< Back

Rabbi Elias Menahem: a late-13th-century English entrepreneur

Robin Mundill

<plain_text><page sequence="1">Rabbi Elias Menahem: a late-13th-century English entrepreneur^ ROBIN R. MUNDILL Over fifty years ago Cecil Roth examined the career and family of 'Elijah of London'. Roth considered the man contemporaries referred to as Master Elias, by providing a detailed review of what was known of the many aspects of his life, works and family. Master Elias was shown to be a communal leader, rabbi, physi? cian and scholar. Roth outlined his career and gave some consideration to Elias' economic activities.1 The purpose of this study is to reconsider the economic side of Elias's life in the light of new research from documentary evidence not utilized by the late Cecil Roth. Elias was the youngest son of Rabbi (Master) Moses of London. Roth surmised, probably quite correctly, that Elias must have been born in the mid-1220s and was brought up in the shadow of his older brothers. Elias's father, as one of the leading English rabbis of the time, would have taken much trouble to bring up his family not only in the Jewish tradition but also to be well versed in the affairs of the world. It is possible, as Roth suggested, that the young Elias was sent abroad to be educated. It is certain that he was very well educated and was also naturally expected to take a part in family affairs when his turn came.2 Gradually the children of Master Moses, Elias's older brothers, left home. One went to live in Oxford, one in Lincoln, while three remained living close to the family home in London.3 All of them became successful businessmen in their own right as well as influential patrons of their respective Jewish communities. One of them, Hagin, went on to hold the very high and trusted position of Archpresbyter (the royally appointed leading member) of the Jews of England from 1257 until 1280. Hagin also had the protection and patronage of Richard of Cornwall, brother of King Henry III, a man who in the turmoils and anti-Jewish feeling of the mid-13th-century, can be described as a friend of the Jews.4 Elias lived in the shadow of his brother Hagin until the latter's death in 1280. Certainly through Hagin's position and connections Elias Menahem's family became quite well known to the English royal family and were generally to benefit from their favour throughout much of the latter half of the 13 th century. Elias's earliest recorded financial dealings appear in 1253, when he was already married to his first wife, Pucelle.5 His lendings and business transactions con * An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Society in Manchester in June 1993. i6i</page><page sequence="2">Robin Mundill 162</page><page sequence="3">Rabbi Elias Menahem tinued until his death in 1284. A transaction made as early as 1256 shows that he did not deal merely in cash. Elias was owed ?6 13s 4d by a certain Gerard de Evinton. It was noted on the transaction that besides this, Gerard owed him three soams of wheat and one cask of cider.6 By the 1250s Elias had already taken his own house in London.7 It was also in the late 1250s that Elias's brother, Hagin, became Archpresbyter of the Jews of England. The former incumbent, Elias L'Eveske, had converted to Christianity. However, it seems that this was a timely conversion as Elias L'Eveske's high position was no longer tenable. Although disliked by many of the Jewish community he was also in the process of being prosecuted for the attempted murder of Hagin, Elias Menahem's older brother, and the next holder of the title Archpresbyter. Elias L'Eveske had hired a Christian assassin, John Ferrant, for ?2 to carry out the murder of his rival Hagin, the son of Master Moses, of London.8 As a Jewish convert to Christianity, Elias L'Eveske's property was forfeit to the Crown: yet in January 1259 Elias Menahem, perhaps with an eye for a bargain, paid the large sum of ?266 13s 4d for all the convert's property.9 In the 1250s and 1260s Elias's money-flow does not seem to have been a great concern. He was also starting to make tax or tallage contributions. In 1260 Elias's older brother, Vives, paid ?3 15s 4d for tallage and Elias, already styled at this time 'Master' ('Rabbi'), paid ?3 for tallage.10 In 1262 Elias gave ten bonds worth a total of ?148 13s 4d as a payment to the Crown. This evidence from 1262 shows that he was among the richest of London's Jews and was able to provide almost a sixth of the total London payment of just over ?898. By this period, Elias had made transactions with debtors from Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, London, Suffolk and as far away as Worcester. Two of his debts were annual payments or annuities which had been contracted in the early 1260s.11 Elias Menahem's family seemed to survive the turmoils of the mid-century baronial uprising and revolt, possibly, as Roth observed, by taking shelter in Normandy.12 In Easter week 1264, 500 London Jews were massacred by the followers of Simon de Montfort. Many Jewish domiciles were burnt to the ground and looted. Some Jews were saved by the Justiciar and the Mayor who sent them to the Tower to shelter. Many of Elias's contemporaries must have been killed, others lived in fear of their lives for several years to come, and for a number their main sources of income must have been curtailed.13 Even though Elias's family appear to have escaped the wrath of the baronial rebels relatively unscathed, great disruption to his business was caused. The followers of de Montfort knew exactly what they were looking for when they took the London Jewry under their control; they headed straight for the London archa, the chest which contained the details of the debts owed to the Jewry. Sometime between May 1264 and August 1265 a debt worth ?600 which was owed to Elias by David Ashby of Northamptonshire was removed from the London archa by the rebels.14 Recently Dr Sharon Lieberman, who described David de Ashby as 163</page><page sequence="4">Robin Mundill an 'unwilling supporter of the rebel cause', has perhaps gone some way to explaining why David de Ashby was in debt in the first place. She observed that David de Ashby had only recently contracted the debt in order to pay his feudal service to his overlord Henry de Hastinges. David de Ashby contracted two debts to Master Elias in March and September of 1263 and had then not been able to maintain the payments.15 In 1267 Elias effectively passed on some of this particular debt to Alan la Zouche, the Constable of the Tower of London, when he granted him a yearly fee of ?124 and a debt of ?100 'wherein David son of William de Ashby was bound to the said Jew'.16 By 1268 it seemed that Elias had lost hope of recovering his original loan. Yet problems concerning these loans arose when royal authority was re? established. The Ashby transactions clearly show how entangled affairs of busi? ness could become when debts were transferred from the original creditor to another party. The transfer might have meant the solution to Elias's immediate cash-flow problems, but the original transaction was to haunt him for many years to come. The whole affair was further complicated by the fact that both David and his wife had died in 1265 and their heirs had inherited the debt. Technically the debt now passed to the Earl of Sussex, John de Warenne, who claimed the land as his own and obtained seisin of it. As overlord, John de Warenne's claim to the wardship brought him into conflict with the new owner of the debt, Alan de la Zouche. The complaint was eventually settled by Earl Warenne himself who assassinated Alan de la Zouche in open court in Westminster.17 Yet the case did not end there. In 1283 Ralph de Hengham and William de Burneton were appointed to settle a dispute between the new owners of Ashby - John and Isabella Curzon and Eleanor de la Zouche who had committed trespasses against the new lords of Ashby. Eleanor de la Zouche was trying to claim her debt, and Master Elias was called to help clear certain 'ambiguities' which existed over the case.18 The late 1260s were lean times for Master Elias. He was involved in selling many of his debts to Christians, perhaps because he could not collect them or because he needed to turn them into capital. In October 1267 he sold Ralph de Gorges a yearly fee of ?24 which James de Cumba owed him.19 In January 1268 he sold Henry de Broc, one of Queen Eleanor's yeomen, a yearly fee of ?15 wherein Peter de Banwood was bound to him.20 It might be that financial hardship meant that Elias was now prepared to serve the Crown in an official capacity. In March 1268, at the instigation of Cardinal Ottobuono, Master Elias was to be excused all aids and tallages and from all debts which he owed to the king for three years from Easter.21 However the quid pro quo for this fiscal immunity was for Elias to help with the tallage assessment of the Jewish community; indeed, he was to become the main assessor and arbiter of the assessments. He was to ensure that the tallage was to be assessed 'upon those who are least burdened by the said tallage at the discretion and will of Elias'.22 Ensuring his personal survival and protecting his financial transactions were not the only