community's contribution to the so-called Northampton Donum, in reality not a gift but tallage, was ?11 Is 8d, that is 0.5 per cent of the total sum raised.8 It ranked fourteenth among the twenty-one communities assessed (Table 1). These tax returns enable us to establish a hierarchy of wealth, not only between communities but also within them, for the names of all those 'possessing chattels to the value of 40s and upwards' are given (Table 2). As we have no indication of the number of people possessing chattels worth less than 40s, we can only estimate the total population.9 Northampton Donum, 1194: contributions of individual Jewish communities (PROE101/249/2) Table 1 Community ? s d % Rank London Lincoln Canterbury Northampton Gloucester Cambridge Winchester Norwich Warwick Colchester Oxford Chichester 471 277 242 160 116 98 84 71 62 41 35 26 6 16 14 18 19 10 15 11 7 13 13 0 3 3 4 3 4 0 7 5 10 4 6 0 27 16 14 9 6.5 5.5 5 4 3 2 2 1.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 25</page><page sequence="4">Joe Hillaby Bristol 22 Hereford 11 Nottingham 5 Worcester 4 Hertford 4 Bedford 1 Exeter 1 Wallingford 1 Coventry ?1742 9 14 2 1 13 1 8 0.5 14 6 4 0.3 15 8 8 0.25 16 4 3 024 17 14 0 0.09 18 2 3 0.06 19 0 0 0.05 20 11 9 0.03 21 2 Table 2 Northampton Donum, 1194: contributions of the Hereford community (PROE101/249/2) ? s d % Rank Melin 3 13 4 33.1 1 Abraham of Colchester 1 18 10 175 2 Isaac of Bungay 18 8 12.9 3 Elijah 1 3 4 105 4 Samuel of Hereford 1 0 0 9.0 5 Abraham genere Elias 13 0 5.9 6 Salococ 12 10 5.8 7 Peter the Jew 11 8 5.3 8 11 1 8 The table indicates two important characteristics of the English provincial Jewries. First, they were often dominated by one especially wealthy family; second, there was a high degree of mobility between communities. This was a particularly marked feature of the 12th century, the era of settlement and growth.10 Table 2 shows immigration from the southeast, from Colchester and Bungay. The Jewish population of the latter town departed when its castle was demolished after Hugh Bigod's revolt in 1174.11 Movement was not one-way: in 1204 a Jacob of Hereford was making loans in Wiltshire and Somerset.12 Nor did the Hereford community have a monopoly of the local money market. In 1204-5 the magnate Leo of Warwick had at least two Herefordshire clients, Walter Baskerville (?32) and Roger filius Maur (?10).13 In the later years of John's reign the English communities suffered 26</page><page sequence="5">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford sorely. Hereford was no exception, for a document of 1219 refers to those who in the face of royal extortion 'had died and those who had crossed over the seas'.14 John died at Newark on 19 October 1216. One of the strangest episodes in English history then followed. The king's body, covered in such slight elements of regalia as could be found, was taken by a small group of his mercenaries across country to Worcester. There it was hurriedly buried, before the altar of St Wulfs tan, by a small group of loyal prelates and marcher barons headed by the rector regni, William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, Lord of Striguil and Leinster. On 28 October, John's nine-year-old son was crowned, with his mother's chaplet, in the abbey church of St Peter at Gloucester.15 'Informed', in the memorable words of d'Bloissiers Tovey, the first historian of the English Jewry, 'what profit might arise from the Jews if they were kindly dealt with', these men moved quickly to reverse John's policy towards the Jews, and the migratory flow in particular.16 On 19 June a mandate was sent by the Council to the sheriff of Hereford. It confirmed the right of the Jews to live in Hereford as they had in the early years of the reign of John. They were to have their own community and he was to make known throughout his bailiwick that they had been granted the king's firm peace. It was, in effect, a restatement of the so-called Charter of Liberties of 1201 which guaranteed that the English Jewry should 'hold all things of the king and have all their liberties and customs as well, peaceably and honourably as they held them of Henry, our father's grandfather', that is Henry I (1100-35).17 This is the first occasion on which mention is made of the rights and obligations of a community at Hereford. The 1201 charter had granted 'to our Jews of England that breaches of right that shall occur among them, except such as pertain to our Crown and justice ... be examined and amended amongst themselves according to their law, so that they administer their own justice amongst themselves'. Not mentioned, but well understood, were their liabilities in relation to taxation. Foremost among these taxes was tallage. Payment was a corporate obligation and on occasions whole Jewries were gaoled in cases of default. Adjustment of the burden between the communities was the duty of the Commune Iudeorum Anglie, a duty usually assumed by its magnates.18 The tallage evidence The three Tallage Rolls of 1221 (the so-called 'Aid to Marry'), 1223 and 1226 show the remarkable changes that had taken place at Hereford since 27</page><page sequence="6">Joe Hillaby 1194 (Table 3).19 In 1221 Hereford, ranking eighth out of seventeen communities, now contributed 5 per cent of the total. Two years later it was fifth, 6.5 per cent, not far behind the important Lincoln Jewry. For 1226 the figures are incomplete; the sums paid by York, London, Northampton and Exeter are not available, but the overall picture is clear: Hereford's ranking had not changed materially. Table 3 Tallages of 1221,1223 and 1226: contributions of Jewish communities (PRO E401/4; E401/6; E401/8) 1221 1223 1226 Community ? s d % Rank ? s d % Rank ? s d Rank York 164 10 0 25 1 286 16 8 165 1 1 London 80 10 4 12 2 214 17 1 125 2 2 Winchester 53 7 1 8 3 115 3 61 5 7 3 Lincoln 52 10 1 8 4 156 19 3 9 4 21 7 1 9 Canterbury 52 8 10 8 5 81 16 3 45 11 26 8 0 7 Northampton 47 9 11 7 6 92 17 11 55 7 4/5 Stamford 37 17 11 6 7 84 14 10 5 10 26 7 9 8 Hereford 31 19 5 8 8 110 10 6 65 5 39 12 7 4/5 Norwich 28 7 4 4 9 103 2 7 6 6 14 18 0 12 Oxford 27 8 2 4 10 87 11 0 5 9 30 14 2 6 Bristol 22 12 9 35 11 92 5 6 5 8 10 1 5 15 Gloucester 19 2 4 3 12 51 13 11 1 14 15 10 0 11 Cambridge 16 6 9 25 13 52 1 3 3 13 18 8 7 10 Exeter 8 5 8 1 14 73 10 6 4 12 13 Nottingham 6 6 9 1 15 11 9 2 05 17 3 14 3 18 Worcester 3 1 2 05 16 24 15 6 15 15 11 4 8 14 Colchester 2 8 9 05 17 15 17 3 1 16 7 4 9 17 Wilton 7 13 1 16 Southampton 3 6 10 19 Huntingdon 18 0 20 Bedford 11 2 21 The rise in Hereford's fortunes is easily explained by tabulating the payments of individual members for these three years (Table 4). More than half of the tax burden was borne by one man, H?mo. He was one of that small group of 'outstanding plutocrats' to which Vivian Lipman drew attention in his Anatomy of Medieval Anglo-Jewry.20 The tallage returns illustrate how frequently all except the largest Jewries were dominated by 28</page><page sequence="7">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford one man, so they enable us to establish Hamo's place within the ranks of his fellow magnates (Table 5). Table 4 Tallages of 1221,1223 and 1226: contributions of the Hereford community (PRO E401/4; E401/6; E401/8) 1221 ? s d %Rank 1223 ? s d % Rank 1226 ? s d % Rank H?mo Serfdeu Elias Isaac Aaron, son of Josce Manasser, s/1 of H?mo Isaac, s/1 of Moses Deulcresse of Oxford Solomon of Kent Benjamin, s/1 of Isaac Moses of Aylesbury Genta, daughter of Isaac 10 Isaac, son of Solomon 8 13 19 17 2 4 535 3 15 0 11.7 2 3 6 6.8 1 12 2 5.0 1 8 4 4.4 1 8 4 4.4 1 0 0 3.1 14 14 11 11 2.2 2.2 Josce, s/1 of Serfdeu Abraham, son of Serfdeu Aaron le prestre Commune of Hereford Blanche Aaron, s/1 of Abraham Moses, son of Isaac Benjamin, s/1 of Aaron (abbreviation: s/1 son-in-law) 1 70 0 0 633 2 14 15 0 133 3 4 3 5 6 4 2 7 3 13 9 2 9 2 8= 1 12 10 8= 1 11 4 4 1.8 4 1.8 3 1.6 12 6 1.3 13 5 10= 14 6 10= 14 7 1 12 10 19 8 10 0 110 10 5 3.0 3.7 33 22 15 1.4 1.1 1.1 19 8 0.9 2 9 0 22 15 0.9 05 4 6 8= 10 12 11 13= 25 14 0 65.7 2 10 0 6.4 13= 15 1 7 11 13 11 3.6 1.8 19 5 25 17 0 2.2 13 11 13 11 1.8 1.8 14 0 1.8 2 4 8 5.7 16 0 2.0 13 11 1.8 8 0 1.0 13= 4 9= 5 6 9= 9= 8 0 1.0 13= 3 7 9= 39 8 0 1.0 13= 2 8 29</page><page sequence="8">Joe Hillaby Table 5 Tallages of 1221,1223 and 1226: Jewish provincial magnates within their communities (PRO E401/4; E401/6; E401/8) Name and community 1221 s d 1223 s d 1226 s d % H?mo of Hereford 17 2 4 54 70 0 0 63 25 14 0 66 Hereford 31 19 5 110 10 6 39 12 7 David of Oxford Oxford 14 5 27 8 0 52 2 49 7 87 11 56 15 2 30 14 49 Pictavin Stamford 12 11 4 33 37 17 m 24 13 6 84 14 10 29 12 26 0 45 9 Jacob, son of Samuel Bristol 7 0 0 31 22 12 9 37 10 0 92 5 6 41 Figures not available Benedict Deulcresse 15 4 10 29 18 12 0 23 Canterbury 52 8 10 81 16 3 Vives, son of Isaac Northampton 12 17 7 47 9 11 27 25 0 0 27 92 17 11 Figures not available Figures not available Table 6 confirms that he was not one of the lesser provincial magnates, but was equal in wealth to the plutocrats who dominated the London Jewry and that of York, capital of the north. In 1221 the wealth of five members of the York Jewry - Aaron, Leo and Benedict Episcopus, Isaac of Northampton and Aaron, son of Isaac - was outstanding. H?mo took sixth place. His contribution was significantly higher than any from London. Two years later there was a marked change in the relative position of the York and London communities; the contribution of the former has now been reduced from 25 per cent to 16.5 per cent (Table 3). The lightening of York's burden was not the only change. The magnates effected a considerable re allocation among themselves. In 1221 the Crown had demanded 1500 marks; in 1223 that was doubled. All payments therefore went up, except for Aaron, son of Isaac. H?mo now had a tallage bill 4 times that of 1221, David of Oxford's was 3% times greater but for the Londoner, Aaron le Blund, it was 6 times, and for the Bristolians, Jacob, son of Samuel, and Josce Furmag, 5 and 10 times respectively. Although some details of the 1226 tallage are missing, useful comparisons can be made. In that year Pictavin of Stamford's total had fallen back to that of 1221, David of Oxford was paying only 17s 6d more, while H?mo had to find an 30</page><page sequence="9">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford additional 50 per cent. The differential between H?mo and David was increasing again. Clearly one cannot argue precisely from these figures, but they do show that the fortune of the Hereford magnate could bear comparison with those of the greatest Jewish financiers of his day - even the legendary Aaron of York. Table 6 Tallages of 1221,1223 and 1226: major contributors (PRO E401/4; E401/6; E401/8) 1221 1500 marks 1223 3000 marks 1226 Magnate Community ? s d Rank ? s d Rank %2 ? s d Aaron of York1 York Leo Episcopus York Benedict Episcopus York Isaac of Northampton York Aaron, son of Isaac York H?mo of Hereofrd Hereford Josce of Kent York Benedict Duelecresse Canterbury David of Oxford Vives, son of Isaac Pictavin Benedict Episcopus (Crespin) Elias of Lincoln Oxford Northampton 12 17 Stamford London Lincoln 28 15 0 27 7 6 21 12 6 20 0 10 17 17 1 17 2 4 15 12 1 15 4 10 14 5 0 7 12 11 4 12 10 10_0_ 225 16 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 43 2 44 13 42 0 15 17 70 0 34 10 18 12 49 7 25 0 24 13 25 13 16 0 1 8 3 10 11 75 81 87 44 204 25 14 110 61 173 15 97 98 12 102 80 2 6 0 0 Leo, son of Isaac (leBlund) London 9 4 2 20 4 0 14 Aaron, son of Leo (leBlund) London 8 13 91 50 0 0 2 Elias, son of Leo (leBlund) London 8 12 6 21 5 9 Jacob, son of Samuel Bristol 7 0 0 37 10 0 Josce Furmag Bristol 2 6 8 21 13 4 13 7 12 109 288 123 267 465 1 'of Lincoln' in text; 2 = 1223 payment as % of 2x1221 payment 31</page><page sequence="10">Joe Hillaby The evidence of reliefs Too much reliance, it may be objected, should not be placed on one type of evidence, for tax returns are always vulnerable, yesterday as much as today. Fortunately the conclusions can be checked against two other sources. In 1231 H?mo died and his heirs were required to pay the Crown a relief, a form of death duty. This was assessed at one-third of the value of the deceased's estate; that is, his outstanding debts as recorded in the various chests, and his goods and chattels outside the chest 'as in gold, silver, pledges, jewels, lands, houses, rents and others moveable and immoveable'. Negotiations with the Exchequer over the amount of relief were undertaken by Hamo's eldest son, Ursell (the name is a variant of the scriptural Joshua). He had been a partner in the family business for at least six years. There is a record of his loan of 20 marks to John de Alebrigge, due for repayment in 1225, on the day of Hereford's great city fair, the feast of St Denis, 9 October.21 Payment of the relief was regarded by the Crown as the responsibility of all four sons - Moses, Leo and Abraham as well as Ursell. It was set at 6000 marks, E4000.22 This confirms the evidence of the Receipt Rolls of 1221, 1223 and 1226. The highest recorded relief paid on the death of any English Jew was on the estate of Leo of York (Leo Episcopus in Table 6). In 1244 his son, Samuel, had to meet a fine of 7000 marks. In the same year a relief of 5000 marks was imposed on Licoricia of Winchester, the widow of David of Oxford (Table 7). Hamo's heirs thus had the dubious privilege of paying the second-highest recorded relief for any English Jew.23 Table 7 Reliefs paid on estates of Jewish magnates H?mo of Hereford Leo Episcopus of York David of Oxford 1232 1244 1244 6000 marks 7000 marks 5000 marks (FR, 1232, 226; 1244, 412; CR, 1244, 260.) It may be held that this comparison is not just, as by 1244 conditions had changed for the magnates. In 1241 there was a radical change in the allocation of the tax burden. Professor Stacey has shown that the magnates had a new system of tax distribution thrust on them at their meeting with Henry III, the so-called Worcester parliament of 1241. The 32</page><page sequence="11">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford dozen or so plutocrats were now assessed by 6 mediocres, elected by 103 representatives of the 21 Jewish communities of England. Within fifteen years, Stacey has suggested, this change *ruined the magnates and broke the backbone of the English Jewry'. Certainly, the wealthiest of all English Jews, Aaron of York, was bankrupt in 1255 and died thirteen years later in penury. Under the new arrangement Aaron was assessed at 6000 marks, 30 per cent of the total, and Leo Episcopus of York and David of Oxford each had to pay 2200 marks. The three wealthiest thus contributed 10,400 marks, more than half the total of 20,000 marks.24 However, within three years Leo and David were dead. The 1241 levy can hardly have affected their fortunes so dramatically as to invalidate a comparison of the reliefs paid by their heirs in 1244 and those of H?mo in 1231. For Aaron it was very different. As part of the settlement of relief, Leo's and David's heirs negotiated freedom from tallage. Aaron was thus left in a highly vulnerable position. In 1243 he had to pay a levy of 400 gold and 4000 silver marks - that is 8000 marks sterling - of which the king was pleased to receive the gold marks with his own hands. It is not surprising that he was impoverished by such demands.25 Alliances The magnates were drawn together by compelling forces, a profound sense of their religious and cultural identity as well as their vulnerability in an alien and frequently hostile society. Despite obvious business rivalries and suspicions engendered by the system of tax allocation, there was a tight network of relationships, business and social, between the leaders of the various communities. The closeness of this virtually nationwide network is an important factor in explaining their success. On many occasions loans were made, not by an individual or by a family group, but by a group of magnates. Thus we find H?mo cooperating in June 1230 with Aaron of York and David and Copin of Oxford, and in July and September with Isaac of Norwich and Jocepin of Bristol. From 1234 his son, Ursell, was collaborating with David of Oxford and Samar of Winchester.26 Such joint enterprises solved a number of urgent problems. Short-term difficulties relating to the availability of capital at provincial centres could be overcome in this way. The use of credit notes made possible the development of a more sophisticated relationship of supply and demand. Risks, possibly too great for one individual to assume, could be spread in a way rather similar to that adopted by bookmakers today. Clients' special needs, such as payment at different centres, could be met. 33</page><page sequence="12">Joe Hillaby Naturally, close business relationships were cemented by marriage alliances. From the 1244 list and other sources it is possible to explore some of the relationships linking the families of these outstanding plutocrats. These confirm the evidence of the tallage returns and relief payment, for Hamo's children married into at least two of the wealthiest Jewish families of the realm. Elias1 H?mo = Contessa Abraham of Berkhamstead = Floria dim Blanche Ursell = Rose(Crespin?) ^ 1241 Moses = Sarah &lt;/1253 Leo = Floria = 2? ^ 1234 Abraham &lt;icl232 d = M anasser Episcopus d= Elias (of York)3 Contessa1 Floria Jacob2 Josce son of = Contessa4 Contessa1 ^ 1267 Isaac of Worcs Deudonnel= Floria1 Abraham 1 PROE9/2/4;EJ,I65-8 2 1PM, 1267,112 3 PROE368/14 /4 4 PRO E9/18/6; EJ, IV, 33; PRO ElOl/250/5 Fig. 2. The family of H?mo of Hereford: a suggested pedigree. H?mo had six children of whom we have record, four sons and two daughters (Fig. 2). The youngest, Abraham, died shortly after his father.27 Moses, who succeeded to the business on Ursell's death in 1241, was married to Sarah, of whom nothing is known. The evidence suggests that Rose, wife of the eldest son, Ursell, was a Crespin. From the earliest years H?mo had had close business contacts with the wealthy Crespin family of London and it was to them that Ursell and Moses turned in their times of need. In 1233 Benedict Crespin helped Ursell renegotiate his large loan