top of page
< Back

London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited

Joe Hillaby

<plain_text><page sequence="1">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited JOE HILLABY It is more than a century since Joseph Jacobs presented his paper 'The London Jewry, 1290' to the great Anglo-Jewish exhibition of 1887.1 His description formed the basis for his essay on London in the Jewish Encyclopedia, in the early 1900s, and for Elkan Nathan Adler's London volume in the Jewish Communities series, published in Philadelphia in the 1930s. Both reproduced his plan of Jewish property without alteration. Since Jacobs' time there have been few contributions to our knowledge of London's medieval Jewry. The most notable, all published by the Society, are Canon Stokes's short account of the London magnate family of the Eveskes or Cohens included in his Studies in Anglo-Jewish History of 1913; Michael Adler's 'Testimony of the London Jewry against the Ministers of Henry IIP in Transactions XVI that appeared in 1940; Cecil Roth's presidential address on 'Elijah of London: the most illustrious English Jew in the Middle Ages', which reviews the career of Master Elias, son of Master Moses and appeared in Transac? tions XV of 1946; and Marjorie Honeybourne's meticulous survey of the pre expulsion cemetery that appeared in Transactions XX of 1964. In the postwar period a number of studies of aspects of the general history of medieval London have been published, but, considering the importance of the subject, the number is surprisingly small. Sylvia Thrupp's examination of The Merchant Class of Medieval London, of 1962, is restricted to the period from 1300, whereas Gwyn Williams provides a detailed description of the earlier period in Medieval London from Commune to Capital, which appeared in 1970. Christopher Brooke and Gillian Keir have plotted London 800-1216: The Shaping of a City, of 1975; and 1980 saw the publication of the long-awaited London volume of the Historic Town Atlas.1 While of great help in understanding the background, these works offer no more than a few sentences on the history of the Jewry. After the completion of his monumental Survey of Medieval Winchester in 1985, Derek Keene turned his attention to the city of London. Under his directorship the Cheapside project has used property records to trace the sequence of change in the fabric, density of settlement, social and economic structure, and property market of this part of the city between 1100 and the Great Fire of 1666. For the purposes of the project 'Cheapside' was defined as the five parishes of All Hallows, Honey Lane; St Mary le Bow; St Martin Pomary; St Pancras; St Mary Cole church; and the extraparochial area of the hospital of St Thomas of Acre, or Aeon. * An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Society on 7 March 1991. 89</page><page sequence="2">Joe Hillaby Sadly, this includes only a small part of the medieval Jewry - merely Ironmonger Lane and the southern end of Old Jewry. For this area it provides highly detailed information relating to property holdings.3 The work of the project underlines the fact that precise identification of Jewish properly is a more complex matter than could be foreseen at the time Jacobs was writing.4 As long ago as 1979 we were rightly warned of 'the hazards which await those wishing to identify medieval Jews in an age of great geographical mobility and of a narrowly limited repertoire of Jewish first names'.5 Nevertheless our survey of London's 13th-century Jewry will be concerned primarily with two things - places and people, that is topography and biography. Topography In terms of its defences and bridge, but not of its street pattern, the topography of the medieval city remained essentially that of Roman London, which had itself been dictated by geology and the drainage pattern. First to be built was the Cripplegate fort of c. ad 120. Its northern gate was incorporated into the defence system of five gates and perimeter wall constructed in about ad 200. Ludgate and Newgate looked west onto the tidal estuary of the Fleet, while Bishopsgate and Aldgate were placed at either end of the northeastern flank. The sixth gate, Aldersgate, was added later.6 This landward line of defence also served the medieval city. The only significant addition was the Moorgate postern to the north. Medieval London was, however, divided by the Walbrook which flowed in between Moorgate and Bishopsgate, from the marshy area of the Moor. The pre-Conquest town grew up around commercial nuclei on either side of the Walbrook, the east and west Cheaps (market places).7 The latter, then Cheap, now Cheapside, was originally a food market, but by the 13 th century was the main centre for the sale of textile, leather, metal and such luxury goods as spices, gold and silverwork. It was densely populated. Here some 2750 residents, more than 10 per cent of the population, were crowded into 2.5 per cent of the intramural area.8 A distinct area of Jewish settlement can be traced at an early date. The records of St Paul's refer about 1130 to a vicus Judeorum, in all probability Old Jewry. However, this name only came into use in the 14th century for, as Ekwall points out, 'Old' in this context means 'former, late'. Previously the street was Cole church Lane or Street. When the records refer to a place as 'in Jewry', in iudaismo, they refer to a much wider area. St Olave's church is described as in iudaismo by 1181 and St Laurence's by 1218-28, while St Stephen's and St Martin Pomary are so described in later sources and by the 1270s St Laurence Lane commonly bore the addition 'in Jewry'.9 A wide range of evidence makes it clear, however, that Jewish settlement extended well beyond these parishes in the 13 th century. 90</page><page sequence="3">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Thus, although only four parishes were formally described as being 'in Jewry', setdement was found across nine parishes in all. But this area was not a ghetto; Jews and Christians lived side by side here, although sections of certain streets, Milk Street for example, were especially favoured, and in such areas houses which had escheated (or 'reverted') to the Crown found a ready market among other affluent members of the community. Very few Jews, however, lived outside this wider area of settlement. Jacob le Tourk had an imposing stone house in Can dlewick (Cannon) Street in the parish of St Nicholas Aeon on the east side of the Walbrook. This was subsequentiy purchased by Master Elias, one of the sons of Master Moses, who probably added the great solar (private chamber). South of the Thames lived Isaac of Southwark who also had a house in Guildford, but it is noteworthy that after his death his widow, Thippe, chose to setde in Catte Street in St Laurence's parish (Table 8, no. 5). However, in 1250 the chapel of the Blessed Mary, formerly a synagogue, is described as being in the 'Minor' Jewry and there are references in 1349, 1366 and 1390-1 to the 'Poor' Jewry, in Aldgate.10 The Jewry in this broader sense formed three sides of a loose rectangle around the area of seldes ('stall' or 'shop'), described by Keene as 'private bazaars contain? ing stations or plots held by tenants who sold their wares from boxes, cupboards and even benches', to the north of the Cheap. It would thus be similar to the souks and bazaars of North Africa and the Middle East today. To the east was the area of primary settlement: Colechurch Lane, Ironmonger Lane (probably only the eastern side), as well as the western end of Lothbury and southern end of Colman Street. To the north, Jewish houses were to be found in Catte or Cateaton (Gresham Street), the southern stretches of Bassishaw (Basinghall Street) and to the west in Milk and Wood Streets (Map 1). Evidence given in January 1246 to an inquest by the civic authorities into purprestures (encroachments) illustrates the relationship of this area to the seldes. Slema the widow, sister of Elias le Eveske, had built three pentices (single-pitch roof attached to the front of houses), and Moses, Josce of Canterbury, Isaac of Paris, Jacob of Warwick, Bellassez, Elias and Josce of Oxford had each built one. These roof-like structures attached to the front of the property were built to accommodate goods or stalls. As they encroached on the public highway, they were held to be public nuisances. Slema and the others had to pay fines varying from 5 to half a mark (?3 6s 8d to 6s 8d) for each such encroachment.11 The market area was thus spilling across Ironmonger Lane. In his 1990 presidential address Professor Dobson asked what factors influenced the location of the English Jewries. In the case of London this is one of the easier questions to address. The site was not dictated by proximity to the Tower, whose royal Constable, and not the city's mayor and sheriffs, was respon? sible for the administration and protection of the Jewry, which was almost a mile away. The Jews settled where they did for rapid access to the Cheap with its seldes, 9i</page><page sequence="4">Joe Hillaby Map i. The nine parishes which were the principal area of Jewish settlement in London in the 13th century. the 'principal marketing area of the city if not of the kingdom'. Similar factors dictated the location of other Jewries, such as those at Hereford and Gloucester.12 As Jacobs realized, a detailed knowledge of parish boundaries to the north of Cheapside is essential if Jewish property is to be located with precision.13 Many 13th-century records refer only to the name of the parish, but this can be extremely helpful. Parishes were small, frequently little more than the two sides of a street, often including its junction with one of the major thoroughfares. In consequence houses on the frontage of Cheapside owed loyalty to a range of different parishes. Nine parishes can be regarded as being 'in Jewry'. St Mary Colechurch strad? dled the southern half of Colechurch Lane and its junction with Spurrier Lane in Poultry, a small part of Bucklersbury and Cheapside; in addition the southwest corner of Ironmonger Lane formed a detached part.14 The remainder of 92</page><page sequence="5">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Map 2. The site of the London Jewry as depicted on the Copperplate Map of London engraved on 15 20 plates by Francis Hogenberg, probably from drawings made by Anthonis van den Wyngaerde in about 1558. The quality of detail is splendid, but as merely two of the original plates are still in existence coverage of the city is limited. (Reproduced by permission of the Museum of London.) 93</page><page sequence="6">Joe Hillaby Map 3. The Woodcut Map of London, attributed to Agas but more probably the work of Gyles Godhead or Godet, is a 'simplified but clumsy copy' of the Copperplate Map. However, it does give full coverage of the walled city only a short time after the dissolution of the monasteries and the end of the medieval period. The area of the 13th-century Jewry, shown on Map 1, is indicated by black lines. (Reproduced by permission of the Guildhall Library.) 94</page><page sequence="7">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited 95</page><page sequence="8">Joe Hillaby Ironmonger Lane and its southeastern junction with Cheapside and the northeast? ern corner onto Catte Street made up the parish of St Martin Pomary. St Mary Magdalen occupied most of Milk Street, including the Cheapside junction. The lower end of Wood Street formed the parishes of St Peter Westcheap, again with houses about the junction with the principal thoroughfare, and of St Michael Wood Street. St Olave's parish occupied the northern end of Colechurch Lane and adjacent houses on either side of Catte Street. To the west St Laurence's was larger and more straggling, but its backbone was Catte Street. St Margaret's parish lay to the east of Catte Street on either side of Lothbury, while St Michael's, Bassishaw, took in the whole of the street after which it was named. Even where the street is specified, parish boundaries enable us to establish a more precise location, since often these bounds are highly irregular. As Keene has demonstrated, they followed the line of house plots, reflecting patterns of occupa? tion rather than early units of ownership. Nevertheless, there is general agreement that after the end of the 12th century parish boundaries changed but little. The first map on which they are plotted is that of John Ogilby of c. 1676. Described by Christopher Brooke as 'the most important document (with fitzStephen's Descrip? tion) for the early history of medieval London', it nevertheless shows the first drastic modification to the topography of London - King Street, which with its continuation Queen Street gave direct access from the Guildhall to Thames wharf. The so-called 'Secondary's Plans', drawn to a scale of 1:528 in 1855-8, are also of value as they portray the city immediately prior to drastic changes to its 19th-century street plan.15 These are the sources for the reconstruction of London's medieval parishes, such as has been produced in the Historic Towns Atlas. Despite some conflicts with the bounds as portrayed in Keene's survey, especially in relation to St Mary Colechurch, the map of London's parishes in c. 1520 in the Atlas is a valuable tool for plotting the area of Jewish settlement. Another is the so-called Copperplate Map (Map 2). This was engraved on between fifteen and twenty plates by Francis Hogenburg, from drawings by Anthonis van den Wyngaerde. It is extraordinarily fortunate that one of the two surviving plates covers most of the district in which we are interested. Only Wood Street and part of Milk Street are missing. Until recently this plate was in private ownership, but it has now been acquired by the Guildhall Library.16 It was apparendy the original from which the two other early maps of London were derived: the Woodcut Map (Map 3) attributed to Agas, but more probably the work of Gyles Godhed or Godet of 1562-3; and the map in Braun and Hogenburg's Civitates Orbis Terr arum of 1572. The Copperplate Map is of particular value as it shows London only a short time after the dissolution of the monasteries and a century before the great reconstruction after the fire of 1666. It thus provides a remarkable bird's-eye view of late-medieval London. 96</page><page sequence="9">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Royal grants of Jewish property Intense commercial activity in the Cheapside area gave Jewish property a high market value. From the reign of John, if not earlier, the Crown began to tap this source of wealth. In consequence a mass of evidence relating to the location, and not infrequendy to the value or even the dimensions of this property, is to be found among royal records, especially the Charter rolls but also the Pipe, Close, Patent, Liberate and Fine rolls, Inquisitions miscellaneous and post mortem and the records of the Exchequer of the Jews. The first evidence predates John's large scale seizure of Jewish property. It was in the last years of his reign that he confiscated not only bonds and chattels but also houses and land, for failure to meet the terms of the 1210 Bristol railage of 60,000 marks (?40,000).17 The gift of Jewish houses and land, mostiy in the capital but on occasion in the provinces, became an easy way of rewarding his most powerful adherents. Significandy, most of the grants recorded occur early in 1215. In the last confused eighteen months or so of his reign, the royal administration collapsed. Roger of Wendover, according to whom 'nobody would make payments to the king or obey him in anything', may have overstated the case, but the last full national audit certainly took place in the autumn of 1214 and the Exchequer ceased operation early in 1215.18 References to subsequent grants can thus be found only in the spate of confirmations once the Charter rolls recommenced at the end of Henry Ill's minority in January 1227.19 Jacobs believed that John's barons coveted these houses because they lay near the tilting ground. He was no doubt seduced by Stow's vivid description of the joustings in west Cheap, 'betwixt Sopars lane [now part of Queen Street] and the great Crosse', for which Edward III caused a 'fayre building' on the north side of St Mary le Bow 'to bee builded of stone, for himselfe, the Queene and other Estates to stand in, there to beholde the Iustinges ... at their pleasure'.20 However, the sources show that in the early 13 th century few if any of the nobility retained control of this property for long. Many houses passed into the hands of wealthy London merchants, for, as Williams has shown, there was a constant movement of capital into and out of real estate and mercantile enterprise and land figured increasingly in the records as one of the sinews of commerce.21 In other cases it was acquired for investment purposes by ecclesiastical institutions such as the Augustinian abbey of Waltham Holy Cross and the Augustinian priory of Holy Trinity by Aldgate.22 The London magnate Abraham son of Muriel had bought a stone house in St Olave's from the grandson of the famous Rabbi Josce. The house escheated to the Crown 'by reason of a debt due from the said Abraham before the common seizure of the Jews in England' and was given to William Marshal, earl of Pembroke. Marshal subsequently sold it to the London merchant, John Travers, who was shipping large quantities of grain from the Marshal's estates in Leinster to the 97</page><page sequence="10">Joe Hillaby capital. Nevertheless, he had to pay the earl no silver marks for the property and a yearly rent of one hat of peacocks' feathers. In addition there was due the services of the chief lord of the fee, 8d a year for the socage (or 'tenure') of the king. In 1228 this valuable property is described as being situated between the house of the abbot of Waltham on the south and the house of the Jew, Aaron le Blund, on the north side.23 To William Brewer - castigated by Roger of Wendover as one of John's evil advisers who cared for nothing save to please his master - went, in 1215, Benedict the Jew's house in St Laurence's parish, Milk Street. Brewer sold it on to Serlo the Mercer, mayor in 1214 and 1217-22, whose holdings in the city have been described as 'massive indeed'. In 1235 Serlo granted it, with a large number of other properties, to the newly founded convent of Augustinian canonesses at Haliwell, Shoreditch.24 Benedict's house lay on the west side of the street. This is evident from a further entry in the Charter rolls referring to land in St Laurence's parish, late of Josce son of Benedict the Little, which had escheated 'for forgery committed in the time of king John'. This was acquired from the Crown by Andrew Bukerei II in 1228. Like Serlo he was a member of one of the city's great ruling dynasties and held the mayoralty from 1229 until his death in 1237. The land was 'in Melchstrate between the stone house late of Avenoll the Draper to the north and the stone house of Serlo the Mercer to the south and running from Melchstrate to the land of Agnes Chese to the west'.25 Another Milk Street house, which had belonged to Benedict the Little and his brother, Isaac of Kent - one of those executed after 1210 to encourage other Jews to pay the Bristol tallage - was given in 1215 to William de Warenne, earl of Surrey, who remained faithful to John virtually to the end. It was situated 'between the land which was Josce Presbyter's on the east and Sampson le Chat's on the west'.26 To William III de Albini, earl of Sussex, described in 1216 as 'one of the four greatest and most powerful men in England who stood by the king', went all the land in St Laurence Jewry late of Isaac son of Aaron of Lincoln. After William's death in 1221 it was granted by his son to Richard de Aldeville. The house of Isaac of Norwich at the western end of Lothbury was granted in 1214 to William de Ferrers, earl of Derby, who, like William Brewer and William Marshal, was an executor of John's will.27 Hubert de Burgh, who had been made justiciar by 1215 and held Dover Castle against Louis' forces the next year, was another beneficiary. 