worries that gave Elias cause for concern during the 1260s. His 164</page><page sequence="5">Rabbi Elias Menahem private life was also disrupted by the death of his first wife, Pucelle. By 1267 Elias had been widowed and he had remarried a rich widow, Floria, from North? ampton.23 As his life began to settle down after the turmoil of the baronial revolt and the ensuing disruption to business, Elias became an even more important figure in the London and Anglo-Jewish community. He was starting to build connections with influential Christians. In June 1267 he granted two yearly fees worth ?31 'with the usuries and penalties' to Robert Burnell, King's Clerk, who was later to become Edward I's Chancellor.24 In late 1270 Elias gained a further royal concession. The king promised that he would not grant a pardon to any of Elias's debtors for a period of five years. This was later qualified and several of Elias' debtors were named, including Humphrey de Bassingburn, the Prior of Wroxstone, the Abbot of Stratford, William Bigot, Adam de Novo Mercato and Alan de la Zouche. When in 1271 the Crown brought in new legislation con? cerning fees and rents, Elias was able to obtain further concessions and special licences.25 It is likely that Elias's influence reached its apogee at the start of Edward I's reign. Some of the men to whom he had lent during the previous reign were, like Robert Burnell, coming into power. Elias's expertise in Jewish law was revered by the Crown, for in 1275 Master Elias was called on to judge the excommunica? tions of two Jews. He was even described in Christian records as 'master of the Jewish Law'.26 Yet his importance was not due to his learning and wisdom; he was not only a rabbi, referred to as ha-nadiv, an influential pillar of the community, but was also an official in close control of the London archa. This connection with the affairs of the London community was, as Roth has noted, to be called into question, luckily for Elias, long after his death.27 In 1286 Edward I took out legal proceedings against two former Justices of the Jews, H?mo Hauteyn and Robert de Ludham, as well as their clerks, Adam de Winchester and John de Bayfield.28 It was alleged that fraud had been committed at Master Elias's house sometime during 1277. The officials were accused of having erased and altered certain entries on the Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews and the Treasury Rolls. They had altered an entry concerning the debts of the Abbot of Stratford, one of Elias's clients, and had granted Elias other debts worth slightly more than the original. It is difficult to tell what part, if any, Elias had had in these illegalities. The testimony of the accused Justices suggests that many important documents, such as the Jewish Plea Rolls and possibly some Treasury Rolls, were taken and might have been kept at Elias's house. The defending Justices of the Jews spoke of going to Elias's house 'just as they were accustomed to do' with state documents.29 The two Justices were found guilty of fraud. What now clearly emerges is that Elias was well known to have often worked closely with H?mo Hauteyn, Robert de Ludham and their clerks. Because of his position he was party to many of the financial and legal dealings of the London Jewish community and of his coreligionists up and down the country. This influence, coupled with his family connections in Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire 165</page><page sequence="6">Robin Mundill and Northamptonshire, made Elias one of the best-informed Jews of his day in both Jewish affairs and business. Elias's father, Master Moses, died in 1268 and it is likely that as one of his heirs Elias received some capital from his father's estate.30 Elias's house in London in the parish of St Nicholas, Canon Street, near the River Thames became a centre of business affairs for Elias Menahem's family. In 1270 Firmin Chaplain, the tenant of a poulterer named William de Shaleford, made an agreement with a Jew called Abraham fil Benedict in Elias's house. This again might suggest that the London archa was kept there.31 Elias's other relatives lived in the Jewry near Milk Street, off the great mart of Cheapside.32 At this time Elias was still person? ally engaged in lending smaller sums of money to local London clients. By a contract made in January 1271 he was owed ?12 by Odo de Westminster, who clearly had collateral and safe securities because on 23 July 1271 he made a further bond by which he promised to pay Elias ?5. Odo was one of the King's Remembrancers at the Exchequer. This was an important position which, as David Crook has observed, was normally accorded precedence inferior only to the Treasurer, barons and Chancellor. It also brought with it an annual salary of Elias was still well connected with the other Jewish communities within Eng? land. It might well have been on a trip to York in 1272 or earlier that Elias made a bond for ?20 with John the son of Richard, a knight of County Durham. The bond was deposited in the York archa and was to be paid in 1273.34 Certainly Elias maintained connections with the York community and helped one of the most influential York Jews of Edward I's reign, Bonamy. In 1275 Elias intervened in a legal case brought by the Abbey of Fountains against Bonamy of York. There can be little doubt that Bonamy had been involved in loans to Fountains Abbey, but the details of the legal proceedings are not clear. Elias paid a small fine and arranged for the Justices of the Jews to go to all the London synagogues to make inquiries about the impending case against Bonamy. It seems that this was communal business of some sort. The Justices were to ask by oath if the Jews had promulgated a sentence against Bonamy or any assisting him. Over twenty nine leading London Jews checked their rolls and swore accordingly that such a sentence had not been passed.35 In the 1270s Elias's business began to flourish once again; after his three years of tallage exemption had run out, the household of Master Elias made the follow? ing payments towards the 1274 tallage: Josce, Elias's clerk, paid 4s od, Bene? dict and Moses, his sons, paid ?2 13s 4d and us izd respectively, his homme d'affaires, Abraham Mouton fil Benedict, paid ?3 9s 5zd, and Cresse, his eldest son, paid ?13 6s 8d, while Master Elias himself paid ?186 10s 8d, and Floria, his wife, paid 13s 4d by the hand of Osbert de Beneford, the Sheriff of Warwickshire.36 Moneylending was a hazardous business not only because of the client's failures to repay debts, but also because the Crown could reward its followers by par 166</page><page sequence="7">Rabbi Elias Menahem doning Jewish debts. In September 1277 Elias lost a debt owed by William de Stopham. Edward I, while in the field against the Welsh, rewarded William, son of Robert de Stopham, by pardoning him of certain debts. It is clear that this was a spontaneous reward as it was issued from the camp at Gannou in Wales. William was known to have been among the military entourage of Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln. He was pardoned of ?20 which he and other tenants of Roger le Paytevin owed on account of the Jewry, and also from ?5 which he was bound to pay Master Elias on 29 September 1277. This last amount was only part of an instalment of ?10 which he paid yearly towards a debt of ?60 contracted by his father, Robert de Stopham.37 Despite the fact that Elias could lose payments at the royal whim, he could also suffer from exchanges of debts. In 1275 Edward I ordered his Justices, by a writ issued under the great seal, to acquit Walter de Huntercombe of ?333 6s 8d which was owed to Master Elias.38 The king had bought lands and tenements from Walter, and instead of paying him had effectively pardoned him his debt. Although Edward could, had he so desired, have just cancelled the debt to Master Elias; he was meticulous about allowing him to have some form of compensation. According to the king's wishes, Master Elias was to have clear debts to the value of ?333 6s 8d 'which are in our treasury' on 24 November 1275. Elias received ?28 16s 8d in cash and nine debts worth a total face value of ?413 16s 8d. Some of these debts given for compensation had been collected as partial payment of tallage in Henry Ill's reign. Some of them were owed to members of Elias's family. Elias received three debts owing to Vives, his brother, worth ?134 and three debts worth a face value of ?80 owed to his brother, Benedict of Lincoln. Perhaps it was thought that Elias would have a better chance of collecting the debts. In addition, Elias received one debt owed to Samuel Le Blund worth ?30, one debt owed to Salomon fil Salomon worth ?80, and one debt owing to Joce, the nephew of Aaron, worth ?60. The debts were duly delivered to Master Elias and placed in a purse under the chief seal of the Exchequer and were sent by the Treasury to the London archa. The chirographers were ordered to open the chest and to allow Elias to have administration of the bonds. Five of these debts still remained unpaid in Elias's estate in 1284.39 On another occasion the king intervened on Elias's behalf. In 1277 Edward issued another command sealed with the Great