with Walter de Lacy and in the same year they jointly made final 34</page><page sequence="13">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford concord with Robert de Vaux of Cumberland over his debt of 100 marks. In 1244, when Moses had to answer at Westminster concerning his financial affairs, the Crespins stood as security. Two years later all Benedict's chattels were seized when he was accused of forging some of Hamo's charters, but he was able to make concord with the Crown and his possessions were released.28 Benedict Crespin ranked twelfth in the 1221 and ninth in the 1223 tallage rolls. At the Worcester 'parliament' he and his brother, Jacob, headed the list of London's six representatives. Although the family commanded but half the resources of the other Londoners, Aaron le Blund and Aaron, son of Abraham, Benedict with Jacob, Moses and Isaac were among the dozen wealthiest English Jews, if we accept the 1239-42 tallage returns.29 The remaining son, Leo, married Floria, daughter of the remarkable Abraham of Berkhampstead, manager of finances to Richard of Cornwall, brother of the king. After his marriage at the age of 22 to Isabella Marshal in 1231, Richard was granted the honour of Wallingford, the duchy of Cornwall and the scattered lands of Isabella's dower, which included the important castle of Berkhampstead. Richard was already securing royal favours for Abraham, who was fast becoming one of the wealthiest Jews in the kingdom, with debtors over half the country. Four years later the duke was given the right to protect 'the Jews of Berkhampstead', meaning Abraham and his family with their chest. In 1242 Abraham and archa were removed to Wallingford. In 1247-8 Richard, already an extraordinarily rich man, carried out a highly successful recoinage, the profits of which he shared with his brother, the king. What part, one wonders, did Abraham's expertise contribute to the success of this difficult operation? Certainly, two years later Richard secured Abraham's release from a charge of uxoricide. As Richard's biographer says, whatever the duke's relationship with Abraham, he was not borrowing from him! A considerable element of his personal fortune may well have come from speculation in Jewish debts and the land market. Indeed, in 1255 and again in 1271 Henry pawned the English Jewry to Richard. It was in the former year that Leo's father-in-law was 'given' to the duke.30 Leo himself died in 1234. He left custody of his books and chattels, in that order, to Ursell and his mother, Contessa, but his financial interests did not justify payment of relief. When the king granted Ursell and Hamo's other heirs free administration of his debts and goods - that is his portion of the joint inheritance - relations between the two families deteriorated rapidly.31 35</page><page sequence="14">Joe Hillaby When Leo's widow, Floria, remarried in 1236, she herself claimed these 'books and chattels'. The claim was contested by Ursell and his mother who obtained a judgment in their favour. For this they had to pay the Crown four palfreys. According to the Pipe Rolls, three were still due in 1241. Ursell's and Contessa's success suggests that the books and chattels, originally Hamo's, were part of Leo's inheritance, in which case it would be natural, according to Jewish custom, for them to revert to Leo's family when his widow remarried. It was not uncommon for the more affluent families to have collections of books, sometimes quite considerable, and this at a time when private libraries were a rarity among their Christian neighbours. Thus Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, the greatest English scholar of his age, was proud owner of some ninety books. What is of particular interest is that Leo's collection should have been of such value as to justify the effort and expense taken by Ursell and his mother, Contessa, to secure their retention within the family.32 Later, in 1240, Abraham claimed the full heritage, on behalf of his granddaughter, Contessa, 'according', as he said, 'to the laws of the Jews'. The outcome is not known, but Moses was certainly disposing of Contessa's assets ten years later, for her name was included in the family consortium that made the loan of ?400 to Roger II de Clifford in 1243 (Table 8).33 Through one of his daughters, H?mo forged a link with the family of the great York magnate, Aaron. After Ursell's death in October 1241, the clerks of the Exchequer of the Jews wished to establish who was responsible for the money outstanding on Hamo's relief. To secure this fine on 'the goods of H?mo', a writ of habeas corpus was issued against the 'heirs of H?mo'. As in 1231, this was held to be a collective responsibility. 'Heirs' included the minor, Abraham, son of Elias, in the guardianship of Josce, nephew of Aaron of York. Hamo's son-in-law, Elias, was therefore dead and we must assume that Abraham was in the custody of his uncle. In this case, H?mo had married one of his daughters to another nephew of the great Aaron. Included in the family consortium named in the 1244 list, are a number of Hamo's grandchildren. Thus Abraham, son of Elias, heads the list, before Contessa, daughter of Ursell, and Contessa, the daughter of Leo.34 A second daughter made a local marriage - perhaps an affair of the heart. Manasser l'Eveske, who represented the Hereford community at the Worcester 'parliament' of 1241, was described in the 1221 and 1226 tallage lists as Manasser gener\ son-in-law of, H?mo. The 1244 list shows that he was a partner of Ursell, making loans in 1232 to John of Monmouth and in 1233 to William fitz Warin. A year later, 'Manasser and Blanche, his 36</page><page sequence="15">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford mother, Jews of Hereford', are referred to in a royal mandate which altered the terms of their loans to Gilbert 4 de Mineres'.35 Table 8 Clientele of Hamo's family, 1244: range in value of loans (PRO E/9/2/4; EJ, 1, 65-8) Client 1 Over ?100 Walter de Lacy Gilbert de Lacy Roger de Clifford II John Marshal John of Monmouth Gilbert Marshal Earl of Pembroke Status Shrievalty B K B B B B 1216-23 1198/1205/1215 1231 ? s d 666 13 600 400 193 161 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 ?20 - ?50 2159 6 8 83.1 2 ?50-?100 Walter de Mucegros John de Balun K B 1182 96 70 0 0 0 0 166 0 0 6.4 William fitz Warin B Henry de Longchamp K Miles de Mucegros K Robert de Sausay C Richard de Cundus K 1232-4 1189 1182 33 31 23 20 20 0 0 0 0 127 15 4 4.9 4 ?10 - ?20 Seven clients 95 5 0 3.7 37</page><page sequence="16">Joe Hillaby 5 ?5-?10 Four clients 27 1 8 1.05 6 ?1 - ?5 Six clients 19 10 4 0.75 7 Under ?1 Four clients 2 13 8 0.1 35 Clients 2597 13 0 100 The clients How could H?mo have sustained so great a fortune in a small and remote centre such as Hereford? Could his wealth have been profitably employed merely in granting loans to 'smaller landowners', as suggested by Postan?36 If not, who were Hamo's clients? The Jewish magnates operated within a triangle of relationships: between king and Jews; Jews and their clients; and between clients and the king (Fig. 1). Most work on the English medieval Jewry has concentrated on the first of these relationships, that between king and Jews, of paramount importance because royal policy shaped the lives of both individuals and communities. Indeed, any weakness on the part of the Crown or its agents could lead to disaster for the Jews, as the massacres of 1190 showed. Relationships between the king and the Jews' clients have recently been examined by Dr Sharon Lieberman but, as V. D. Lipman has pointed out, 'very little study has been made of the kinds of people who borrowed money from the Jews or of how much they borrowed and why'. The reason is that even when records are available, of which the Day Book of the Norwich archa is an outstanding example, it is 'very difficult to identify borrowers, even broadly, by their social class or as townsmen or villagers'.37 The question is important not only in terms of Jewish history, but also because it can tell us a lot about movements in the land market. Who was selling and who buying land in the 13th century? For Hilton, 'the monastic cartularies show that lesser or middling landowners (whose incomes did not match their social pretentions) were obliged to mortgage their lands, 38</page><page sequence="17">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford or sell them outright to wealthy ecclesiastical institutions, in order to raise money to pay their debts. In this way the big landowners (lay as well as ecclesiastical) got richer.' Pos tan arrived at a similar conclusion, that 'the smaller men were losing their hold over land and thereby their collective share in the landed wealth of the country'.38 This suggestion of a crisis in the English knightly class in the 13th century has not gone unchallenged. 'It may be admitted that many greater landlords added to their lands but hardly to an extent which reduced significantly the major shift of land towards the knights which had taken place since 1086.'39 To sustain this thesis Postan referred to evidence for debt 'wholly from the records of the Exchequer of the Jews', which made it 'quite clear that among the Jews' debtors smaller landowners predominated and that their lands formed the bulk of the property mortgaged with moneylenders. On the other hand, there is hardly any evidence in the Jewish records of large-scale indebtedness on the part of the greater manorial landowners.' This view was based on Peter Elman's 1937 and 1952 articles. In the former, on the economic causes of the expulsion, Elman concluded that 'an examination of the debtors whose names appear in the Cambridge Rolls and those that appear on the roll of debts, compiled in 1255, belonging to Abraham of Berkhamstead, who had carried on business all over the country, shows clearly that well over 70 per cent of Jewish debtors belonged to the agricultural classes and particularly to the smaller tenants.' In the latter he restated the fact that Jews dealt chiefly with the lower tenantry, and drew out important political implications.40 Lipman expressed a similar view in his study of The Jews of Medieval Norwich. From the Norwich Day Book, which records all transactions at the Norwich archa, in 1225-7, he took a representative sample of about 300 borrowers. 'Great noblemen or religious houses form only a very small part of the total. Only one religious house is mentioned; there are less than a dozen individual clergy... Most of the loans seem to be to members of the rural gentry. But some are contracted by people who are obviously villagers [and] there are a number of Norwich citizens.'41 R. W. Emery's study of The Jews of Perpignan in the Thirteenth Century is based on the remarkable series of seventeen notarial registers preserved at Perpignan. These provide details of 1321 new loans made by members of the local Jewry during the years 1261-87. By analysing these (Table 9) he established, firstly, that loans to townsmen represented 41 per cent of the trade, by value. Only a small amount, some 3000 Barcelona shillings, was borrowed by people living in the town but engaged in agriculture - vine and vegetable growers, agricultural merchants, etc. Secondly, the feudal 39</page><page sequence="18">Joe Hillaby aristocracy represented only 10 per cent of the total trade. His examination of the single surviving 13th-century register from Montpellier, which gives details of 101 new debts, indicated that 'Jewish money-lending in [Montpellier] was strikingly similar in type and significance to that in Perpignan'.42 The picture that emerges from the 1244 list of debts due to Hamo's family is quite different, since it shows that 34 individuals owed a total of ?2597 13s Od. The loans range from 1000 marks at the top of the scale to four debts of under ?1 at the lower end. But the social composition is the factor of outstanding interest. This stands in marked contrast to: (i) Postan's suggestion, based on Elman's analysis of the Cambridge rolls and the 1255 list of Abraham of Berkhamstead's debts; (ii) Lipman's conclusions, from his examination of the Norwich Day Books of 1225-7; and (in) Emery's findings from the Perpignan notarial registers of 1261-87. Table 9 New loans of Jews to Christians in Perpignan, 1262-86: social composition of borrowers Category No Total Loan s d % Mean s d Royal Officers Knights and Nobles Clergy Townsmen Villagers Unidentified 5 2,068 Vk 32 17,107 12 10,930 6 399 80,156 7 862 84,469 Vk 11_862 4fe 1321 195,593 8fc 1 9 55 41 43 0.5 413 534 910 200 98 78 TL 7 11 5 Unit is Barcelona shilling R. W. Emery, The Jews of Perpignan in the Thirteenth Century (New York 1959) 39-66. The 1244 list tells us about H?mo and his family, but much more important is what it tells us about their clients. Apart from the bewildering range in value of the loans, an analysis of the list identifies three major characteristics of the clientele. Firstly, the family business was based overwhelmingly on those who lived in the countryside; there were but few townsmen or clergy. Secondly, while, in terms of number, what Postan calls 'the smaller men' - knights and freeholders - 40</page><page sequence="19">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford predominate, the amount owned by baronial families was much larger than the combined sum owed by knights and freeholders. This leads to the third and most important conclusion. There was 'large-scale indebtedness on the part of greater manorial landowners'. They provided Hamo's family with 83 per cent of its trade.43 This is shown in Table 8, which gives the range in value of the 46 loans in the 1244 list. In addition, the status of the more important clients - baron, knight, cleric - is indicated. Where the family had held the shrievalty of the county of Hereford, the year, or years, are given. Six clients had debts totalling more than ?100. Of these, four inherited baronies. A fifth, Roger II de Clifford, obtained the barony of Appleby through marriage to Isabel, daughter of Robert II de Vipont. His mother had inherited the honour of Ewias.44 The sixth, Gilbert de Lacy of Frome, was closely related to Walter de Lacy. Only a family of baronial status could have offered adequate security for such a vast sum as ?600 - money in all probability required for the promotion of family interests at Castle Frome and elsewhere.45 Not all barons were 'greater manorial landowners'. Although in 1235 John II de Balun had paid the baronial relief of ?100 to obtain his inheritance, his estates at Much Marcle in Herefordshire and Great Cheverell in Wiltshire were too small to justify his inclusion in this category. William fitz Warin, the younger son of one of the lesser baronial families of Shropshire, obtained half a barony by marriage, but his career is more typical of the second group of clients, the knights, who found their principal role in local administration. He held the Herefordshire shrievalty in 1232-4.46 Table 10 The Clientele of H?mo and his family, 1244: Social Composition (PRO E9/2/4; EJ, 1,65-8) Category Great landowners Lesser landowners Clergy Townsmen Others No 6 8 3 2? 16 34 Total Loan ? s d 2159 6 8 292 2 0 31 6 8 14 0 0 100 17 8 2597 13 0 41 % 83.1 112 1.2 0.5 3.8 Mean ? s d 359 17 9 36 10 3 10 8 11 7 0 0 6 6 1</page><page sequence="20">Joe Hillaby Tables 8 and 10 illustrate the overwhelming predominance of greater landowners among the clients of Hamo's family. Even more significant, they show the dominance of four local families in the first category - the Lacys, Marshals, Cliffords and the lords of Monmouth. However, we do not have to depend merely on one source, and that drawn up more than a decade after Hamo's death. These conclusions are confirmed by evidence in the Close and Patent Rolls. There, between 1229 and 1236, a number of entries record the granting of a royal pardon on the interest or capital of debts owed to H?mo, Ursell or other members of the family. In only about half the cases are the sums owed specified. They range from 10 marks due from 'Bishop John' to 1000 marks owed by Walter III de Clifford. These entries confirm that the de Lacys and de Cliffords, and probably other substantial marcher families, were long-standing clients (Table 11). Table 11 The clientele of H?mo and his family: evidence from the Close Rolls, 1229-36 Date of royal pardon 15 Feb. 1229 21 May 1230 16 June 1230 17 July 1230 12 Jan. 1232 21 June 1233 4 July 1233 15 Dec. 1233 25 May 1234 25 May 1234 10 Aug. 1234 1236 Debtor/s Roger de Leiburn Gilbert de Lacy Roger I de Clifford Hugh de Vivonne 'bishop John* Robert de Vaux Walter III de Clifford Walter de Lacy Gilbert de Lacy John le Rus Ralph de Saucey John de Balun Creditor/s H?mo H?mo H?mo Aaron of York David of Oxford Copin of Oxford H?mo Isaac of Norwich Jocepin of Bristol H?mo Ursell Benedict Crespin H?mo H?mo Ursell Ursell Ursell Ursell David of Oxford Samar of Winchester ? s d 73 10 0 100 0 0 6 13 8 666 13 8 6 4 0 42</page><page sequence="21">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford Evidence from the Patent Rolls, 1242 2 Nov. 1242 Robert de Tregoz of Heirs of Ursell Ewias Harold and mother Who then were these men and what did they have in common? They were all lords of the southern march. The March of Wales, c. 1215, occupied for the most part that area which later formed the counties of Radnor, Brecon, Monmouth, Glamorgan, Pembroke and southern Carmarthen. Although the marchers were tenants-in-chief of the English king, the royal writ did not run within their lordships, for these had been acquired by private conquest. Here they took over the existing system of law, which they administered through their own courts, and here they could build castles without licence and levy war with the consequent rights of plunder.47 As a number of them also had considerable estates in England, they clearly represented a destabilizing force in English politics. Throughout the critical days of October and November 1216, immediately after the death of King John, this small group of marcher lords, with the Mortimers, not only represented the chief power of the district, but also played a