'All his land at the north end of Milk Street in London' he presented to the master and brethren of the Hospital of St Mary at Dover, which he had founded before 1221. Its south aisle, rebuilt in the 14th century, now forms part of Dover Town Hall.28 To his chaplain, Luke, went the house, lands and appurtenances of Solomon of Milk Street, Jew, in Milk Street.29 John de Gyse, described as 'servant of Hubert de Burgh', received the house of Moses Bugi in St Olave's from King John. In 1227 he was granted two stone houses of Moses of Canterbury in St Olave's, and four 98</page><page sequence="11">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited properties in the parishes of St Michael and St Martin which had belonged to Bonevie Muton, 'who forfeited them for a homicide committed in the city'.30 The buying back by a Jew, either from the Crown or others, of property formerly owned by a fellow Jew was a common feature of the life of the community in the 13 th century. Thus Benedict Crespin bought from the abbot and convent of Holy Cross, Waltham, 'the house of Aaron of Lincoln in Lothbury on Walbrook in the parish of St Olave's together with the vacant land adjoining the said houses formerly belonging to Bruin the Jew'. Similarly, in 1228 Elias son of Benedict le Eveske bought back from John de Gyse the stone house which had formerly belonged to Moses Bugi in the favoured parish of St Olave's.31 Other Jewish land went to Thomas de Neville, justice of the Exchequer of the Jews. Appointed in April 1200, the archdeacon of Salop was by October 1213 the sole keeper, and remained in post until the autumn of 1215. The faithful Thomas was suitably rewarded. He already had one house when he was given the adjoining one which had belonged to Abraham son of Muriel, 'to have during our pleasure and so long as he sits at our Exchequer'. Probably it was the first of these houses which he granted Waltham Holy Cross before his death in 1217. Thomas also received a certain placea, presumably a court, in the parishes of St Laurence and St Michael which had been the property of Abraham and of Vives of Canterbury.32 Henry Ill's gifts of Jewish property, on the other hand, went for the most part to lesser dignitaries. To Semayne, the crossbowman, went other properties which had belonged to Bonevie Muton: the house in which he dwelt in St Michael's, with all its land in Colman Street, with a quarter of his land in the parishes of St Michael and St Laurence. Geoffrey Vilein, the king's sergeant, received in 1228 three blocks of land which had belonged to Sampson Furmentin. These are described in some detail: the first, in St Michael Bassishaw parish, lay between the lands formerly of Bonevie Muton; the second, in the parish of St Stephen, between the graveyard of that church and the land of Josce the priest, being 24 ells long and ni broad (90 feet by 43 feet ii inches); the third, in St Olaves, was 24J ells long and 8i broad (91 feet 10 inches by 31 feet ioi inches).33 In 1251 William Chubbe, king's sergeant, was granted the house in the parish of Colechurch, 'late of Abraham of Berkhamstead'. In 1255, 'whereas the king is bound to provide for William de Valery, queen's yeoman, ?15 of land for the happy news brought by him of the birth of Katherine, the king's daughter', Henry III gave William two houses with cellar and court, in the parish of St Margaret Lothbury, which had belonged to Abraham of Norwich. William was fortunate because there was a waiting list for such houses. Three years earlier the king had commanded the justices of the Jews 'out of the first houses of Jews in London which belong to the king's gift to cause one of the selling price of 100 or 120 marks to be assigned to John de Cambio, king's clerk, of the king's gift'.34 The documentary sources for the reconstruction of the topography of the London Jewry are therefore rich - richer than those for any other English medi 99</page><page sequence="12">Joe Hillaby eval Jewry. It is surprising that archaeology, on the other hand, can offer virtually no assistance. In the inland area of the city, medieval findings have so far been few. This is a consequence of the building of deep cellars in the Victorian period and the 20th century. Wells and cess pits usually survive, but only occasionally the deeper foundations of stone undercrofts. Of these the most significant is Roskams' and Schofield's 1978 excavation of a 12th- or 13th-century undercroft with additional foundations - possibly a rear stair turret - on the east side of Milk Street.35 Evidence of intensive Jewish habitation in Milk Street, referred to above, makes it likely that this was a Jewish house. Community facilities The term 'synagogue', like its Hebrew equivalent, beth knessety merely means 'place of assembly'. The medieval synagogue had a wide range of closely related func? tions, but most importantly it was a house both of prayer and of study. It is this latter function which is reflected in the term, almost universally adopted by medi? eval secular writers, of scola Iudeorum. However, the clergy retained the term synagoga, which for them had much wider connotations. Even in the relaxed 1220s the building of a synagogue was not an easy matter. In 1222 the council of the archdiocese of Canterbury sought to prohibit the erection of new synagogues, and the statute of the Jewry of 1253 enacted that 'there will be no synagogues save in those places wherein they were in the time of the lord King John'; full worship itself became difficult since it was further enacted that Jews must 'in their synagogues, one and all, worship in subdued tones ... so that Christians hear it not'.36 Where therefore were the synagogues of 13th-century London? Here again, although there is much documentary evidence as to their location, some of it is not easy to interpret. This is clear from the differences between what follows and Richardson's description of five London synagogues.37 The earliest of which we have a record is the Great Synagogue of Abraham, son of Rabbi Josce, the most distinguished member of the London community during the era of settlement from Normandy, in the first half of the 12th century. Given his status, it is highly probable that the magna scola was Rabbi Josce's own founda? tion. In this case the model, no doubt, was the synagogue discovered in 1976 under the cour d'honneur of the Palais de Justice in Rouen, the decorative features of which indicate a date of 1100-25. Even at the end of the century the rabbi's sons, Abraham and Isaac, both had substantial houses in the rue aux Juifs in Rouen, close to the synagogue.38 The position of the magna scola is described in a grant by Geoffrey fitz Peter to Chicksand priory in 1212-13 of'all the land with houses and appurtenances in the parish of St Mary Colechurch', which lay between the Great Synagogue to the north and twelve shops with upper storeys on Cheapside to the south. The site of the shops has been identified by Keene as lying on the north side of Poultry, 100</page><page sequence="13">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited between Colechurch and Coneyhope Lanes (Grocers' Hall Alley). The magna scola was thus on the east side of Colechurch Lane.39 It is improbable, given the circumstances of the London Jewry at the end of John's reign, described below, that this building survived the baronial occupation of the city in 1215.40 Nevertheless, later references indicate that the site continued to serve for Jewish worship into the 1270s. In 1246 Halingrattus the crossbowman, king's sergeant, was granted a messuage sold by Aaron and Samuel of York to the king. This is described as lying between the house of Aaron I le Blund and the synagogue in Colechurch Lane. Aaron of York was not only the wealthiest Jew of his day but also served as archpresbyter from 1236 to 1243. The leader of the English community had therefore secured a property for use during his periods of attendance at the Jewish Exchequer, from which he had direct access to the communal synagogue.41 The chronicler, Thomas Wykes, records that during the anti-Jewish riots of 1264 a newly built synagogue was burned to the ground. As the 1253 statute prohibited synagogue construction on new sites, this may well have been a replace? ment of the structure referred to above. Between 1265 and 1271 certain ten? ements in Colechurch Lane were bought by the Friars of the Sack from Queen Eleanor, a great dealer in Jewish debts and property. Further, the cartulary of St Thomas of Acre describes the friars' church, formerly the tenement of Cresse son of Master Moses, as being in that street. A will of 1310 refers to property in Sakfrerelane. According to the Atlas of Historic Towns, this was another name for Colechurch Lane, now Old Jewry. Even more specific is a licence of 1281 for Jacob son of Josce to sell to Gregory de Rokesle (about whom more later) a moiety of a messuage between the land of Master Elias, son of Master Moses, on the north; land of Slema, late wife of Master Isaac of Oxford, on the south; the west end whereof abuts on the high road called Colechurch Lane and the east end on land of the Friars of the Penance (the Sack).42 The Close Rolls describe how, in 1272, the continuous wailing, howling and loud lamentations {continuum ululatum) of the Jews in their synagogue disturbed the brothers at their devotions next door. (One hesitates to think what they made of the sounding of the shofar) As this was in defiance of a further clause of the 1253 statute, Henry III ordered the Jews to move. Despite the specific prohibition of the statute, he gave permission for the synagogue to be erected on a new site. Until this was completed the Jews were to be 'less noxious' to the friars.43 The next reference to a communal scola is in 1280 when Aaron son of Vives granted the London community a messuage of stone with all its court in Catte Street, for the building of a synagogue. This will be described later.44 The confusion which surrounds London synagogues arises at least in part from the difficulty in distinguishing between those which served the community at large, as in Colechurch Lane and Catte Street, and those which served the needs of private individuals, their families and servants. This latter category included the 101</page><page sequence="14">Joe Hillaby synagogue within the house of Cok, to which his father, Hagin the archpresbyter, had rights of access. This also will be described later. Reports of the proliferation of such private synagogues caused Archbishop Pecham much alarm in the 1280s.45 Just outside the walls, beyond the northwest bastion of the Cripplegate fort, was the cemetery, or Jews' garden as it was sometimes called. It served all Jewish communities until 1177, when provincial Jewries were permitted to establish their own cemeteries. Its history and topography have been described in detail by Margorie Honeybourne. The cemetery was free from outside interference except for a civic impost of 3id on each burial - listed amongst the 'Customs payable upon victuals' entering the city, in the White Book of the city. Responsibility for its maintenance etc. lay with the community. Thus in 1250 Henry III granted to 'the Jews of London that the Master of the Laws of the said Jewry may publish sentence of excommunication against all Jews who promised a subsidy for the maintenance of their cemetery in London and have not paid it'. Characteristically the king insisted that he, not the Jews, should receive the amends paid on such excommunication.46 There were other facilities. In a starr (or 'Jewish deed') of 1266 Isaac ben Joseph of Campden undertook to pay a penalty of one gold mark to the king and half a gold mark to the London hospitium should the Jewish purchaser suffer any loss from one of his bonds. This hospitium would have provided accommodation for travellers as well as for the aged, sick and infirm. Documentary evidence proves the existence of a slaughterhouse in 1277. Indeed, the assize of the city in 1277-8, echoing the statute of the pillory of 1267, had enacted that no one should 'buy meat from the Jews to sell again to Christians or meat slaughtered for Jews and by them rejected'. A discovery during excavations by Ken Steadman at number 81-7 Gresham Street (the former Carte Street) in 1985-6 has, on the basis of Joseph Jacobs' identification of the site as a synagogue, been interpreted as a mikveh. However, this synagogue was on the south, not the north side of Carte Street, and the feature, even if accepted as a mikveh, would have been extremely small if intended for communal use.47 The London magnate families The reign of John started off well enough for the English Jewry, with the con? firmation of their charter of liberties in 1201, but in 121 o the massive Bristol tallage was imposed, followed by the so-called general imprisonment of the English Jewry and subsequent confiscations. By the end of John's reign the condi? tions under which the London Jews lived deteriorated to a level few could have anticipated. Many had died and many others had fled the country. During the baronial occupation of the city in 1215 stone from Jewish houses was used to repair the city walls. Subsequently the chroniclers describe those Jews who remained as 'prowling about the city like dogs'.48 102</page><page sequence="15">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Between 1216 and 1219 the situation changed dramatically. Under the leader? ship of the rector regni, William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, the Council of Regency sought, by reversing John's policy, to re-establish that confidence which had characterized the English Jewry during the reign of Henry II. Jews still imprisoned were released; immigration was encouraged. In 1218 the Wardens of the Cinque Ports were ordered to place no impediment in the way of Jews entering the realm, who were to be required merely to provide a guarantee that they would register themselves at the Exchequer of the Jews. Such a policy change is hardly surprising. The Council of Regency's financial position was dire and William Marshal was aware of the fiscal benefits which would accrue from a prosperous Jewry, and thus the important role it could play in the re-establishment of political stability. In 1200 John, as duke of Normandy, had granted William his personal Jew, presum? ably to act as his financial adviser.49 After his death in 1219 William's policy was continued by his successor, Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar. The question there? fore arises as to how far the London magnate families of the early years of Henry Ill's reign represent members of the 12th-century elite. If not, whence had they come? By 1221 the Council began to look for some dividend from its Jewish policy. The first tallage, of 1221, was moderate enough, but in 1223 it was doubled.50 By 1241 tallages had reached crippling proportions. Details of the amounts paid were carefully recorded on the Exchequer receipt rolls. Some, such as those of 1221, 1223, 1239 and 1241, are extremely detailed, enabling a hierarchy of wealth to be established between communities.51 Of considerable interest is the light which the rolls throw on the relative wealth of the London and York Jewries. It has been supposed, quite reasonably, that London headed the league table of 13th-century English Jewries. It was larger and wealthier, close to the centre of royal administration at Westminster. Analysis of the tax of one 15 th levied by John on foreign trade suggests that it already handled 16 per cent of the country's overseas business. York's contribution to the borough tallages levied in 1194-1206 and 1213-14, expressed as a percentage of that of London, was 22 per cent and 25 per cent, while the farm of York in the reign of Richard I was but one third that of London.52 Further, as Gwyn Williams has shown, Jewish finance played an important part in funding commercial activity in the capital, where there were 'a surprising number of extents [writs of recovery] for debts to Jews'. Richard Renger and Andrew Bukerei II who monopolized the mayoralty for almost two decades (Renger was sheriff 1220-2 and mayor 1222-7; Bukerel was sheriff 1223-5 and mayor from 1231 to bis death in 1237) raised funds for their commercial activities by mortgaging their lands to, or through, members of the London community. Indeed, in 1229 the mayor and sheriff were ordered to stand as surely for the redemption of the London lands and rents of Matthew Bukerel, a relation by marriage of Richard Renger, which were in the hands of Abraham son of Muriel 103</page><page sequence="16">Joe Hillaby and Moses of Colchester; and in 1236 Constantine, a member of the wealthy fitz Alulf clan, had to sue for royal protection against the demands for loan repayment made by Aaron I le Blund, Leo le Blund of Milk Street and Moses of Milk Street. In 1249 a consortium which included Aaron I le Blund and Elias le Eveske was suing Reginald Cornhill for debts outstanding.53 Excluded from investment in land held by feudal tenure, some Jewish money, although not all London based, found ready employment in property development in the capital. Early in the reign of John, Aaron of Lincoln, in company with Gervase of Cornhill, his son Henry, and the three sons of Peter fitz Alan, began to develop land in the Poultry, including the area between his own house and the Walbrook.54 Aaron's interests were subsequendy acquired by Benedict Crespin.55 More importantly, there was considerable investment in the extensive London housing market. The Latin of the records means that often it is difficult to establish whether a particular property was the house, or merely a house - the home or investment property of the person named. Many members of the com? munity, including those not in the first rank, such as Bonevie Muton, who ranked merely twenty-second in the 1221 tallage (Table 3), and Sampson Furmentin, were at their death in possession of a range of property. In almost all cases this was in the nine parishes regarded as areas of Jewish settlement. Some property was let to Christians. Thus Bonevie Muton's houses in St Michael Bassishaw were let to Lewis the Painter, Walter Avener and Hugh Hareman, and those in St Martin's Pomary, Ironmonger Lane, to Adam the Smith.56 This practice was terminated by the ordinance of 1271, and the assize of the city, in 1277-8, enacted that 'no one shall hire houses from Jews'. However, for some considerable time the wealthy had been disinvesting themselves, by one means or another, of assessable property in order to avoid the relief or death duty biting into their children's inheritance. How far this represented a real flight from lands, rents, houses and other tenements within the city it is not easy to establish. Certainly, such moves were accelerated by the destruction wrought in the Jewry between 1262 and 1267. The surprising fact is that, despite all these advantages, it was not London but York, the capital of the north, which was the dominant community until the mid century. Were London's apparent advantages outweighed by the hunger of the great monastic houses of the north for unredeemed bonds and with them the pledged lands of declining gentry and free tenant families?57 Is this a full explana? tion of the wealth of the York super-plutocrats, the great Aaron, and the brothers Benedict and Leo Episcopus? Or did the London Jewry labour under a handicap? In the first fifteen years of the century, proximity to Westminster meant being closer to King John and to Thomas de Neville. On the other hand, as the testimony of the London Jewry in 1234 against Robert Passelewe and his fellow justices of the Jews indicates, proximity could be turned to advantage. Their evidence showed that Passelewe received 100 marks from the London community for what is euphemistically described as 'aid to them in collecting the tallage of 104</page><page sequence="17">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited 10,000 marks'. Later evidence is more explicit. At Northampton in 1234 further gifts were made to Passelewe, his staff and servants, 'for equalizing the tallage of London with the tallage of York which formerly it had exceeded'.58 Too much should not be made of this. The evidence taken at York is not available and it is hardly likely that Aaron and his fellow York magnates were unaware of the game being played; indeed they may well have initiated it. Passelewe was not the only justice amenable to bribery.59 With the tallage of 20,000 marks of 1241 one is on much firmer ground, for the assessments were carried out by the Jews entirely independendy of the royal administration and with elaborate checks to avoid favouritism and bribery. On this occasion York paid about 50 per cent and London between 17 and 19 per cent. This is not far from the total contributions of the two communities for the years 1239-42, with York at 47.6 per cent and London 21.8 per cent and emphasizes the superiority of York, indicated by the 1221 and 1223 levies (Table i).60 Hierarchies of wealth within as well as between the Jewries can be established from this tax data. Lipman concluded that the typical medieval Anglo-Jewish provincial community was dominated by one family whose financial transactions, and thus wealth and status, far outweighed those of any other.61 This was not the case in London (Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The receipt rolls list all payments made by London Jews for the tallages of 1221 and 1223 (Tables 3 and 4), for the third of all Jewish property in 1239 (Table 5) and for the levy of 20,000 marks in 1241 (Table 6). Analysis of these contributions between 1221 and 1241 shows that five London families accounted for at least three-quarters of the community's wealth. Death and misfortune wrought change. One family's fortune rose while another's declined, but their overall position vis-a? vis other members of the community remained the same (Table 2). To understand the London Jewry, the essential history of these magnate families has to be established. In a paper such