Seal in order to allow Elias to be recompensed for a loss of income. On 13 November 1277 the king ordered that Elias's loss should be made up from 'our debts being in the Treasury of Our Jewry'. Edward witnessed the writ himself.40 Earlier in 1277, at the instigation of the queen, the Abbot of Stratford was acquitted of ?350 worth of debts which were owing to Elias. Master Elias had received ?100 from the abbot and the queen which left a shortfall of ?250. Elias was given a debt of ?360 made between Gilbert de Beningworth and an Elias fil Benedict and Belasset his wife. The intention was that Master Elias should have ?250 and the residue of ?110 would 167</page><page sequence="8">Robin Mundill go to pay for another acquittance of debts owing to Aaron fil Vives. The officials were extremely careful to ensure that Elias was not out of pocket - 'And it is granted to the said Elias that if he be not satisfied touching that debt by the quindene of Easter next to come he shall have other debts which are scheduled to his use in a certain box in the King's Treasury'. This piece of business was probably indirectly connected to the subsequent trial, in 1286, of the Justices of the Jews.41 Even after Edward had passed the Statute of the Jewry of 1275, which so dramatically changed the nature of Jewish business transactions, Master Elias still found special royal favour.42 On 2 June 1277 Master Elias, Cresse, his son, and Aaron fil Vives, all described as Jews of London, were granted special licence to carry on their 'lawful trades in the realm according to the form of the late Statute lately provided by the council touching usury'. Edward also let it be known that their debtors who were lawfully bound to them by writings or in any other ways were to be distrained by the Justices of the Jews. Thus Elias was to have the help of royal justice in collecting his debts.43 The Statute of 1275 clearly had an effect on Elias's business. After the statute he started to register commodity transactions on the Plea Rolls of the Jewish Exchequer. In some of these transactions Elias acted in partnership with another prominent London Jew, Aaron fil Vives. In an entry recorded in 1277 John de Meriette and John de Wacton of Somerset acknowledged that they owed Aaron fil Vives 200 quarters of wheat payable on the following 1 November (approximate value ?133 6s 8d). Aaron had made a recognizance which stated clearly that part of the wheat belonged to Master Elias. This particular debt was settled, because it was actually noted on the Plea Roll that John satisfied the Jews for the said wheat and was acquitted.44 In another entry made in 1277 it is recorded that a Robert de la Lynde of Lincolnshire acknowledged that he owed forty sacks of wool payable before November of that year to Master Elias and Aaron fil Vives (approximate value ?400).45 However, Master Elias acted alone in other commod? ity transactions. It might well have been due to the grant of the special licence that Elias was allowed to make such arrangements. In 1277 a knight, Geoffrey de Luscy, made a recognizance on the Jewish Plea Roll to the effect that he owed Elias fifty quarters of wheat payable in September 1277 (approximate value ?16 13s 4d). Geoffrey also agreed that if he did not pay that, his chattels and lands should be the security for the debt. He was summoned to fight against the Welsh on 2 July 1277 and may well have needed funds to supply himself.46 Again in 1277 another knight, Richard de Tany from Essex, promised to pay Elias fifty quarters of wheat 'or half a mark for each quarter' in September 1278. Richard de Tany also agreed that his lands and chattels should be used as security; he too had been summoned to fight against the Welsh.47 In the same year a further transaction under the heading of Middlesex recorded that Robert Springhaid and Bartholomew le Cryur, son of the same Robert of County Middlesex, acknowledge that they were bound to Master Elias for seventy quarters of wheat, 'good, dry, 168</page><page sequence="9">Rabbi Elias Menahem Fig. 2. The Shaded areas represent counties in which Master Elias had debtors. clean and pure and payable to any merchant according to the measurement of the Queen's bushel', to be paid to the same Jew or his attorney at his house in London on 6 January 1278 (approximate value ?23 6s 8d). If the debtors defaulted they granted that the debt be levied from their lands and chattels. It is clear that 169</page><page sequence="10">Robin Mundill the full transaction was not recorded on the Plea Roll because details were con? tained in a bond which the said Jew had, which was sealed with the seals of the said Robert and Bartholomew.48 This particular transaction must have been paid and the wheat delivered on time because Elias issued a quitclaim to Bartholomew of Springhaid in Hebrew which released him from all debts from the beginning of the world until February 1278.49 In a further grain transaction it was recorded that Alice de Bellocampo, lady of Schipton, acknowledged that she owed Master Elias 120 quarters of wheat 'pure and clean measured according to the bushel of the Queen' payable to the same Master Elias or his sure attorney in September 1277. She also granted that if she defaulted the equivalent value be levied from her lands and chattels (approximate value ?40).50 Elias had successfully obeyed the tenets of the Statute of the Jewry and had started to diversify into commodities. The success of his partner Aaron fil Vives was also apparent during the late 1270s. Aaron, however, bonded not only for wheat and cereal but also for wool. Both Jews had moved successfully into new markets.51 One joint transaction which may well have been for personal consumption or for that of the London Jewish community has sur? vived. Elias and Aaron fil Vives joined in a foreign venture in 1280. On 17 July, Master Elias, acting with Aaron fil Vives, made a recognizance with Arnold Peleter of Gascony for seven tuns of good wine 'made according to Jewish rite'.52 Yet the 1270s were not to be a boom period for the Jewish community at large. In 1279 Master Elias was forced to shelter under the royal favour once again. At a time when many Jews suffered because of widespread allegations that they had been clipping the coinage, Master Elias obtained a royal pardon. On 15 July 1279 Master Elias was pardoned all trespasses and excesses touching the king's money or the clipping thereof.53 He was perhaps lucky to escape the gallows and the mass confiscation of all his possessions. Yet he was forced to pay a large fine of ?666 13s 4d and was clearly desperately short of capital. He was granted a royal licence to sell his houses in the City of London.54 His personal standing with the Crown also made it possible for him to save his immediate family. On 28 May 1281 Abraham, son of Elias son of Master Moses, was acquitted of a ?2 fine paid to Philip de Willoughby, receiver of the goods of condemned Jews.55 In 1280 Elias was granted a safe conduct with his Jew, Abraham Mouton, to go to parts of Flanders. The reasons for this visit abroad have long ago been amplified by both Cecil Roth and Joseph Jacobs.56 He was called on to treat the Count of Flanders, Jean d'Avesnes, for a malady which could not be cured locally. Elias had sent instructions to help the sick count, but the count desired that he come in person to finish off the work, and actually sent letters begging Elias to come. Eventually, Elias applied directly to the Chancellor, Bishop Robert Burnell, for permission to go to Flanders. In his letter he asked that his men be treated gently by the Justice of the Jews, Sir Stephen de Penchester. This makes it clear that a small retinue must have crossed the Channel with him. It may well have 170</page><page sequence="11">Rabbi Elias Menahem been on this trip that he set up the more personal and intimate business transac? tion for 'kosher' wine which has been discussed earlier.57 Later in the year there are signs that Master Elias was again experiencing some financial difficulty. On 24 July 1280 the king granted a special licence to Master Elias to sell ?500 of his debts.58 Elias had come through the major events which beset the Jewish community of England during Edward Fs reign. He had a degree of royal recognition and protection and probably even held a position of some esteem. It must have been a major blow to the London Jewish community when in mid-June 1284 one of their most notable figures, Master Elias Menahem, died. As was common practice whenever a Jew died, an inquest into his estate was held. In the case of Elias the inquest was held by a special tribunal including such eminent officials as John de Kirkby, the King's Treasurer, Roger de North wood, John de Cobham and Peter de Chester, all Barons of the Exchequer, Philip de Willoughby, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Robert de Ludham, Justice of the Jews. The tribunal was empowered to inquire into and to list all the goods and chattels that Master Elias Menahem had on the day on which he fell ill. The hearing was held in the presence of twelve Christians and twelve Jews. The jurors claimed that Elias held gold and silver, jewels and gages to the value of ?266 13s 4d as