decisive part in national affairs. At a time of utter turmoil they, more than anyone save perhaps the papal legate, secured the throne for John's young son as Henry III. Only the Braose brothers were missing, and that we should expect. Their mother and a brother had died horrible deaths by starvation at John's hands. In consequence, although marchers, they joined the barons and their allies, the Welsh. There is something further. The Marshal, Lacy and Braose families had vast lands in Ireland. Thus, the affairs of the Welsh March and Ireland were at this time inextricably entwined, and, as we shall see, it was on this interrelationship that Hamo's business depended.48 Walter II de Lacy The de Lacy family was the most important of all Hamo's clients. Its loans represent half of the ?2597 13s Od outstanding in 1244. Hamo's success at Hereford can only be understood in terms of his relationship with Walter II de Lacy and thus the latter's position within the political system of the southern march and beyond. For this reason an apparent digression must be made. De Lacy power in the southern march had been laid by Walter I. He 43</page><page sequence="22">Joe Hillaby was a member of the household of William fitz Osbern, Earl of Hereford in the years immediately following the Conquest. When the latter's son forfeited his lands as a penalty for revolt in 1075, the de Lacys were the major beneficiaries, for King William granted them the right to hold of the Crown those lands which previously they had held as mesne tenants of the earls. In the Domesday survey Roger de Lacy had fourteen demesne and fifty tenants' manors in Herefordshire and considerable holdings beyond, including eighteen Shropshire manors held as a tenant of the Montgomerys.49 When Walter II succeeded to the family estates in 1189, there had been a significant shift in the basis of de Lacy power, from England and Normandy to Ireland. He still had large estates in England and the March of Wales, the former based on the honour of Weobley, with its castles at Weobley and Ludlow, and the latter on Ewias Lacy (Longtown). In addition he had estates in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Berkshire. For the English manors he was assessed at 514 knights' fees, but in Ireland he had even more extensive lands. Henry II had granted to his father the whole of the former kingdom of Meath, represented today by the counties of Meath and Westmeath, southern Longford and northwest Offaly. The roots of de Lacy's indebtedness are to be found in Ireland, for his vast estates there brought him not only wealth but also much trouble and expense. Within five years of coming into his inheritance he had been outlawed and his lands taken back into royal hands. Like his father he found it extremely difficult to sustain his position in Ireland without arousing the fears of the Crown. On three occasions developments in Ireland caused a severe crisis in his relations with his feudal overlord: with Richard I between 1194 and 1198; with John from 1210 to 1214; and with Henry Ill's able but self-seeking justiciar, Hubert de Burgh, in 1224. On two of these occasions, 1194-8 and 1210-13, he had to go into exile. On each occasion return to royal favour had to be bought by a very large fine.50 In 1213 John recalled him from his second period of exile.51 The ten years from 1213 to 1223, the year of Henry Ill's 'partial' coming of age, must have been among the happiest and most fruitful of Walter's career. In 1212, when John faced grave difficulties with the English baronage, William Marshal and the barons of Ireland publicly pledged their loyalty. William Marshal was lord of Leinster but, like most Norman Irish lords, the base of his power was in Wales, at the great castles of Chepstow and Pembroke. What price did John pay for this accommodation? The return of de Lacy from exile was certainly part of it.52 The peace between king and barons at Runnymede in June 1215 was 'made only to be broken'. When war was resumed, the parties - the 44</page><page sequence="23">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford dissident barons and the Welsh on the one hand and John and the marcher lords on the other - returned to their alliances. John re-established de Lacy in Herefordshire and beyond, to curb the growing power of his most formidable opponents in the southern march, the de Braose brothers, Giles, Bishop of Hereford, and Reginald, son-in-law of Llewelyn. De Lacy's Ludlow stronghold was returned to him in 1215 and the next year he was made sheriff with custody of the royal castle at Hereford. After the death of Bishop Giles, de Lacy was appointed guardian of the see.53 H?mo and the marcher lords during the minority of Henry III The heads of most of the other great families of the southern march showed a similar loyalty to John, and later to his son, in their times of difficulty. William Marshal, John of Monmouth, Walter II de Clifford and his son, Walter III, Roger I de Clifford of Tenbury, and Hugh and Robert de Mortimer, were all steadfast. But this loyalty was in no way disinterested. It was a natural response to the loose alliance formed between the barons opposed to John and the Welsh princes led by Llewelyn. After his return Walter spent most of his time in the marches, but he was with John in the autumn of 1216 when the king ravaged the eastern counties. On 9 October, after being feasted by the burgesses of Lynn, the king developed the illness from which he died ten days later at Newark castle. Prominent among the lay executors of his will were the lords of the southern march, Walter de Lacy, William Marshal and John of Monmouth. They dominated the small group of loyalist barons who buried John at Worcester and crowned his son at Gloucester. At the first meeting of the new royal council, ten of the twenty-four laymen were from the southern march. They played a major role in overcoming the dissident barons and their French allies. Among those responsible for the reissue of Magna Carta in November 1216 were William and John Marshal, Walter de Lacy, John of Monmouth, Walter II de Clifford and Roger I de Clifford of Tenbury, all members of those four families which were the chief clients of H?mo and later his family. A number of articles were omitted, two relating to the Jews: number 10, which forbade the charging of interest during the minority of a debtor's heirs; and number 11, which safeguarded the widow's dower. Publication of these and other articles 'weighty and doubtful' was 'deferred till we shall have taken counsel more fully'.54 These political circumstances of the end of John's and the beginning of 45</page><page sequence="24">Joe Hillaby Henry Ill's reign explain how H?mo was able to establish himself at Hereford, for the members of this loyalist group provided the mainstay of his trade. In 1244 Walter de Lacy, John Marshal, nephew of William Marshal, and John of Monmouth, all owed more than ?100 to Hamo's heirs on debts contracted more than ten years earlier. Relatives and friends were drawn into this circle of Hamo's clients. Gilbert of Frome was a close relative and active lieutentant of Walter de Lacy; Gilbert, fourth earl of Pembroke, who owed Hamo's family ?138 in 1244, was the third son of William Marshal and had succeeded to the family's English, Welsh and Irish estates in 1234; Roger II de Clifford, who owed ?400, was a son of Roger I whom he succeeded at Tenbury in 1231.55 The Close Rolls shed further light on Hamo's relationships with this compact group (Table 11). In 1233, some ten years after he had succeeded his father in the barony, Walter III de Clifford was Hamo's debtor to the tune of 1000 marks. The same table shows that Roger II of the Tenbury branch was already in debt in 1230, to a consortium headed by H?mo, but with Aaron of York and David and Copin of Oxford as the other creditors. The amount of Roger's debt is not recorded, but the membership of the consortium indicates that the sum involved must have been substantial. The Patent Rolls show that among the clients of H?mo and Ursell was another important marcher family, the de Tregoz of Ewias Harold, relatives by marriage of the Cliffords.56 Some members of the group were borrowing earlier in the century. As early as 1204, the Fine and Oblate Rolls show King John granting Pepelin, son of Elias, and Josce, son of Leo, a writ for the repayment of ?10 with interest against Walter's brother, Gilbert de Lacy. The previous year, Walter I de Clifford was guarantor for a loan of ?50 made by a Northampton Jew to William de Braose.57 When and how were the links forged between H?mo and this group of marcher lords? No direct evidence is yet available to show when H?mo established himself at Hereford, but there can be little doubt that it was after John's death, when the Council of Regency formulated its protectionist policy towards the Jews; for the Jewish community at Hereford suffered as much as any during John's reign. Some there may have been, probably in the person of Elias of Hereford, but the community was certainly very much depleted in August 1216 when Walter de Lacy assumed the government of the county.58 46</page><page sequence="25">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford The Hamo-de Lacy relationship De Lacy's prime responsibilities were to maintain the authority of the nine-year-old king within the county and to defend it against the continuing Welsh threat. The Pipe Rolls show that work on the defences of Hereford castle continued after peace was restored to England in 1217.59 By March 1218 fear of a Welsh attack had passed. Peace fully established, the council of which de Lacy was a prominent member had the opportunity to consider much-needed measures to revive the economy. One was to reassure those members of the Jewish communities who had survived John's reign and to encourage the return of others - all the more necessary because of the rising tide of anti-Semitism associated with preparations for the Crusade preached by the pope in 1215. These measures were highly successful. There was an influx of Jews from abroad, principally from France. The wardens of the Cinque Ports, who had created difficulties for some immigrants, were ordered to present no impediment, merely to take sureties that the newcomers would in due course register themselves with the Justices of the Jews.60 At Hereford it was Walter de Lacy who, as sheriff, was responsible for implementing the new policy. He was to protect them against any 'gravamen or molestation' from the populace. Hereford found itself in serious trouble when, ten years later, a Jew was slain within the liberty; its charter privileges were forfeited. The 'restoration of the king's favour' cost the city ?100. De Lacy also had to prevent Jews being impleaded in the bishop's court on matters of debt, for such jurisdiction belonged to the king alone. In addition, the council granted the Hereford Jews their own 'community'. The term was being used in a strictly legal sense, for the medieval concept of communitas was applied to society at many levels, such as township (villata), hundred, shire and borough. In this sense both the recognized local communities and the Commune ludeorum Anglie were possessed of certain rights, those of the latter described in the 1201 charter, and had certain obligations, particularly of a fiscal nature. Within limits, the Jewish communities had rights of self-government at both local and national levels, for they offered no threat to the state, since the Talmud accepted the law of the state as an aspect of divine law. However, behind the legal communitas lay the much more powerful and ancient Jewish concept of social and cultural community, for the English Jewry was but a small part of the dispersed Jewish world beyond.61 The granting of a community represented a profound change in status. The members would have their own archa or chest and could negotiate the purchase from the Crown of such privileges as the continued use of tallies 47</page><page sequence="26">Joe Hillaby and dispensation from wearing the duas tabulas albas, the 'badge of shame', as enacted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and adopted in England in March 1218.62 This measure was highly uncharacteristic of the policy of the council of regency. Undoubtedly, it was subjected to pressure from the powerful papal legate, Cardinal Biachieri Guala. Once he had left the kingdom eight months later, dispensations were put on sale. For Jews throughout the realm the regency offered promise of a new beginning. Given the political and military situation of the time, Hereford was an ideal base for financial activity. This opportunity H?mo seized. Nothing is known of his origins, but the resources at his disposal, as indicated by the 1221, 1223 and 1226 Tallage Rolls (Tables 4, 5 and 6), make it clear he was a wealthy man prior to his arrival in Hereford. However favourable the economic and political climate, such a fortune could not have been amassed in a few years. As sheriff and custodian of Hereford castle, Walter played a crucial part in the success of Hamo's venture. Without his active support, H?mo could not have established himself in the city. The large sums he could make available to the marcher lords gave him considerable leverage. De Lacy was in serious financial difficulty at the time. In 1215 he had negotiated a 'convention' with John to pay 4000 marks for the return of his Irish lands; 1000 marks to be paid immediately. In addition, money was still outstanding from a fine of 3100 marks levied by Richard I in 1194, and 400 marks by John in 1206.63 The only place to find such funds was the Jewish money market. In this context one can understand Hamo's decision to base himself at Hereford. Although the English Jewry had been ravaged, de Lacy knew well some of the flourishing communities across the Channel. Connections had been severed with the Jewries of Normandy, which were already in serious decline by the time the duchy fell into the hands of the French king, but links with the important communities in the Angevin lands of Poitou and Saintonge, including La Rochelle, were still strong. It was there that de Lacy landed with John for the Poitevin expedition in 1214.64 One of the largest and culturally the most important community north of the Alps was at Narbonne. In the 12th and 13th centuries it enjoyed exceptional stability and prosperity. Within the city there were two separate Jewries, the Grand Jewry, under the protection of the count, and the Little Jewry, within the jurisdiction of the archbishop. In 1217 they numbered some 1000 souls. At an early date Narbonne had established itself as a major centre of Hebrew culture, with its famous rabbinic schools, the Vieilles Ecoles (Yeshiva) and the Ecoles Inferieures (Yeshiva le talmidim). Such was their reputation that some authorities have 48</page><page sequence="27">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford suggested that the European rabbinate originated here. Indeed, the Saragossan rabbi, Sheshet ben Isaac Beneviste, called the schools of Narbonne, by a play on the Hebrew, Ner Binnah, 'the lighthouse of science'. This was the city to which de Lacy was sent in April 1214 to buy horses for the king. It must have made a profound impression. Founded in 118BC and described by Martial as pulcherrima, it had been, with Lyons, the most populous town of Gaul. In the 12th century it was still famed for the opulence of its citizens, based on their Mediterranean trade. The Jewries, safely behind the ramparts facing the River Aude - the one in the streets clustering to the north and east of the Palais des Vicomtes, and the other by the Palais Archiepiscopal, St Just's cathedral and the church of St Jean de Jerusalem - were clear testimony to the unwavering support which the counts of Narbonne gave to the Jews within their domain. The achievements and reputation of the Narbonne schools were equally clear testimony to the community's intellectual capacity.65 For the visitor from the north, the city would have provided a remarkable insight into the benefits to both Christians and Jews which could accrue from such a harmonious relationship. Only sixteen months after he was in Narbonne, Walter de Lacy was sheriff of Herefordshire, an office he held until 1223. It seems almost certain that he persuaded H?mo to come to Hereford. De Lacy had to fund the fines imposed on him by Richard and John; H?mo would be assured special status within the city and its hinterland - and the patronage of de Lacy's fellow marchers. Shatzmiller's study of the Marseilles magnate, Bondavid, has shown the need to dispel the Stereotypie view of Jewish-Christian relations characteristic of the monastic chroniclers.66 During those seven years there is no reason to suppose that an equally harmonious relationship did not exist between H?mo and de Lacy. Hamo's wealth and financial skills made him the virtual equal of de Lacy who, as the king's representative, was charged with the well-being of the Hereford community. Indeed, James Parkes has said that, in arranging their settlement in Hereford, the Jews (that is H?mo) explicitly demanded that in times of danger they should be allowed to shelter in the castle; a clear reflection of his authority.67 The meetings in the castle between these two, the one soldier and great landowner, the other financier, scholar, connoisseur and bibliophile, must have been remarkable occasions. Both were invested with much power, yet both were vulnerable. Outwardly power rested, for the one on land and the sword; for the other on gold and the pen. In reality for both it rested, ultimately, on the authority of the Crown. Of the two, de Lacy's power proved the more short-lived: he died blind, without male 49</page><page sequence="28">Joe Hillaby heirs and his inheritance wasted.68 Such a relationship was not unusual. Richardson has suggested that the Jewries of Bungay and Thetford were established by Hugh Bigod by leave of Henry II.69 In England, with the tightening of control after the massacres following the coronation of Richard I, all Jewries were kept more closely under the authority of the Crown