as this space does not permit more. The 1239 and 1241 returns are of especial interest as they provide much more information about those excluded from this golden circle. In 1221 twenty-four members contributed to the tallage (?80 10s 6id). Two years later, when the sum required was 2.5 times greater (?215), the net was cast wider and thirty-five names appear. For the third of 1239, when ?830 was demanded, the community, or more probably its wealthiest members, cast the net yet wider, for ninety London Jews are listed, thus providing a remarkable insight into the distribution of wealth. At the head of the list is Aaron son of Abraham paying ?244 19s od. At the bottom is Vives son of Samuel with a meagre 2d. The ratio of the one to the other is virtually 30,000:1 (Table 5). From the same source some estimate can be made of the total population of the London Jewry. If each person listed in 1239 was a head of household, and a multiplier of 5 is applied, then the total would be 450. However, it is fairly safe to assume that even if Vives son of Samuel was called on to supply his mite, there 105</page><page sequence="18">Joe Hillaby Table i. London and York contributions to Jewish tallages, 1221-55 50% 1 ^40% H 30% 20% A 10% A On On CO Year London -York 1221: PROE401/4/4 1223: E401/6/6 1226: Missing 1229-31 and 1234: Text p. 105 &amp; n.58 1239-42: Stacey (1985), 200 1255: 1255, 441-2 would have been others whose poverty was even greater and who were thus excluded. Such a group may have inflated the overall total to the 1000 or more souls suggested by Lipman, but in all probability it was considerably lower.62 These estimates should be placed in a wider context. Toledo was the largest community, not only in Spain but the whole of Europe. Yet Yitzhak Baer has estimated that its Jewish population, with its dependencies, was not much more than 350 families; and Perpignan, the largest Jewry in France, had, at the begin? ning of the 15th century, between 200 and 250 families.63 In 1242, when almost ?1500 had to be raised, only thirty-seven names appear on the London list. The smaller fry are no longer named, but this does not mean that they did not pay. In fact, the poor were called on for a much larger proportion. All lumped together under the deceptive tide of 'the community of London', they had to provide 12 per cent as compared with 0.67 per cent in 1239. Is it surprising, 106</page><page sequence="19">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited therefore, that in 1249 those assessing the tallage at a national level were comman? ded to take with them 'two middle-class and two poor Jews ... that the rich be not spared and the poor not too much grieved'.64 Stacey has argued that it was the tallages of 1241-2 and 1244-50 which ruined the magnates such as Aaron le Blund and Elias, his brother. It was, in fact, one of a number of factors at work. The impact of the relief, or death duty, set at one third the value of the deceased's goods and chattels, but in reality much higher, was another, as the impoverishment of the sons of H?mo of Hereford shows.65 For the Jewish plutocracy of London, and other centres, the impact of civil disturbance was yet another. When the citizenry of London espoused so enthusiastically the cause of Simon de Montfort and his baronial supporters, many suffered death and others financial ruin. Reference has already been made to the wide range of evidence in the Charter and other rolls which throws light on London's Jewry prior to the outbreak of the baronial wars, but it is the tallage returns which provide the framework into which that evidence can be fitted. Confirmation of the changing fortunes of the London magnate families, and their relationship to the plutocracy outside the capital - that is, their place in a national hierarchy of status and power - comes from sources other than the receipt rolls. In July 1238 the royal council appointed Aaron and Leo of York, David of Oxford and the five Londoners, Benedict Crespin, Aaron le Blund, Aaron son of Abraham, Jacob Crespin and Elias le Eveske, 'to enquire by oath of Christians and Jews, or otherwise as may be done, most cautiously and subdy touching Jews who are clippers of coin, thieves and receivers in the several cities and boroughs where Jews dwell. These are to forfeit all their possessions and be ejected from the realm' (Table 2, A). In 1241 each community sent representatives to the Worcester 'parliament', and London sent its six most prominent members (Table 2, B). In 1244 six of the 'richer and discreter' Jews were obliged to stand as guarantors for David of Oxford's widow, Licoricia (Table 2, C). These included Aaron son of Abraham, Benedict Crespin and Aaron I le Blund. The four Londoners who had to stand as 'pledges' in July 1255 for the payment of the 1000-mark tallage were three members of the Eveske family, Elias the archpresbyter and his brothers, Solomon and Jacob, and the ever-present Aaron son of Abraham - firm evidence of the shift in power within the community since the 1240s (Table 2, D).66 The le Blund family (Fig. 1) The brothers, Aaron and Elias First among the families of the London Jewry in the early decades of Henry Ill's reign were the le Blunds. Their combined wealth, assessed in terms of tallage payments, varied between 33 and 43 per cent of that of the whole community in the years 1221 to 1242 (Table 2). In 1221 'Aaron son of Leo' is listed as paying 107</page><page sequence="20">Joe Hillaby Table 2. London Magnates, 1221-42 Family 12211 % Rank 1223" % Rank 1239' % Rank 1239 -424 marks 1241? % Rank Leo (I) son of Issac Aaron (I) son of Leo (I) Elias son of Leo (I) Leo (II) of Milk Street Samuel son of Aaron (I) Aaron son of Abraham Josce son of Abraham Le Eveske Benedict Elias son of Benedict Vives son of Benedict Solomon Jacob ii-4 3 21.6 1 10.1 4 43-1 3-1 3-8 Crespin Jacob Benedict Abraham son of Muriel Totals: 15-5 2.9 7^4 7-8 5 T8 2.7 10 9-4 18.6 9.9 37-9 5-4 54 11.9 8.2 2-3 22.4 6.7 2-9 75-3 26.4 2 3-3 6 2 8 9 32.9 29.5 1 29^5 5-6 7 0.5 10 ~6T7 ,200 200 150 300 ^8 93-3 400 300 28.6 4.6 3-5 '?5 39-2 234 234 6.7 4 0.9 11 T6 5-2 4-5 9-7 7^9 Key to Capital letters in heading: A: Coin-clipping commissioners, 1238 B: Representatives at the Worcester Parliament, 1241 C: 'Six of the richer and discreter Jews', 1244 D: London 'Pledges' for 1255 tallage Notes: 1. Table 3 2. Table 4 3. Table 5 4. Assessment: Stacey (1985), 202 5. Table 6 ?8 13s 4d and 'Aaron of London' ?8 13s gid. There can be no doubt that this was one and the same man, Aaron I le Blund (Table 3). Aaron and Elias were the sons of a Leo. In 1221 and 1223 he is called, somewhat ambiguously, 'Leo son of Isaac', but this is clarified by records of the case brought by fitz Herlicon against major London Jews in 1218. There he is 'Leo son of Isaac Blund'. The relation? ship is confirmed by deeds of 1220-28 and 1234 relating to the purchase and resale of a large property in Colechurch Lane by 'Leo son of Isaac', Aaron son of Leo le Blund and Elias, his brother.67 A Leo le Blund is listed at Christmas 1186 among those still owing money from the Guildford tallage and as a member of the London community in the Northampton Donum of 1194.68 Leo's father is not so easily identified. Blund was a very common name among Christians and was not 108</page><page sequence="21">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited ? o .a 10 O ? c/3 5 o PQ o E -a c S ? o fa? ? 0 a3 On to 0 - o E ?*-? en -ts Si U &gt;, ? 0 ^ PQ ^ I ? o PQ 0 ? P o ' ? g PQ P a 0 - o o cd hJ 109</page><page sequence="22">Joe Hillaby Table 3. The 1221 Tallage, Contributions of the London Community ? s d % Rank Aaron son of Leo (le Blund) Benedict Episcopus Leo son of Isaac Elias son of Leo (le Blund) Jacob Crespin Jacob the Turk Josce son of Abraham Aaron son of Abraham Elias son of Benedict Abraham son of Muriel Moses son-in-law of Benedict (Episcopus) Sampson son of Isaac (the chirographer) Isaac Episcopus Richa the Widow Benedict son of 'Riehe' Aaron son of Benjamin (of N'hampton?) Isaac son of Josce (the Presbyter) Josce son-in-law of Josce the Presbyter Sampson son of Abraham Moses of Colchester Flora daughter of Josce Bonamy Mutun Josce son of David Aaron son of Vives of Lincoln Total PRO E/401/4/4 uncommon among Jews.69 However, an Isaac Blund, Jew of York, gave one mark in 1205 that Hoppecote the Jew should be kept in prison for falsifying the king's money.70 The family found a way to prosper, and to prosper substantially, during the hard years of John's reign, for Leo had paid a mere ?3 15s od to the 1194 tallage, less than 1 per cent of the London total. Part at least of the fortune may have come from Norwich. Aaron's wife bore the highly distinctive name Pigona - the same as the heiress of Benedict, brother of Jurnet of Norwich. His sister, Cyonia, also made a good marriage, to Ursell, a son of the London magnate, Brunus. Some indication of Brunus' status is given by his arrears to the Guildford tallage. At ?1000 they were equal to those of Abraham, son of the great Rabbi Josce.71 The homes of both Aaron and Elias can be pinpointed with considerable accuracy. They lived in Colechurch Lane, so called from the small parish church 17 7 1.5 21.6 1 12 10 o 15.5 2 942 11.4 3 826 10.1 4 650 7.8 5 4 4 4 5-3 6 3 1 3-5 3-8 7 2 10 o 3.1 8 270 2.9 9 237 2.7 10 1 18 o 2.4 11 1 16 9 2.3 12 I 14 O 2.1 13 I 13 O 2 14 17 4 17 15 l6 8.5 I l6 l6 3 I 17 13 9 O.9 l8 II II O.7 19 9 2 0.6 20 6 3 0.4 21 50 03 22 3 9 ?-2 23 3 8 0.2 24 80 10 6.5 no</page><page sequence="23">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Table 4. The 1223 Tallage, Contributions of the London Community % Rank Aaron (son of Leo) Blund Benedict Episcopus Elias (son of Leo) Blund Leo son of Isaac Elias son of Benedict Jacob Crespin Aaron son of Abraham Jacob the Turk Abraham son of Muriel Moses son-in-law of Benedict Vives son of Benedict Episcopus Benedict son of 'Riehe' Richa the Widow Josce son-in-law of Josce the Presbyter Kokeman son of Isaac Isaac son of Josce (the Presbyter) Isaac Episcopus Floria daughter of Josce Bonamy Mutun Abraham son of Josce son of David Sampson son of Abraham Aaron son of Isaac Jacob son of Elias Sampson son of Isaac chirographer Aaron son of Benjamin Sampson son of Solomon Isaac son of Benefo (?) Aaron son of Vives of Lincoln Manasser of Winton Sampson son of Aaron Slema the Widow Abraham son of Douce Solomon de Thouars Pictavin son of Benedict (Episcopus?) Isaac son of Samuel 40 o 25 13 21 5 20 17 14 4 11 6 11 13 7 15 o 4 9 o o 8 4 o o o o o o o o 8 o 4 4 o 4 4 o 6 6 6 6 o o o 14 [O 10 4 9 [O 8 o 5 0 5 o o 14 2 O 8 6 10 3 1 o 5 5 5 3 16 15 15 15 15 i5 18.6 11.9 9.9 94 8.2 6.7 5-4 3-6 2.9 2-3 2-3 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.6 i-5 1.2 1 1 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0-5 0.4 0.4 0.4 o-3 0-3 0.3 0-3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10= 10= 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 = 21 = 23 24 25 26= 26= 28= 28= 28 = 3i 32 33 34 35 Total: 214 19 1 PRO E/401/6/6 in</page><page sequence="24">Joe Hillaby of St Mary Colechurch at the southwest corner. Close by, on the north of Cheap side, facing the Great Conduit, was the birthplace of St Thomas Becket. Sur? rounding St Mary's on the corner of Colechurch Lane and the Cheap was a large property which belonged to Peter, son of William fitz Alulf who had been sheriff in 1193-4. Its history has been described by Keene. About 1220-1 Peter granted three parts of this property, on the north of its Colechurch Lane frontage, to Aaron and Elias le Blund and Leo son of Isaac.72 Early in 1228, possibly as a conse? quence of information laid before the eyre ('circuit court') of 1226, this was taken into royal hands and in March granted to the earl of Chester. Within a few days Aaron had regained possession, for an inquisition found that the earl 'had no right in the house which Aaron le Blund had bought of Peter, son of William fitz Alulf, but his victory was not complete. A condition was attached, that no Jew should live there; a reflection, no doubt, of Henry Ill's religious sensibilities, for these premises were adjacent to the hospital of St Thomas of Acre, which now extended well beyond its original site at Becket's birthplace on Cheapside (see Map i).73 In 1234 there were further difficulties. On 26 July an inquest was held to establish whether or not the house belonged to the fee of St Thomas. The men of Colechurch and neighbouring parishes gave their verdict in Aaron's favour. It was ordered that the house should once again be restored to him. His triumph was shordived. It is not evident whether Henry III had exerted further pressure or the family had had enough, but on 29 July, Aaron, Elias and their father, Leo, sold 'all that house in Colechurch Lane with its yard and appurtenances' to the canons of St Thomas for 40 marks. There was a rather ominous royal guarantee of the purchase price. If the canons failed to make payments, then the le Blunds would receive credit against monies they owed to the Crown.74 Whether Aaron or his father ever resided on this vexed site is not known. Certainly in April 1228 Aaron was living further north, on the other side of the street, for the stone house sold by William Marshal to John Travers was then described as lying between the house belonging to the abbot of Waltham to the south and that of Aaron le Blund to the north. This was a prime site, for Henry Ill's grant to Halingrattus, his crossbowman, shows that, as Aaron's house was next to that of Aaron of York, it was next but one to the synagogue to which it would probably have had direct access through a rear court, lane or postern.75 The house of Elias, the younger brother, was on the south side of St Olave's churchyard. Rebuilt after the Great Fire, the tower can still be seen although Wren's church was demolished in 1888-9. ^n I253 Elias issued a writ of complaint against his neighbour, Master Thomas de Aswy (Eswy), in that 'he pulls down Elias' wall beside St Olave's in Colechurch Lane to the detriment of his free tenement and to his damage [of] half a mark'. However, the neighbours agreed to a compromise whereby Elias quitclaimed (or 'renounced claim to') the wall to Thomas who in turn quitclaimed to Elias 'the moiety of a covered wall that is between his and Elias' land'.76 112</page><page sequence="25">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Further confirmation is to be found in an inquisition of 9 April 1268, after Elias' death, when the messuage which 'formerly belonged to Elias le Blund' was des? cribed as lying between the church of St Olave and the birthplace of St Thomas. It then consisted of two parcels, one of which was in the possession of Cok Hagin but should be at the king's disposal, while the other is described as being 'given by the king to the said house of St Thomas who were afterwards ousted from it. It should yield them 20s yearly but is ?7 in arrears.' Elias' home can therefore be located precisely. Frederick's Place today leads to the tower of St Olave's and indicates the northern boundary of the graveyard to which Elias' home was adjacent. South and west were the church, cloister and conventual buildings of the canons, constructed in the early 1230s. At the dissolution the Mercers' Hall was built on the site. The brethren had successfully ousted Aaron, but Elias had managed to cling to his house, wedged as it was between their convent to the south and St Olave's to the north.77 Much of the le Blund brothers' business was conducted in collaboration with leading financiers, such as Aaron of York and the Londoners, Elias le Eveske, the Crespin brothers and Aaron son of Abraham. Their clients were widespread, but included such members of leading city merchant families as Constantine fitz Alulf and Reginald Cornhill. In the 1230s they prospered and the elder brother even appears in the records as Aaron the Rich.78 By the 1240s, however, Aaron's primacy in the capital was being challenged by Aaron son of Abraham. When the tallage of 20,000 marks was imposed in 1241, both faced demands for 1200 marks (Table 6). This was the first of a number of gready increased tallages; a total of 60,000 marks was imposed on the English Jewry between 1244 and 1250. About 1246 Aaron le Blund, with Benedict Crespin and Aaron son of Abraham, was given a special but unspecified appointment at the Exchequer court. In all probability this was linked to Henry Ill's renewed efforts to build up his gold reserve, which having dropped sharply between 1244 and 1246 then rose steadily.79 Whatever the case, Aaron le Blund and Benedict Crespin soon allowed themselves to be outmanoeuvred by Aaron son of Abraham. In August 1247 the le Blunds' rival negotiated an arrangement with Henry III to pay tallage of only 214 marks per annum until 1249, and by a new agreement in 1250 first 100 marks, then 200 marks a year.80 Aaron le Blund could hardly be surprised, for this was a game which they had both played before. Sixteen years earlier, in his evidence against Passelewe, Aaron son of Abraham had described how he had given him 32 marks 'in order that he should not increase for him the sum of the tallage', and how Aaron le Blund and Elias le Eveske had given 'two dishes and one cup of value ?4 8s od' that they too should not be tallaged more than they were already; Aaron le Blund himself admitted such bribes.81 The implications of this preferential treatment, linked to the drastic rise in tax levels for the other members of the London community and above all for the le Blunds, were profound. Early in 1252 Aaron, his son, Samuel, and his brother, 113</page><page sequence="26">Joe Hillaby Elias, together with their wives, sought to flee the realm but were apprehended. Pigona and Flora received a royal pardon, but their husbands had to provide security that they would not attempt to leave the kingdom, or seek to remove their valuables; only on full payment would their house and possessions be returned. Their difficulties were now intense, and in June Aaron, Samuel and Elias sought and received respite of tallage until they were able to call in some of their sounder loans. The brother now lapsed into obscurity. Neither they nor their sons were included in the list of London guarantors of the 1255 tallages, a dubious privilege but a clear sign of financial status. There is one last notice of Elias, however. 