well as houses in which he resided which had a yearly value of ?5.59 All of this was held to be true by Floria, his widow, who came before the officials and made a fine in order that she could have her dead husband's estate and the house in which they lived for her lifetime. She promised to pay the Crown ?266 13s 4d in instalments. The Constable of the Tower was commanded to let Floria have free administration of the chattels and goods. Edward finally gave her royal per? mission to have a free hand with her dead husband's estate on 18 June 1284.60 The jurors at the inquest also noted that Elias had rents in the City of London worth ?19 16s od, besides the house in which he resided, which were also granted to Floria for her lifetime.61 As a result of the king's writ Floria was allowed to have certain debts which were still owing to Master Elias. One of them was a contract made in London between her late husband and Walter de Bernham, a knight of Kent, in October 1283, by which Walter owed Elias 10 sacks of wool (approximate value ?66 13s 4d). The bond was delivered to Floria, but was to be liquidated for ?30. Another contract made between Elias and Milo de Hastings, a knight of Lincolnshire, in July 1282 for ?80 was given to Floria, and it was agreed that it should be liquidated for ?75. Out of these payments Floria was to be allowed ?100, but had to give Elias's heirs ?5.62 Attached to the report of the inquest was also a long list of unpaid debts which were in Master Elias's posses? sion. It is these which now deserve further attention and which allow a more detailed investigation of Master Elias's business. The scribes meticulously listed the details of over ninety bonds which were owed to his estate.63 It is not clear what ultimately happened to these debts. Not all the debts were 171</page><page sequence="12">Robin Mundill owed to Master Elias. There were 47 loans which ranged in date from 1242 to 1275 and were owed personally to Master Elias. There were some 47 other debts which had been transferred into his business and which were owed to other Jewish moneylenders.64 Scribal annotations on the actual register indicate that some of these outstanding loans were paid. In the margin of the membranes on which the entries appear the details record the differing amounts paid by the debtors, who had once formerly been such a crucial part of Elias's business. It appears that some of the debts were given as a gift to Stephen de Cheyndut. Others were paid in part and some in full. Some of the debts which Elias had received in recompense for the debt of Walter de Huntercombe in 1275 were still unpaid. One of these was paid up to Elias's heirs. According to the marginal entry, ?5 was paid for a debt of ?30 which was owed in 1261 by Robert Houel, knight of Suffolk, to Sampson le Blund.65 In October 1284 an entry was made on the Plea Roll of the Exchequer of the Jews by Moses, Benedict, Abraham, Isaac and Leo, all sons of Master Elias, and Hagin fil Cresse who was the guardian of the heirs of Cresse son of Master Elias. It recorded that they had issued a starr to Robert Houel, knight, son of Robert Houel. The starr acknowledged that a debt of ?30 in which Robert, junior, had been bound to Samuel Le Blund was now quit. The starr noted that the debt was delivered to Master Elias's heirs from the king's treasury on the king's orders. The grantees of the starr also granted an acquittance to Sir Robert de Ludham, clerk, of all rights demands and claims that they might have had on the lands and tenements that Robert held from Robert Houel on the day that the starr was made. The starr of acquittance was made on 8 July 1284. Perhaps Ludham, who had attended the inquest, had a personal interest in Robert Houel's affairs.66 Elias Menahem's family survived until the Expulsion in 1290. The Justices of the Jews were ordered to permit Floria and her household to dwell in peace in Master Elias's houses, and she was even allowed, as was the custom, to have her dower out of the goods and chattels which belonged to Master Elias.67 On 23 October 1284 a direct order from the king demonstrated the immense difficulties of collecting the debts still owed to Elias's estate. Although Floria had been granted the debt of Miles de Hastinges for ?70 at the inquest in 1284, she now experienced problems in pressing for it. Miles de Hastinges was given a substan cial concession from the Crown. Any of Hastinges's debts owed to the late Master Elias which were in the king's hands, or in the hands of any of his Jews, by the death of the said Elias were to be freed of 'the pains and usuries'. However, this was only a reprieve from the interest which might have accrued not from the principal debt which was to be paid. Hastinges was granted reasonable terms for repaying the principal debt, which would be carried out so that he did not have to sell or alienate any of his lands. Such practice was totally in accordance with Edward Fs Jewish policy as laid down in the Statute of the Jewry of 1275.68 172</page><page sequence="13">Rabbi Elias Menahem Royal favour towards Elias Menahem's family did not cease with Elias's death. On ii September 1285, in consideration of a fine paid by Floria to Queen Eleanor, Floria was given an exemption from tallage and a guarantee that any debts due to her would not be pardoned-such immunity was to last for the rest of her life. This seems a very strange concession, as the fine Floria paid had been for having concealed the goods of her dead husband!69 The rest of the family did not have such favour, and in 1285 the now impoverished Isaac fil Master Elias paid 8s 6d in tallage, and Elias and Leo fil Cresse fil Master Elias paid 4s 6d each.70 The family remained in London. It seems they began to live together on the same site, for on 24 February 1286 Floria granted twelve feet of land of the house in which Elias lived to her stepson Abraham.71 More revealing about the winding up of Elias's estate was a royal order issued on 26 February 1286. The officials of the Jews were told to cancel some debts made between Master Elias and Richard de Coleworth (both lately deceased) to the Chancellor and his brother, Hugh Burnell. The debts had come into the hands of Elias's heirs and of Cresse fil Genta, Hagin fil Deulecresse, James fil Moses and Isaac fil Cresse, and had been remitted to Richard de Coleworth and the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Chancellor, and his brother Hugh Burnell, who were now the tenants of Richard de Coleworth's lands in Essex. It seemed that the Burnell brothers had started to benefit from manipulating some of Elias's former debts.72 In 1290, having lost their patriarch and their fortune, Elias Menahem's family, with Elias's grandson and son Moses, went into exile with the other Jew of Eng? land.73 That Elias had been the driving force of the family business is quite clear from the types of transactions which were recorded by the Exchequer scribes. Cecil Roth had observed that Master Elias's transactions were on a very large scale and 'extended over a great part of the country, from Cumberland in the north to Devon in the south'.74 Yet it is likely that Roth had not fully appreciated the spread and influence of Master Elias's business in its various guises and branches. Elias had debtors in over fourteen different counties. He had rubbed shoulders with other great men of business and Jewish magnates such as Benedict of Winchester, Gamaliel of Oxford and Aaron fil Vives. Elias had in 1275 been able to advance ?400 to the Queen Mother, Eleanor of Provence - enough to build a small fortress. He had known many of the Christian officials and Barons of the Exchequer. He had possibly met the papal legate and he might even have met the king himself.75 The list of outstanding bonds, compiled in 1284, allows historians to examine the ledgers of a late-13th-century entrepreneur. These dealings prove that Elias's clients included, nobles, commoners, burghers and monasteries as well as the royal family, and show that he tended to lend to the knightly class. Of the unpaid debts half were still owing to Master Elias himself. These outstanding debts had a face value of ?1252 16s 8d and range in date from as early as 1242 until 1275.76 173</page><page sequence="14">Robin Mundill They represent the unpaid debts and thus only the deficit side of the ledger - the bad debts. It becomes clear why knights and men of substance went to Elias for loans when we examine the size of each transaction. The most interesting feature of the debts is that they are very large loans indeed for the time. If one compares this with what is known of other Jewish financiers then it is clear that Master Elias had a very large financial capability. In 1278 the outstanding bonds still owing to a more provincial operator such as Lumbard of Cricklade showed that the mean average value of his lendings was just over ?4-77 From samples of various Jewish operators in Canterbury in the early 1270s the mean average value of a bond was ?4 is 4d. Of a similar sample for Lincoln the bond was ?g gs 5d. In Hereford the similar amount was ?5 16s 4d. Master Elias' bonds had a mean average value of ?26 7s 8d.78 Elias was clearly able to afford larger