and in the shadow of royal castles. On the Continent, even in Normandy before its loss by John, this was not the case. William Marshal was given a Jew of Chambay by John as duke of Normandy in 1200, and William de Boelles probably had a similar privilege.70 Indeed, throughout the 13th century we find Jews described as 'of Striguil', Chepstow and Caerleon, the seats of the Marshals and their successors, the Clares. However, they usually accounted for tallage with the Bristol or Gloucester community. As late as 1278 the sheriff of Gloucester was commanded 'to go in person and receive from the bailiffs of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, in Caerleon the goods late of David de Kaerleon, a Jew deceased'. Gilbert de Clare had been an avid purchaser of Jewish bonds.71 The tradition of using gifted and wealthy Jews as financial specialists apparently lived on, but the motives had changed. They were being used principally for purposes of speculation in encumbered estates. De Clare, like others, was merely following the example set first by the monks and then by the royal family. The intimate relationship between Leo's father-in-law, Abraham of Berkhampstead, and Richard of Cornwall has already been noted. On Richard's death, the king granted Abraham to Richard's son and heir, Edmund of Alemannia.72 To his own son, Edmund, Henry III gave Aaron, son of Vives, 'with all his goods, debts and chattels, quit of all tallages and the like'. Furthermore, Aaron was granted a licence 'to dwell in any borough of the realm, where other Jews dwell, and to stay in the king's castle wherever he dwells, if war or disturbance arise, with his household and goods, without impediment of the king, his heirs, justices, constables or bailiffs'. In 1271 Aaron was permitted to 'give and sell his debts to whomsoever he will and that any man soever may buy them, notwithstanding the Provision made of late that no Jew may sell his debts to any Christians'.73 To his half-brother, Guy de Lusignan, Henry III granted in 1251-2 that the Londoner, Aaron, son of Abraham, should be relieved of his tallage liability of 100 marks a year.74 The evidence suggests that Cok Hagin, son of Deulecresse of London, archpresbyter in 1281-90, had a similar relationship to Edward I's queen. Eleanor was very active in the land market. For example, the Close Rolls show her acquisition in 1281 of a clutch of thirteen manors, the castle of Leeds and various other lands, the whole valued at 40 knight's fees.75 In 50</page><page sequence="29">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford France the practice continued throughout the century. In 1283 Edward I granted 'Bonestrus of Bordeaux, brother of Benedict the Jew, for three years with all his goods' to William de Monte Revelli, constable of Bordeaux and bailiff of Entre-Deux-Mers.76 There can be little doubt that Walter de Lacy was following in a long established tradition when he induced H?mo to take up residence in Hereford. During the regency, as one of the chief members of the council and as sheriff, his power in Herefordshire and the southern march was beyond challenge. It is highly significant that Hamo's tallage assessment rose steeply in 1223; for that was the year Walter lost his shrievalty and thus control of Hereford's castle and Jewry. Walter's power as a member of the royal council had already gone, and now his local power base was lost.77 H?mo was thus left to fend for himself against the counterclaims of his fellow magnates. Yet the fate of H?mo and his family, even after this date, remained firmly linked to the fortunes of the last of the de Lacys. The 1221-6 Tallage Rolls, the 1231 relief and the marriage alliances amply confirm Hamo's place in the small group of 13th-century Jewish super-plutocrats identified by Lipman. He named only five others - Isaac, son of Jurnet, of Norwich; Aaron and Leo of York; David of Oxford; and Benedict Crespin of London.78 Although the 1244 list illustrates the death pangs of his family business, embedded within it we have a firm indication of the nature of the service which H?mo rendered in his heyday, the early 1220s. Thirteen years after his death, 83 per cent of family business, by value, was still with greater landowners (Table 8). Was Hamo's trade in those years unique? Comparison can be made with the Cambridge and Norwich Jewries. A record of debts registered at the Cambridge archa in 1223/4-1239/40, gives details of some 250 chirographs.79 Although the tallage contributions of the Cambridge community were but half those of Hereford (Table 3), the lists show that a number of magnates - Aaron and Leo of York and Jacob Crespin of London - were conducting business through that chest. Its contents should therefore represent a fair cross-section of the trade in loans of its district. As the 1244 list shows, what is important is not the number of loans to members of particular social groups but the ratio of large loans to small and thus the status of the clientele. Only two loans exceed ?55, ?400 each from Aaron and Leo of York to the abbey of Saffron Waiden. Six loans range between ?55 and ?25. The remainder were for very small amounts, usually a few marks. Six clients are described as knights, but there is not one reference to a major manorial landowner. The Norwich Day Book details all transactions at that chest between 4 April 1225 and 21 October 1227.80 Here a comparison with Hereford is more 51</page><page sequence="30">Joe Hillaby just. In 1221 and 1223 the tallage contributions of the two communities were close. Further, in Isaac, son of Jurnet, Norwich had a magnate similar in status to H?mo of Hereford. On close examination it is evident that a number of the larger entries refer to renegotiation of earlier transactions. Thus, Giles of Waxham's loan was negotiated at ?110, reduced to ?95 and then ?80, before rising to ?105. In consequence, the number of larger loans should probably be four over ?100 and six between ?50 and ?100. Only two out of some 350 entries refer to members of the baronage. There is a further Norwich source. Shortly after 24 June 1239 a list of Isaac's debts, paid in full or in part, was sent to the exchequer.81 It thus differs from the Hereford 1244 list which relates to debts not paid. Yet it does offer a means of comparing the size of loans and the clientele of the two magnates. Isaac's loans of over ?100 constituted 37.5 per cent of the total, ?3668. Hamo's loans represented 83 per cent, ?2159, of the total, ?2597 (Table 8). Apart from his ?604 loan in 1220-1 to the justiciar, Hubert de Burgh, to meet the building costs at Dover castle, a matter in which he had no choice, Isaac was following a cautious policy in relation to large loans in general and loans to the baronage in particular. Given his experience at the hands of John, and with the major part of that king's fine of 10,000 marks still debited against his account, he had good reason. Yet there is evidence that a more relaxed attitude was taken by the London and York magnates and David of Oxford. They cooperated with H?mo and his heirs over some of the baronial loans, but this may refer to difficult bonds and thus more speculative, discounted, debts (Table 11). Until their affairs are examined in more detail, we cannot be sure that Hamo's clientele, and thus the nature of his business, was unique. What is certain is that it was created by the long-term effects of the fines imposed by John and Richard and that these affected many members of the baronage. What marked out Hamo's clients was that their financial affairs have to be placed in the military and political context of the Welsh March in the first decades of the 13th century. The Hereford community It would be quite indefensible to describe the economic relations of H?mo and his family without saying something of the society within which they lived. The arrival of such a 'super-plutocrat', to use Lipman's telling expression, must have wrought a revolution in the social life of a community decimated by the tribulations of John's reign. 52</page><page sequence="31">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford Hate 1. City of Hereford, from John Speed, Theatre of the Empire of Great Britain, 1610. The site of the Jewry is abundantly recorded and the street name remained in common parlance until the 19th century. The first plan of Hereford, produced 220 years after the expulsion by John Speed, clearly shows Jewry Lane (Plate 1, no. 6). A property called 'the Jew's Chimney* is well recorded in the city muniments. In 1633 John Drew, carpenter, had 'attempted' Joan Wildman there and a rent charge of Is per annum was still being paid to the city chamberlain for the property forty years later. Finally, in 1743, it was rebuilt by John Phillips, tanner. A deed of the 53</page><page sequence="32"></page><page sequence="33">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford A deed of the previous year refers to 'a Lane or Back Street formerly called May lords Lane otherwise Jews or Jewry Lane'. The latter is marked on Isaac Taylor's fine plan of 1757 (Plate 2, no. 1), and on E. W. Bayley's Map of Hereford (1806). As late as 1808 a building, stable and yard are described as 'in Jewry Lane'.82 In contemporary documents it was Juenstrete or vicus Judeorum. With Malierestrete (subsequently unsuccessfully renamed St Thomas Street, now Maylord Street: Plate 2, no. 2) to the west it formed the rear access to the series of burgage plots which defined the northern boundary of the great market place, altus vicus, now High Town, founded as the centre of the Norman new town of Hereford immediately after the Conquest.83 The nomenclature suggests that the earliest, that is the 12th-century, settlement was along the eastern end of the street, but by Hamo's time the expanding community had spread into Malier estrete. Like the other English medieval Jewries, the Hereford vicus Judeorum was not a ghetto, a carefully delimited area inhabited only by Jews. Christians lived in the street; Jews lived in Malier estrete and beyond. In 1276 William de Fineges gave to his daughter, Isabelle, and her husband, Henry de Culeye, 'a messuage in Hereford in the vico Judeorum, to hold to them and their issue'.84 Conversely, Hamo's son, Moses, gave his daughter, Contessa, and her husband, Josce, son of Isaac of Worcester, a house in Bishopstrete as dower, and in 1271 Henry III gave Thomas Thebaud the property 'late of Mansell (Manser), Jew of Hereford between the land of Gilbert Saym and Robert Cachepol in Biscopegate'.85 Three sets of documents are the principal sources for the property owned or lived in by members of the community. The first, an inventory made on the death of Moses in 1253, describes eleven properties. These include houses, not only in the Jewry and Malier estrete, but also in Vydemareysstrete, Widemarsh Street, and fronting towards magnum vicum, as well as all the land late of Philip Roard 'against All Saints' church . . . but Cedemon the Scot held in fee part of that land and paid Moses 6s.'86 This last block of property can be readily identified. Today it is one of the prime sites in the town, where are to be found the premises of, among others, the Midland Bank and Boots the Chemist. It lies to the east of All Saints and is bounded on the south by High Street, on the east by High Town and on the north by Bewell Street (Plate 1, 'k', and Plate 2, no. 3). The second is the inventory of property drawn up at the expulsion and summarized by Abrahams. It shows that the community's property was now restricted to Juenstrete and Malier estrete.*7 The third is a series of documents in the city, cathedral and national records, including BL 55</page><page sequence="34">Joe Hillaby Lansdowne MS 826 and the Originalia Rolls, which relate to the subsequent history of that property. As a consequence of its purchase from Richard I of the manor of Hereford, including the right to all fines and forfeitures, Jewish property and land within the city and its liberty reverted to the town. This was not achieved without a tussle. In the bailiff's roll an entry was made recording payments for wine, made on the arrival of Master Macolinus 'for deliberations concerning the chattels of the Jews'. Small payments were made to the Crown. More than a century and a half after the expulsion the Pipe Rolls refer to the bailiffs of the city owing 9d to the Crown 'from the rents of divers houses which were part of the Jewry'. From such documents the lands and houses of such later residents as Aaron le Blund and Elias d'Ardre can be traced passing through various hands for more than a century and a half.88 Such records give us brief glimpses of key features in the life of the community. An inquisition of 1267 refers to a messuage that had been sold by Moses' widow, Sarah, and their son, Jacob, with all the buildings, 'stone and timber thereof - a reference to Hamo's own house, for a man of his stature would have lived in high style.89 It was probably not as grand as those of the York magnates, Benedict Episcopus and Josce of Kent, whose dwellings were so vividly described by William of Newburgh: 'large houses, built at very great expense, like royal palaces'.90 Nevertheless, Hamo's home, like the Jew's house and that attributed to Aaron at Lincoln, would have been of the stone 'upper hall' or 'house over warehouse' type, with principal room, fireplace and externally projecting chimney on the first floor and a windowless ground floor serving for storage.91 Among Moses' property within the Jewry in 1253 was 'the land late of Herbrund with its curtilage and the schola judeorum*. It will have been soon after his arrival that H?mo founded his Hereford synagogue. He was following an ancient tradition. From earliest times the provision of a synagogue and its embellishment had been regarded as a duty incumbent on the wealthy members of each community. In the Holy Land, in early Byzantine times, founders' names were recorded in dedicatory inscriptions, often in mosaic pavements. Most were in Aramaic, some in Greek and a few in Hebrew. At the 4th-century synagogue of Hammath Tiberias 'Severus, pupil of the illustrious Patriarchs . . . completed [the construction]. Praise unto him.'92 The practice was brought to Western Europe, but very few medieval dedicatory inscriptions have been preserved. Of those which survive, the three most important, at Worms, Cordoba and Toledo, no doubt express Hamo's sentiments accurately. At Worms the early-llth-century 56</page><page sequence="35">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford inscription, on a sandstone tablet, was saved by Dr Friedrich liiert, curator of the State museum, after the synagogue was burned down on 10 November 1938. 'Jacob son of David and Rahel his wife employed their wealth to the glory of God by building a synagogue and embellishing it with fittings. Thus they earned themselves "a Place and a Name". They should remain in good memory. Whoever reads this should say an Amen.'93 The Cordoba inscription reads: 'Sanctuary in miniature and resting-place of the Scroll of the Laws which Ishaq Moheb, son of Efraim, completed the year [50] 75 as a temporary structure. Turn, O God, and hasten to rebuild Jerusalem!' The last sentence is echoed in the inscription at Beziers (possibly of 1214). El Tr?nsito synagogue at Toledo, built by Abulafia (Samuel ha-Levi), treasurer to Pedro the Cruel of Castile (1350-69), as an annex to his own house, bears the inscription, close to the niche containing the Holy Ark: 'Behold this sanctuary dedicated to Israel and the house that Samuel built.' As at Worms, more than three centuries earlier, it refers to the furnishings and fittings: 'in the middle the wooden tribune [the bitna, called almemar in medieval Spain] and the scrolls and their crowns dedicated to Him, its lamps for illumination and its windows similar to those of Ariel. Come, people, and enter its doors and, like Bet-El, seek God, for it is God's house.'94 Such observances were carefully maintained by those who came to England in the 12th and early 13th centuries, for they kept close communion with the great religious centres and rabbis of the Continent. In England the schola judeorum, besides being a house of prayer and study, also had an official function. Here, for two or three consecutive sabbaths, announcements were read out in Hebrew and Latin on behalf of the Exchequer court, usually enquiries about claims for debt against named individuals. Thus in 1244 proclamation was made in the Hereford schola that 'any Jew or Jewess that might have any claims to make upon the heirs of Robert le Berwe must be before the Justices on Monday next before the feast of St Andrew. No Jew claimed aught save Samson, son of Moses, and Meyr le Petit', who were ordered 'to come before the Justices on Hilary quindene to account with William de Evreus (Devreux), guardian of Robert's lands'.95 After the death of the last of Hamo's sons in 1253 the schola was taken over by the community, for in the expulsion inventory we find 'the community paid Is a year to the ferm of Hereford' for a 'synagogue - with shop adjacent of the yearly value of 4s'. This places it in the same category as those at Nottingham (3s lid), Norwich (5s) and Colchester (7s), while the Canterbury synagogue was valued at 11s 8d and that at Oxford 18s 9d.96 In many communities the cost of upkeep was met by a levy 57</page><page sequence="36">Joe Hillaby on certain houses. Sadly, the precise location of the Hereford schola is not evident from the records now available, although the site was remembered for many centuries after the expulsion. A 19th-century town clerk wrote 'the remembrance of this persecuted race was long perpetuated in the names of their buildings, such as Babylon door and Synagogue'. A careful search of city deeds may yet yield its location.97 The building of a synagogue, even in the 1220s, was not an easy matter. In 1222 the Canterbury provincial council sought to prohibit the erection of new synagogues. Given the patronage of Walter de Lacy, H?mo would have had little difficulty in establishing his own schola, probably as the successor to a room in a private