'At the beginning of the disturbances [of 1264] he fled with other Jews to the Tower and there died', probably of wounds received.82 Samuel, eldest son of Aaron I Samuel entered the London money market in the mid-1230s83 and is listed on the assessments of 1239 and 1241 (Tables 5 and 6). By 1250 he had felt the full impact of the tallage increases and in 1251 laid a formal complaint about the inequity of his assessment, paying half a mark of gold to be tallaged 'on the value of his chattels in the same manner as the other London Jews'. In March 1252, after the abortive attempt to flee the country, William Brito was ordered to investigate these allegations, and if they were well founded to readjust the levies accordingly. Nothing happened. Three months later the justices of the Jews were again ordered to make diligent enquiries. In 1253 Samuel made further complaints, as did Solomon le Eveske. In 1254 he was still in financial difficulties, for John fitz John, one of the leaders of the 1264 attack on the London Jewry and one of his creditors, was obliged to make repayments direct to the Jewish Exchequer where they were credited against Samuel's tallage account.84 By 1266 Samuel was dead, possibly a victim of the attack on the Jewry in 1264. The inventory of his property certainly bears witness to the devastation of the Jewry as a result of the civil war. There were four main holdings: two empty plots 'in which the said Samuel was wont to abide before the war' in the parish of St Laurence Jewry; the moiety of a house in the same parish next to the house of Leo, son of Preciosa, opposite Ironmonger Lane (that is, on the north side of Catte Street); a house in Colechurch parish, 'now empty'; a plot next door and other rents.85 The mirage of Samuel's wealth persisted even after his death. In 1274 Aaron son of Vives was accused 'that upon the death of Samuel Blund he had come to Samuel's house and there found buried beneath the earth gold, silver and other treasure tantamount to a large sum, which treasure as subterranean belonged of right to the King'. However the jury gave evidence that Josce of Warwick, 'for some contention that was between him and Aaron, maliciously made this false charge'.86 114</page><page sequence="27">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Table 5. The Third of 123g, Contributions of the London Community % Rank Aaron son of Abraham Aaron le Blund Benedict Crespin and son Elias PEveske Abraham son of Muriel Jacob Crespin Elias le Blund Leo le Blund Samuel le Blund Solomon PEveske Benedict Bonenfaunt Isaac of Southwark Isaac Ruffo Diaie son of Benedict PEveske Solomon of Thouars Isaac of Gloz Leo son of Preciosa Manasser son of Manasser Isaac Parvas Stulto (foolish) Cresse son of le Mestre Jacob son of Leo Vives son of Isaac le Prestre Joia the Widow Moses of Colchester Slema sister of PEveske Manasser of Norwich Benedict son of Precsiosa Aaron of Kingston Chernun son of Moses Floria widow of Jacob Jacob son of Isaac Elias son of Master Moses Isaac PEveske Wardeman Porina daughter of Benedict Isaac de Percy Josce son of Floria Deudonne son of Josce le Prestre Preciosa the Widow Abraham son of Bonenfaunt 244 219 133 46 40 33 27 16 10 4 2 2 19 6 6 10 o 6 5 19 7 5 18 13 12 11 3 2 2 1 o 18 17 16 14 13 13 11 9 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 i-5 o o 7- 5 4 o 6.5 6 8- 5 4 4 9- 5 8- 5 9- 5 8 8 5- 5 4.5 2 8 6- 5 6-5 10.5 10 2 6-5 6.5 4-5 4-5 0 o 7 29-5 26.4 16 5-6 4.8 4 3-3 2 1.2 0-5 (Total: 93.3) (Total: 99.33) 1 2 3 7 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29= 29= 3i 32 33 34= 34= 36= 36= 38= 38= 40 115</page><page sequence="28">Joe Hillaby Table 5. Continued % Rank Ursel son of Garsia Benedict Parvaz Cresse son of Solomon Solomon son of Samuel Diaie son of Solomon Aaron of Norwich Cochard Floria mother of Genta Pagan of Cantebr' Josce le Prestre Abigail daughter of Moses Contessa the Widow Josce son of Bonami Deulecresse son of Genta Sampson son of Sampson Jacob son of Milo Milo the Doctor Contessa wife of Benedict Floria daughter of Genta Deudonne son of Vives Jacob son of Samuel Solomon Panel Antera Quatrebuche Moses son of Jacob Rothomagus Sim' Coleman Antera daughter of Isaac Benedict son of Isaac Solomon son of Josce Isiah son of Leo Solomon son of Samuel Isiah son of Gamaliel Rose of Northampton Deulecresse Azar Sarah mother of Chernun Abigail daughter of Abraham Toselina Jocta nepos Aaron Aaron of North' Deulesaut son of Samuel Deulecresse son of Bonefei Aaron Nigro Slema sister of Maidm' Crespin 6-5 6-5 6 5- 5 3 9 8.5 7 6 2 1 o-5 9-5 9 6- 5 5-5 5- 5 2.5 2 o 11 11 10 9 8- 5 8 6- 5 6- 5 4 4 3-5 2-5 2 ii-5 10.5 9- 5 9-5 9 8.5 8.5 7- 5 41 = 41 = 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5i 52 53 54 55 56= 56= 58 59 60 61 = 61 = 63 64 65 66 67 = 67 = 69= 69= 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 = 77= 79 80= 80= 82 116</page><page sequence="29">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Table 5. Continued ? s d % Rank Floria daughter of Aaron 7 83 = Elias Bon Ju 783 = Samuel son of Isaac 5.5 85 Belassez of Evermuth 5 86 Vives le Prestre 4-5 87 Aaron Panel 4 88 Moses Duceman 3.5 89 Vives son of Samuel 2 90 Total: 831 10 3 100 * Includes half of the ?41 joint payment by Aaron son of Abraham and Elias l'Eveske PRO E401/48/6 Table 6. The 20,000-mark Tallage of 1241, Contributions of the London Community I s d % Rank Aaron le Blund Aaron son of Abraham Elias PEveske Jacob Crespin and sons Elias le Blund Benedict Crespin Leo le Blund of Milk Street Samuel son of Aaron (le Blund?) Isaac son of Josce le Prestre Solomon PEveske Lumbard son of Solomon Slema of London Aaron? of Berkhamstead Samuel Mutun Isaac of Southwark Vives son of Abraham Benedict son of Bonenfaunt Isaac of Caerleon Abraham Crespin Milletoth son of Abraham Abraham son of Josce Master Moses 424 347 99 77 68 66 5i 22 20 12 10 17 10 15 5 13 12 7 o 14 13 13 o 13 13 6 5 o o 13 10 9 o1 o 4 i-5 4 6.5 11 o 4 4 4 o 4 5 o o 4 o 4 28.6 234 6.7 5-2 4.6 45 3-5 1-5 i-3 0.9 (Total: 80.2) 0.6 0.6 0-5 0-5 04 04 0-3 o-3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 = 11 = 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 117</page><page sequence="30">Joe Hillaby Table 6. Continued % Rank Diaie son of Benedict Abraham of Berkhamstead Isaac son of Joia Aaron Faber Abraham of Bedford Moses son of Abraham Eustace le Mercer Manasser of Norwich Isaac le Rus Vives son of Josce Ursell son of Garsia Floria widow of Copin Sp... Isaac son of Abraham Ursell of Wycombe 'The London Community' (i.e. other members) 175 3 o o o 13 4 o 16 13 13 10 5 2 1 15 6 o o o o 6 o 8 4 4 o o 8 2 9-5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 23 24= 24= 24= 27 28 29 30 3i = 3i = 33 34 35 36 37 11.8 ^tacey gives ?347-18-0 Total: 1485 n-5 Tallies Leo son of Preciosa Benedict Parnaz Solomon son of Samuel Chera (Antera?) Quatrebuche Aaron of Norwich Wardman Antera daughter of Isaac de Rus Deulecresse Hazir (Azar?) o 11 5 o 6 o 1 PRO E401/16/2 Leo le Blund of Milk Street Elias' eldest son, Leo, initially joined his father's business. In his evidence to the corruption commission of 1234, Elias referred to his son, Leo, as socius meus^my partner'. As Leo, like his cousin, Samuel, rose rapidly in the hierarchy, he had to be distinguished from his grandfather. In a document of 1236 he is called 'Leo, nephew of Aaron le Blund'; subsequendy he was almost always 'Leo le Blund of Milk Street'.87 The cousins were thus neighbours. By 1239 they were required to make substantial tallage contributions, but Leo's, ?16 19s iid, far exceeded that of 118</page><page sequence="31">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited his cousin, ?10 7s od. He now ranked eighth, a position confirmed in 1241 when he was elected a member of the London deputation to the Worcester 'parliament' (Tables 2, 5 and 6). The exact position of Leo's house in Milk Street is not easy to establish, although much of its history can be recovered. Originally it had belonged to the wealthy Rouen merchant, Martin de Vyrle. This 'the king took when Martin departed from the king's allegiance', that is, after Normandy fell to the French king in 1204. John then granted it to his trusty adviser, Berners of Rouen, who held it for many years before selling it to Leo le Blund. Between 1221 and 1226 a jury testified that the house belonged to the king, but Leo made fine before the constable of the Tower and retained the property. It was valued at ?2 at the eyre of 1226 and at 5 marks (?3 6s 8d) per annum in 1249, at which time it was still held by Leo 'but by what warrant the jury knows not'.88 Leo did not join his father, uncle and cousin in their attempt to leave the country. He was alive in October 1255, when he owed money for tallage, but four years later he was dead, for his son, Aaron III, paid an unspecified fine for the 'houses, rents, chattels and tallies late of Leo his father'.89 Aaron II le Blund Elias had three other sons, since in 1267 and 1272 reference is made to 'Leo, Aaron, Josce and Moses, sons and heirs of Elias le Blund of London'.90 The second, Aaron II, surmounted the difficulties which faced his family and built a Table 7. The ?1000 Tallage, Holy Trinity 1255 Arrears of the London Community Pictavin son of Benedict 11 00 Abraham Pestel 7 00 Abraham le Chen 3 10 o Aaron son of Abraham 2 17 8 Cok son of Aaron 2 10 o Abraham of Norwich 2 20 Abraham son of Vives 2 00 Josce Crespin 1 10 Leo son of Elias 1 00 Elias PEveske 12 3.5 Total: 33 12 11.5 London contribution to the ?1000 Tallage of Martinmas 1255 was 472 marks plus 50 marks = ?348. PR, 1255, 441-2 119</page><page sequence="32">Joe Hillaby new and prosperous life for himself on the Welsh march. As early as 1234 he was in business in London. An extent (or 'assessment') of that year refers to money owed to Aaron I le Blund and his associates and to Aaron the Jew, 'nephew of the said Aaron'. It is noteworthy that in this, our first record, Aaron II is, like his brother, Leo, distinguished by reference to his uncle, not to his father.91 Whether Aaron's departure from the capital was linked to the debacle of his father's attempted flight, we do not know. Certainly by 1255 he was firmly settled at Gloucester, where he married Mirabelle, daughter of the local magnate, Bonen faunt. Links between the Gloucester family and the Blunds went back at least as far as 1226, when Mirabelle, the widow of Elias of Gloucester, and Bonenfaunt, her son, formed a consortium with Aaron I of London and others to fund the debts of Roger de Leyburn, father of that Roger who was to play a major role in the events of the 1260s. Bonenfaunt grew considerably in stature within the Com munitas Iudeorum Anglie, and at Worcester in 1241 was elected by the 103 representatives of the twenty-one Jewish communities as one of six mediocres to negotiate increases in the tallage contributions of the six plutocrats.92 Evidence of Aaron's marriage is indirect but conclusive. Following custom, Bonenfaunt's daughter was called Mirabelle after her grandmother, a name not found outside this Gloucester context. It does not occur in any of the Jewish entries in the 13th-century Close and Patent rolls and only once in the published records of the Exchequer of the Jews, early in the lists of Jews incarcerated in the Tower from January 1275.93 Given the occasion this may well be a reference to Aaron's wife. The names given by Aaron to his sons confirm this family tie: the eldest was called Elias after his paternal grandfather; the second Bonenfaunt after his maternal grandfather (Fig. 1). Aaron did not return to London after his father's death during the massacre of 1264.94 Deeply affected, no doubt, by the events of 1262-5 in both the capital and Gloucester, he moved to Hereford. This city, despite its espousal of the baronial cause, had come out of the conflict virtually unscathed, and Aaron had already established a wide clientele in the country between Hereford and Gloucester. The very considerable funds now at his disposal suggest that he inherited not merely his father's financial flair. The tallage returns, and inventories of his bonds in the Hereford Old Chest of 1265-76 and New Chest of 1283-90, show how his business flourished right up to the expulsion.95 His success was openly acknow? ledged by the chief men of the city and county when, despite Bishop Gilbert Swinfield's prohibitions, they attended the celebrations held in honour of the marriage of his grandson. But these events belong to the history of the Hereford, not of the London Jewry. Of Elias' two other sons little is known.96 120</page><page sequence="33">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited The family of Abigail (Fig. 2) Aaron son of Abraham Aaron was the senior member of a wealthy family long established in the capital. In terms of London contributions to the 1194 Northampton Donumy Abigail's, his grandmother's, was fourth while his father's was sixth. The family's financial resources were thus outshone only by those of Deulesault Episcopus.97 In a document of 1223 Aaron described himself as 'son of the pious Rabbi Abraham'. For Roth this meant more than pious in the literal sense: he believed that Abraham was one of the only two known English representatives of the German ascetico mystical school of Hasidei Ashkenaz.98 During John's reign the family's fortunes suffered a decline, indicated in the 1221 tallage roll when the brothers, Aaron and Josce, ranked eighth and seventh respectively, paying a mere 3.1 and 3.7 per cent of the London total. Two years later Josce had gone, and Aaron, having probably inherited his brother's interest, was seventh, paying 5.4 per cent (Tables 3 and 4). Aaron had considerable business acumen. In less than two decades he built up a fortune that rivalled that of Aaron I le Blund (Tables 2, 5 and 6). Affluence brought increasing responsibility. In 1238 he was appointed to the coin-clipping commission; three years later he was one of the London representa? tives at the so-called Worcester 'parliament'. His name is now found among that small group of extremely wealthy Jews that Henry III called on for instant financial Abigail fl. 1183-94 I daughter = Isaac Northampton I Donum Josce d. c. 1222? I Manasser minor 1256 Benedict = d Hagin, s of Abraham = d of Aaron Manasser hanged 1279 Master Moses Crespin d. c. 1268 Fig. 2. The family of Abigail: a suggested pedigree Abraham d. 1211-18 Aaron d. 1256 Cok killed 1265 121</page><page sequence="34">Joe Hillaby assistance. In 1239, with Aaron and Leo of York and Aaron le Blund, he was ordered to repay the abbot of Westminster 1000 marks borrowed by the king. This, they were assured, would be deducted from their outstanding contributions to the third levied that year. In November 1241 he was included, with Aaron of York, Aaron le Blund and David of Oxford, in a demand from Henry for 400 marks 'at Oxford, next Monday', and in November 1244 he was commanded, with Aaron of York, Benedict Crespin, Aaron le Blund and Moses son of Jacob, to repay the 1000 marks which the king owed to certain Sienese and Florentine merchants - by Christmas. In 1246 and 1247 he acted as a talliator, and it was at this time that he took up work at the Exchequer with Aaron le Blund and Benedict Crespin." The turning point came in May 1249 when Aaron was appointed a justice of the Jews, to 'reside at the Exchequer' on the same conditions as the archpresbyter, Elias le Eveske, who had succeeded Aaron of York in 1243. Four years earlier Elias had been temporarily removed as one of the London chirographers on account of'irregularities'. Aaron's appointment, it might therefore be thought, was intended to provide the king with a check on the archpresbyter. Further, an entry on the Close rolls in June 1249 records that 'if Elias le Eveske ... shall sit there [at the Exchequer] by the precept of the king then the king wishes that they [the justices] should receive Aaron son of Abraham as his associate'.100 Yet there are indications that the two men had a close working relationship well before 1249. Indeed, ten years earlier they made a joint tallage payment of ?41 (Table 5, note). On a number of occasions they can be found acting together, rather than in the bewildering series of consortia formed among the English magnates, to fund some of the larger loans and thus distribute risk. In 1253 Cok son of Aaron, and Elias' son, Isaac, were collaborating in a similar way. Such partnerships betoken a shrewd working relationship, not the mutual antagonism on which the king would have to rely if Aaron was to have been used as a counter to Elias at the Exchequer.101 The two men acted as joint agents and advisers to the Crown on a range of matters. The year after Aaron's appointment they were responsible for ascertain? ing the assets left by Leo of York, for administering the estate of Samuel Epi scopus of York, and next year for assessing the dower of his widow, Pucella. In 1250 they had to deliver to Thomas, warden of St Mary's chapel in the Minor Jewry, ?20 for the refurbishment of the former synagogue and an icon of the Virgin, surmounted with tabernacle work of 200 canopies.102 In reality, Elias and Aaron were brought together for a much more important purpose. By the 1250s the accumulation of gold had become central to the king's financial activities. David Carpenter has shown that, while collection for the new shrine of Edward the Confessor at Westminster, begun 'from purest gold' in 1241, may have given the initial impetus, the king quickly acquired more than enough. The expansion of the royal gold treasure after 1248-9 was, as Matthew Paris 122</page><page sequence="35">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited explained, to provide for his intended crusade, since the currencies of the West were of silver while those of the East were of gold. In the event it was used to finance the Gascon campaign of 1253-4.103 Jewish resources had already been called on extensively, to build up this reserve. Payment of fines, and so on, was, wherever possible, to be in gold. Thus in 1244-5 Elias and his fellow chirogra? pher, Benedict Crespin, were respectively fined 7 and 8 gold marks for the 'irregularities' referred to above. In the past, small quantities had also been bought for silver by Philip Hardel, warden of the mint, but in September 1249 Henry III decided to convert to gold all the 380 marks received in silver from the Jewish tallage. It is highly probable that he already had a large-scale conversion operation in mind when he appointed Aaron to the Exchequer of the Jews.104 In the next sixteen months very large sums passed through the hands of Elias and Aaron for the purchase, 'as the king enjoined them', of gold: in January all receipts from the 5 00-mark tallage on the Jewry; in October all the chattels, including bonds, of Abraham of Berkhamstead who had been arrested on coin clipping charges, together with ?1000 of the Michaelmas tallage and ?500 due, in stage payments, from Aaron of York. The next month they received ?93 from the chattels of Bonenfaunt of Exeter. In December the king ordered that all available funds on the Jewish account, except money owing to Simon de Montfort and Raymond Makayn of Bordeaux, should be handed over. On 1 March 1251 the Close rolls show purchases of gold by Elias and Aaron worth ?866 4s 8d at the good price of virtually 10 silver marks for 1 gold mark. Three weeks later the king commanded that all profits of the Jewry should be placed at their disposal, and on 26 April a further 97! marks was handed over from the Jewish Exchequer. The records, however, give no hint as to where Elias and Aaron were purchasing the gold. Much of it may have come from the internal Jewish market, although it is perhaps indicative that later Henry was to use 'overseas merchants' to help build up the reserve.105 Aaron used his closeness to the court to achieve stability, and also to gain advantage, in his financial relations with the Crown, at the expense of his former colleagues, Aaron le Blund and Benedict Crespin. The arrangements of 1247 and 1249 were revised in 1250. 'Whereas Aaron has given the king 25 marks he would not now be tallaged except at 100 marks (?66 13s 4d) per annum for four years.' The explanation appears later in the writ: 'and while the said tallage [period] lasts he is to have respite of his old debts to the king'. Finally, to provide technical conformity with Jewish law, the 100 marks a year were to 'be allowed to the community of the Jews in their tallage', but 'if the number of the tallage diminishes his proportion shall diminish likewise'. When the deal was renewed, at an annual rate of 20 gold marks, we learn for the first time the name of Aaron's patron. It was the hated Poitevin, Guy de Lusignan, the king's half-brother and count of Cognac.106 Even with so powerful a patron Aaron was obliged in 1255 to surrender to the king a debt of ?150, which had brought him 50 marks a year rent, as interest. 123</page><page sequence="36">Joe Hillaby This Henry III used to recompense one of his knights. In return Aaron received other (Jewish) debts.107 Nevertheless, Aaron's business prospered. In 1252 he purchased from the Crown certain property in the city which had belonged to Josce, archpresbyter in 1207-36 and grandson of the great Rabbi Josce, which his wife, Henna, daughter of Elias le Eveske, had held in dower. These houses, lands and rents, valued at ?60, lay in the parishes of St Stephen Colman Street, St Michael Bassishaw, and St Olave. Further details of Aaron's investment property are available. After his death some was granted to William de Valery, yeoman of Edmund, the king's son. This included two shops in the street and parish of St Laurence Jewry, lying between the great house of William de Ferrers, sometime earl of Derby, and the land late of Simon, son of Mary; four shops in the same street and parish and bordering on the land late of Simon, son of Mary, and the land of Master Thomas Eswy; and three houses in Westcheap, opposite the Great Conduit, in the parish of St Mary Colechurch and a vacant plot behind, all of which could be let for an annual quitrent of ?12 9s 8d.108 On Aaron's death in 1256 all his effects passed into the hands of the Crown. The queen took such bonds as she wished, and 1000 marks was paid to Richard of Cornwall as part payment of money owed by the king. Two of Aaron's fee debts - that is permanent alienation of the receipts from a defined piece of land in exchange for a cash payment - were granted to royal servants. William de Valery received a perpetual rent of ?12 as well as the property referred to above, and Hermann de Budberg 20 marks a year due from Geoffrey de Scalariis. These must have been some of the choicest - because they were the securest - items in his portfolio. For the remaining lands, houses, rents, debts and chattels, Aaron's sons, Cok and Manasser, then had to pay a relief of 2000 marks. The total was thus more than 3000 marks (?2000). In addition Cok had to pay two gold marks for the wardship, until he came of age, of his brother, Manasser, who 'should not be married without his [Cok's] consent'. In the meantime Cok 'should have the keeping of all things which pertain to that marriage'. This relief of some 3000 marks should be compared with those levied on the estates of H?mo of Hereford (6000 marks) in 1231 and David of Oxford (5000 marks) and Leo Episcopus of York (7000 marks) in 1244. That such a figure should be demanded of the heirs of Aaron son of Abraham, the wealthiest member of the London, and thus the English, Jewry was a clear sign of the times.109 Cok son of Aaron Aaron's death was attended by considerable difficulties and complications. There were widespread rumours that many of his chattels had been 'withdrawn' to evade payment of relief. Cok, his eldest son, had to pay 20 gold marks 'that he and his wife and children be quit of inquisition and suspicion which the king has against them of chattels and moveables of Aaron, his father, concealed and carried away', 124</page><page sequence="37">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited and that he may have 'his own [Cok's] houses in London, his charters and muniments and other moveables'. In addition he was to have possession of his father's houses (except, of course, those granted to William de Valery) until further order. Such charges of concealment were not uncommon. They were brought, for example, against Aaron son of Benedict Crespin, and Abraham son of Rose Crespin.110 Despite these losses, and the relief levied on his father's estate, Cok was reputed to be the wealthiest English Jew of his day. This the Patent rolls substantiate. By 1255 London's position vis-?