loans, and also had the financial capacity momentarily to withstand and survive the non? payment of large amounts of cash. Yet it is not just the amounts owed to Elias which help to build the picture of what must have been a very thriving business, but the named debtors themselves. Identifying his debtors is, as one would expect, a fairly complicated and haphazard task, but in the case of Elias it is easier than similar exercises for other 13th century Jews.79 One of the most striking factors is how well known his debtors must have been. Of his thirty-seven debtors there were fourteen knights, one London spicer, two debtors who were clearly of high birth - the sons of knights, one lady who shared a debt and one Marshall and his son. Some of these can be identified a little further. In particular there is an identifiable group of men who used Elias's financial help who all came from Essex. Richard de Coleworth, Robert de Merk, Fulk de Dai and John de Coty were all described as knights and all had Essex connections. Other men like Robert of Kelvedon and James of Stevington were probably also from Essex. Elias's greatest debtor, Richard de Coleworth, who with his son Hugh owed him ?163 6s 8d as well as ten quarters of oats, can be identified as Sir Richard Coleworth who held a grant of the market and fair at Coleworth in Northamptonshire in 1264. During the barons' war Richard had commanded the Tower of London for Hugh Le Despenser and had also taken the opportunity to remove some of his debts from the London archa. In May 1275 he borrowed ?150 from Master Elias. Richard also had lands in Essex at Borham. In November 1275 he and his wife had problems with his Essex lands. Richard and his wife Erneburgu were also in debt to Sir Roger de Mortimer for ?233 6s 8d. They gave him land to the value of ?20 per annum in Kingston and Jevele which had been Erneburgu's dowry for Roger to hold for 12 years. In default they pledged their lands in Housham and Borham in Essex and Coleworth in Northampton? shire. Richard died in 1286 some two years after his creditor.80 His son, Hugh de Coleworth, was another Essex knight who held the manor of Horndon on the Hill. He also held lands in Northamptonshire. By April 1273 he owed ?25 6s 8d 174</page><page sequence="15">Rabbi Elias Menahem in Essex. On 17 July 1277 he went to Wales for the king and in October 1279 travelled overseas.81 Sir Robert de Merke, another Essex knight, who owed Elias ?110 by bonds made in March 1275 and February 1276, held lands at Dunmow in Essex. Sir Robert was also overlord of Steeplebumsted and Barnston. Little can be found to explain the Essex connections of Fulk de Da and John Coty.82 Another of Elias's debtors, Sir Walter de Huntercombe, held manors in Oxfordshire at Huntercombe, but also had interests in Essex where he held the manors of Henham and Wanstead. In March 1271 he and his wife were given livery of his wife's share of the Munfichet lands in Essex. He was appointed keeper of Northumberland in 1271. From February 1275 Walter got further into debt. In October 1275 the king pardoned William and his wife Alice of two debts worth ?333 6s 8d which they owed to Master Elias, in return for Walter's quit? claim to the king of certain lands. Walter went on to pursue a successful military career for Edward in Wales in 1277 and 1287.83 Gerard de Fancourt's motives for borrowing from Master Elias might well have been slightly different from those of others. Gerard had been on pilgrimage to Santiago in 1261. On his return he stayed in Lincolnshire and lived off his manors of Carlton Moor and Firsby and was made the Constable of Hareston Castle. By 1270 he had taken the cross and went on crusade with Prince Edward. By April 1274 he had returned. Perhaps it was because he was short of funds that he got into debt with Elias for ?22 in March 1275. One other of Elias's debtors, Sir John Carbonel, clearly held lands in various counties.84 Much is known of the career of Sir Adam de Novo Mercato (Newmarket). Sir Adam owed Elias ?90 by contracts made in 1259, 1260 and 1270, and was also indebted to other lenders. In 1274 he owed Bonamy fil Josce, a York Jew, ?26 13s 4d by a bond which was deposited in the Lincoln archa. It is clear that his father, also called Adam, held lands in Wheateley and Harwell beyond the Trent in Nottinghamshire and had been in the company of some of the baronial rebels responsible for the sack of the Lincoln Jewry in 1260. Perhaps it was because the Newmarket family were on the losing side in the war that they had got further into debt. In November 1274 Adam made a recognizance with Deconicus Guylelmy (a merchant of the Queen Mother) and Guyettus Bonaventure for ?112 and offered as security his land and chattels in Yorkshire. It is known that he was also in debt to Aaron of York and that he had also inherited his father's debts. In 1275 Adam de Novo Mercato, junior, was to be distrained by the sheriff of York for ?50 which was owed to Hagin by his father. In 1278 it is evident that Adam's Jewish debts had been acquired by the king. The Barons of the Exchequer and the Justices of the Jews were commanded to pay Robert Tibbetot in Jewish debts and to 'take of the clearer debts of Hagin in the king's hand either of the debts of Adam de Novo Mercato or of another to the value of ?66 13s 4d'. However, the debts of the Novo Mercato family did not reduce them to total poverty, and it is clear that in November 1285 Adam de Novo Mercato still had one messuage, 175</page><page sequence="16">Robin Mundill thirty-seven acres of land, twelve acres of meadow, twelve acres of wood and one water mill in Asbern and Mosley in Lincolnshire which he had rented out to a John le Barber.85 A record of borrowing from other Jews can also be established for another of Elias's debtors. He is described in the transactions as Baldwin of Wayford in Devon. Baldwin held the manor of Wayford near Chard in Somerset. It is fairly clear that Baldwin had severe financial problems. He had made bonds with Isaac fil Deulecresse, the son of Genta, for ?i 6s 8d in December 1254; with Hagin fil Master Moses for ?3 13s 4d in 1257; with Benedict fil Jacob for ?3 6s 8d in 1257; with Benedict fil Jacob le Eveske for ?5 6s 8d in 1258; with Hagin fil Master Moses, Elias's brother, for ?1 6s 8d early in 1258 and again with Hagin for ?40 four days later; as well as a bond with Isaac fil Sampson for ?3 6s 8d on 5 May 1258; he made a further bond with Jacob fil Josce for ?1 10s od in 1261. He had also made a transaction with Master Elias on 14 October 1257 for ?3 6s 8d.86 From just these few identifications of his debtors it is possible to see that Elias's creditors were landed men who tended to be more in debt than out of it, and who eventually needed to resort not to a local but to a London financier. Yet this catalogue of personal lending to various debtors up and down the country was only part of Elias's business. He had also amassed many debts with other Jews and which were in his possession when he died and thus owed to him. As has been seen above, Elias's business included speculating in and buying up the debts of other Jews.87 Whether such debts were bought up at discount price, perhaps like the estate of Elias L'Eveske early in Elias's career, or for cash from other Jewish financiers who were in desperate need of capital, will never be known. Certainly Elias had enough information to be in a position to take on the debts of others. However he came by such debts, it is evident that Elias acted as a sort of clearing house for the debts of other Jews. Some of the bonds he had acquired are clearly loans made by members of his immediate family who had died. Such might well have been the case with some of the outstanding debts owed by various Christian clients to Vives the son of Master Moses, Elias's brother. Vives died in 1274 and had operated and lived mainly in London. His outstanding debts were worth ?54.88 Another three debts which Elias had acquired were worth ?80 and were payable to Benedict, the son of Master Moses, whose operations had been based mainly in Lincoln, although it is clear he was often in London.89 He had also acquired two debts which had been owed to another of his brothers, Jacob of Oxford. These debts were worth ?26 13s 4d. Jacob had operated mainly in Oxford and had died in 1277.90 Elias had also taken over two bonds worth ?70 from his own son Cresse who prede? ceased him.91 It seems likely that Elias had either inherited some of them or had taken them on by giving the deceased's family some ready cash to help them through their difficulties. 