house. Not to inflame public opinion, such synagogues were frequently erected away from the public gaze, to the rear of the houses, in private courts. Indeed, the Statute of the Jewry, of 1253, enacted that Jews must 'in their synagogues, one and all, worship in subdued tones ... so that Christians hear it not'. Nineteen years later the London synagogue was handed over to the neighbouring friars because 'the constant wailing [ululatum] of the Jews impeded their rites'.98 It was for such reasons that the Canterbury synagogue was 'flanking the back wall' of the property at the corner of High Street and Stour Street, behind the house of Jacob, the wealthiest member of the community. At Norwich, Lipman indicated a backland site between the houses in Haymarket and Orford Hill. Indeed, a document of 1249 records that Isaac, son of Abraham, was granted by the 'congregation of Norwich' the right to build an upper storey over the gateway leading to the synagogue, subject to free access along the passage for all worshippers and an annual rent of 4d to the schola committee. At Winchester the schola lay within the the courtyard, curia, of Abraham Pinch. When in 1236 he was hanged, all his lands, except the synagogue, were given to a member of the royal household. Similarly, Aaron, son of Vives, gave the London community his stone house and courts in Catte, now Gresham, Street after the old synagogue had been confiscated in 1272. At Oxford, Jacob of Worcester's synagogue also occupied a backland site, off the Great Jewry, now part of the west range of Christ Church College. At Worcester a document of 1266 indicates that 'a certain house' stood 'in front of the schola judeorum'; a similar situation applied in Nottingham.99 In this respect the medieval synagogue was similar to the Nonconformist meeting place of the late 17th century. Of those who served in the Hereford synagogue there is considerable evidence. There has been much debate about the precise meaning of those Jewish surnames which seemingly denote ecclesiastical office and attempt to bridge two cultures: 'episcopus' or 'eveske', 'prestre' and 'capellanus', 58</page><page sequence="37">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford and 'magister'. Differences are most acute over the surname 'episcopus' or Teveske'. Stokes, followed for the most part by Lipman, believed that the term was generally used in connection with the Cohen families, but Richardson argued that they are not patronymics but 'usually though not invariably signify public office held within the community'. This he supported with a range of evidence: nine bishops are named for major communities in the 'Northampton Donum' of 1194, and bishops are found in eight of the seventeen recognized communities listed in the 1221 'Aid to Marry'. Further, a record of 1241 refers quite unambiguously to dominus Leo ludeorum Eboraci episcopus, 'Leo, bishop of the York Jews'.100 The Hereford evidence is not conclusive, but tends to support Richardson. The surname is first found in the 1221, 1223 and 1226 tallage lists. There Manasser Episcopus' contributions ranked fourth and fifth (Table 4). The alternative name given in the lists, Manasser gener Hamonis, shows him to have been Hamo's son-in-law (Fig. 2). This is confirmed by the 1244 list of debts which shows Manasser making loans as a member of the family. With Ursell and Moses, he had been one of the Hereford representatives at the Worcester 'parliament' of 1241. His son, Manasser fiz le Eveske, occurs in the Close Rolls of 1236.101 His successor seems to have been Elias le Eveske, who died in 1270, when his estate was valued at ?10 17s 4d. During his lifetime his daughter, Henne, carried on a business in small loans, for two of her unredeemed charters dated 1266-7, for 2 and 5 marks, were found in the Hereford old chest at the expulsion. A Benedict Levesque is referred to in the Patent Rolls for 1281. He continued to live in the city until the expulsion, for details of some of his loans, totalling some 75 quarters of corn, contracted in 1285 and 1290, were found in the new chest.102 The office held was probably that of parnas or bailiff, titular head of the community. Certainly, both Manasser and Benedict were men of substance. One at least of the Hereford rabbis has come down to us, for Jacob le Mester was one of the community's representatives at the Worcester 'parliament' of 1241.103 On the other hand, several Hereford Jews bore the title le prestre. Aaron le Prestre is to be found in the Tallage Rolls for Easter 1223 and Michaelmas 1226. Simon le Prestre seems to have been filling some communal post in 1244 when he responded to an official enquiry on behalf of the community. In 1274 Aaron, son of Bonamy le Prestre, paid a fine of one bezant' that he may remove from Hereford and reside at the town of Bruges', Bridgnorth. Stokes, followed by Lipman, regarded the title as virtually synonymous with episcopus, but Richardson, finding the alternative title capellanus substituted for prestre in the later 13th century, concluded that both capellanus and prestre were 59</page><page sequence="38">Joe Hillaby translations of hazan, in our terminology, cantor. As a bilingual deed of the later 13th century translates hazan as capellanus, we can be quite confident of the status of the Herefordian, Abraham Capellanus, referred to in the 1290 list.104 As the cantors were 'for the most part of lowly status . . . poorly paid and ill regarded', the minimal sums paid by Aaron to the 1223 and 1226 tallages (Table 4) support Richardson's contention that the term prestre was also used to translate hazan. The curia judeorum formed a communal complex. Here would be found not only the schola but such other essential buildings as the slaughterhouse and communal oven. The former we know was found in English Jewries, for the statute of the pillory, of 1267, required borough bailiffs to enquire 'if any do buy flesh of Jews and then sell it to Christians'. The prohibition was evidently ignored, for it had to be repeated in 1281. This proves the existence at Hereford of a shohet who, like the hazan, was a salaried officer of the community. The city receipt roll for 1285 records that Johanna Bibol was fined 12d 'for the sale of Jewish meat'.105 In addition there would have been a community kitchen, with its cauldron used before the Passover feast and other ceremonial occasions, a well and bathhouse, quite distinct from the mikveh, or ritual bath. Only one English medieval mikveh has yet been found. Recent discoveries indicate that the Bristol mikveh was at Jacob's Well. The site is not far from the cemetery, but some distance from the medieval town. This could have presented problems of security and freedom from intrusion.106 It is possible that the Hereford mikveh was located to the north of Bewell Street, only a hundred yards or so from the western end of Maylord Street. There the requisite mixture of rain and added drawn water could easily have been obtained. Even in the 19th century it was famed for the quality and abundance of its drawn water, for the Hereford Brewery and Mineral Water Company was established by the spring on this site in 1834. 'Favoured in possessing an excellent supply of the purest water from the famous Bewell spring', its products, the company claimed, were 'matchless for exquisite flavour, brilliancy and fine condition'. It was six years later that Rough, Sedge and Summers started bottling their 'Genuine Superior Aerated Waters' at Jacob's Well. While constructing a pump house for a new artesian well in 1907, the builders found a stone in the former garden of Bewell House; it was inscribed '77 ft well, 1724' (Plate 2, no. 4).107 Less speculative is the site of the cemetery. In 1177 the provincial communities were given licence to establish their own cemeteries.108 No longer had the dead to be taken to London for burial. The expulsion lists 60</page><page sequence="39">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford are the principal source for details of these provincial cemeteries. Four are mentioned: at Canterbury, Northampton, Winchester and York. However, the lists are not exhaustive. Land not held in fee would not have been included and the existence of five further provincial cemeteries has been established from other sources. Thus, at Bristol, not only have tombstones been found, but a deed of 1324-5 refers to 'one croft at Clifton against the Jews' cemetery'.109 Honeybourne assumed that Hereford Jews were buried at Bristol, but there is every reason to believe that the Hereford community would, like the others, have availed itself of the right to establish its own. The provision of a cemetery was one of the most important concerns of the medieval communities, for 'the cemetery was at the very heart of the community'. Often the establishment of a burial ground came before the building of a separate synagogue, since services could be held in private rooms. The limiting factor was financial. Given Hamo's wealth, this can be discounted.110 At Hereford there is a strong tradition that the cemetery was situated to the rear of the site of St Giles' hospital, now the corner of St Owen Street and Ledbury Road (Plate 1, 'g'). The history of the site is confused, but certain facts stand out. Firstly, it met the 1177 requirement that land bought by Jews in which to bury their dead should lie outside the walls of the city. Secondly, Jewish cemeteries were often on land closely associated with the Church, such as the hospital of St John at Oxford, and the priories of St Swithin at Winchester and St Andrew at Northampton. At York, land at Barkergate, still known as Jewbury, was bought from the cathedral clergy; at Tours the community paid the archbishop five gold obols for the use of the burial ground; at Cologne it lay within the domain of the oldest church in the city, the abbey of St Severinus; while at Speyer it was Bishop R?diger who granted the land.111 St Giles' was founded in the early-12th century and fell on hard times in the 13th century. When it was rebuilt in 1770 an inscription was placed in the central pediment recording 'St Giles's Hospital founded in 1290'. This must refer to a refoundation, for in 1265 'the leprous brethren of St Giles' without' were given simple protection for two years by the Crown. Johnson, town clerk from 1832 until 1868 and the city's most distinguished historian, who knew the documentary evidence better than anyone else, was categoric that 'a portion of their [the Jews'] confiscated property' was incorporated into St Giles' hospital. The repossession of the Jewish cemetery on land to the rear was evidently the occasion for a thorough reorganization of the ailing institution. This is supported by the discovery of moulded stones and a niche of early-14th-century date when the chapel 61</page><page sequence="40">Joe Hillaby was taken down in 1927. Further, excavations during road-widening works at that time revealed 'a cobbled track of closely packed kidney-stones two foot underground a little to the northeast of the chancel. It did not seem to go to the chapel but northwest to the hospital gardens and was probably a medieval approach to them.'112 The cumulative evidence suggests that this was indeed the site of the Hereford cemetery. It would have been maintained by either an endowment or a community levy. Here we should expect to find the laving stone, as at Winchester, where the 'stone on which the Jews washed corpses before burial' was valued at 4s, and, like the Northampton and London cemeteries, surrounded by a stone wall, the former 'worth 30s for carting away' in 1290.113 Here amidst the small collection of headstones with their Hebrew inscriptions, doubtless similar to those still to be seen in the medieval cemetery at Worms,114 H?mo, Ursell and Moses, and the rest of the family (with the possible exception of Moses' daughter, Contessa, who was apparently among those expelled in 1290)115 would have been buried with the other members of the community of which, for three and a half decades, they had been the leaders. Ursell, 1231-41 After his father's death in 1231, Ursell, representing Hamo's heirs, drove a not altogether unsatisfactory bargain with the justices of the Jews. The relief was assessed at 6000 marks, but the principal part of Hamo's estate was represented by bonds on money lent. The Exchequer therefore had no option but to accept settlement over an extended period: 1000 marks were to be paid immediately, the remainder at 300 marks a year. In addition, the family was relieved of liability for tallage. There was, however, a sting in the tail: any family loans pardoned by the Crown would be deducted from the 5000 marks owing to the Exchequer. Hamo's sons could no longer anticipate income with any degree of confidence; they had lost control of their financial affairs.116 Pardons of interest or even principal were not new. Henry III recognized that this was an economical means of rewarding those who had served him well. Thus, in 1230 he had given varying degrees of relief to a number of the more important debtors of H?mo and his business associates 'whilst on service overseas'. John de Botterell, who died very soon afterwards in Poitou, Robert Mucegros and Ralph Russell were released from interest payments. For Roger I de Clifford and Hugh de Vivonne, castellan of Bristol and seneschal of Gascony, there was not only relief from interest 62</page><page sequence="41">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford but also respite from repayment of the principal during their service (Table 11). Later in that year, Hugh was pardoned the whole of the ?100 owed to H?mo and his partners. The king engaged to ensure that his creditors 'would not be too much burdened' by this arrangement.117 On other occasions, the Crown readjusted the term at which the principal was to be repaid. Thus, in February 1229, H?mo had been informed that the ?73 10s Od which he had lent Roger de Leyburn on the surety of John de Balun and Pagan of Burghill would now be repaid in five instalments, varying from ?20 to ?8 8s Od, over the succeeding two years.118 This royal practice of pardoning interest and principal was to grow. With the increase in the incidence and rate of tallage, it made the business of moneylending ever more precarious. On the other hand, when very large sums, such as the 6000-mark relief, were due, the king had few scruples about applying direct pressure on Jewish debtors. Thus, in July 1233 the sheriff of Oxford was told to 'order Walter de Clifford to pay, without delay, to the heirs of H?mo of Hereford the 1000 marks with interest which he owes them by chirograph placed in the chirograph chest'. However, when de Clifford rose in open revolt, the king relented. In May 1234 Walter was pardoned his debt and it was ordered that 1000 marks should be deducted from the 5000 marks due from Hamo's heirs.119 After Hubert de Burgh's disgrace in 1232, Henry III fell increasingly under the sway of foreign favourites, especially the Savoyard friends and relatives of his queen. The king's dire need for cash meant a stricter regime for all who owed him money, Christian or Jew. Financial extortion and religious and cultural repression had never been wholly absent, but from this time on it developed to proportions only previously experienced during the later part of the reign of his father, John. The tallages imposed on the Jews increased both in frequency and amount. During the minority and the years following, Walter de Lacy had been able to reduce or postpone payment of the annual sums due from his fines. After 1232 circumstances changed. The death of H?mo had an immediate impact on Walter himself. The confidence built up between H?mo and Walter over more than a decade was now lost. Even under the most favourable circumstances, it would have taken time for Ursell, young and inexperienced in dealing with such powerful figures, to establish an effective working relationship, but circumstances were far from favourable. Ursell and his brothers were hard pressed to meet the relief imposed, and the 1244 list shows that Ursell was obliged to renegotiate a number of Hamo's loans in the eighteen months after the latter's death. Thus the list records that 'Walter de Lacy owes Ursell ?666 and 1 mark, due 200 marks yearly upon mortgage, the first term being Michaelmas 1233 63</page><page sequence="42">Joe Hillaby (wax delivered by hand of Benedict Crespin)'. The wax was the part of the chirograph bearing the seal.120 In March 1232 'certain Jews' sought possession of Britford in Wiltshire, one of Walter's most valuable English manors, which in 1186 had yielded an income of ?37 19s lOd. This action was frustrated by the king who ordered the sheriff of Wiltshire to ensure de Lacy's unimpeached possession of Britford. Indeed, eleven months earlier, in April 1231, it had already been used as security when Walter borrowed money from the London merchant, Richard fitz John, who required additional security, a clear indication of just how low Walter's credit had fallen. His seneschal, Simon de Clifford, and one of his knights, Henry de Bradelye, had to bind themselves by affidavit as guarantors.121 As we have seen, Ursell managed, with royal assistance, to establish terms for the repayment of his loans. Unfortunately for Ursell, Walter was once more called away to Ireland on the royal service and was therefore able to persuade the king that the first payment under the new terms should be postponed to the Whitsun following; in the meantime payment of interest should be waived. Reference here is to the 1000-mark debt in the 1244 list (Table 8). The renegotiated terms were 200 marks yearly, on mortgage, with the first payment at Michaelmas 1233. As the total was still owing in 1244, it is clear that Ursell never received a penny.122 By 1238 Walter was being pursued once again by his Jewish creditors. The evidence suggests that of these Ursell was, in the eyes of the king, the least important. In the spring Walter had to send his groom to the court at Marlborough to petition for the restoration of his manor of Weobley, distrained by creditors. A week or so later he had to