-vis York had changed dramatically. It was now by far the most affluent of the English communities; it contributed 32 per cent to the tallage of that year. Its closest rivals were Lincoln and Winchester (8 per cent) and Canterbury (6 per cent). With the ruin of Aaron and the death of Leo and Samuel Episcopus, York's position had slumped to fifth. This is confirmed by the 1259 tallage figures, when London again bore almost one third of the total, ?100 of the ?333 *3S Cok son of Aaron headed the list of guarantors of the London quota. The two others named were Aaron I le Blund's son, Samuel, and Leo son of Preciosa.111 Few of Cok's clients are known. They included some of the most powerful men in the realm. Among them was the mercurial Roger de Leyburn, steward to Prince Edward, foremost in the resort to civil war and in the invitation to Simon to return to England. But Roger left Montfort in 1263, became steward of the royal house? hold and saved the king's life at Evesham next year.112 Another client was Robert de Ferrers, earl of Derby, who in February 1263 besieged and sacked Worcester with its Jewry. Josce, son of the magnate, Hak, and others were killed by his men. The twenty-four-year-old took the chest of Jewish debts to his castle at Tutbury. After Simon's defeat and death at Evesham, Ferrers obtained 'remission of all rancour and indignation of mind conceived against him by occasion of the late disturbances ... and admission to the king's full grace, good will and peace' only at a cost of one drinking cup of gold, the manor of Potterspury, Northants and 1500 silver marks. As some small recompense Henry III remitted 'all his debts to the late Cok son of Aaron', but this was not the end of Ferrers' troubles.113 Cok met his death, during the attack on the London Jewry in 1263, at the hands of the leader of the baronial forces, John fitz John, who ran him through in cold blood and then seized what bonds and valuables he could find.114 With clients such as de Ferrers, this may well have been a premeditated act. But fitz John certainly did not get all, since ?1000 in gold and silver had been buried in a neighbouring garden. Cok's infant son, Manasser, was spirited away to safety in Normandy by his guardian, the archpresbyter, Hagin son of Master Moses.115 Cok's landed property passed through a number of hands. 'By the counsel of the barons' some was committed 'during pleasure' to Richard de Grey. After Evesham the king granted Cok's houses in the parish of St Stephen, between Colman Street and Bassishaw, to Godfrey Gifford, who became his chancellor in 1266 and was 125</page><page sequence="38">Joe Hillaby bishop of Worcester in 1268-1302. In November 1265 'the said Godfrey, being in the king's presence, surrendered them to the king, who out of reverence for W[alter], bishop of Bath and Wells, granted them to Alice, the bishop's sister'. The bishop was Godfrey's brother, Walter Gifford, who himself had held the chancellorship until his election as archbishop of York in 1266. In the 1270s both brothers are to be found trafficking in Jewish debts.116 Cok's brother, Manasser, survived the massacre. For a time he served as a London chirographer but in 1267 he was replaced as 'keeper of one of the keys of the London chest' by Aaron Crespin. Nevertheless, six years later a certain Thomas de London brought a plea of trespass and 'falsity and seduction' against him and other chirographers, Hagin and Vives, sons of Master Moses, and the Christian, John de Ferrun, who had also been replaced in 1267.117 In so far as it was possible in the radically changed circumstances that prevailed after the re-establishment of royal power, Manasser prospered. Evidence of this lies in the size of some of his bonds. In 1273 Manasser held a mortgage of ?800 on the lands of John de Peckham, of which one fourth part worth 40 marks a year, belonged to Vives son of Abraham.118 Some years later he was claiming repayment of two debts totalling ?1500 from the heirs of John de Burgh. Settlement was achieved with the executors, but the Crown immediately took ?700 as part payment of Manasser's outstanding tallage bill of ?821 8s 4d. He soon lost most of what remained. Edward I granted this to his queen. One of de Burgh's bonds, for ?600, was taken from the London chest and handed to the keeper of the queen's gold.119 Manasser also survived the fateful months in 1278 and 1279, when 269 Jews were hanged on charges of clipping and other offences against the coinage, but it was a close-run thing. On 19 January 1278 Manasser persuaded Edward I to appoint Roger Norwood and Bartholomew de Briancon to investigate his claim that 'a portion of clipped coin, with the forceps employed in clipping it, tied up in a cloth, was maliciously thrown on to the top of his house in the city of London and found there, by reason of which he was imprisoned on suspicion'.120 Although the findings are not known, in November 1279 Manasser was realiz? ing some of his assets. To Nicholas and Margery de Eketon he sold a house in Bassishaw with a rentable value of i6^d; 285 ells 6 inches in length and 4 ells 7 inches in breadth, it lay between land already belonging to Nicholas and the houses of the magnate, Aaron son of Vives. Nicholas bought another plot, '221 ells 3 inches towards the street and in length 26 ells at one end and 29 ells at the other, with a wall extending northwards'. This was between the land formerly of Sampson son of Abraham of Hereford, and a plot formerly of Simon le Furster but now in Nicholas' ownership. A 'Manasser son of Aaron' was among those listed as owning property in London at the expulsion ten years later (Table 8, no. 20).121 Not so fortunate was his nephew Benedict son of Cok, who was hanged, for offences against the coinage, in 1279. Manasser acquired his half messuage in the 126</page><page sequence="39">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Table 8. Jewish Property in London at the Expulsion, 12QO Jewish Owner Value ? s d Street Christian Successor 1. Sara Diaia 2. Antera w of Vives s of Master Moses of Ironmonger Lane 3. a. Abraham Motoun ^ b. Benedict Mayre / 4. Benedict s of Hagin 5. Thippe w of Isaac of Southwark 6. Jornin Sakerel 7. Aaron s of Slema 8. Heirs of Master Elias s of Master Moses 9. Leo s of Cresse s of Master Elias 10. Moses Crespin Jacob s of Bonamicus of York Muriel d of Cresse d of Genta Benedict s of Jacob le Clerk Rose Douceman Elias le Eveske Moses s of Master Elias Gamaliel of Oxford/ Bateman s of Cresse Con nunity Sara of Oxford Manser s of Aaron Elias Baggard Community Total: 12 17 o 268 1 6 8 3 18 9 200 6 8 2 13 4 3 19 o 300 2 10 o 1 6 6 1 6 17 4 2 13 4 700 6 13 4 200 #7 8 7 Corner, Aldermanbury, St Laurence Catte St Catte St, St Laurence Catte St Catte St, St Laurence Colechurch St, St Olaves Colechurch St, St Olaves vacua placea in Colechurch St Ironmonger Lane, St Martin Pomary Milk St Milk St Milk St, St Mary Magdalene Milk St, St Mary Magdalene Milk Street Between Friars of Sack and Spurrier Street Corner of Wood St Wood St/Lade Lane Wood St not specified Placea outside Cripplegate, named Leyrestowe (cemetery) William de Leyre John de Butterley William le Kyng of Hatton Edmund of London Adam of Horsham Alan de Hommade ^ Benedict of Shoreditch I Alan the Cordwainer Geoffrey de Norton, cleric Isabella w of Adam of St Albans, junior Martin Ferraunt, servant of Queen Eleanor Henry de Enfield and Alice his wife Robert de Basing Guido Fevre Edmund of London Prior and convent of Chicksand Isabella w of John de Vesci Matilda de Kellevedon John de Laufare William de Ideshaie Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln Isabella w of John de Vesci Master William de Montfort, dean of St Paul's s: son; d: daughter; w: widow. B. L. Lansdowne MS 826 ff43~59; 1 Properties 4 and 14 joindy valued Rotulorum Originalium Abbreviatio I (Record Commission 1805) 75 at ?1 2s 8d. 127</page><page sequence="40">Joe Hillaby parish of St Stephen at a cost of 100 marks, most probably to safeguard Benedict's family. Half a messuage in Colman Street and a messuage opposite St Mary Colechurch, which belonged to Benedict, were acquired by Gregory de Rokesle. That was not all. Rokesle also obtained property which had belonged to Benedict's brother, Abraham, for which Roger le Chaundeler paid an annual rent of 20s, as well as three messuages in Colechurch Lane 'late of Isaac de Warwick' and another half messuage there 'late of Deudonne of Winchester'.122 By 1285 Rokesle had amassed a great portfolio of city properties which extended over twelve parishes. At his death in 1291 Andrew Horn saw fit to place his obituary notice beside that of Eleanor of Provence, the queen mother. Mayor of London 1274-81 and 1284-5, Rokesle was a close associate of the king's Italian financiers and was appointed Master of the Exchange in 1279. He held many other offices, a number of which impinged on Jewish affairs and provided oppor? tunities he was not prepared to forgo. With two others he made scrutiny of the London chirograph chest in 1276. As a member of the coin-clipping commission he was well placed to purchase Jewish property, whether of those hanged and whose lands escheated to the Crown or of those who were obliged to sell in order to raise funds to meet large fines. This was not the end of his activity; in 1290, at the expulsion, he advised Hugh de Kendal on the sale of Jewish houses in London.123 The Crespin brothers, Benedict and Jacob, were major figures on the London money market for almost half a century. The identity of their father is uncertain. The Crespin family (Fig. 3) (Moses?) Crespin Benedict = Rose d. c.1252 I Jacob = Meydin d. ?.1244 Moses Aaron Josce Vives d. by hanged 1252 ?1280 Isaac Moses Isaac i.1275 Ulla = Abraham Cokeman Deulecresse = d (of Hagin d. 1265 Archpresbyter?) d = Abraham s of Cok Firmin Fig. 3. The Crespin family: a suggested pedigree 128</page><page sequence="41">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited An Abraham Crespin appears with them as a defendant in the fitz Herlicon case of 1218, but as Benedict and Jacob both named their eldest son Moses it is unlikely that Abraham was their father. Established in London in the early years of John's reign, the 1221-3 tallage rolls show that they managed to survive the trauma of the years after 1210 with much of their fortune intact. Jacob ranked fifth in the London hierarchy in 1221 and sixth in 1223, but his elder brother does not appear (Tables 3 and 4). Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence of his activities. He was a much-sought-after attorney representing Jewish interests throughout the country, including those of the great Isaac of Norwich.124 He also dealt in property; his deals included the sale of lands in the manor of Tolleshunt, Essex, to the infamous Henry Braybrooke. On Christ? mas Day 1232 one of Benedict's servants was stabbed to death in London by the groom of a certain John Minnot. There seems to have been quite a fracas, because Minnot himself died of wounds received soon after.125 By this time Benedict was involved in a major development scheme close to Colechurch Lane. From the abbot of Waltham he purchased 'those houses late of Aaron of Lincoln in Lothbury on Walbrook in the parish of St Olaves' (part of the development begun by Aaron, Gervase of Cornhill and the sons of Peter fitz Alan), together with 'the vacant ground adjoining the three houses which had belonged to Bruin' - this is Brunus, one of whose sons married Cyonia le Blund.126 Further evidence appears at the Eyre of 1244 when Benedict was indicted for 'blocking a lane between the king's highway in Colechurch [parish], and the street which is called Lothbury'. Another entry refers to him 'blocking up a certain lane next to the chapel of the Blessed Mary of Coneyhope'.127 The area in which he was interested was thus immediately behind the properly on the eastern side of Cole? church Lane and not far from the marshy area to the west of the Walbrook. For this encroachment Benedict was fined the considerable sum of 1 gold mark (?6 13s 4d). It was at this time that his son, Moses, was launched on his business career. In 1238 Jacob and Benedict were included with the super-plutocrats, Aaron and Leo of York and David of Oxford, in a consortium that was 'to take care of Seman, the king's crossbowman; finding him reasonably in necessaries, as well robes as other things, as the king formerly ordered - so that he may not through their default have to come again to the king to complain of them'. Both served on the coin-clipping commission and both represented London at the Worcester 'parlia? ment'. Also, with Elias le Eveske, Benedict was one of the London chirographers, but his status was not such as to merit inclusion among 'the six richest and discretest Jews' in 1244 (see Table 2).128 Jacob died late in the 1240s. An extant (survey or valuation) of all his lands and tenements showed that he had four houses in the parish of St Michael Wood Street, worth 40s a year and held by his son, Isaac; a stone house in St Michael's parish valued at 16s per annum, probably his own; and in Ironmonger Lane three 129</page><page sequence="42">Joe Hillaby other houses, now held by his son-in-law, Abraham Cokeman. A number escheated for Jacob's debts and were subsequendy sold to Jacob le Eveske. One of Jacob's Milk Street houses was purchased by Cresse son of Master Moses, but Crespin's son, Moses, was able to keep his father's own house in that street. This was held by a Moses Crespin at the expulsion in 1290 (Table 8, no. 10).129 When Benedict died in 1252 his eldest son, also called Moses, was already dead. His four other sons, Aaron, Josce, Vives and Isaac, had to meet the relief of a third on his property and bonds.130 Aaron, the eldest, as will be seen, became the amanuensis of Master Elias, son of Master Moses, who called him 'my Jew'. In 1267 Aaron replaced Manasser son of Aaron as one of the two Jewish chirogra? phers. The unusually detailed explanation given in the records for Manasser's replacement - 'it having been brought to the attention of the Justices of the Jews that Manasser son of Aaron was frequendy indisposed and was thus not able to fill the office satisfactorily' - suggests that this was only a pretext to get the nominee of Elias, and thus of Queen Eleanor, into this critically important post. Twelve years later he was hanged, a victim of the campaign against coin-clipping. His houses and lands in the parish of St Laurence opposite Ironmonger Lane went to Mat? thew Columbariis, a member of the royal household and lord of Chisbury in the forest of Savernake.131 The Eveske family (Fig. 4) The chief elements in the story of the Eveske family were oudined many years ago by Canon Stokes.132 As Benedict Episcopus ranked second to Aaron le Blund in the 1221 and 1223 tallages (Tables 3 and 4), one is bound to ask whether we have here the heir of Deulesault Episcopus who stood at the head of London con? tributors to the Northampton Donum of 1194, paying ?117 10s 8d, more than a fifth of the amount required from that Jewry. In the Donum, Deulesault is des? cribed as Episcopus in one entry and le Veske in another. A Vives le Vesque (?3 5 s 4d) and Abraham le Veske (?1 12s 8d), as well as his son Josce, are listed in the same roll. The unravelling of the family pedigree is thus complicated by the use of the French form.133 Benedict was still alive in 1234 at the time of the coin-clipping enquiry, but Solomon, a younger son, gave evidence on behalf of the family as 'his father was feeble and his brother, Elias, was ill'. There were three other sons, Jacob, Isaac and Diai, and a sister, Slema. It was shortly after this episode that Elias took control of the family business. In 1237 he was one of the commissioners to assess the tallage of 3000 marks, and in 1241 was a London representative at the Worcester 'parliament'.134 The history of the family now becomes increasingly linked to service to the Crown. Elias was already, with Benedict Crespin, one of the London chirogra? phers, and in 1243 he succeeded Aaron of York as archpresbyter. His letter of 130</page><page sequence="43">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited -a I c75 3 Oh O Oh W - T3 C 5 II 10 00 I - M o -HE - o E Oh PQ -0 - 3 Q 3 4 bb E CO X) ^4 ? -o ? W . 3 X) Oh Oh &lt; 131</page><page sequence="44">Joe Hillaby appointment defines the post. The justices of the Exchequer of the Jews were to invest Elias in the office, permitting him to have control of the Exchequer rolls in the same way as Aaron, and to have view and testimony of all future records of debt.135 About the same time his brother, Jacob, was appointed clerk to the court, effectively Elias' deputy. In May 1249 Elias was joined at the Exchequer by Aaron son of Abraham. These appointments signalled the passing of the supremacy from York to London. Under pressure of greatly increased tax demands, Aaron of York was now on the road to impoverishment and eventual bankruptcy; by the end of the decade, Leo and Samuel Episcopus of York were dead.136 The special tallage concessions granted to Aaron son of Abraham have been noted. Elias received similar treatment. In 1250, for 'long and faithful service' and a fine of 10 gold marks, he was to be tallaged for the next four years at ?100 per annum, but, 'at the instance of Queen Eleanor', Jacob was exempted from all such payment, for which privilege he paid a nominal fine of ?3 6s 8d.137 In addition, for 'services to the king and queen sitting at the Exchequer of the Jews', Jacob was given the house late of Josce of Colchester, Jew of Lincoln, in Oxford. This Roth identified as being on the post office site in Fish Street. The annual rent of 10s was to be paid to the London house of converts. To Elias went the house in Nor? thampton of Samuel the Rich, son of Jacob the Rich.138 As noted, Elias' principal concern in 1249-51 was the acquisition of gold, but with Jacob he also assisted in the administration of the tallage. In 1249 Elias acted with Aaron son of Abraham, Aaron of York and Abraham of Berkhamstead. Next year Jacob was seconded to assist Philip Lovel, one of the justices, 'in expediting arduous business in London and Canterbury'. Difficulties in raising the 1251 tallage led the king to threaten to review Elias' and Aaron's perquisites, yet they, with one other Jew elected by the community, were responsible for raising the 1252 tallage.139 Elias, however, was not built of stern enough material for such an invidious task, and in 1254 he cracked. Already he had had to suffer gratuitous insults. The elaborate Scroll of the Law which he used in the administration of oaths at the Exchequer court was sold and the proceeds used to fund Henry Ill's gift to Westminster Abbey of a chasuble with alb, amice of gold thread and a cope embellished with precious stones. Later Elias was obliged to return the 250 marks the king paid him for another gift to Westminster Abbey, a splendid gold cup. In this way this second gift also became, perforce, Elias'.140 Elias' outburst when presented with the 1254 tallage demand by Richard of Cornwall is reported verbatim by Matthew Paris, whose informants included the king himself and an Exchequer baron. O noble Lords, we see undoubtedly that our Lord the King purposeth to destroy us from under Heaven. We entreat, for God's sake, that he will give us licence and safe conduct to depart out of his kingdom that we may seek and find a mansion in some other place under some Prince who bears some bowels of mercy and some stability of truth and faithfulness. 