176</page><page sequence="17">Rabbi Elias Menahem It was not just debts to his immediate family that were in Elias's possession in 1284.92 Elias owned many other single outstanding debts to various Jews from all over the country. These included debts owed to Moses the son of Isaac of Stone, Saunte the son of Aaron of Stamford, Moses the son of Solomon of Marlborough, Magri of Colchester, Aaron of Kingston, Josce Crespin (probably a member of the London family of that name), Deulecresse fil Abraham Jew of Wilton and Aaron le Blund, a member of the family of the same name who originally lived and operated in London, but who moved to Hereford in the last half of the 13th century and built up a huge family business on the Marches.93 How and why such single transactions owed to provincial Jews came to be in Elias's hands is more difficult to explain. It is possible that Jewish creditors who came to London to appear, or conduct business, at the Exchequer of the Jews, found themselves in need of cash and sold them on to a larger financier. It has been shown how he received other Jewish debts in return for releasing his own debts. It is likely that through his business contacts and administrative duties at the Exchequer of the Jews he would have met with many such Jews who passed through London on business. Among these acquired debts were three bonds worth ?179 owed by debtors from Cambridge. One of the debtors can be identified as the former Mayor of Cambridge, John de la Rus, who had borrowed the sum of ?74 in the early 1260s from Moses the son of Isaac of Stone and whose debt Elias had now taken into his possession.94 Other bonds were owed by debtors from Warwick, Norfolk, Northampton, Lincoln, Essex, Somerset, Leicester, London, Yorkshire, Surrey, Sussex, Hereford, Kent and Middlesex. The debts varied from as much as ?120 to as little as ?2.95 Whether Elias had ever actually met the debtors of such bonds or whether he trusted that they would be repaid - if Exchequer officials issued writs - will never be known. One of the debtors who can be identified was William Luddock, who owed Deulecresse fil Abraham, Jew of Wilton, ?2 by a bond made in 1260. It is known that William 'Laddok' made two bonds in 1257 and 1258 with Henna filia Vives of Marlborough for a total of ?6 13s 4d. He can be identified as having lands in Heytesbury, some 13 miles southwest of Devizes, and was clearly fairly influential there. He witnessed several deeds connected with local lands, and also transferred a fair amount of his own land including some fields. He had also sold a bur gage in Heytesbury itself.96 Elias had also taken over a bond made between Simon Lovel fil Hugh of Kent and Jacob fil Leo of Canterbury for ?3, which had been made in April 1269. It is very likely that Simon Lovel went on making bonds, as there is an extant bond in the Westminster Abbey Muniments which Simon Lovel, clerk, had made with Aaron fil Samuel a Jew of Canterbury for ?3 6s 8d on 4 July 1274.97 At least one debtor from what can be termed the 'knightly class' can be identi? fied. Jordan Foliot appears in the debts which Elias had taken over, and it is likely 177</page><page sequence="18">Robin Mundill that the debtor was actually known to Elias; certainly he had visited London. Jordan is found elsewhere described as the son of Lord Richard Foliot, who is known to have held lands in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and to have had dealings with Hagin fil Benedict of Lincoln, Elias's nephew.98 A surviving bond shows that Jordan was indebted to Elias's brother, Benedict of Lincoln.99 Other sources reveal that in 1275 he was also in debt to Roger de Evesham and that he used his lands in Norfolk as security. He also had further dealings with Benedict of Lincoln and with a Christian clerk.100 Yet in 1277 it is clear that Jordan came to London when he made a recognizance with Manser fil Aaron and promised to deliver four sacks of wool 'of worldly measure and of ancient weight' to the Jews's house in London.101 It is clear that Jordan also had some Lincolnshire connections, as in September 1279 a bond was made between him and Adam de Novo Mercato which promised delivery of 120 quarters of assorted cereals to a Lincoln Jew.102 Richard Foliot, a Yorkshire knight, was another well-known debtor of transac? tions which Elias had taken over. He also has a long history of debt with Elias's family. Among the 252 bonds recorded as being in the Lincoln archa, were two unique undated bonds owing to Elias's nephew, Hagin fil Magister Benedict of Lincoln. Richard had promised to pay Hagin a flying hawk annually, and in another transaction a beast of the chase. On Richard's death the annual payment of the flying hawk was to be commuted to a payment of ?50 and the beast of the chase to a payment of ?66 13s 4d.103 From the debts which Elias had taken over it is abundantly clear that his family were also businessmen of some influence. His brothers, Jacob of Oxford, Cresse of London, Rabbi Benedict of Lincoln, Vives and Hagin the former Archpresbyter, appear in their own right as individual businessmen among the records of 13th century Anglo-Jewry.104 Indeed, several of Elias's brothers, like Benedict and Jacob, had thriving businesses of their own. Benedict and his son Hagin had virtually opened a branch office of the family business in Lincoln.105 While much has been written about Elias's brothers both in the records and by historians, very little is known, by stark contrast, of the businesses of Elias's own children. It is clear that they followed in their father's business. An interesting case brought against one of his sons, Benedict, in 1280 shows how his father witnessed his son's business transactions. Benedict was sued by William de Mortimer because Benedict unlawfully detained pledges worth ?50 when he had earlier lent William ?18. The original transaction had been concluded in Geoffrey de Mortimer's house in 1279, the pledges consisting of gold, two gold rings set with sapphires and connected by a silver chain, a gold buckle, three barred silken girdles with silver on a gold background, twelve silver spoons, two bowls plated with silver and an outer vesture of scarlet cloth trimmed with miniver. Both accused each other of various improprieties: William claimed he offered to redeem his pledges, Benedict that he had lent more money on the strength of them and that they were not worth ?50 anyway.106 178</page><page sequence="19">Rabbi Elias Menahem Thus, Elias stands out not only as one of the most illustrious Jews of the 13th century, but as one of the most influential Jews of his day. His debtors reveal a very different pattern of clients to other provincial Jews. His business was more widespread and his financial acumen and lending abilities must have been far greater than that of more provincial operators. It follows that he was a lender with clients of much higher status, including to the knightly class. Over a third of his personal clients, as revealed by the extant bonds, were made with knights.107 As such his clientele was very unusual. Denholm Young has demonstrated that there were probably about thirty-five knights per county, and in 1295 in Essex he found exactly that number.108 It is perhaps significant that at least seven of Elias's debtors (20 per cent) were from Essex. Elias must have been well known as a lender for the Essex gentry. Many have commented on the small number of knights involved in debts to Jews in the late-13th century, and this seems to imply that the Jews were drawing their clients from a lower social stratum. Peter Elman's examination of the Cambridge archae at various intervals throughout the 13th century qualifies this.109 An examination of the archae at Hereford, Canterbury and Lincoln in the second half of the 13th century also indicates such a change.110 Dr Sharon Lieber man has noted that 'as the century progressed the Jews' clients were of dimin? ishing social status'.111 The clients of Master Elias between 1242 and 1275 reveal that as a lender he tended to lend to those of higher social status. Elias is the only London Jew whose dealings can be reconstructed in such a way. Regrettably little is known of the dealings of many of the other Edwardian London Jews, and certainly from the fragments that we have, Aaron fil Vives also seems to have been a very important figure. It is likely that more of the dealings of Aaron fil Vives will be revealed as the Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews appear in print.112 Master Elias's estate gives us a fleeting glance at what was still unpaid from a London financier's ledgers, but it shows us only half the story as it does not record what was paid. It is also only retrospective evidence, as Master Elias's own bonds range in date from 1242 to 1275, and those he had taken over from other Jews tend to be in the main transactions which were made prior to Edward I's reign.113 Yet the bonds form a useful body of evidence and indicate what his and other Jewish financiers' businesses might have been like at their height. From his dealings it is clear that Elias's business not only survived for over twenty years, but that his lending must have affected many debtors from all over the country who clearly needed financial help to aid them through particular financial crises. Master Elias was a lender to the rich and a patron for the poor members of his own community, as well as an able entrepreneur. NOTES i C. Roth, 'Elijah of London: the most illustrious English Jew of the Middle Ages', Trans JHSE XV (1946) 29-62. Roth's article is still an invaluable study of a great 13th-century rabbi and scholar, whose Hebrew writings have since been published by M.Y.L. Sacks, The Writings of Rabbi 179</page><page sequence="20">Robin Mundill Elijah of London (Jerusalem and JHSE 1956). 2 Roth (see n.i) 34-5. 