send his bailiff to the court, now at Gloucester for Easter, on a similar mission in relation to the manors of Ludlow and Stanton Lacy. There is no record of the final outcome, but the Close Rolls show that in 1240 he was again hard pressed. When Aaron of York, impatient of repeated delay, brought an action for the recovery of 140 marks due at Michaelmas, the Crown again granted a postponement, but only until Martinmas, 11 November. By 19 November further action had been brought by a consortium of David of Oxford with the London magnates Aaron, son of Abraham, Elias le Blund, Aaron le Blund, Samuel, his son, and Samuel l'Eveske. Henry Ill's patience was now exhausted and he commanded the barons of the Exchequer to brook no further delay. De Lacy's possessions were to be distrained.123 Walter's health had deteriorated since 1237, when he was unable to fulfil his responsibilities in Ireland due to infirmity. Now he was blind. Within two months of his English lands being distrained he was dead. As soon as Henry III heard the news, his first thought was to secure the 64</page><page sequence="43">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford Crown's financial interests; he ordered the sheriffs of Herefordshire and Shropshire to take possession of the dead man's lands. A few months later Ursell, after ten difficult years in charge of the family business, was himself dead.124 Moses, 1241-53 As was customary, all the deceased's debts, pledges and goods were taken into the Crown's hands. In October 1241 the sheriff of Hereford was ordered to 'make diligent inquiry concerning the lands and chattels of Ursell'.125 Copies of the family charters in the Hereford chest were sent to Westminster. There the clerks drew up a composite list which included details of loans in the archae at London, Worcester, Warwick, Southampton and Northampton, together with information supplied by the sheriffs of Salop and Lancashire. This formed the basis of the 1244 list. Moses' first task was to negotiate the terms of the relief. Representing 'the heirs of H?mo', he made fine with the king in the sum of ?3000 for what is specifically referred to as 'the goods of H?mo'.126 The arithmetic of this transaction is difficult to interpret. The Fine Rolls confirm that Hamo's sons had handed over 1000 marks to the king at his Exchequer in September 1232. In December 1232 Ursell was ordered, 'out of the 300 marks he renders yearly, to pay 100 marks to William fitz Warin, sheriff of Hereford ... for the custody of the castles of Hereford and Painscastle'. In 1231, when Henry III was at Hereford preparing for the Welsh expedition, he had called on H?mo for a loan of 200 marks. In August 1233 the brothers were given credit for this sum 'lent to the king in his army of Painscastle'. Thus, even if Ursell had made no further payments, his overall debt to the Crown should have been reduced by at least this 1300 marks, to 4700.127 By 1234 Ursell had secured a reduction of his annual payment from 300 to 200 marks, of which 100 was to be credited to him annually, over ten years, in respect of Walter de Clifford's pardoned 1000-mark loan. There were other pardons, of both interest and capital, about which the king engaged that Ursell should 'not be too much burdened'. However, if the Pipe Rolls are to be believed, the family had a raw deal, because these promises were not honoured. In 1236-7 the justices of the Jews recorded that ?3074 Is Od (4611 marks) was due from Hamo's heirs. As this total remained unaltered on the Pipe Rolls for the next five years, one can only conclude that Ursell had not paid a penny since 1232 and that the Crown had not credited his account with any of the sums pardoned. Thus Moses' 65</page><page sequence="44">Joe Hillaby ?3000 'fine' was in reality a confirmation of the debt entered on the Pipe Rolls from 1236-7 to 1241-2.128 The 1244 list describes the family's outstanding bonds only a short time after the assessment of the relief. They total only ?2597 13s Od. To this must be added the value of the ten unspecified estates referred to at the end of the list; the value of family property in Hereford, about which more will be said later; cash in hand; and valuables such as jewellery, and so on. Yet the relief demanded of Moses, if levied at the usual rate of one third, would indicate a valuation of the total estate at ?9000. This was far from the case, for the bonds represented the major part of the family's wealth. They were its stock in trade. In 1246 Henry III assigned Moses' annual payments 'to the works of the church of Westminster'. The greatest of Henry's building projects, the rebuilding of Edward the Confessor's abbey church, had begun the previous year. The full cost, borne by the king, was about ?42,000. It was not only Moses who had to contribute, since 4000 marks of the relief which Licoricia of Winchester had to pay went to the building fund, and two of the arch-presbyters made 'gifts' - Aaron of York 20 gold bezants and Elias l'Eveske the great chalice with two handles. The archdeacon of Westminster, and Edward, son of Odo the Goldsmith, Keeper of the Works, one of Henry's 'most trusted servants and his constant adviser on artistic matters', were appointed 'to receive the money at the terms granted to the said Moses, to wit ?50 every Easter and Michaelmas from Easter next'. Thus the annual payment demanded of Moses was half that which Ursell had been required to pay. In return, Moses was to be 'seized of all the debts and pledges and goods which are in the king's hands' and the barons of the Exchequer were directed 'to distrain the debtors of the said debts to pay the said Moses'.129 The Crown was, however, under a misapprehension. Not all the goods and chattels had been in the king's hands, for the family, as was often the case, had concealed valuable items of jewellery which had belonged to H?mo. This came to light when Moses, hard pressed to find the initial contribution to the ?3000 relief, pawned to Roger de Troye, burgess of Hereford, a leather belt decorated with 'large members of silver and gold and otherwise beautifully and fittingly wrought'. This was a splendid item. Henry III ordered the justices of the Jews to reimburse Roger de Troye 'for that belt which we have kept in our possession from the chattels of the said Moses'. A further inquest was held and other items were discovered. Moses' wife, Sarah, had another belt, decorated with the occupations of the months, a favourite theme of classical and medieval artists. This also had 'belonged to the said H?mo'. The king ordered 66</page><page sequence="45">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford Sarah to be kept in prison 'until she has surrendered that belt... when you will send it to us'. Significantly, it was Moses Crespin who was distrained for 'two gold chaplets, one golden comb and other items of the weight of half a mark of gold from the jewels of the said H?mo according to the inquisition made before you'. All were to be sent to the king for his use. Reference is also made to 'certain precious objects, that is say one gold girdle, one mazer bowl, one gold brooch and two rings'.130 The lesser items of precious metal Henry III, in his constant hunt for gold, would have had melted down. Despite the orders to distrain Moses' debtors against the reservoir of credit which the Crown held against the family, the pardoning continued. In 1244 Henry III ordered the lands of the late Walter de Lacy to be partitioned equally. One portion was given to Walter's granddaughter, Matilda, and her husband, Peter de Geneva, a Provencal of low birth but high in the royal favour. The king pardoned them their moiety of Walter's debts, that is of the ?725 due to Moses and Hamo's other heirs, the ?150 due to David of Oxford, ?15 to Blanche of Hereford and ?15 to Contessa of Hereford. At first Henry III decided that Walter's other granddaughter, Margery, and her husband, John de Verdun, should be answerable for the other half, but subsequently he relented. The Pipe Rolls show that these pardons were not written off against the ?3074 Is Od due from Hamo's heirs. In 1249 Matilda, widow of Gilbert de Frome, was pardoned payment of both principal and interest of her late husband's debts to Moses, until his heir, Adam, should come of age.131 In this way, all the money borrowed by the de Lacys was lost. Moses suffered other losses. In 1242 John de Balun of Much Marcle was pardoned his debts and in 1245 John of Monmouth the ?160 he owed.132 Desperately, Moses sought to recover his money through the courts. In 1246 he tried to distrain certain lands belonging to the hospital of St John at Ludlow. These had been security for a loan, but had passed into the possession of the custodian and brethren. The sheriff of Shropshire was ordered to stop the proceedings. In a similar case in 1253, Moses brought an action against Ralph, abbot of the Cistercian abbey at Bordesley in Worcestershire, 'that he pays him 18s, with interest, in respect of lands late of Alan de Blad, which with others of the said Alan's lands, are his gage for 100s with interest'. There was no need for royal intervention in this case. When the abbot demanded 'by what instrument Alan was bound to the Jew and in how much interest?' Moses' attorney answered that 'the obligation was by a tally-chirograph' but was unable to produce any part of it, nor did he know how much interest was due.133 Moses lost that case, but success was with him on another occasion. In 67</page><page sequence="46">Joe Hillaby 1244 a certain John de Mahel (acting as bailiff) was summoned by Alan de Welton 'for that he [John] came to his house and without warrant took three of his oxen, value 30s, and led them off for a debt that he demanded of him to the use of Moses, son of H?mo*. After a series of comings and goings, Alan eventually withdrew the charge.134 In 1253 Moses brought an action against 'Thomas Rossall and Amice his wife touching a plea that they pay him ?20, with interest which they owe him upon the lands late of William fitz Warin, grandfather of the said Amice whose heir she is, the lands they hold being gage for 50 marks which the said William owed to Moses' brother Ursell, by chirograph, whereof Moses has administration by livery of the king.' Amice failed to answer the summons; there was an adjournment and no record of the eventual verdict. We know from the 1244 list that this loan should have been repaid in two instalments 20 years earlier - one payment of 25 marks at Michaelmas 1233, and the remainder at the feast of the Annunciation (Lady Day), 25 March 1234. Fitz Warin had died some years before the list was compiled.135Inability to regain the principal lent on loans such as this was another cause of the collapse in the family's fortunes. Moses apparently engaged in a certain amount of pawnbroking. On his death his possessions included 'twelve girdles of silk and leather with bars of silver gilt of the weight of ?15 10s and eighteen wreaths of gold etc.'136 The Rossall case was heard at Hereford, but others took Moses and his attorney farther from home. At Gloucester in 1253 Moses was successful in obtaining repayment of a debt from Henry de Kays. The formal acknowledgement and quittance were given by Moses on behalf of 'himself, his heirs and his father H?mo and his brother Ursell and all their sons of all debts . . . from the creation to the end of the world'. At Northampton he obtained 20 marks at Easter from William Marshal 'upon account of a debt of 185 marks made by chirograph under the names of the said William and Moses'. It was quite usual for the chirographs of loans to the more important clients to be kept in chests, not at Hereford but near their home. Thus the records of two loans totalling ?193 6s 8d made to William's father, John Marshal, an old-established client of the family who had died in 1242, had both been kept in the Northampton chest (Table 9).137 The decline in the family's standing was reflected in its prospects on the marriage market. Moses' daughter, called Contessa after her grandmother, was affianced to Josce, younger son of Hak, the leading member of the Worcester community. From the family's property in the town she was given, as part of her ketuba, 'a house, stable, garden and curtilage in the highway called Bishopstret [later Bye, now Commercial Street] in Hereford'. In all likelihood the house was on the west side, 68</page><page sequence="47">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford with the plot backing onto the Jewry (Plate 2). Here Josce took up residence, and in 1253 Moses and Hak stood jointly as guarantors for David of Oxford's widow, Licoricia, in a suit she was pursuing against Thomas de Charlecote.138 The vacuum created by the death of his father-in-law in 1253 offered Josce a remarkable opportunity to promote his own family's interests in Herefordshire and its hinterland. This all came to an abrupt end in 1263 when the Earl of Derby, with Peter de Montfort and Henry, son of Simon, Earl of Leicester, besieged and captured Worcester. The Jewry was sacked, yet Hak and most of his family escaped, but the Close Rolls record that Contessa's husband had been 'killed at Worcester during the time of the late disturbances in the realm'. Her brothers all dead, Contessa had to act in her own interests. While Henry III was at Hereford in June 1265 she petitioned him in person for the return of her dowry from her late husband's family. This the king granted. 'From the lands and chattels of her husband' she was to have 'without delay her reasonable dowry, according to the laws and customs of the Jewry'. Josce's widow then made a livelihood from small loans.139 Evidence of the financial pressure put on the English Jewry by Henry III in the early 1250s is overwhelming. Between Michaelmas 1250 and Whitsun 1254, there were five tallages amounting to 34,000 marks.140 In 1252 Moses had made two payments, of ?6 13s 4d and ?2 Is 8d, to the Exchequer 'on behalf of the commune of Hereford'.141 Eventually, in 1255, the king was so desperate for money that he 'assigned' the English Jewry to his brother, Richard, for a mere 5000 marks.142 Death may well have saved Moses from the fate which overtook his father's colleague and rival, Aaron of York, two years later - bankruptcy and total impoverishment. Certainly, after his death the pickings were meagre, for the king did not allow his heirs to retain even the family property in Hereford. In July 1253 the sheriff was commanded to carry out a full inquiry into Moses' property interests in the town. His inquisition describes eleven plots of land with their houses and appurtenances in Hereford.143 Henry III had intended to give Moses' house to a member of his household, William de Sancta Ermina; but in 1255, 'on account of transgressions by William made in the royal park of Windsor, the king now wishes that Richard of Cornwall has it as part of the agreement we have made concerning the king's Jews'. But this was not the end of the story. In 1267, after his return from service overseas, William contended that 'whereas the king gave him a messuage in Hereford which was an escheat by the death of Moke of Hereford, a Jew, certain persons took it during the absence of the said William from England, and retain it'. The complaint was minuted, 'the 69</page><page sequence="48">Joe Hillaby sheriff to inquire'. A second inquisition revealed that 'the king gave the said house to the said William as stated; and when William left England, Sarah wife of the said Mocke the Jew came and begged that the king through the justices of the Jews would grant her the said messuage during her life and disposed of it at her will; after her death Jacob, son of the said Mocke had seisin of it by the king's command; and between him and the said Sarah they sold the said messuage and all the houses, stone and timber thereof.'144 The stone house will have been the family home. This, with the synagogue referred to in the 1253 inquest, Moses had inherited from his father. The sale of the family home by Sarah and her son, Jacob, indicates how far the family's fortunes had fallen. In the tallage return for Hilary Term 1275, which lists the principal members of the Hereford Jewry, there is no mention of Jacob. Contessa, his sister, was the only member of Hamo's family still there. She was enjoying comfortable circumstances, for her assessment at 5s 9d was the fourth largest in the community, after the magnate Aaron le Blund, his son, Elias, and grandson, Benedict. When the Hereford old chest, which contained charters negotiated between 1259 and 1276, was opened at the expulsion, five of her bonds were found. These were worth ?8 6s 8d. In addition, she was owed one trugge, two-thirds of a bushel, of grain.145 She may still have been living in the house in Bishopstret. This, too, William de Sancta Ermina 'claimed to have by gift of the king' but in 1267-8 he had to accept the validity of Contessa's title before the justices of the Jews. However, the Originalia Rolls for 1292 record that 'Hugh de la Hale renders 8d [to the Crown] for houses with appurtenances in Hereford which Civitasse, Jewess of Hereford, held together with a certain small shop which was the same Jewess' in the vicus called Juenstrete.'146 'Civitasse' is evidently a scribal mistranscription of Contessa. If so, Moses' daughter, still living in Hereford at the expulsion, was the last-remaining link with the era of Hamo's greatness, seventy years earlier. Stacey has suggested that the change in the balance of taxation effected at the Worcester 'parliament' of 1241 ruined the Jewish majores}*7 Lipman identified six outstandingly wealthy members of the Anglo Jewry.148 Hamo's fortune was destroyed, not by tallages, from which his sons were excused, but by the relief levied in 1231, and to a lesser extent by subsequent pardonings of debt. The same can be said for two of the other super-plutocrats: David of Oxford and Leo of York, who ranked second and third as contributors to the 20,000-mark tallage of 1241-2. In 1243 their heirs had to pay reliefs of the same order as that levied on Ursell and his brothers; David's and Leo's heirs were also