132</page><page sequence="45">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited We will depart, never to return again, leaving here our household stuff and houses behind us .... He hath people, his own merchants, I say not usurers, who by usurious contracts heap up infinite heaps of money. Let the King rely upon them and gape after their emoluments. They have supplanted and impoverished us, which the King however dis? sembles to know, exacting from us things we cannot give, even though he would put out our eyes or cut our throats when he had first pulled off our skins. To this he received the reply 'Whither will ye flee, O wretches? Behold, the King of France hateth and persecuteth you, and hath condemned you to perpetual exile. Shunning Charybdis, you desire to be drowned in Scylla.' Nevertheless, Richard moderated his demand.141 Surprisingly, Elias retained his office for a further four years. With his brothers, Jacob and Solomon, and with Aaron son of Abraham he was guarantor for the London Jewry's 1255 tallage, but two years later was dismissed for 'a great trespass committed as well against the king as his brother Richard', now elected king of the Romans. The charge was of fraudulendy committing to his own use a portion of 'certain debts which he delivered as good and entire to the king's brother'.142 Apparendy as a community, the English Jewry moved quickly to fill the vacuum created by Elias' deposition. On 28 June 1257 the justices were ordered to convict Elias' trespass. On 20 July the deposition order was published, but at the same time, 'for a fine of three gold marks with Cresse and Hagin [sons of Master Moses] made to the king for the said commonalty', it was granted 'that none shall hence? forth be archpresbyter except by common election and that after the death of any such elected archpresbyter they shall have full power to elect whom they will and to present him to the king that he may obtain the king's assent and favour'.143 In February 1258 Hagin son of Master Moses was appointed archpresbyter, 'on the election of the community'. A new family was now in the ascendant. The reason is quite evident. The whole Jewish community had been granted for three years to Henry Ill's brother, Richard, as security for a loan. Elias was the victim of a palace revolution. Only a few weeks before the archpresbyter was accused of defalcation, the justices of the Jews, 'at the instance of Richard, the king's brother', had ordered that Master Moses' sons, Hagin and Cresse, 'who have laboured much in the service of the said Richard', should be quit for five years from all tallages. It was probably his treatment at the hands of Master Moses' family that persuaded Elias, before the year 1258 was out, to become a convert to Christianity. Moses' sons showed no mercy to the fallen archpresbyter. On 8 January 1259, for a fine of 400 marks, Henry III, 'by the advice of the lords of the council', granted to Moses' son Elias, 'all the lands which Elias le Eveske held in the city of London and town of Northampton on the day on which he was converted from Jewish pravity to the Christian faith by which conversion his lands escheated to the king'.144 The third Eveske brother, Solomon, had also been drawn into the administra? tion. Due no doubt to his brother's influence, his tallage payments were fixed in 133</page><page sequence="46">Joe Hillaby 1252 at ?20 per annum for four years. When the Exchequer clerks faltered, the justices were prompdy ordered to ensure that he was not overcharged. Solomon was another victim of the coup engineered by the sons of Master Moses in 1259. Charged with forging charters, all his lands and possessions escheated to the Crown. The king's surgeon, Master Thomas de Wesehan, was given a plot 80 feet long and 35 feet wide in Colman Street in St Stephen's parish between 'the land of Peter son of Alan on the north and the land which the said Thomas previously had of the king's gift to the south'. All Solomon's other London lands and houses went to Cresse and Hagin.145 Solomon was fortunate in being able to abjure the realm. Yet within eighteen months he was guaranteed a safe return because 'the king has necessity that he comes for business specially affecting him'. In another safe conduct this was described as 'certain business of the king's peace', but in reality it was the queen he was to serve, for it was at her request that he was quit of tallage for two years. In all probability he was required for his skill in acquiring gold. Before his exile in 1259, 85 marks and 40 pence worth of gold which had been in Solomon's possession went into the royal wardrobe; 'to wit in bezants 24J marks, in obols of muse 31, in divers moneys and in ingots 3i marks and in leaf 26 marks 40 pence'. This detailed record of a Jewish gold hoard is virtually unique. Solomon, with his wife Flora, a daughter of Aaron I le Blund, remained in the country, but by 1265 he was dead, possibly, like his brother-in-law, Samuel le Blund, yet another prominent victim of the attack on the London Jewry in April the previous year. His widow Flora remarried - the wealthy but ill-fated Benedict of Winchester. The sons of Master Moses had swept the board.146 The London Jewry under siege, 1262-7 For the dire events of these years we do not have to rely on a brief sentence or two in the monastic chronicles. There are two remarkable sources. The first is the Chronicle of Thomas Wykes. He lived in and loved London, knew Richard of Cornwall, the king's brother, well and had a marked respect for the city's wealthy and highly cultured Jewish community. Only late in life, in 1282, did he become a canon of Osney Abbey. For the years 1256-78 he provides an independent, secular view. The other source is the Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs of London, another local and contemporary record, written probably by the wealthy city alder? man, Arnold fitz Thedmar, between 1258 and 1272.147 Fear of a repetition of the events of 1190 could never have been far from the minds of those who lived in the Jewry. For example, during a festival on the octave of St Hilary in 1236, they were, for their safety, admitted by royal command to the Tower. The conflict between Henry III and the barons after Simon de Montfort's return in April 1263 gave the popular party in London - representing craft guilds such as the cordwainers, fishmongers and girdlers, the lesser trades and the poor - 134</page><page sequence="47">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited their opportunity. There was 'demonstration after demonstration ... until revolt grew to revolution'. The impact on the Jewry was to be profound.148 Trouble, however, had begun the previous year, in 1262, 'at Martinmas, about vespers'. 'Many Christians, indeed a coundess multitude, ran in pursuit and broke into many Jewish houses' after a Jew had stabbed a Christian with an anlace in Colechurch Lane. At nightfall, not content, they carried off all the goods of the Jews and would have broken into many more houses if Thomas fitz Thomas, the mayor, and the sheriff had not repaired to the spot and driven them off by force of arms. The city officers sought to stamp out the disorder. Aldermen were to enquire in their ward moots who were responsible and those accused were imprisoned at Newgate and Cripplegate.149 Two years later, the young Simon de Montfort was defeated and captured at Northampton on 5 April 1264. Prompted by a series of wild rumours, the London mob was roused to even greater fury. Their fears are recorded by the Dunstable chronicler. The Jews, they believed, planned to burn down the city with Greek fire; they were preparing false keys and had underground routes to betray the gates. On the eve of Palm Sunday the mob rose again, led by Stephen Bukerel, the marshal, and John fitz John. The latter, one of de Montfort's most pitiless support? ers, had for ten years been in debt to the Jewry. Once again the Jewry was assailed. Once more fitz Thomas, the mayor, with Hugh Despenser, the justiciar, fought hard to re-establish order. Many Jews, together with the chirograph chest, they secured in the Tower. Elias le Blund was among those who fled to the Tower but once there he died, probably of wounds inflicted by the mob. 'Forgetful of human piety ... concerned only to relieve their poverty with the money of others, all Jews upon whom they could lay their hands were murdered unless they paid large ransoms or allowed themselves to be baptized.' Cok son of Abraham, described by Wykes as 'the most famous Jew in the city and the richest', was run through by fitz John himself.150 Cok left three sons, Benedict, Abraham and Manasser, in the guardianship of Hagin, the archpresbyter. Manasser, who was only three months old, was taken for safety to the home of a London burgess, Henry, where he remained in the care of his Jewish nurse. Hagin then dispatched Aaron, eldest son of Benedict Crespin, with Christians and Jews who 'by night came and entered a curtilage adjoining Cok's residence' where his treasure was concealed. They dug up ?1000 worth of gold and silver coin and cups, girdles and pieces of gold and caused the said treasure to be carried off by night to the Tower where Hagin then resided. There it was divided between the two men. As guardian, Hagin sought to legitimize these proceedings by the betrothal of Benedict, the eldest son, to his own daughter and of Abraham to the daughter of Aaron Crespin.151 Not only Jews were attacked. The Italians and Cahorsins collected whatever money they could from the surrounding religious houses and also fled to the Tower. Nevertheless, according to Wykes, 400 Jews, 'without regard to sex or 135</page><page sequence="48">Joe Hillaby age', were killed. The Chronicle of the Mayors speaks of more than 500 being despoiled and murdered after nightfall.152 That was not the end. A month later Richard de Ware, a pro-royalist draper, burned down a great part of the Cheap and obstructed the men bringing water. Many houses 'of both timber and stone' were destroyed in Bread Street and the predominantly Jewish Milk Street. This no doubt explains the 'two empty plots' where Samuel le Blund 'was wont to abide before the war'. After defeating the king at Lewes the next day, de Montfort sought to reassure the London Jews. Sheriffs and mayor were ordered to issue a proclamation assuring them of freedom from molestation. The administration was slow to respond, for, as we learn later, the seal of the Exchequer of the Jews had itself been 'stolen during the [late] broils'.153 The Jews had little reason to trust baronial assurances, and there is plentiful evidence that many left London for the provinces, to settle at such centres as Lincoln, York and Colchester which had suffered less at the hand of the rebels. A number of the more affluent fled to the Continent. At the nativity of St John the Baptist 'divers Jews [including Master Moses, his son Vives, Aaron Potage and the magnate Gamaliel of Oxford, who since the 1250s had been living in London in a house close to St Albans church at the corner of Wood Street and Lade Lane] taking alarm at the troublous state of the realm went overseas', and with them to Normandy went Manasser, the young son of Aaron son of Abraham, and his nurse. There for eighteen months he was left in the care of Jacob le Francois at Neufchatel.154 In April 1267 the forces of Gilbert de Clare entered London, and those Jews who had remained fled once more to the Tower, which they then helped to defend. Saving their persons, their flight exposed their property. When in the London eyre (circuit court) of 1276 enquiry was made as to those 'who maliciously demolished or burned down the houses of others within the liberty of the city against the peace', it was reported that 'Brian de Gowiz and William de Ferrers, with others of their men, at the time when the earl of Gloucester occupied the city, overthrew the houses of Solomon le Blund and Master Elias, Jews'. Part of the timber they destroyed and the rest they carried off to the Tower to build bar? ricades. Ironically, judgement was given against the Jews, for having reached agreement with Brian and William without the king's licence.155 Many Jews had entrusted their property to Christian friends and neighbours, but not all was returned. A number of such cases came before the Exchequer court in 1267. These are worth considering in some detail for the evidence they provide not only of relationships between Christians and Jews, but also of the pawnbroking activities of the London community. John Renger had given Samuel le Blund two silver bowls, a cloak of miniver trimmed with fur, and a handkerchief, worth ten marks as security for a loan of ?21 10s od at iod per week interest. While the city 'was in turmoil' Samuel gave 'the pledges with other of his goods and chattels to 136</page><page sequence="49">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Richard le Cofferer for safekeeping, from whom they were stolen by Brian de Gowyz, the king's enemy'. Isaac of Warwick and Ivetta, his wife, brought charges against Alan le Hever of unlawfully detaining a marked purse containing bonds of loans made to Christians and goods and chattels worth ?10. These latter they itemized: three gold rings worth 4 marks; two silver bowls, 7 marks; a girdle of silk embroidered with gold, 2 marks; six shawls, 1 mark; ten linen cloths, 1 mark. Alan defended himself by saying that the goods were received for safekeeping, not at his peril, but as best he might, and he described how, after Gloucester's arrival, robbers came to his house and demanded Jewish chattels. These he denied he had, but the next day they returned, took and imprisoned him, and made off with his horse, a coat of mail, a pair of iron boots and divers other things, in addition to Isaac and Ivetta's posses? sions. Lovekin the cook had a similar experience when Isaac of Oxford and Slema, his wife, delivered chattels to him worth ?2 for 'safekeeping at his peril', as they said. Like Alan he denied this, averring that he only agreed to keep them as best he might. This was just as well, because William Sauvage and divers others unknown to him accused him of harbouring Jewish chattels which, after they had taken and bound him, 'for fear, he acknowledged'. Thereupon they seized not only Isaac and Slema's goods but also 'a capuche of red scarlet and other of his chattels'. To Walter the Herdsman Isaac Scrovy delivered one pair of stout boots worth 7d; a 'psalter' in Hebrew characters, i2d; three linen cloths, 33d; a napkin, 3s; three capuches, 2d; a pillow, 4d; a mantel of red stuff, trimmed with rabbit fur, 5 s 6d; sapphires and other stones, 3 s 2d; a bag containing three coifs and a shift, 12d; ten bushels of corn, 10s. Walter disputed the valuation but stood down when Isaac swore upon 'the Hebrew book'. What, one wonders, lies behind the case involving Alan de Broke, vicar of St Paul's, sued by Leo son of Preciosa for the return of certain bonds which had been stolen from him during the troubles and which were now in Alan's possession. Alan was a cleric and had no goods to be distrained for non-attendance, so the dean of St Paul's was commanded to enforce his presence to answer the charges. The outcome is unknown, as there are no further records.156 The family of Master Moses (Fig. 5) With Gloucester's withdrawal in mid-June life and business in the city once again began slowly to return to normal. Until his death in 1284 London's Jewry was dominated by Master Moses' son, Elias, and other members of his clan. Patronage by senior members of the royal family was the source of their power. Their supremacy had been achieved under the aegis of Richard of Cornwall, but they were in favour at court even before Richard became master of the English Jewry. In 1255 a royal pardon had been granted to Benedict of Lincoln, one of Master Moses' other sons, 'for the death of Hugh the boy lately crucified ... at Lincoln, as 137</page><page sequence="50">Joe Hillaby ?o &amp; -s&lt;3 o Oh s 6 ? - &lt;u Ch rn ^ O &lt; - &gt; &gt; X! U u ^ o -5b Oh O E .2 o On I &lt;? s-l i-Ih -h O c/3 u g Oh X! - o u &lt; - &lt;u ? PQ o On O c o Oh o O E 138</page><page sequence="51">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited it appears by an inquisition ... that he was not indicted of the perpetration of the crime but only with consent to the death afterwards ... and the mother of the boy confesses that he is not guilty thereof. The constable of the Tower was ordered to release Benedict and to return his chattels and houses. All this was due to the express wish of Garcias Martini, 'knight of Toledo and envoy of the king of Castile'. Martini was one of the chief negotiators of the marriage which had taken place in October the previous year between Prince Edward, now duke of Gascony and lord of Ireland, and Eleanor, daughter of St Ferdinand and half-sister of his successor, Alfonso X of Castile. After Edward came to the throne Eleanor was to play a decisive role in the fate of the English Jewry.157 Of the six sons of Master Moses, four - Elias, Hagin the archpresbyter, Cresse and Vives - played a critical role in the life of the London community. The family's resounding victory over the Eveskes in 1257 had apparendy been achieved by Hagin and Cresse who had 'laboured much' for their patron, Richard of Cornwall. Elias also served Richard well and in 1262 was rewarded by the grant of Abraham of Berkhamstead's valuable Colechurch Lane property.158 Hagin, archpresbyter 1257-80 It was Hagin who was to occupy the position of archpresbyter, where his respon? sibilities were 'being under oath to the king, faithfully to assist the king's justices in the Exchequer of the Jews by his advice and in setting forth his rights'. These were, of course, financial. Hagin's position in regard to the English community was thus at best ambiguous. Concessions granted by the Crown were enjoyed by the whole family, and it was this which no doubt helped to maintain its solidarity for a considerable time. In 1250 Cresse had been granted Jacob Crespin's prop? erty in Milk Street. When he died twenty years later it did not escheat to the Crown because Cresse 'never committed any delinquency against the king but lived as a good and faithful Jew after the manner of Jews and made his will according to the custom of the Jewry, bequeathing his houses to his son, Cok [Hagin], to whom restitution should be made'. Nevertheless Queen Eleanor managed to obtain his Colechurch Lane property which she sold to the friars of the Sack for their church. At the beginning of Edward I's reign a family group, the brothers Vives, Benedict and Hagin, with his son Cok and grandson Benedict, and Cresse's son, Cok Hagin, gave 17 bezants for respite of tallage, undertaking to pay 40 bezants each in case of default. Either times were hard or possibly they had hoped to come to private terms with the Exchequer clerks. The money was not paid on time and the family group had to pay the penalty of 240 gold bezants.159 Elias was not party to the deal. In 1268 he had found an additional patron - the papal legate, Cardinal Ottobuoni Fieschi, who was later, briefly, Pope Adrian V. At Ottobuoni's request he was granted respite of tallage for three years; and what he should have paid was to be 'assessed upon those who are least burdened by tallage'. In 1272 Elias was associated with Hagin in the invidious task of raising 139</page><page sequence="52">Joe Hillaby 6000 marks levied as tallage on the impoverished English Jewry to fund Prince Edward's departure, with Eleanor of Castile, to the Holy Land on crusade. They experienced considerable difficulties and by November Henry Ill's patience was exhausted. He firstiy ordered the justices of the Jews 'to audit the account... so that swift justice may be done by them as may be most expedient for the said lord Edward', and secondly commanded the constable of the Tower, as administrator of the London Jewry, to cause Elias and Hagin to come before the justices on the day appointed. Royal patronage had its price.160 Late in 1267 Hagin had judged it safe to bring Cok's youngest son back to England. William of Isleworth was given 10 marks to undertake the journey to Normandy, but on their return the three-year-old died before he could be reunited with his family. At Canterbury, anticipating Manasser's death, William had the child baptized to ensure that he could receive the last rites. Hagin managed to conceal not merely the death but the very existence of Cok's third child, seeking in this way to evade the payments of relief, the death duty of a third, of the child's inheritance. But all eventually came to light in 1273. Hagin's secret had been well kept, but information was now laid before the justices. The source of the leak is not known, but the case split the London Jewry. Of the twelve jurors, two - Gamaliel of Oxford (one of those who had gone abroad after Cok's death in 1265) and Isaac of Warwick - stood by Hagin, testifying that 'Cok had only two sons, who are now living, to wit Benedict and Abraham'. Seven jurors forsook him. They were led by Benedict of Winchester, fully supported by Aaron Potage, who added that the boy went 'overseas in his, Aaron's, company'. In this they were backed by Isaac and Diaia le Eveske, Vives and Diaia, sons of Abraham, and Aaron son of Salle. Three others sought to hedge their bets. Master Samuel was 'overseas at the time and knows not whether Cok had three sons or no'. Deudone of Winchester 'was at Winchester all the time and knows not ... because he is a stranger'. Aaron of Rye at first swore that Cok had two sons, but when asked to testify upon his conscience whether he had more, would not answer.161 As Henry III had died on 16 November 1272, the justices, by reason of Hagin's office, deferred judgement 'until our Lord the King be in England'. It was August 1274 before Edward I returned. Soon afterwards