3 Ibid. 32-3; C. Roth, 'Rabbi Berechiah of Nicole' Journal of Jewish Studies 1 (1948) 67-81; C. Roth, The Jews of Medieval Oxford, Oxford Historical Society New Series, 9 (Oxford 1951) 68-78; S. Cohen, 'The Oxford Jewry in the thirteenth century', Trans JHSE XIII (1932) 313-7. 4 H. P. Stokes, Studies in Anglo-Jewish History (Edinburgh 1913) 33-5; N. Denholm Young, Richard of Cornwall (London 1947) 70-1. 5 J. M. Rigg, Select Pleas, Starrs and other Records from the Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews A.D. 1220-1284 (1902) 14. 6 A Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds III (London, 1900) 423, D157. 7 Roth (see n. 1) 34-5; J. Hillaby, 'London: the 13th-century Jewry revisited', Trans JHSE XXXII (1993) 143-6. 8 Calendar of Patent Rolls (hereafter CPR) 1247-1258 570-1; R. C. Stacey, 'The Conversion of Jews to Christianity in thirteenth century England', Speculum 67 (1992) 272. Professor Stacey's reference was conveyed to him by Dr Summerson who found it on PRO Just 1/ 1187/membrane 10. 9 Calendar of Charter Rolls 1257-1300 (London 1906) 2, p. 16. 10 PRO E/401/43. 11 PRO E/i01/249/10 membranes 1-3. 12 Roth (see n. 1) 36. 13 C. Roth, A History of the Jews in England (3rd ed. Oxford 1978) 61-2; F. M. Powicke, King Henry and the Lord Edward (Oxford 1947) 2, pp. 460-1; Hillaby (see n. 7) 134-7. 14 Roth (see n. 1) 41-2; Rigg (see n. 5) 44. 15 S. T. Lieberman, English royal policy towards the Jews' debtors 1227-90 (PhD dissertation, University of London, 1983) 118. 16 CPR 1266-1272 177; C. Moor, Knights of Edward I (London 1932, Harleian Society) 218-9. 17 Rigg (see n. 5) 43-5, 62; S. T. Lieberman (see n. 15) 193. 18 R. R. Mundill, 'The Jewish Entries from the Patent Rolls', Trans JHSE XXXII (1993) 76-7. 19 CPR 1266-1272 117. 20 CPR 1266-1272 180. 21 CPR 1266-1272 204. 22 CPR 1266-1272 205. 23 Roth (see n. 1) 58. 24 CPR 1266-1272 67. 25 CPR 1266-72 534, 650. On 4 May 1271 he was given licence to sell a debt between himself and Elias fil Sampson, Poitevin fil Sampson, Saulot fil Salomon, Jews of Northampton and Hugh de Cancellis to William de Hanyton, King's Clerk (p. 534); for enactment of 1271: Rigg (see n. 5) li-lv. 26 Roth (see n. 1) 46-7; Rigg (see n. 5) 88. 27 Roth (see n. 1) 42-3. 28 P. A. Brand, 'Edward I and the Judges: the "State Trials" of 1289-1293', Thirteenth-Century England (Proceedings of the Newcastle upon Tyne Conference, eds. P. R. Coss and S. D. Lloyd) I (Woodbridge 1986) 31-2; G. O. Sayles (ed.) Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward II (London 1936, Seiden Society, 55) clv-clix. 29 G. O. Sayles (see n. 28) clv-clix. 30 Roth (see n. 1) 31; Hillaby (see n. 7) 137-9. 31 Roth (see n. 1) 39; Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews (London 1905-1992), (hereafter PREJ (I) 300; Hillaby (see n. 7) 144. 32 Roth (see n. 1) 39; Hillaby (see n. 7) 127. 33 Descriptive Catalogue (see n. 6) III 437: D273 and 447: D358; D. Crook, 'The Early Remembrancers of the Exchequer', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 53 (1980) 11-23. 34 PRO C/47/9/49. 35 Rigg (see n. 5) 86; Bonamy of York also had a house in London: R. B. Dobson, 'The Decline and Expulsion of the Medieval Jews of York', Trans JHSE XXV (1979) 45-6. 36 PRO E/101/249/16 37 Calendar of Chancery Warrants 1244-1326 (London 1912) 2; see appendix I; C. Moor (see n. 16) 292-3; Roger le Peytevyn was possibly also fighting in Wales: C. Moor, ibid. 60; see appendix I. It could be that the Roger Pictivin of York is the same person. 38 PREJiz) 65; R. R. Mundill (see n. 18) 5?39^W(3) 65. 40 PREJ(3) 285-6. 41 PREJ(3) 285-6, 223. 42 The Statute of the Jewry is in Statutes of the Realm I (London 1810) 220-1; for full discussion of the Statute and its implications: R. R. Mundill, The Jews in England 12/2-1290 (PhD dissertation, University of St Andrews, 1987) 361-99; R. R. Mundill, 'Anglo-Jewry under Edward I: credit agents and their clients' Trans JHSE XXXI (1990) 1-21; R. R. Mundill, 'Lumbard and Son: the businesses and debtors of two Jewish moneylenders in late-thirteenth century England', JQR 82 (1991) 137-70. 43 R. R. Mundill (see n. 18) 58. 44 PREJ(3) 278. 45 PREJ(3) 323. i8o</page><page sequence="21">Rabbi Elias Menahem 46 PREJf(s) 25; C. Moor (see n. 16) 78-9. 47 PREJ(s) 25; C. Moor (see n- J6) 8-9. 48 PREJ(3) 309-10. 49 PREJIS) 48. 50/^(3)310. 51 Rigg (see n. 5) 132-3; PRO E/9/39 has several commodity bonds owing to Aaron fil Vives; Hillaby (see n. 7) 146-51; for arguments against the reality of the commodity bonds: V. D. Lipman, The Jews of Medieval Norwich (London 1967) 166-7; P- Elman, 'Jewish trade in thirteenth-century England', Historia Judaica 1 (1939) 99. For counter-argument see Mundill (see n. 42a) 361-99; R. R. Mundill (see n. 18) 1-21; R. R. Mundill (see n. 42b) 137-70. 52 Calendar of Close Rolls (hereinafter CCR) 1279-1288 60; Roth (see n. 1) 43-4. 53 R. R. Mundill (see n. 18) 03. For general background to the coin-clipping pogroms: Z. E. Rokeah, 'Money and the hangman in late-13th-century England: Jews, Christians and coinage offences alleged and real', Trans JHSE XXXI (1990) 83-109; Z. E. Rokeah, 'Money and the hangman in late-13th-century England: Jews, Christians and coinage offences alleged and real (Part II) Trans JHSE XXXII (1993) 159-218, 182. 54 Z. E. Rokeah II (see n. 53) 182; R. R. Mundill (see n. 18) 63. 55 CCR 1279-1288 86. 56 Roth (see n. 1) 54-5; J. Jacobs, 'Une lettre franchise d'un juif anglais au xiiie siecle', Revue des Etudes Juives 18 (Paris 1889) 256-61; R. R. Mundill (see n. 18) 67; Hillaby (see n. 7) 149. 57 J. Jacobs (see n. 56) 256-61; see n. 52 above. 58 R. R. Mundill (see n. 18) 70. 59 Rigg (see n. 5) 131-2; PRO E/9/44. 60 Ibid. 61 Rigg (see n. 5) 132; PRO E/9/44. 62 Rigg (see n. 5) 132; PRO E/9/44. 63 PRO E/9/44; See appendices I-III. 64 See below appendix I, 'The Debtors of Master Elias of London, 1242-1275', and appendices II and III, 'Christian Debtors of Jewish Bonds Owned by Master Elias' and 'Debts Belonging to Other Jewish Financiers included in Master Elias's Estate'. 65 PRO E/9/44; see above, n. 39; C. Moor (see n. 16) 246. 66 Rigg (see n. 5) 133-4. 67 CCR 1279-1288 268. 68 CCR 1279-1288 281; For statute see n. 42 above. 69 R. R. Mundill (see n. 18) 80. 70 PRO E/401/1582. 71 R. R. Mundill (see n. 18) 82. 72 CCR 12J9-1288 387; see n. 80 below. 73 Hillaby (see n. 7) 145-6. 74 Roth (see n. 1) 40. 75 Roth (see n. 1) 29-59; see appendices. 76 PRO E/9/44; appendix I; single bonds remain which were made respectively in 1242, 1252, 1257, 1261, 1265, 1267; two bonds were made in 1259, 1260, 1262, 1269, 1271; three for 1274; four for 1268, 1272; five for 1270; eight for the years 1273 and 1275. 77 R. R. Mundill, 'Lumbard and Son' (see n. 42) 164. 78 Mundill, The Jews (see n. 42) 395-6. 79 Mundill, The Jews (see n. 42) 308-53; R. R. Mundill, 'Anglo-Jewry' (see n. 42) 11-7. 80 PRO E/9/44; appendix I; C. Moor (see n. 16) 226-7. 81 Ibid. 82 PRO E/9/44; appendix I; C. Moor (see n. 16) 149-50 83 PRO E/9/44; appendix I; C. Moor (see n. 16) 252-3; S. Lloyd, English Society and the Crusades 1216-1307 (Oxford 1988) 120. 84 PRO E/9/44; appendix I; see entry for Gerard de Fancourt; C. Moor (see n. 16); S. Lloyd (see n. 83) appendix 4. 85 PRO E/9/44; appendices I and II; Westminster Abbey Muniments, 9014; CCR 1272-1279 46, 151, 190, 222, 458; C. Moor (see n. 16) 263; S. T. Lieberman (see n. 15) 124; PREJ(4) 55; S. Cohen, Plea Roll of the Exchequer of the Jews, Michaelmas 1277-Hilary 1279 (PhD dissertation, University of London, 1951) 391-2, 446, 467; Lincoln Archive Office, Foster Library Transcripts A836 and A850; PRO E/101/250/ 12; Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds III (London 1900) 411-2 (D68 and D72) reveals a further two debts to Benedict fil Deulecresse fil Aaron for ?6 13s 4d and ?50 made in 1271. 86 Descriptive Catalogue (see n. 6) 408 (D15 and D17), 434 (D243, D244, D245, D246, D249), 446 (D345); more of his debts appear on a 1262 roll of Jewish debts: membrane 10 in the Exeter archa he owes Lumbard Episcopus Jew ?3 6s 8d and Isaac fil Deodati 13s 4d; membrane 11 in the Northampton archa he owes Elias of Bedford ?1 6s 8d; membranes 12-3 in the Lincoln archa he owes Moses fil belye ?5; membrane 13 in the Winchester archa he owes Lumbard fil Abraham ?4. 87 See n. 9 above. 88 PREJ(4) 32; some of his debts acquired by Master Elias: PREJU) 86; PREJQ) 65. 89 C. Roth, 'Rabbi Berechiah' (see n. 3) 67 i8i</page><page sequence="22">Robin Mundill 8i; Mundill, The Jews (see n. 42) 269, 273, 294-5 90 C. Roth, The Jews of Medieval Oxford (see n. 3) 68-78; PRO E/101/249/32. 91 PREJis) 81-2. 92 PREJd) 65; PREJd) 86; see appendix II-III. 93 PRO E/9/44; appendix III; Mundill, The Jews (see n. 42) 236-40; J. Hillaby, 'Aaron le Blund and the last decades of Hereford Jewry 1253-1290', Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists Field Club, 46 (1990) 432-87; single debts dated from 1224, 1235, 1237, 1238, 1246, 1251, 1263, 1265, 1267, 1273; two debts remained for the years 1233, 1236, 1258, 1259, 1268, 1275; three for 1232, 1261, 1270, 1271; six debts for 1260 and 1269; there is one transaction which cannot be dated. 94 PRO E/9/44; appendix II; H. P. Stokes (see n. 4) 159-61. 95 PRO E/9/44; appendix II. 96 PRO E/9/44; appendix II; R. R. Mundill, 'Anglo-Jewry' (see n. 42) 11. 