granted relief from tallage. It 70</page><page sequence="49">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford is for this reason that Licoricia does not appear on the subsequent rolls.149 When the fourth, Isaac Jurnet of Norwich, died, his estate owed the crown ?4919 7s lOd, the sum outstanding on the fine imposed by John in 1211.150 Fines as much as tallage wrought the destruction of the English majores. Postscript The impact of the fall of the house of H?mo on the Hereford community is shown in Table 12. Ranking sixth in 1241, by 1255 only the Nottingham and Warwick communities were smaller. But that was not the end of the story. In the 1260s the fortunes of the Hereford community rose once again.151 It was probably shortly after the defeat and death of Simon de Montfort at Evesham in 1265 that Aaron, son of the London magnate Elias le Blund, fully established himself in business at Hereford. The sack of the London Jewry in 1264, with the loss, according to the Winchester chronicler, of some 700 lives, was reason enough for his departure,152 but to succeed at Hereford necessitated tacit agreement with the now dominant Mortimers of Wigmore and Richard's Castle. Roger de Mortimer, more than anyone else, could claim credit for the victory at Evesham, and since Easter he had combined constableship of the castle with shrievalty. Like the Worcester sheriffs, William III and William IV de Beauchamp, he was now more active than ever in the land market, eagerly seeking encumbered estates153 - John de Balun was only one who suffered at Roger's hands.154 Table 12 Tallages of 1241 and 1255: contributions of Jewish communities Community 1241 20,000 ms1 ? s d % Rank Martinmas 1255 1,500 ms2 ? s d % Rank York London Oxford Canterbury Nottingham Hereford Lincoln Norwich Stamford Winchester 5109 18 1 47.6 1 2339 8 7 21.8 2 1327 0 1 12.3 3 371 9 8 3.5 4 299 0 0 2.8 5 258 11 5 2.4 6 244 19 3 2.3 7 217 2 2 2 8 175 15 6 1.6 9 103 12 6 1 10 48 13 4 4.5 7 348 0 0 32 1 55 0 0 5 5= 66 0 0 6 4 11 0 0 1 20 22 0 0 2 16= 88 0 0 8 2= 33 0 0 3 8= 22 0 0 2 16= 88 0 0 8 2= 71</page><page sequence="50">Joe Hillaby Cambridge Northampton Bristol Warwick Wilton Gloucester Colchester Bedford Worcester Marlborough Exeter 82 18 8 0.8 11 73 19 4 0.7 12 31 5 4 0.3 13 26 13 3 0.2 14 26 2 6 0.2 15 19 7 11 0.2 16 15 10 6 0.1 17 14 19 1 0.1 18 12 11 10 0.1 19 26 8 0 2.4 13 33 0 0 3 8= 33 0 0 3 8= 1 0 0 0.1 21 26 8 0 2.4 14= 22 0 0 2 16= 22 0 0 2 16= 33 0 0 3 8= 55 0 0 5 5= 33 0 0 3 8= 26 8 0 2.4 14= 10750 5 8 1,092 17 43 1 R. C Stacey,4Royal Taxation and the Social Structure of Medieval Anglo- Jewry: The Tallages of 1239-42% Hebrew Union College Annual, 56 (1985) 222-39. % to nearest decimal point 2 PR, 1255,441-449 3 includes 'the portion of Aaron' Table 13 Tallage of the Hereford Jewry, Hilary Term, 1275 (PRO E101/2/249/19; EJ, III, 33) Aaron, son of Elias le Blund Elias, son of Aaron Benedict, son of Elias Moses, son of Isaac Contessa, daughter of Mokka Bellassez, daughter of Leon Aaron, son of Benjamin Belia, daughter of Aaron Elias d'Ardre Bona the widow Blanche ? s d 33 8 8 2 0 0 1 15 7 2 3 5 9 13 4 2 8 4 8 1 6 8 8 11 4 0 40 12 6 % 82.3 4.9 4.4 0.3 0.7 1.6 0.3 0.6 3.3 1.1 0.5 100.0 Rank 1 2 3 11 7 5 10 8 4 6 9 72</page><page sequence="51">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford Table 14 The clients of H?mo and his family and of Aaron le Blund (1244: PRO E9/2/4; E], 1,65-8 1275 and 1276: PRO E9/22/18; E/, III, 230-8; PROE101/250/5) H?mo and family 1244 list Aaron le Blund 1275 and 1276 Loans Total (to nearest ?) % Total (to nearest ?) % Over ?100 ?50-?100 ?20-?50 ?10-?20 ?5-?10 ?l-?5 Under ?1 Totals ?2,159 166 128 95 27 19 3 1597 83.1 6.4 4.9 3.7 1.05 0.75 0.1 100 ?171 315 131 87 176 2 882 19.4 35.7 14.9 9.9 19.9 0.2 100 By 1275, as the Tallage Rolls indicate, Aaron's position within the Hereford community was even more dominant than that of H?mo half a century earlier (Tables 13 and 4), but the resources at his disposal and the nature of his clientele were quite different. Lists of Hereford debts were drawn up in December 1275, and after the closing of the so-called old chest in October 1276.155 Of the 79 charters found by Walter de Helyun and Giles de Berkeley on the first scrutiny, 71 belonged to Aaron and 6 to his sons, Bonenfaunt and Elias. These were worth ?391 Os 4d and ?60 16s 8d respectively. The second list includes details of 103 of Aaron's charters, 10 of Bonenfaunt and 4 of Elias. There is, however, considerable overlap between the two lists, since 63 charters appear in both lists. Further, the 40 new entries in the second list do not relate merely to loans made in the intervening ten months; many go back well before the date of the first scrutiny. The 71 charters of the first list and the 40 additional charters of the second provide a representative sample of loans contracted by Aaron le Blund between 1263 and October 1276, with a value of ?784 17s 8d. With those of Elias and Bonenfaunt, the total for Aaron's family was ?882 7s 8d, only one-third the value of the loans of H?mo and his family in the 1244 list. Even more dramatic is the difference in the size of the debts owed by 73</page><page sequence="52">Joe Hillaby individual clients. Table 14 speaks for itself. The difference in size of loans represents not merely a severe contraction of capital but also quite a different type of business. Not one of Aaron's customers was a greater landowner; a few were lesser landowners, such as Henry, son of Henry de Pembridge (?60); John de Balun (?50); and the impoverished William de Bliss, 'knight', whose lands had fallen into Mortimer's hands (?20). Nevertheless, the Hereford community had once more found a leader. With Aaron at its head, for quarter of a century it flourished and achieved one of its most signal successes. For more than a century the Church had sought to isolate the Jews. In 1286 Aaron decided that the wedding in August of one of his children should be celebrated in suitably high style. Explaining 'how great and how full of losses and perils is intercourse between Christians and Jews', Bishop Richard Swinfield wrote from his palace at Bosbury to his chancellor in Hereford: 'We have learned from sundry reports that on Wednesday after the feast of St Bartholomew they [Aaron's family] have made preparations for a marriage feast ... to which they have invited - not secretly but quite openly - some of our Christians - thus generating scandal by their intercourse. We therefore bid and enjoin on you ... to make it known in all churches of the diocese that no Christian is to take part in festivities of this kind, under pain of canonical discipline. Lest, God forbid, any should transgress through ignorance, have the same published through the villages, restraining by ecclesiastical censure the contumacious or obstinate.' Swinfield was appalled to hear that Aaron's overt challenge to ecclesiastical authority had succeeded, and succeeded handsomely. Despite his prohibition, 'certain sons of iniquity and rebellion had taken part in the impious feasts . . . holding intercourse with them, eating and drinking, playing and jesting'. These were to be publicly denounced until they did penance. Those who had done Aaron and his family the honour of attending in procession on horseback, clothed in silk and gold, were to be excommunicated unless they made satisfaction in eight days.156 Roth's suggestion that these events may have prompted Honorius IV's bull of November, wherein he called on the archbishop of Canterbury to enforce the decisions of the Lateran Council with adequate severity, and in particular to check the familiar intercourse of Christians and Jews which had encouraged the perverse infidelity of the latter and occasioned grave scandals to the faithful, is highly plausible. One can well imagine Swinfield, anxious for Thomas Cantilupe's canonization, reporting August's events to Rome. The bull was carefully inscribed in his episcopal register.157 74</page><page sequence="53">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford Swinfield's letters are of great interest not for their reflection of the stance of the Church, so well documented elsewhere, but for the remarkable insight into relations between the two communities. For one brief moment the veil of the fiscal records is lifted. Who were those who processed in their finery, in the face of the threat of excommunication? Many of the city oligarchy would have found it difficult to forgo such an opportunity - not merely for display, but as a heaven-sent opportunity to humiliate their bishop. Jurisdiction within the city was divided between civil and ecclesiastical authority. The previous year there had been a particularly violent clash between the two, over arrests made by the bailiff's officers within the liberty of the bishop. A royal writ to the sheriff had forced the bailiffs and principal citizens to make formal submission to Swinfield at his palace at Bosbury.158 Most, therefore, of those who took part in the procession would have been members of the urban elite, the 24 'guardians' of the Jews appointed in 1282.159 Almost certainly the two Moniwords, Reginald, chief bailiff of the city the previous year, and his brother John, wealthy middlemen in the wool trade, with close links with the Cahorsins and the merchants of Douai, were there.160 Only four years later, on 18 June, secret orders were sent to the sheriff to seal the Hereford chest. On 18 July 1290, he was informed that all Jews, with their wives, children and chattels, were, on pain of death, to quit the realm by 1 November, the feast of All Saints. He was to ensure that they suffered no injury, harm, damage or grievance in their departure.161 Almost all seem to have left for France. Paris was the goal of the wealthiest members of the English community, but there is no reference to Aaron in the rolls of the Paris faille for 1292 or 1296. Conceivably, he and his family settled in one of the towns of the more tolerant Languedoc, like Mosse Anglicus, Abraham Anglicus and Simon de Quigrulada (Cricklade), who appear in the Manosque registers after 1290.162 It was Reginald Moniword and William de Pedwardyn who bought up Aaron's house, the synagogue and other property in Hereford.163 The cemetery was incorporated into St Giles' hospital. In this way the 110 year-old community, cherished first by H?mo and his family and later by Aaron, came to an end. Once more the Jews of Hereford suffered dispersal, but the remembrance of their community was indeed 'long perpetuated' among the heirs of their hosts. For six centuries it survived. It is in our own time that the site of the Jewry has been wittingly destroyed. 75</page><page sequence="54">Joe Hillaby NOTES 1 H. G. Richardson, The English Jewry under the Angevin Kings (1960) 83. 4The Jew was a town-dweller. Whatever his occupation he was not an agriculturalist.* This was the case in England, but on the Continent the extent to which Jews were primarily urban and mercantile is a more complex matter. On this and the Stereotypie character implied by Richardson see G. I. Langmuir, Traditio 19 (1963), especially 210 21. 2 By 1241 chests had been established for Jewries at Warwick, Dorchester, Marlborough and Bedford, and later, for brief periods, at Huntingdon, Ipswich, Sudbury and Devizes, H. G. Richardson (see n. 1) 14-17. For the chest established at Berkhampstead and moved to Wallingford see n. 30 below. 3 Calendars of the Patent Rolls, 1216 92 4 vols (PRO, 1901-13) (hereafter PR) 1275, 75-6. When in 1236 Henry III married Eleanor, the 12-year-old daughter of the count of Provence, he gave her 'by way of dower the cities of Worcester and Bath, the borough and castle of Gloucester, the boroughs of Cambridge and Huntingdon*, together with certain other towns, Calendar of the Charter Rolls, 1226-1300 (PRO, 1903) (hereafter ChR) 1236, 218. After her husband's death Eleanor turned more and more to the consolation of religion, and in 1275 took the veil at Amesbury. 4 Michael Adler, Jews of Medieval England (1939) ch. 2 'The Jews of Medieval Canterbury* 47-124; ch. 4 'The Jews of Medieval Bristol* 175-251; M. Adler, 'Medieval Jews of Exeter* Trans Devonshire Ass. 63 (1931) 221-40; W. Urry, Canterbury under the Angevin Kings (1967) 119-20,150-2, 193-4,424-6 and map 2(b)5, central area west; H. P. Stokes, Studies in Anglo-Jewish History (1913) 103-215; J. W. F. Hill, Medieval Lincoln (1948) ch. 11 'The Jews' 217-38 and Cecil Roth, Medieval Lincoln Jewry and its Synagogue (1934). R. Mundill discusses the Lincoln and Canterbury Jewries in the late 13th century in his unpublished 1988 University of St Andrews PhD dissertation, 'The Jews in England, 1279-90*; J. Hillaby, 'The Worcester Jewry, 1158-1290: Portrait of a Lost Community* Trans Worcestershire Archaeoh Soc. 35, 12 (1990) 73-123; Survey of Medieval Winchester I, ed. D. Keene (1985) 75-8, 324, 384-7; II, 666-7, 1034 and figs 3 and 72; R. B. Dobson, The Jews of York and the Massacre of March 1190 Borth wick Papers 45 (1974), and 'The Decline and Expulsion of the Medieval Jews of York' Trans JHSE XXVI (1979) 34-52; M. B. Honeybourne, 'The Pre-Expulsion Cemetery of the Jews in London' Trans JHSE XX (1959 61) 145-59. 5 D. Stephenson, 'Colchester: A Smaller Medieval Jewry' Essex Archaeoh &amp; Hist. Jnl 16 (1983-4) 48-52; A. J. Collins, 'The Northampton Jewry and its Cemetery in the 13th Century' Trans JHSE XV (1939-45) 151 64; M. D. Davis, 'Medieval Jews of Ipswich' East Anglian NS3 (1889-90) 89-127; P. F. D. Allin, 'Medieval Southampton and its Jews' Trans JHSE XXIII (1969-70) 87-95. 6 PRO E9/2/4; Calendar of the Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews, ed. J. M. Rigg, Sir Hilary Jenkinson &amp; H. G. Richardson, 4 vols (1905-72) (hereafter EJ) I, xvi, 65-8. 7 Great Roll of the Pipe, 1166/1167 1220 Pipe Roll Soc. (1889-1897) (hereafter PpR) 1178-9, 41. See also J. Hillaby, 'Hereford Gold: Irish, Welsh and English Land. The Jewish Community at Hereford and its Clients, 1179-1253. Part I', Transactions Woolhope Naturalists Field Club (hereafter Trans WNFC) 44 iii (1984) 359 andn. 19. 8 PRO El01 /249/2. This was published by I. Abrahams in 'The Northampton Donum of 1194' JHSE Mise I (1925) lix-lxxiv. 9 V. D. Lipman, 'The Anatomy of Medieval Anglo-Jewry' Trans JHSE XXI (1968)65. 10 V. D. Lipman (see n. 9) 68 on the class structure of medieval Anglo-Jewry. 11 V. D. Lipman, The Jews of Medieval Norwich (1967) 21. 12 Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus, 1199 1216 (Record Commission, 1835) (hereafter FR) 1204,236. 13 FR, 1205,246,247. 14 PRO El01/249/134/ printed in H. G. Richardson (see n. 1) 291. 15 Kate Norgate, The Minority of Henry III (1912) provides the most graphic 76</page><page sequence="55">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford account of these events. 16 D'Bloissiers Tovey, Anglia Judaica (1738) 77. 17 PR, 1218, 157; Close Rolls: 1204-27, Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum 2 vols (Record Commission, 1833-4) (hereafter CR) 1218, 354, 357, 359; Rotuli Chartarum, 1194-1216 (Record Commission, 1837) (hereafter ChR) 1201,93. 18 The Worcester Parliament of 1241 has been interpreted as a move away from this domination by the majores. See n. 24. 19 PRO E401/4; E401/6; E401/8. The details of the 1221 tallage have been transcribed by H. M. Chew in 'Jewish Aid to Marry, AD 1221' Trans JHSE XI (1924-7) 92 111. Caution must be used with the details of the 1221 tallage. The threat of a double charge on those tardy in payment seems to have had the desired effect, but a small number of entries bear the comment debet duplum in the margin. Nevertheless there is some discrepancy between the 1000 marks demanded and the 981 marks, including the double charges, received. 20 V. D. Lipman (see n. 9) 68-9. 21 PROE9/2/4;E/,I,66. 22 Excerpta e Rotulis Finium, 1216-72 2 vols (Record Commission, 1835-6) (hereafter FR) 1232,226; M. Adler (see n. 4) 146 surmised incorrectly that 'the estate of H?mo of Hereford paid 6000 marks in 1232 and in 1235 a further 5000 marks*. The latter was not a further sum paid but the money outstanding in that year. 23 FR, 1244, 412, 418; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1227-96 7 vols (PRO, 1900-38) (hereafter CR) 1244,260; PRO E/368/15/12d. 24 The returns of the 20,000-mark tallage of 1241 have been examined in detail by R. C. Stacey in 'Royal Taxation and the Social Structure of Medieval Anglo-Jewry: The Tallages of 1239-42* Hebrew Union College Annual 56 (1985) 175-209 and are transcribed as an appendix, 210-49. This is based on his unpublished 1983 Yale University PhD thesis 'Crown Finance and English Government under Henry III, 1236 1246*. See also ch. 3 'The King, the Council, and the Jews, 1239-1242' in R. C. Stacey, Politics, Policy and Finance under Henry III, 1216-1245 (1987) 132-59 and R. C. Stacey, '1240-60: A Watershed in Anglo-Jewish Relations?* (Bulletin of the Institute of) Historical Research 61 (1988) 135-50. 25 PR, 1243,397; PR, 1257,564,570-1. 26 CR, 1230,414,415,420,439; 1236,278. 27 There is no satisfactory record of Abraham after 2 March 1232, PR, 1232,12. The 1244 list records two bonds under the name 'Abraham, son-in-law of Elias' dated Michaelmas 1230 and Michaelmas 1232, PRO E9/2/4;E/,I,6^8. 28 PRO E368/14/4; PRO E9/2/4; EJ, 1,66; CR, 1233,231; 1246,395. For the indebtedness of the de Vaux family see J. Hillaby, 'Hereford Gold: Irish, Welsh and English Land, Part 2. The Clients of the Jewish Community at Hereford 1179-1253: Four Case Studies' Trans WNFC 45i (1985) 259-61. 29 E401 /4; E401 /6; CR, 1241,354; R. C. Stacey (1987) (see n. 24) 152, Table 4.3. 30 N. Denholm-Young, Richard of Cornwall (1947) 22 n. 1, 69-74,108; CR, 1231, 468; 1235, 46; 1241, 393; 1250, 263; Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, sub anno 1250; PR, 1255,3%, 403. 31 CR, 1234,400. 32 FR, 1236, 295. One palfrey was provided in 1237, but according to the Pipe Rolls the next was not until 1241-2; PRO E372/80 flO; 81 f6; 82 p. 11; 83 p. 12; 84 p. 22; 85 p. 2; 86 p. 15. R. W. Hunt, 'The Library of Robert Grosseteste* in Robert Grosseteste, ed. D. A. Collins (1955) 127-9. 33 Placitorum Abbreviatio (Record Commission, 1811) 111, 114. 