Hagin was imprisoned and all his debts and chattels, which were taken into the king's hands, very quickly passed into those of his queen. Eleanor also acquired Hagin's houses in Lincoln and York but he was apparendy allowed to retain, by the queen's grace and favour, his London property.162 Under this onslaught family solidarity cracked. One of the brothers, Vives, who with Aaron Crespin held the keys to the London chest, died in 1274. His estate was valued at ?109 2s 4d. Many of his better debts went to the Crown to cover the relief of ?36 7s 5 d and tallage arrears of ?20 17s 4d. The residue was delivered to his widow, Antera. This included the family home on the south side of Catte 140</page><page sequence="53">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Street in St Laurence's parish, where Antera was still living at the expulsion in 1290 (Table 8, no. 2). Cresse, probably the eldest brother, had died four years earlier. In 1275 his son and heir, Cok Hagin, was the victim of a violent attack on the part of his two uncles, Hagin and Elias. Elias, as Master of the Jewish Law, used the weapon of Herem, the ban of excommunication, against him for 'refusing to permit himself to be tried according to the Law and Custom of the Jewry'. The real cause of the dispute was thus masked. Elias then testified before the justices that on an earlier occasion, after a certain Sadekin of Northampton had persisted in the same course of action for forty days and more, his goods and chattels had all been forfeit to the Crown. On hearing his evidence the justices adjudged Cok Hagin's debts and chattels to be forfeit and ordered that they be delivered to Walter of Kent, keeper of the queen's gold. When Elias' right to excommunicate was challenged in the Exchequer court, it was the Dominican archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Kilwardby, who flew to his defence. Elias was, he said, a man in whom he had seen signs of greater truth and goodness than in any other Jew.163 Details of Hagin's London property were recorded at an inquiry in 1278. The jurors included Aaron of Rye and Isaac le Eveske who had both testified in 1273 against Hagin. To the east of Hagin's capital messuage was Colechurch Lane and to the west Ironmonger Lane; with the cemetery of St Martin Pomary to the south; and the houses of his son, Cok, which abutted on Catte Street, to the north. This was therefore a very considerable plot, since it included all the land between Colechurch Lane and Ironmonger Lane north of the churches of St Martin and St Olave, except for a strip some 50-60 feet deep to the south of Catte Street.164 The jurors were also questioned about the status of the property said to belong to Hagin's son, Cok, which lay to the northwest. This, the authorities suspected, had originally belonged to Hagin but had been given by him to his son to keep it out of the queen's hands, for Hagin was known to be exercising a right of free access to Cok's property through a postern on its southern boundary. The jurors, however, found that Cok had held the buildings long before 1275 and that they had been acquired in several parcels, from Deudonne son of Isaac, and Jacob the Clerk; further, that it was merely by Cok's 'licence and good pleasure and no otherwise' that his father, the archpresbyter, had 'ingress into, passage through and regress from that property as far as the synagogue which is still in his, Cok's houses'. Here, then, was one of those private synagogues that gave Archbishop Pecham so much anguish.165 In 1280 Hagin was in prison once again, charged with fraudulendy selling some of his bonds and property while they were in royal hands. By May of the following year he was dead. His great holding between Colechurch Lane and Ironmonger Lane was granted to the Savoyard, Otto de Grandison, from whom it passed first to Aymer de Valence and eventually to the Black Prince. Suitably reconstructed it became the headquarters of his household administration and occasional residence. By the 15th century, with its hall, chambers, chapel, tower, kitchens, 141</page><page sequence="54">Joe Hillaby cellars and bathhouse, it was used as a royal storehouse, continuing as such well into the 16th century.166 Hagin's successor was the man his brother had excommunicated in 1275 - his cousin, Cok Hagin. As the writ explained, it was 'at the instance of Eleanor, the king's consort, and with the assent of the community of the Jews in England', that Cok Hagin was to hold the office of archpresbyter for life. Hagin had been reduced to the status of a puppet by Eleanor, who now selected his nephew as the most pliant person to act as his successor.167 Hagin had held the archpresbyterate at a most unfortunate time. By the Pro? visions of the Jewry of 1269 the creation of rent charges was forbidden to Jews, and any which they held had to be sold to Christians. In 1271 it was enacted that houses which they owned could no longer be let to Christians, but only to Jews and that 'it be not lawful' for them 'to buy, or in any other manner acquire, more houses in our city of London than they now have'. The years following witnessed wide-ranging transfers of investment property from Jewish to Christian hands. Under such pressure, no doubt, Jacob son of Josce was obliged to sell his properly lying between Colechurch Lane and the lands of the Friars of the Sack to the avaricious Gregory de Rokesle.168 In 1275 the Statute of the Jewry oudawed usury on land, rent or anything else. The preamble to the Statute explained that it had been introduced 'because the king has seen that many evils and instances of the disinheriting of good men of his land have happened as a result of the usuries which Jews have made in the past, and that many sins have followed thereupon'.169 The king's words stand in marked constrast to the actions of his queen. Having acquired Hagin's bonds, Eleanor of Castile, through the threat of foreclosure enforceable by the justices of the Jews, converted them into a remarkable portfolio of choice estates in south and east England. Here she was playing the game which her husband had learned at an early age from his uncle, Richard of Cornwall. In September 1256, when Edward was only seventeen years old, he had used John of Monmouth's debts of almost ?1000 to the Jewry as the lever to secure John's honour of Monmouth, valued at fifteen knights' fees. This strategically placed estate Edward added to those of the casdes of the justiciar - Skenfrith, Grosmont and White Casde. In June 1267 he gave these to his brother Edmund.170 They thus became some of the most prized lands of the duchy of Lancaster. A schedule of 'Manors bought by the queen, the king's consort', indicates how, following her husband's example, Eleanor used her power over the archpresbyter. The schedule provides clear evidence of the real thrust of the Crown's policy towards the Jews. For release from the ?200 debt which he owed to Hagin, and divers other debts, Bartholomew de Redham granted to the Crown the manor and advowson of Scottow, Norfolk, worth ?40 per annum, with the advowson of the church, worth yearly 100 marks. From ?250 owed to Hagin and ?100 owed to the Crown by William de Muntchesni came the manor of Quendon, Essex, worth ?40, 142</page><page sequence="55">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited and the advowson, worth 30 marks per annum. For 1020 marks owed to Hagin and 500 marks paid to him by the queen, William de Leyburn granted the casde of Leeds, Kent, worth ?40 per annum. For 1000 marks, of which 400 marks were the debt of Hagin, the queen pardoned Stephen de Cheynduit 300 marks, and for 'the remaining 700 marks and for the other great bounty that the queen has done to him' the Crown retained the manor of Langley, worth ?40, and the advowson, worth 30 marks per annum. This was the man Eleanor had used as intermediary in the purchase of Hagin's Lincoln and York properties, and the sale for 240 marks of her interest in Master Moses' Milk Street house to Elias' son, Cresse. For 500 marks owed by John de Caneys to Hagin, and 600 marks paid to him by the king, the Crown acquired the Northamptonshire manors of Torpey and Upton, worth ?80, and the advowson of Torpey, worth 60 marks per annum. On the evidence of this schedule alone Eleanor acquired some ?1750 worth of bonds from Hagin, all of which she quickly converted into land.171 A passage added to the Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough trenchandy expresses the reputation which she had thus deservedly gained, and retained long after her death: Le roy cuuayte nos deneres, e la rayne nos beau maners,172 literally: 'The king covets our pennies, and the queen our fine manors'. Magister Elias Hagin had been nominally in charge, but Elias was the real beneficiary of the 1257 coup. He received similar privileges such as exemption from tallage, but had to suffer little of the personal degradation and financial loss experienced by his brother. He has been described by Roth as one of the 'few Jewish scholars, and probably English commoners of the Middle Ages whose lives can be reconstructed with such minuteness of detail'.173 Only the main elements of his career, and in so far as they affected the general history of the London Jewry, can be dealt with here. His brother, Cresse, had bought a house in Milk Street in 1250, and there in his early years Elias also lived. He took a six-year lease on Aaron of York's Milk Street property in 1253, and as Aaron was then in serious financial difficulties Elias was careful to obtain a formal undertaking from the Crown that neither he nor his heirs would be distrained on that property for debts owed by Aaron to the king. In 1266 he received royal confirmation of his purchase of all Aaron's London houses and tenements. It is probable that Cresse and Elias had taken up residence here to be close to their father. Certainly in 1276, eight years after the death of Master Moses, Elias' son, Cresse paid 240 marks for the conveyance from Queen Eleanor of his grandfather's property in Milk Street in the parish of St Mary Magdalene, between the tenement of Henry Frowyk to the south and Bonamicus of York on 143</page><page sequence="56">Joe Hillaby the north. Cresse sought by every means at his disposal to protect his tide. The conveyance was witnessed by the mayor, Gregory de Rokesle, the alderman of the ward, Henry Frowyk, and the sheriff. He then paid to have it inspected and confirmed on the Patent rolls.174 In 1266 Master Elias had received confirmation of his purchase of all Aaron's London property, and was probably living in Colechurch Lane close to the syna? gogue. If this was the case it was in 1272 that he moved to a large stone house with a great solar or private chamber in Candlewick Street, now Cannon Street, valued in 1284 at the considerable sum of ?5 per annum. As it was in the parish of St Nicholas Aeon, it must have been situated on the north of that street. Originally it had belonged to the magnate Jacob le Tourk, whose name appeared on the 1221 and 1223 tallage rolls (Tables 3 and 4). Given the position which he held within the economic and religious life of the community, it is a matter of considerable interest that Elias chose to live so far removed from the area of Jewish settlement within the city.175 From an early date he sought the status that came from service to the com? munity. The London cemetery was situated just beyond the northwest angle of the city wall, between St Giles', Cripplegate, and Red Cross Street on the east and Aldersgate Street on the west. It had probably been established there early in the 12th century and until 1177 had to serve the whole English Jewry. A wary eye therefore had to be kept open for additional land. In 1257-8 Elias, as principal custodian, purchased a large plot on the eastern side to provide further accom? modation and was responsible ten years later for buying another plot of some 3000 square feet, also to the east.176 In terms of prestige, his work as a scholar was far more important. Roth describes him as having an international reputation as an authority on Jewish law and practice - ritual, liturgical and commercial - who was as familiar with the Palestinian as with the Babylonian Talmud. Indeed, his opinions were cited in the late-13th century by Mordecai ben Hillel of Nuremburg in his work codifying the decisions of the Franco-German rabbinic school.177 In February 1266, two years before the death of his father, Master Moses, Elias was also accorded the tide of Magister, 'Master of the Jewish [Rabbinic] Law'. The first reference to this title is in documents relating to Henry Ill's attempted rehabilitation of the English Jewry after the barons' wars. 'On account of the damages and grievances which they had suffered at the hands of the king's enemies', 'Master' Elias and Hagin were granted the right to seize all pledges, for the most part lands referred to in their bonds in the London chest, until such time as those bonds were redeemed in full.178 It was, of course, in this capacity as Master of Jewish Law that Elias excommunicated his nephew, Cok Hagin, in 1275. Elias' career was almost terminated during the wave of anti-Semitism linked to the wide-ranging charges of coin-clipping that swept England in 1278-9.179 Like Cok's brother, Manasser, he was saved from the fate suffered by 269 other Jews 144</page><page sequence="57">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited through the intervention of friends in high places; but this had its price. In July 1279 the Patent rolls record that Elias had already paid 5 50 marks of a 1000-mark fine 'for a trespass touching the king's moneys' and was to pay off the balance at '50 marks a week from this present week'.180 Under such circumstances it is not surprising that Elias responded with alacrity to a call from the count of Hainault on his expertise in medicine. Elias' letter of application, in Norman French to Edward Fs chancellor, for leave to travel was discovered and published by Joseph Jacobs. 'Whereas my name is known much in distant lands at more than its true value (which is nought), I have been requested by the count of Flanders ... to cure a malady which his nephew hath, which malady is perilous, and to administer thereto a remedy. Whereas by the cure which we have sent to him he is somewhat eased - more than by any other - he hath requested I go thither in person ...: for a man can better work by sight than by hearsay.' It is significant that Elias ended his letter: 'I do pray your Highness, as much as in me lies, that you send courteously to Sir Stephen de Penchester [Constable of Dover Casde and Warden of the Cinque Ports] that he may search my men gendy, for they are bearing with them nothing except their expenses only, for fear of slanderers'.181 Four years later Elias was dead. His estate was valued by an inquest of twelve Christians and twelve Jews, who reported that in gold and silver, jewels, gages and all other moveables he had property worth 400 marks (?266 13s 4d). The Can dlewick Street house was valued at ?5 per annum and other rents in the city of London at ?19 16s. There must have been a considerable amount of money outstanding in debts, for his widow, Floria, a woman of great character, took the initiative, and appeared before the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer in person, and of her own accord offered a relief of 400 marks. In return she was to have the Candlewick Street house as long as she lived, the moveables and ?100 worth of Elias' debts. Armed with the royal writ, to which the Great Seal of England was attached, Floria then repaired to the justices of the Jews to claim her bonds.182 The surprising thing is that, at this time, no one cavilled at a total valuation of Elias' estate at a mere 1200 marks (?800). But suspicions must have been aroused and a sharp eye was kept open. Within a short time evidence of concealment of goods was found and Floria had to seek terms for a further settlement. On this occasion it cost her ?1000 but she was able to gain the inclusion of a clause that she should be free of tallage for life and that debts due to her would not be pardoned. Elias left five sons, Moses, Benedict, Abraham, Isaac and Leo; Cresse had predeceased him. The family now found life increasingly hard; Benedict's share of the inheritance, for instance, was a mere 12 feet of land from the curtilage behind his father's great solar in Candlewick Street, and land left by Elias to his sons in Colechurch Street was still undeveloped and worth only 6s 8d in 1290 (Table 8, no. 8).183 Four years after his death the world learned how Elias had avoided the reefs 145</page><page sequence="58">Joe Hillaby which had wrecked the careers of Hagin, his brother, and Cok Hagin, his nephew. In 1288 H?mo Hauteyn and Robert de Ludham, the justices of the Jews appointed by Edward I at the outset of his reign, were both dismissed for corruption. The intimacy of their relationship with Elias came out at their trial when it was revealed that they had been frequent visitors at his house. In Candlewick Street, of course, such visitors would doubdess have been less remarkable than to a house within the Jewry. They did not come empty handed. With them came Exchequer records, includ? ing some removed from the royal archives. Withdrawal of such records, they claimed, was a custom sanctioned by long usage. The motive was fraud. There had been considerable tampering with the text of bonds. In one case Hauteyn and de Ludham, with the clerk, John de Baifeld, and the custos rotulorum, Adam de Winton, had conspired with Elias to alter the terms of a debt owed to him by the abbot of Stratford. Elias and the justices shared the profit. The size of their fine, ?1000, indicates that, for the Crown this was regarded as only the tip of the iceberg. Strict probity on the part of the justices was, however, the exception rather than the rule. Hauteyn's and de Ludham's predecessors had been dismissed on similar charges, as was Robert Passelewe in 1234. Other justices charged with corruption include one of Passelewe's successors, William le Breton in 1241 and Philip Lovel in 1251. In 1252, Robert de Ho was accused of charter falsification.184 At least one member of the family of Master Moses is known to have settled safely on the Continent after the general expulsion in 1290. Moses of Nor? thampton, the son of Elias' brother, Jacob of Oxford, took with him a prayer book in which was recorded the family pedigree. This survived the journey.185 Aaron son of Vives The death of Elias in 1284 left the financial field, or rather what remained of it, open to his rival, Aaron son of Vives. Aaron was an outsider; he was not, as has sometimes been assumed, the son of Vives son of Master Moses, who died in 1274. According to the Hustings Roll for 1282 he was the grandson of Peytevin le Fort. He had close ties with the Cambridge community. In 1267 ne was granted custody of the son and heir of Samuel Lotus, the son of Samuel of Cambridge. A number of his more important clients, such as Gilbert Pecche, lord of Swaffham, were from this area.186 For almost two decades Aaron challenged the sons of Master Moses; the rivalry was not restricted to matters of business. Given the support which the Moses clan had at court, Aaron's challenge, if it was to be effective, needed a powerful patron within the royal family, and this from an early stage he had. His first links with Henry Ill's second son, Edmund Crouchback, earl of Lancaster, were informal. In 1265 a grant that 'all the lands, rents and chattels which were Aaron's pledges, in 146</page><page sequence="59">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited whosoever hands they be, shall be distrained to levy his debts', was made 'at the instance of Edmund, the king's son'; and in May 1268 it was Edmund who ensured that Aaron was 'quit of tallages, demands and all debts wherein he is bound to the king'.187 The avariciousness of Edmund's nature is shown by the way he obtained the lands of Robert Ferrers, the young earl of Derby. Unlike the other disinherited, Ferrers' ransom was set, not at five but at seven times the annual value of his estate. This was not enough. In May 1267 Edmund had him carried off to Chippenham where he was forced to sign a series of deeds agreeing to pay the fine of ?50,000 within a very short period. The penally for non-payment, which Robert paid, was Edmund's foreclosure on his lands.188 At an early stage Edmund, like his brother, Edward, learned the critical import? ance of control of the English Jews, using their bonds which provided such generous access to encumbered estates, the springs of power. An incident of 1267 illustrates well their ability to wrest control from their weak and ageing father, for it was 'at the instance of the Lord Edward and the Lord Edmund' that Walter de Wulward was admitted to the office of clerk to the London chirographers. This was the year that Aaron Crespin, Elias' amanuensis, had replaced Manasser son of Aaron as one of the two Jewish chirographers. The other was Elias' brother, Vives. With their