97 PRO E/9/44; appendix II; Westminster Abbey Muniments 9119. 98 R. R. Mundill, 'Anglo-Jewry' (see n. 42) 15-7. C. Moor (see n. 16) 77-8; Richard held the manor of Grimeston in Nottinghamshire and in 1284 was granted life custody of Horston Castle in Derbyshire: CCR 1272-1279 402, in September 1277 he was granted 2 live bucks and 2 does to stock his park at Grimeston. In July 1278 he was granted a further 4 bucks from Sherwood Forest; PRO E/101/250/12. 99 Westminster Abbey Muniments 9150. 100 CCR 1272-1279 248; CPR 1281-1292 324 makes it clear that Jordan also had Norfolk connections. In 1289 ne rented a house in Norwich for one year; PREJi^) 65, 294; Cohen (see n. 85) 397. 101 PREJ(4) 120; Cohen (see n. 85) 63, 308, 397 reveals that Jordan was also involved in other transactions between 1277 and 1278. In 1277, in partnership with Richard and William Foliot, he acknowledged that he owed the London Jew Aaron fil Vives 20 sacks of wool. In 1278 he owed Aaron Crespin 5 sacks of wool. In 1278 he also owed Benedict of London ?20. 102 His shared debt with Adam de Novo Mercato is on PRO E/101/250/12; interestingly in 1284 Benedict of London pardoned the Foliot family of all their debts: PRO E/9/44; similarly, Aaron fil Vives also acquitted the family and issued a starrum in Norman French and signed in Hebrew PRO E/9/44; Rigg (see n. 5) 132-3. 103 PRO E/101/250/12; Mundill, The Jews (see n. 42) 279. 104 C. Roth, 'Rabbi Berechiah' (see n. 3) 67 81; Mundill, The Jews (see n. 42) 272-97; C. Roth, The Jews of Medieval Oxford (see n. 3) 68 78; H. P. Stokes (see n. 4) 33-5; PRO E/101/ 249/32. 105 C. Roth, 'Rabbi Berechia' (see n. 3) 67-81. 106 Rigg (see n. 5) 111-2. 107 PRO E/9/44; appendix I. 108 N. Denholm-Young, 'Feudal Society in the Thirteenth Century: the knights', Collected papers ofN. Denholm-Young (Cardiff 1969) 87; N. Denholm-Young, 'Feudal Society in the Thirteenth Century: the knights', History 29 (1944) 113-4, 117-9. 109 M. M. Postan, Cambridge Economic History of Europe I (Cambridge 1966) 595; P. Elman, 'The economic causes of the Expulsion of the Jews in 1290', Economic History Review 7 (1938) 145-54; H. P. Stokes (see n. 4) appendices 4-6; P. Elman, Jewish finance in thirteenth century England with special reference to royal taxation (MA dissertation, University of London, 1936) 112-3, 140-7. no Mundill, The Jews (see n. 42) chaps 4-8. in S. T. Lieberman (see n. 15) 116. 112 PREJ(6) is to be published in the next few years. 113 PRO E/9/44. l82</page><page sequence="23">Rabbi Elias Menahem Appendix I The Debtors of Master Elias of London, 1242-1275 No. of Debtor bonds Amount Richard de Coleworth miles of Essex 2s1 ?163135 4d Fulk de Lucy son of Walter de Lucy miles of Warwick 1 ?133 6s 8d Robert de Stopham miles of Yorkshire 1 ?I2o os od Robert de Merk miles of Essex 2 ?110 os od Walter de Huntercumbe miles of Oxfordshire* is ?116 13s 4d Adam de Novo Mercato miles of Yorkshire 3 ?90 os od Roger Pictivin of Yorkshire 1 ?50 os od Roger de Mickelfeud son of Nicholas de Mikelfeud of Herefordshire 2 ?47 os od Richard Wodeman of Rotherhithe son of William Wodeman of Surrey 3 ?32 os od Richard Duered de Barthsworth of Herefordshire 1 ?30 os od Robert of Kelvedon of Essex is ?26 6s 8d John Derkyn spicer of London 1 ?2 5 os od Gerardus de Fanacourt miles of Lincolnshire 1 ?22 os od Geoffrey Bradley fil Randulph of Lincolnshire 1 ?20 os od Henry of Seleby Leicestershire 1 ?20 os od Nicholas son of Hugh of Cambridgeshire 1 ?20 os od Nicholas of Muscott son of Nicholas of Muscott Northamptonshire 1 ?20 os od John of Cokeham son of Reginald of Sussex 2 ?20 os od William de la Suthe miles of Northamptonshire 1 ?20 os od John Carbonel miles de Com Wilchester? and Yorkshire (son of Thomas Carbonel de Dikelburg? miles of Northampton) 2 ?18 6s 8d William son of John of Hadenle of Herefordshire 1 ?16 13s 4d James of Stevington of Essex 1 ?16 13s 4d John de Lane fil Thomas of Yorkshire 1 ?16 os od John de Esthale miles of Buckinghamshire 1 ?12 os od Hugh of Coleworth brother of Richard of Coleworth of Northampton s ?11 13s 4d Fulk de Da? miles of Essex 1 ?10 os od Richard Sturnin miles de Com Northampton 1 ?10 os od John Schol fil Roger of Kelvedon s ?6 6s 8d John son of William of Thorp and s ?6 os od 183</page><page sequence="24">Robin Mundill Robert of Ffuldon William Godrith of Berkhamstead Hertfordshire John Sundi son of William of Leicestershire William de Rues son of Gilbert de Rues of Leicestershire Philip de Bollande miles of Herefordshire Baldwin of Wayford Devonshire Galfridus de Eredington Marescall and Robert of London his son John Coty(?) son of William Coty(?) miles of Essex Thomas de Somercotes son of Andrew of Somercotes of Lincolnshire Stephen de la Park ?6 ?5 ?5 is (A ?3 ?3 ?3 os od 6s 8d os od os od os od 6s 8d 6s 8d 6s 8d ?2 13s 4d ?2 ?2 13s 4d 1 os od 40 Debtors 472* ?1252 16s 8d Mean average value of a bond is ?26 7s 6d. Mean average debt owed by Christian debtor is ?31 6s 4zd. 1 'shared'. #It is recorded that although Walter de Huntercombe's debt is owed to fil Vives, half of it belonged to Master Elias. Aaron (Source: PRO E/9/44) Appendix II Christian Debtors of Jewish Bonds Owned by Master Elias Debtor John Auure of Cambridge Robert the son of Lord Robert of Wyleubi miles Robert Fychet of Spargon John de la Rus of the town of Cambridge Henry de Dennington of Warwickshire Walter de Huntercumbe miles of Oxfordshire* William Le Maliers of Norfolk Richard Foliot miles of Yorkshire Walter le Grey Canon of York Robert Houel, miles junior of Suffolk Roger de Boyland William de Marlay fil William de Brentre miles Robert son of Richard de Colchindon No. of bonds 2 4 Amount ?105 ?94 ?80 ?74 ?60 ?50 ?50 ?40 ?30 ?30 ?20 ?20 ?20 os od 6s 8d os od os od os od os od os od os od os od os od os od os od os od 184</page><page sequence="25">Rabbi Elias Menahem John de Cheston miles of Somerset Henry de Burr Henry son of Richard of Sileby of Leicestershire Nicholas son of Bernard Jordanus de la Wyke Jordan Foliot son of Richard, miles John son of Albini of London Geoffrey de Launton Nicholas de Wyk Reginald Peytevin miles of Yorkshire John Samulge de Stanieriesby Adam de Blakeneye Matilda, who was the wife, of Galfridus de Horton Thomas Hamsard? son of James Hamsard? of Surrey Robert de Hemed of Herefordshire Robert Jukel son of Robert Jukel of Essex John (?) Reginald Balun Thomas Malemyns of Kent Daniel of Chelineresford? Richard Baggot son of Robert Baggot of Warwickshire Randolph de Planaz of Surrey Richard son of Michael of Great Tew Symon Lovel son of Hugh of Kent William Waldeshef Richard Le Franceys de Geye Baldwin de Breture miles of Wyllyham Peter de Benette de Wyaunton Walter Gerard of Middlesex William Luddock Henry Porlet de Capeford ?20 os od ?18 os od ?14 os od ?13 os od ?12 os od ?10 os od ?10 os od ?10 os od ?10 os od ?10 os od ?10 os od ?8 os od ?7 os od ?6 13s 4d ?6 13s 4d ?5 os od ?5 os od ?4 13s 4&lt;3 ?4 os od ?3 8s od ?3 6s 8d ?3 6s 8d ?3 os od ?3 os od ?3 os od ?2 13s 4d ?2 1 os od ?2 6s 8d ?2 os od ?2 os od ?2 os od 44 Debtors 47i ?889 18s od #It is recorded that although Walter de Huntercombe's debt is owed to Aaron fil Vives, half of it belonged to Master Elias. It is further recorded that Aaron fil Vives came and recognized that Master Elias has one debt for ?15 os od under the names of Galfridus de Bradeley and the same Aaron, and that half this debt belongs to Master Elias. (Source: PRO E/9/44) 185</page><page sequence="26">Robin Mundill Appendix III Debts Belonging to Other Jewish Financiers Included in Master Elias's Estate Jewish Creditor Josce nepot Aaron Moses fil Josce Benedict fil Magister Moses Salomon fil Salomon Jew of Ilchester Moses fil Isaac de Stone of Kent Cresse fil Magister Elias Vives fil Magister Moses Aaron fil Vives* Sampson le Blund Jacob of Oxford fil Magister Moses Cresse fil Milo Salle fil Josce Bonamy fil Abraham Sampson fil Solomon Josce Elias fil Sampson Aaron fil Josce Saunte fil Aaron Jew of Stamford Isaac fil Samuel Moses fil Salomon of Marlborough Benedict Parnass fil Isaac Parnass Vives fil Moses of Oxford -gri of Colchester Diey fil Magri Samuel Jacob fil Salomon Jew of Worcester Aaron of Kingston Josce Crespin Jacob fil Leo de Cant Cresse fil Mansi Abraham fil Aaron Abraham fil Preciosa Josce fil Bonenfaunt Deulecresse fil Abraham Jew of Wilton Josce fil Magister Moses No. of bonds 5 i 3 i i 2 2 S Amount owed ?114 6s 8d ?100 os od ?80 os od ?80 os od ?74 os od ?70 os od ?54 os od ?50 os od ?30 os od ?26 13s 4d ?24 13s 4d ?20 os od ?20 os od ?20 os od ?18 os od ?14 os od ?13 os od ?10 os od ?10 os od ?7 os od ?6 13s 4d ?5 os od ?5 os od ?5 os od ?3 8s od ?3 6s 8d ?3 6s 8d ?3 os od ?3 os od ?3 os od ?2 13s 4d ?2 1 os od ?2 6s 8d ?2 os od ?2 os od 186</page><page sequence="27">Rabbi Elias Menahem Aaron le Blimd i ?2 os od 36 47z ?889 18s od #It is recorded that although Walter de Huntercombe's debt is owed to Aaron fil Vives half of it belonged to Master Elias. It is further recorded that Aaron fil Vives came and recognized that Master Elias had one debt for ?15 os od under the names of Galfridus de Bradeley and the same Aaron and that half this debt belonged to Master Elias. (Source: PRO E/9/44) 187</page></plain_text>