34 PROE368/14/4. 35 CR, 1241, 355; PRO E401/4/4; E401/8/4; PRO E9/2/4; EJ, I, 66; CR, 1234, 362. 36 M. M. Postan, The Medieval Economy and Society (1975) 181-2. 37 Sharon T. Lieberman, 'English royal policy towards the Jews* debtors, 1227-9?' (unpublished University of London PhD thesis, 1983); V. D. Lipman (see n. 11) 93,187 225; V. D. Lipman (see n. 9) 74. 38 M. M. Postan in Cambridge Economic History of Europe I (2nd ed. 1966) 592-5; R. H. Hilton, A Medieval Society (1966) 49-50; M. M. Postan (see n. 36) 177-94, 279-80; P. D. A. Harvey, 'The English Inflation of 1180-1220' Past and Present 61 (1973) 3-30; P. R. Coss, 'Sir Geoffrey de Langley and the Crisis of the Knightly Class in Thirteenth-Century England' Past and Present 68 (1975) 3-37. 39 E. King, 'Large and Small Landowners in Thirteenth-Century England: The Case of Peterborough Abbey' Past and 77</page><page sequence="56">Joe Hillaby Present 47 (1970) 26-50. D. A. Carpenter, 'Was there a Crisis of the Knightly Class in the Thirteenth Century? The Oxfordshire Evidence' Eng. Hist. Rev. 95 (1980) 721-52; E. Miller &amp; J. Hatcher, Medieval England, Rural Society and Economic Change, 1086 1348 (1978) 172-3; J. L. Bolton, The Medieval English Economy, 1150-1500 (1980) 105-9. 40 M. M. Postan (see n. 36) 181-2; P. Elm an, 'The Economic Causes of the Expulsion of the Jews in 1290' Ec. Hist. Rev. 7 (1937) 148; 'Jewish Finance in Thirteenth Century England' Trans JHSE XVI (1952) 95. 41 V. D. Lipman (see n. 11) 94. 42 R. W. Emery, The Jews of Perpignan in the Thirteenth Century, an economic study based on notarial records (New York 1959) 9, 39-66,131-3. 43 PROE9/2/4;E/,I,65-8. 44 J. Hillaby (see n. 28) 250-1 and fig. 21. 45 J. Hillaby (see n. 28) 232-3. 46 I. J. Sanders, English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and Descent,1086-1327 (1960) provides succinct biographies of these baronial families. H. Round, 'The Family of Ballon and the Conquest of South Wales' in Studies in Peerage and Family History (1901) 181-215; J. Hillaby (see n. 28) 235-6,251-8 and fig. 22. 47 J. G. Edwards, 'The Normans and the Welsh March* Proc. Brit. Acad. 42 (1956) 155-79. 48 For relations between King John, the Braose family and Walter de Lacy and their Irish connections, J. Hillaby (see n. 28) 195 210 and n. 129. 49 For the de Lacy family generally see W. E. Wightman, The Lacy Family in England and Normandy, 1066-1194 (1966) which deals with the Weobley and Pontefract branches of the family. In the case of the former the terminal point is the death of Hugh II de Lacy in 1186, although some reference is made to his son Walter II. R. W. Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire 5 (1858) 253-79 is of considerable value for the life of Walter II de Lacy. 50 For the background to the history of the de Lacy family in Ireland see G. H. Orpen, Ireland under the Normans 2 and 3 (1911-20, reprinted 1968); E. Curtis, A History of Medieval Ireland from 1086-1513 (2nd ed. 1938, reprinted 1968) 81-138; A. J. Otway-Ruthven, A History of Medieval Ireland (1968) 66-125; M. Dolley, Anglo Norman Ireland, c.1100-1318 (Dublin 1972) 81-147; R. Frame, Colonial Ireland (Dublin 1981) 1-62. For Walter IPs fines J. Hillaby (seen. 28), 216-7. 51 CR, 1213,134,147; Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, 1201-16 (Record Commission, 1835) (hereafter PR) 1213, 99; FR, 1213,480, 487. 52 W. L. Warren, 'The Historian as Private Eye* Historical Studies 9 (1974) II? IS. 53 PR, 1215,132; 1216,193-4; CR, 1216, 283. 54 English Historical Documents, III, 1189-1327, ed. H. Rothwell (1975) 318,328. 55 PROE9/2/4;E/,I,65-8. 56 J. Hillaby (see n. 28) 246-51 and fig. 21. 57 FR, 1203,187; 1204,203. 58 J. Hillaby (see n. 7) 375-6; (see n.28) 211. 59 PpR, 1218,90; 1219,165; PR, 1216,11. 60 PR, 1217,59,95,98,105; 1218,180-1. 61 PR, 1218,157; CR, 1218,354,357,359; J. Duncumb, Collections towards the History and Antiquities of the County of Hereford I (1804) 346. On the two differing concepts of community, one legal, the other cultural, see (i) F. Pollock &amp; F. W. Maitland, The History of English Law I (1898) 494-5, 564-7, 624-34, 678-85; S. Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900-1300 (1984); and (ii) S. W. Baron, The Jewish Community: Its History and Structure 3 vols (Philadelphia 1942); L. Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages (1963); J. Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community (1938); M. D. Davis, Shetaroth: Hebrew Deeds of English Jews before 1290 (1888, reprinted 1969); I. Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages (1896); B. Blumenkranz, Histoire des Juifs en France (Collectio Franco-Judaica, Toulouse 1972) ch. 6 'The Jewish Community: A Microcosm'. A splendid study of the operation of such a Jewish community, at a later date, is to be found in J. S. Gerber, Jewish Society in Fez, 1450-1700: Studies in Communal and Economic Life (Leiden 1980). On the communal buildings T. &amp; M. Metzger, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages (New York 1982). 62 Sacrorum Conciliorum XXII, ed. J. D. Mansi (Florence 1767, reprinted Graz 1961) 1058; PRO E401/4; CR, 1218, 378; H. G. Richardson (see n. 1) 178-9,191-3. In 1275 the 78</page><page sequence="57">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford colour white was changed to yellow, and shortly after the wearing of the badge was extended to women, CR, 1279,565; CR, 1281, 176. For the wider context G. Kisch, 'The Yellow Badge in History* Historia Judaica 4 (1942) 95-144. 63 J. Hillaby (see n. 28) 215-8 and Table 15. 64 PR, 1214,14,112,152,161; 1227,358; 1228,380. 65 J. Regne, Etudes sur la Condition des Juifs de Narbonne du Ve au XIVe Siicle (Narbonne 1912); A. Grabois, *Les Ecoles de Narbonne au XHIe Siecle' in Juifs et JudaSsme de Languedoc (Cahiers de Fanjeaux 12, Toulouse 1977) 141-57; PR, 1214,113. 66 J. Shatzmiller, Shylock Reconsidered: Jews, Moneylending and Medieval Society (Berkeley 1989). 67 J. Parkes (see n. 61) 151, n. 6. 68 J. Hillaby (see n. 28) 237-9; Matthew Paris (see n. 30) sub anno 1241. 69 H. G. Richardson (see n. 1) 12. 70 ChR, 1201,75. 71 PRO E368/13/7; E401 /1566; Calendar of Ancient Deeds III (PRO, 1916) (hereafter AD) D78, D278; Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1272 1307 (PRO, 1911) 93; PRO E9/7/3; E9/8/4; E9/15/12; EJ, 1,137,158,199; II, 117. 72 PR, 1272,654. 73 PR, 1271,515; CR, 1281,252. 74 PROE368/26/6. 75 PR, 1281, 433; CR, 1281, 80-1; P. Elman (see n. 40) 149 and n. 5 on 'the purchase of yearly fees and debts by the royal family and barons'; Select Pleas, Starrs and other Records from the Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews, 1220-84, ed. J. M. Rigg Seiden Soc. 15 (1902) 87-8; H. P. Stokes (see n. 4) 35-7. 76 Calendar of Chancery Warrants, 1244-1326 (PRO, 1927) 15. 77 PR, 1224, 414,419; K. Norgate (see n. 15) 191, 215, 280-6, 290-2; M. Powicke, The Thirteenth Century (1953) 19-25. 78 V. D. Lipman (see n. 9) 69 and above. 79 PRO El01/249/3, printed in H. P. Stokes (see n. 4) 252-75. 80 Westminster Abbey Muniments (hereafter WAM) 6686, 6687, 6693, 9102 printed in V. D. Lipman (see n. 11) 187-225. 81 WAM, 6692 printed in V. D. Lipman (seen. 11)245-52. 82 J. Speed, Theatre of the Empire of Great Britain (1610); R. Johnson, The Ancient Customs of the City of Hereford (2nd ed. 1882) 100; Herefordshire County Record Office, Hereford City Muniments, (hereafter HCRO, HCM) Deed 2 July 1742; Minute Book, 1743; Indenture C19 of 15-19 Maylord St and 1-3 Bell Passage. 83 On the topography of post-conquest Hereford see J. Hillaby, 'The Norman New Town of Hereford: Its Street Pattern and its European Context* Trans WNFC 44ii (1983) 184-95. 84 y4D,VI,C4833. 85 A. T. Bannister, 'A Lost Cartulary of Hereford Cathedral' Trans WNFC (1917) 271 item 28. The cartulary is Bodleian MS Rawlinson B329. OiR, 1271,162. 86 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry III (PRO 1904) (hereafter IPM) 1253, 62. 87 PRO E101/250/5 published by B. L. Abrahams as 'The Debts and Houses of the Jews of Hereford in 1290' Trans JHSE I (1894) 136-59. 88 Manuscripts of Rye and Hereford Corporations, etc. (Hist. Manuscripts Commission, 1892) (hereafter Hereford MSS) 295; Rotulorum Originalium Abbreviatio I (Record Commission, 1805) 75; PRO CP40/122/96; PR, 1445, 362; Hereford Dean and Chapter Records, no. 1162; T. Madox, Firma Burgi (1726) 12 n. 013 n. Q. 89 IPM, 1267,112. 90 William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicanum II, ed. H. C. Hamilton, Eng. Hist. Soc. (1866, reprinted Vaduz 1964) 19. 91 M. Wood, The English Medieval House (1964) 1-6, 14 surveys the evidence relating to 12th-century stone houses claimed to be of Jewish origin. For a discussion of the 'house over warehouse type' see C. Platt, Medieval Southampton (1973) 41-3. 92 M. Dothan, 'The Synagogue at Hammath-Tiberias' in Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. L. I. Levine (Jerusalem 1981) 63-9. J. Naveh, 'Ancient Synagogue Inscriptions' in Levine (1981) 133-9 summarizes the author's Hebrew work On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues (Jerusalem 1978). See also B. Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives: ripertoire des didicaces grecques relatives ? la construction et ? la refection des synagogues (Paris 1967). 93 F. Reuter, Warmaisa: 1000 Jahre 79</page><page sequence="58">Joe Hillaby Juden in Worms (Worms 1984) 18-19, n. 8 and 9. 94 F. Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas Espanolas, con especial estudio de la de C?rdoba y la Toledana de el Trdnsito (Madrid 1984) 21-4, 96-101; G. Nahon, 'L'epigraphie' in Art et archiologie des Juifs en France midiivale, ed. B. Blumenkranz (Toulouse 1980) 102,316-7 and fig. 9; C Roth, 'Las inscripciones historicas de la Sinagoga del Tr?nsito de Toledo' Sefarad 8 (1948) 1-22. For Samuel ha-Levi see Y. Bauer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain I (Philadelphia 1961) 362-4, 448. 95 PROE9/4/5;E/,I,106. 96 The valuation of the various synagogues at the expulsion is given in PRO E159/557/9 published by B. L. Abrahams in 'Condition of the Jews in England at the time of their expulsion in 1290' Trans JHSE II (18%) 76-105 where the text was rearranged in a more systematic order. 97 M. D. Davis (see n. 61) nos 40-7; R. Johnson (see n. 78), 100. 98 Councils and Synods Hi, 1205-1265, ed. F. M. Powicke &amp; C. R. Cheney (1964) 120; CR, 1253,312-3; 1272,522. 99 W. Urry (see n. 4) 116, 120 and map 2(b)5, Central Area West; V. D. Lipman (see n. 11) 123-4 and fig. 13; M. D. Davis (see n. 61) nos 16,116; CR, 1236,239,271,341; D. Keene, 2 (see n. 4) 666-7 and fig. 73; Cartulary of the Monastery of St Frideswide at Oxford 1, ed. S. R. Wigram, Oxford Historical Society, 28 (1895) nos 278-81; The Oxford Deeds of Balliol College, ed. H. E. Salter, OHS, 64 (1913) 91-122 and map facing 122; H. E. Salter, Survey of Oxford 1, ed. W. A. Pantin, OHS, NS 14 (1960) 230-1 and map SE 1; CR, 1266, 235. 100 H. P. Stokes (see n. 4) 18-22; V. D. Lipman (see n. 11) 153-5; H. G. Richardson (seen. 1) 123-32. 101 PRO E401 /4; E401 /6; E401 /8; E9/2/4; EJ, 1,66; CR, 1236,307; 1241,35M. 102 J. M. Rigg (see n. 75) 60-1; PR, 1281, 434; PRO E 101/250/5; B. L. Abrahams (see n. 83) 152,158. 103 CR, 1241,355. 104 PRO E9/4/6; EJ, 1,107; PRO E401 /6/6; E401/8/4; E9/16/8; EJ, II, 145; H. P. Stokes (see n. 4) and H. G. Richardson (see n. 1); PRO E101/250/5; B. L. Abrahams (see n. 83) 158. 105 Statute 51 Henry III c6; CR, 1281,176; HCRO, HCM, bailiffs' accounts (1287), abstract in Hereford MSS (1892), 294. 106 T. Noble and T. Gardiner, 'Brief History of Jacob's Well* Bristol Templar (Spring 1989) 8-10. 107 A. Watkins, 'Hereford Place-Names and Sites* Trans WNFC (1930) 122; Jakeman and Carver, Directory and Gazeteer of Herefordshire (1890) advertisement on outer cover. 108 Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ed. W. Stubbs (Rolls Series, 49,1867) 1,182. 109 On the medieval cemetery S. W. Baron, II (see n. 61) 146 et seq; M. B. Honeybourne (see n. 4) 145-59 discusses the other English cemeteries. The Bristol deed is published in Trans Bristol &amp; Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 74 (1955) 184. 110 Medieval cemeteries and tombstone inscriptions of Germany are discussed in detail by A. Kober, 'Jewish Monuments of the Middle Ages* Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 14 (1944) 149 220; 15 (1945) 1-91; those of France by G. Nahon, 'Les cimetieres* and 'L'epigraphies* in B. Blumenkranz (see n. 90) 73-132. 111 CR, 1231, 500; PRO E159/559/9; A. J. Collins (see n. 5) 151-64; M. Adler (see n.4) 165-7; D. Spufford, Money and its Use in Medieval Europe (1988) 181; A. Kober (see n. 106) (1944) 187; (1945) 14-15. 112 J.Duncumb,I (seen. 61) 429;PR, 1265, 427; A. Watkins, 'St Giles' Chapel, Hereford' Trans WNFC (1927) 102-7. 113 PRO E159/557/9; B. L. Abrahams (see n. 96) 102, 98; M. B. Honeybourne (see n. 4) 146. 114 A. Kober (see n. 106) (1945) 67-71. 115 Seen. 145,146. 116 FR, 1232,226 'The four sons of H?mo, Ursell, Leo, Moses and Abraham, make fine with the king to pay 6000 marks to have the lands, houses, debts and chattels which were the said Hamo's. Of which 6000 marks they have handed over to the king at his exchequer 1000 marks', 10 September 1232. Calendar of Liberate Rolls, 1226-51 3 vols (PRO, 1916-37) 1233, 214-5 'Computate to the sons and heirs of H?mo of Hereford ... in the fine of 6000 marks that they made with the king and of which they render 300 marks yearly*. CR, 1242, 2 'The fine which the said Ursell made with the king after the death of H?mo, Jew of Hereford, his father, for a third part of the goods of the said H?mo'. 117 CR, 1230,414-5,420,439. 80</page><page sequence="59">A magnate among the marchers: H?mo of Hereford 118 CR, 1229,152. 119 CR, 1233, 314; 1234, 434; J. Hillaby (seen. 28)248-50. 120 PRO E9/2/4;E/, 1,66. 121 CR, 1232, 38; Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland preserved in HM Public Record Office, 1171-1251, ed. H. S. Sweetman (PRO, 1875) (hereafter CDJ) no. 1875. 122 CR, 1233,352; PRO E9/2/4;E/, 1,66. 123 CR, 1238,122,123; 1240,226,258. 124 CR, 1237,11; FR, 1241,37; PR, 1241, 246-7,263; CDI, nos 2511,2519,2582,3009. 125 PR, 1241,356. 126 PR, 1246,474. 127 FR, 1232,226; PR, 1232,5. 128 CR, 1232,20, 70; 1233,352,434; PRO E372/80 flO; 81 f6; 82 p. 11; 83 p. 12; 84 p. 22; 85 p. 2; 86 p. 16; Pipe Roll, 26 Henry III (1241 2), ed. H. L. Cannon (Yale 1918) 162. 129 CR, 1246, 414; PR, 1246, 474; Calendar of Liberate Rolls, 1245-51 (PRO, 1937) 46; History of the King's Works, ed. H. M. Colvin, 1 (1962) 13S-5. On Elias l'Eveske's great chalice see I. Abrahams and H. P. Stokes, Starrs and Jewish Charters preserved in the British Museum with additions by H. Loewe,2(1932) 42. 130 FR, 1245,441; CR, 1245,329. 131 FR, 1244,346; 1245,437,445; 1249,61. See n. 124 above and PRO E372/118/9. 132 CR, 1242, 22; 1245, 345. For John of Monmouth's debts - and their consequences - J. Hillaby (see n. 28) 239-46. 133 CR, 1246,440; PRO E9/5/2; EJ, 1,117. 134 PROE9/2/l;E/,I,58. 135 CR, 1246,440; PRO E9/5/5; EJ, 1,123. For William fitz Warin, J. Hillaby (see n. 28) 251-8. 136 PR, 1254,315. 137 CR, 1240,259; PRO E9/5/l;E/, 1,114, 115. 138 PROE9/5/2;E/,I,120;J.M.Rigg(see n. 75) 19, 21; A. T. Bannister (see n. 81) 271, item 27. The fortunes of this, the principal family of the Worcester community are described in J. Hillaby (see n. 4). 139 Annales Monastici IV, ed. H. R. Luard, Roll Series 36 (1869) 448-9; Roger of Wendover, Flores Historiarum II, ed. H. R. Luard, RS 95 (1890) 486-7; CR, 1265,66. 140 The most recent and accurate list of Jewish tallages for this period is provided by R. C. Stacey (1988) (see n. 24) 139 who shows that 'something close to the assessed amounts was in fact being paid'. 141 Tallage of St Martin, PRO E401 /20/2. 142 PR, 1255, 400, 439; Matthew Paris (see n. 30), sub anno 1255; N, Denholm-Young (see n. 30) 68-71. 143 JPM, 1253, 62 reprinted in Hillaby (see n. 7) 399. 144 FR, 1253, 165; IPM, 1267, 112; CR, 1255,12,67. 145 PRO E9/18/6; EJ, IV, 33; PRO E101/250/5. The trugge, a trough, was a local grain measure of Welsh origin. It was used on the Hereford canonical estates at this time. Although in Herefordshire and Radnor it was the equivalent of two-thirds of a bushel, elsewhere on the march it had a different value. W. Rees, South Wales and the March, 1284-1415 (1924) 281-2, 295; T. Blount, Law Dictionary and Glossary, with additions by W. Nelson (1717). 146 Rotulorum Originalium (see n. 88) I, 75; PR, 1445,362. 147* R. C. Stacey (1985) (see n. 24) 205, 201. 148 V. D. Lipman (see n. 9) 69. 149 Above p30. 150 V. D. Lipman (see n. 11) 103-8 describes the career of Isaac of Norwich. 151 An account of 4the Hereford Jewry, 1257-90', the final part of the trilogy, will be published in Trans WNFC (1990). 152 Annales Monastici (see n. 139) II, 101. 153 List of Sheriffs for England and Wales to 1831, comp. A. Hughes, PRO Lists and Indexes, 9 (1898) 59, 157. For the acquisition of encumbered estates by the Beauchamps, J. Hillaby (see n. 4). 154 Placitorum Abbreviatio (see n. 33) 168,175; PRO KB26/182/5. See also n. 46. 155 PRO 9/22/18; E], III, 230-8; PRO E101/250/5. 156 Registrum Ricardi de Swinfield, transcribed and ed. W. W. Capes (Cantilupe Soc. Canterbury &amp; York Soc. 1909) 120-2. 157 C. Roth, A History of the Jews in England (2nd ed. 1949) 77 n. 5. The bull is published in Calendar of Entries in Papal Registers and Papal Letters relating to Great Britain and Ireland I, ed. W. H. Bliss (PRO, 1893) 491 and Reg. Swinfield (see n. 156) 139 40. 158 Reg. Swinfield (see n. 156) 94, 95 also 305,90-1,429-30,485. 159 PR, 1282,15. 160 PRO C241/7/75; El59/37/8; 40/14; 53/16; 60/20. 81</page><page sequence="60">Joe Hillaby 161 CR, 1290, 96; T. Rymer, ? oeder a Iii (Record Commission, 1816) 736. H. G. Richardson (see n. 1) 228, n. 2 describes the secret instructions. 162 I. Loeb, *Le role des Juifs de Paris en 1296 et 1297' Revue des Itudes juives 1 (1880) 61-70; he Livre de la Taille de Paris Van 1296, ed. K. Michaelsson (Gothenburg 1958) 264-7; J. Shatzmiller, Recherches sur la CommunauU Juive de Manosque au Moyen Age, 1241-1329 (Paris 1973) 17 n. 3. 163 Rotulorum Originalium (see n. 88) I, 75. 82</page></plain_text>

bottom of page