nominees in post, they had control of the London chest, and with it a rich collection of bonds.189 Edmund established full authority over Aaron in 1269. His charter, issued at Winchester in August, formally records the fact that whereas his father, the king, had lately given Aaron son of Vives to him with all his goods, debts and chattels, quit of all tallages, aids, prests and demands, he had granted Aaron his liberty in return for yearly payment of a pair of gilt spurs at Whitsuntide. The spurs were a mere token; it was by other obligations, unmentioned, that Aaron was bound to Edmund. His role was that of bond-broker to the prince, who took care that his charter was inspected and confirmed at the royal chancery. In August 1270 there was a further royal confirmation, to which a clause was added giving Aaron the right to 'a chest wherein to deposit his chirographs in the place where he shall dwell in the lands of the said Edmund'. Nevertheless, Aaron continued to live in London and his bonds were to be found in the chests of many of the recognized communities. Five months later Edmund persuaded his father that 'in all proceed? ings touching Aaron some one should sit, on the prince's behalf, with the justices of the Jews, and that, with Edmund's licence, Aaron should be able to sell his debts to anyone, notwithstanding the provisions of the Jewry' - which forbade the sale of such rent charges to Christians.190 With the increasingly tight control which, after Edward's return as king in 1274, Eleanor of Castile was able to exercise over the personnel and resources of the English Jewry, Edmund's early charters were of critical importance to both prince and Jew in maintaining the latter's independence. Recitals and confirmations of the early 1280s, in the Charter rolls 147</page><page sequence="60">Joe Hillaby in 1281 and 1285 and in the Close rolls in 1283, secured Aaron's autonomy right up to the expulsion.191 Edmund and Aaron found it politic on occasion to make concessions to the queen. In January 1280 there is reference to a debt of 1000 marks lately granted to Eleanor, and eighteen months later a further reference to a debt of Geoffrey Pecche lately remitted to the king's consort, for which credit was to be allowed at the Exchequer. From the list of'Manors bought by the queen ...' we learn that it was Aaron's bond for 500 marks, with a further debt of ?30 to the Crown and a down payment of 200 marks, which enabled her to add Pecche's manor of West Cliffe, Kent, worth ?60, and the advowson, valued at 40 marks per annum, to her portfolio.192 Patronage smoothed many rough paths for Aaron. In 1275 and 1276 Exchequer officers searching the London chest were ordered 'not to intermeddle with his body, goods or chattels', of which he was to have 'full administration to make his profit thereof. In the latter year he was given leave to return to the Jewish treasury certain bonds foisted on him by Henry III, from which he had gained not a penny. In their place he was to receive other, sounder, debts and two years later, when Walter de Helyun arrested Aaron, he was prompdy commanded 'to cause his body etc. to be handed over to Edmund'.193 The records provide only brief glimpses of Aaron's properly interests in the city, but they seem to have been concentrated in the Carte Street, Bassishaw area. We read in 1271 of a void plot of land adjoining the way leading to 'the Hustings', that is the Guildhall. This he had bought long ago from Flora, who had had it of the collation of her brother, Samuel le Blund. This plot is, significantiy, described as being 'within the Jewry'. From John, son of Geoffrey de Frowyk, he purchased in 1275 further property which had formerly belonged to the Blund family, a stone messuage which Aaron son of Leo had held of John's father. This adjoined the Guildhall to the west and land, late of Benedict Chivaler, Jew, to the east. Business confidence seems to have been restored, for the following year Aaron proposed to build, more suitably, on an unspecified site, certain houses 'destroyed during the last war in this realm', which he had bought from Benedict and Abraham, sons of Deulecresse. In 1279 a certain John de la More attempted to bring a property suit against Aaron at one of the city's two Hustings, held at the Guildhall before mayor and sheriffs, who were curdy informed that, according to the law and custom of the king's Jewry, no Jew ought to be impleaded anywhere other than before the justices of the Jews. Only there could justice be done to John, or others whom? soever.194 (See Map 1.) The rivalry between Aaron and Master Elias broke into the open in August 1279. Elias levelled formal accusations against Aaron, but the constable of the Tower, as the royal officer responsible for the Jewry, was quickly ordered in no way to molest Aaron by summoning him to the meeting place (capitula) of the Jewry or by levying any financial security from him before the next parliament, as 148</page><page sequence="61">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited Edmund was standing as guarantor to have Aaron before the king on that occasion. These charges evidently related to coin-clipping, for already the previous month Edmund had had to secure Aaron against such accusations. In November Edward I agreed that any matters needing judicial examination would be heard and determined before the king himself and his brother.195 Within six weeks the queen had possession of the 500-mark bond made out in the names of Aaron and Gilbert de Pecche which gave her the manor and advowson of West Cliffe. In return Aaron was to have 500 marks of the clearer debts of some of those 298 fellow Jews condemned for trespasses against the coinage.196 The heat of the rivalry between the two men was such that Elias, in his letter to Robert Burnell, the chancellor, requesting safe conduct to Flanders, referred not only to his Tear of slanderers' but more specifically requested 'Dear Lord, please conceal my requirements from Aaron son of Vives'. Yet despite the bitterness of the conflict the two men are found acting together as leaders of the London community.197 In July 1280 they had a joint contract with the Gascon merchant, Arnold Peleter, to supply seven tuns of 'good wine made according to the Jewish rite' with the guarantee that failure to deliver would lead to distraint of his goods.198 This was only part of the threat now offered by Aaron to Master Elias' unchal? lenged leadership. Aaron was not able to match his rival in scholarship and realized full well that wealth alone was not enough. However, as early synagogue inscriptions in Israel and the Western Diaspora witness, benefactions had always been a certain means of furthering one's standing within the community. This route Aaron now followed.199 When Henry III had ordered the removal of the communal synagogue from its site adjacent to the Friars of the Sack on the east of Colechurch Lane, departure had not been immediate, for the king had given instructions that, until the new synagogue was established, the Jews should be 'less noxious' to their neighbours. Two royal charters, of December 1280 and July 1281, refer to a gift by Aaron to 'the community of the Jews of London' of a tenement for the building of a synagogue. Both are inspections and confirmations of an earlier charter granted by Edmund which in its turn confirms Aaron's original deed of gift.200 This cannot, therefore, be dated precisely. The tenement is described in the first royal charter as 'a messuage of stone with all its court' in Catte Street in the parish of St Laurence, between 'the messuage late of Vives son of Master Moses on the east' and that of Aaron to the west. Jacobs located this synagogue, and thus the adjacent house of Antera, widow of Vives, on the north side of Catte Street, but it is quite clear from both royal charters that they were on the south side. The second charter states that it lay 'between the king's street to the north and the garden of the said Vives to the south'. Its precise location is of more than passing interest because it is on the basis of Jacobs' identification that Richard Sermon has recendy suggested that a 'unique stone 149</page><page sequence="62">Joe Hillaby built sunken feature measuring 1.65m X 1.15m internally with a depth of 0.4m' found on the site of 81-7 Gresham Street may have been not a strong room as originally suggested, but a mikveh.201 The dimensions of the site, which are given in the 1280 but not the 1281 charter, are not straightforward, for Aaron had bought the tenement from Margalicia, daughter of Benedict Episcopus, and her daughter Juda, but had restored a house on the north, the street side, of the plot to the two women. In consequence, it was L-shaped: 7 ells 6 inches 'northwards upon the street', between Aaron's house and that restored to Margalicia; 15 ells 8 inches to the rear, that is on the south, between Aaron's house and that of Vives; gi ells 8 inches on the west, between the street and Aaron's own court; and 61 ells on the east, between Margalicia's house and the garden late of Vives to the south. At most provincial centres, for example at Lincoln, Norwich, Worcester and Nottingham, it can be shown that, not to inflame public opinion, the scola occupied a backland site.202 The inference must therefore be that this is the explanation for the L shape of Aaron's Carte Street plot which in all probability will have had a small structure on the street with a passageway leading through to the court and syna? gogue beyond. In Philip Wileby's accounts of the goods of those convicted at Oxford for coinage offences there is a reference to a collection of books 'of their law and others'. These were acquired by Aaron son of Vives at a cost of ?126, credited against the 1000-mark bond he had given to Queen Eleanor.203 After the econ? omic collapse of the York Jewry in the 1250s, Oxford and Lincoln were the closest rivals to London. Certainly Oxford, as Roth has shown, had a remarkable record for scholarship. This was too important a collection to be allowed to disappear abroad as had the books of the York Jewry in 1190. What was more natural than that Aaron should have given them to the Carte Street scola} News of the new synagogue reached the ears of John Pecham, the Franciscan scholar who had been consecrated archbishop of Canterbury in 1279. He wrote to Richard Gravesend, bishop of London, in July 1281, that he understood that a new synagogue was being constructed by the London community under pretence of a school, scola, to the confusion of the Christian religion; the erection of new synagogues had been prohibited by both the 1222 Canterbury provincial council and the 1253 statute. In fact these were themselves but repetitions of legislation going back as far as the early 5 th century. Pecham ordered Gravesend to stop all such work, by sentence of excommunication and interdict if necessary.204 His efforts were, of course, in vain, as Henry III had given specific permission for its erection in 1272 and this had been confirmed by Aaron's royal charters of 1280 and 1281. A year later Pecham wrote once more to Gravesend on another matter relating to synagogues. He was led quite certainly to understand that almost all the more important London Jews had their own synagogues, to the mockery and great 150</page><page sequence="63">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited scandal of the Christian religion. Gravesend must ensure, by all means of ecclesiastical censure, that they were destroyed forthwith and not replaced. In a second letter he conceded that there should be one communal synagogue, on a site agreed by the king, where the Jews might 'thrash the air with their vain ceremonies' (suis abjectis caeremoniis aera verberare) - so long as it was of modest proportions.205 The archbishop's fear of private scola was not as ill-founded as Richardson believed.206 Certainly Cok, son of the archpresbyter, had one such in 1275 and it is highly probable that Master Elias, living away from the Jewry, did as well. These would not have excluded the use of the communal synagogue on Sabbaths and festivals. Indeed, most provincial synagogues developed from such private facilities. Epilogue The full impact of the legislation of the 1270s, and of the mass executions and fines for alleged offences against the coinage, reduced the English Jewry in the 1290s to a mere shadow of its former self. Indeed, Aaron's need for three con? firmations of Edmund's charter within five years accurately reflects the deep unease felt in what remained of the Commune Iudeorum Anglie. Between 1282 and 1284 receipts in the Wardrobe from the Jewry were a mere ?222. In 1287 Edward I decided to attempt to raise one further tallage, yet even with the threat of general imprisonment, only ?4023 was received.207 The impoverishment of the Jewry, and its replacement as a source of funding by loans from Italians, has frequendy been cited as the principal reason for their expulsion, but another factor has been overlooked: the widespread hostility towards the royal family which resulted from their large-scale trafficking in Jewish debts and encumbered estates. It was only Pecham, prompted by the harsh conditions now suffered by Pecche's former tenants at West Cliffe, Kent, who had the courage to take up this matter with Eleanor, pointing out not only that Edward's harshness was popularly laid at her door, but also that her amassing of estates which had been pledged to Jews was no less than the heinous sin of usury, by which she had jeopardized her immortal soul. This had no effect, and three years later he wrote again, this time to Geoffrey de Aspel, Eleanor's treasurer, a friend of his student days: A rumour is waxing strong throughout the kingdom of England, and much scandal is thereby generated. It is said that the illustrious lady queen of England is occupying many manors and has made them her own property - lands which the Jews extorted with usury under the protection of the royal court from Christians. It is said that day by day the said lady continues to acquire plunder and the possessions of others by this means. There is public outcry and gossip about this in every part of England. Gain of this sort is illicit and damnable. Be pleased humbly to beseech the said lady, on our behalf, that she bid her people entirely to abstain from the aforesaid practices, and restore what has been seized in this manner or at any rate make satisfaction to those Christians who have been wickedly robbed by usury.208 151</page><page sequence="64">Joe Hillaby Court patronage of a small number of prominent members of the London Jewry was the means by which this traffic was facilitated. In addition it is the critical factor in the interpretation of the internal politics of that community. Nevertheless the court Jews - those families which had been the vehicle by which Edward, Eleanor, Edmund and others had realized their ambitions - were unable to with? stand the general impoverishment of the English Jewry. Even the family of Master Elias was, as we have seen, no exception. On 18 July 1290 the constable of the Tower and the sheriffs of the counties were informed that all Jews had been ordered, on pain of death, to quit the realm by 1 November, the feast of All Saints. However, they were to ensure that the Jews suffered no injury or harassment during their departure.209 The London Jews were permitted to take with them their moveable effects, but even before their departure royal officials had begun to value their houses and tenements. The details which they recorded provide a valuable picture of the state of the London community at the time of its demise. Elias' eldest son, Moses, was living at the corner of Wood Street and Lade Lane, and his grandson, Leo son of Cresse, in the parish of St Martin Pomary, Ironmonger Lane. The houses were both valued at a mere ?2 13s 4d, less than a quarter of the Carte Street properly still held by Vives' widow, Antera (Fig. 5; Table 8, nos 16, 9 and 2). Moses Crespin, possibly the eldest son of Jacob (Fig. 3), had properly in Milk Street, as did Jacob, son of the York magnate, Bonamicus (Table 8, nos 10 and 11). Gamaliel of Oxford, who had fled the country in 1265 and gave evidence on Hagin the archpresbyter's behalf in 1273, also had a house there. The Manser son of Aaron who appears on the list was probably the great-grandson of the late-12th-century magnate, Abigail (Fig. 2; Table 8, nos 17 and 20). In Wood Street a tenement valued at 8s 8d belonged to the community. This had been the gift of Abraham Muton, the rent from the property to be used for the benefit of the cemetery (Table 8, no 18).210 The expulsion list is not comprehensive, for a small number of London Jews received special licence to sell their property prior to departure. Ten days after the expulsion order had been sent to the sheriffs, Edmund granted Aaron licence to sell his houses and investment property 'in the city as elsewhere' to any Christians he chose, but the proceeds did not go to Aaron. In August the justices of the Jews were ordered to ensure that before he left the realm Edmund was to receive full details of all the properly and rents he held in London, Canterbury and Oxford, and of all his bonds in the treasury of the Jewry, the chirographers' chests and on the Exchequer rolls. These latter were to be levied at Edmund's demand. Not all of Aaron's property found a purchaser.211 Part of a tenement which Aaron owned next to the Canterbury synagogue was given by Edmund to his retainer, Nicholas Raven. Eight weeks before the date of departure Cok Hagin, the archpresbyter, who had served Eleanor for almost ten years, was granted a similar licence to sell his London house, for her benefit, to any Christian. Evidently both were success? ful, for neither his nor Aaron's London properly appears in the expulsion list. 152</page><page sequence="65">London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited William Prynne's Short Demurrer of 1655 does add a postscript. Aaron's patron granted him one last favour, un sauf-conduit special.211 NOTES Abbreviations CR Close Rolls: 1204-27. Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum 2 vols (Record Commission, 1833-4) Close Rolls: 1227-96. Close Rolls of the reign of Henry III etc. 17 vols (PRO, 1902-38) ChR Charter Rolls: 1194-1216. Rotuli Chartarum (Record Commission, 1837) Charter Rolls: 1226-1300. Calendar of the Charter Rolls 2 vols (PRO, 1903-06) EJ 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) FR Fine Rolls: 1199-1216. Rotuli de Ohlatis et Finibus (Record Commission, 1835) Fine Rolls: 1216-72. Excerpta e Rotulis Finium 2 vols (Record Commission, 1835-6) IPM Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry ///(PRO, 1904) LRS London Record Society PR Patent Rolls: 1201-16. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission, 1835) Patent Rolls: 1216-92. Calendars of the Patent Rolls 8 vols (PRO, 1893-1913) PpR Pipe Rolls: Great Roll of the Pipe, 1166/1167-1220 Pipe Roll Soc. (1889-1987) J. M. Select Pleas, Starrs and other Records from Rigg the Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews, 1220 84 (ed.) J. M. Rigg, Seiden Soc, 15 (1902) 1 J. Jacobs, 'The London Jewry, 1290' in Papers read at the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibi? tion, Royal Albert Hall, London, 1887 (Publications of the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition, I, 1888) 20-52; reprinted in J. Jacobs, Jewish Ideals and other essays (1896). 2 British Atlas of Historic Towns, III: The City of London (ed.) M. D. Lobel (1989). 3 D. Keene, 'A new study of London before the Great Fire' Urban History Year Book 25 (1984) 11-21; V. Harding, 'Reconstructing London before the Great Fire' London Topographical Record 25 (1985) 1-12 and D. Keene, Cheapside before the Great Fire (Economic and Social Research Council, 1985) provided preliminary reports. For full details refer to D. Keene and V. Harding, Historical Gazeteer of London before the Great Fire: 1, Cheapside (1987). This is available only in microfiche form, but a copy is to be found in the Guildhall library. D. Keene, 'Shops and Shopping in Medieval London' in Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology in London British Archaeological Association Conference Transac? tions for 1984 (1990) 29-46. 4 J.Jacobs (1887) (see n. 1) for example con? fuses Colman Street with Colechurch Lane (Old Jewry) and places the synagogue granted to the London community by Aaron son of Vives and the house of Antera, widow of Vives son of Mas? ter Moses, on the north rather than the south of Catte Street. See 96. 5 R. B. Dobson, 'The Decline and Expulsion of the Medieval Jews of York' Trans JfHSE XXVI (i979) 36 6 Peter Marsden, Roman London (London 1980) 118-30. 7 R. E. M. Wheeler, London and the Saxons (1935) 98-113; M. Biddle, D. Hudson and C. Heighway, The Future of London 's Past (1973) 21; R. Merrifield, 'The Contribution of Archaeology to our Understanding of Pre-Norman London', BAA Conf Trans for 1984 (see n. 3) 1-15; C. N. L. Brooke and G. Keir, London 800-1216 (1975) 111-12, 171-7; C. N. L. Broo