division b, volume ii: the history of the jewish people / חטיבה ב, כרך שני: תולדות...

World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות

/ מתיאו פריס והיהודים MATTHEW PARIS AND THE JEWSAuthor(s): STEPHEN D. BENIN and סטיפן בניןSource: Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies / דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעיחטיבה ב, / DIVISION B, VOLUME II: THE HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE ,היהדות, כרך יכרך שני: תולדות עם ישראלpp. 61-68 תשמ"ט / 1989Published by: World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדותStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23535615 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 02:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies /דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.101 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:03:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wujs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23535615?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


MATTHEW PARIS AND THE JEWS

STEPHEN D. BENIN

Matthew Paris' Chronica. !Majorat is, by common consent, one of the most precious historical records of the medieval period. Matthew not only sought out diverse types of information, not only handled his sources with skill, but wrote, both local and 'world' history, in a lively manner. He copied documents which had relevance to those issues which interested him, and so diligent was he in his reading and copying, that he had to append a

special 'book of additions' to his Chronicle. Yet, estimations of his work differ. One critic pithily observed that Matthew's outstanding achievement was 'to put across his point of view. Another, who mentions the Jews but once in a full-length study of Matthew states: "Matthew, to his credit, had no very deep-seated prejudices against the Jews,,perhaps because of his sympathy for them as victims of royal extortion. The view of yet another student of Matthew, is, I believe, more accurate: Matthew's historical accounts should be suspected a priori "because of his general carelessness, inaccuracy, unreliable dating of events within a given year, his stereotypy of non-English peoples and credulity about Jews, and his firm belief in the miraculous."4

As a witness to the events of the thirteenth century, Matthew

recognized full well the role and place of the Jews in England, yet no study of his attitude towards them exists. This is all the more odd, since there has beervattention paid to his knowledge of other groups, including the

Mongols.0 What follows is necessarily a brief examination of Matthew's attitudes towards, and knowledge of, the Jews.

The history of the Jews in medieval England began most probably after the Conquest in 1066, and was truncated by their expulsion in 1290. In the course of those two centuries, the Jews served not only as

taxpayers, but when protected by the crown, were its primary unofficial tax collectors. Between 1159 and 1179, a most important change took place in the relationship between the Crown and its Jews. The economic function of the Jews changed drastically; rather than having their financial abilities exploited, they were to be exploited financially.

61



STEPHEN D. BENIN

Royal tallages begun by Henry II in 1159, became the hallmark of the economic exploitation of the Jews under Henry 111 and Edward I. It is Matthew Paris who provides the fullest account of the tallages of the mid thirteenth century, and repeats the charge that the Jews-as well as the Flemish to a lesser degree-were frequently labelled coin-clippers [demriorum tonsores IV, 608; 632] The debasement of coinage became so

grave by 1247, that Louis IX of France decreed that any English coins found in France, and not of legal weight, were to be removed from circulation and melted down. As Matthew comments upon the English coinage before it was reformed: "At this time, the money of England was so corrupted by the hated clippers and falsers [detestadiles tonsores et

fadsarios], that no native or foreigner could look upon it without wincing or with an unmoved heart." [V, 15]

Matthew reports further that it was claimed and found to be true that "the coins were circumcised by the circumcised and infidel Jews"

[quod a. circumcisis denarii circumcideßantur IV, 608] who, because of royal tallages, were reduced to beggary, and that other crimes were also said to have emanated from them.

In an entry dated to 1250, Matthew writes:

In these days the king became dry with avaricious thirst, and he ordered money to be extorted from all Jews without mercy, so that

they appeared to be totally and irreparably impoverished. For he took whatever they had in their coffers. [V, 114].

Indeed, Matthew presents one Jew, Aaron of York, who seemingly spoke with him about his own situation. The King did not cease trying to scrape [aßradere] up money from all quarters, principally the Jews, secondarily from his own natural, Christian subjects. Such was the King's greed that he extorted [e^torsit] fourteen thousand marks, and ten thousand in gold for the use of the queen to be paid in a short period to

prevent his incarceration. This was done because it was said Aaron was convicted of forging a certain charter [quia conzrictus fuit, ut dicitw, de

fadsitate citjusdam cartae]. Additionally, besides paying all these sums, Aaron paid the king thirty thousand marks of silver, and two hundred in gold for the queen, "as he, the said Jew Aaron, declared by legal attestation and on his faith to Brother Matthew, the writer of this book." [V, 136] He continues that the Jews deserve no pity however wretched they may be, because they are forgers of seals and counterfeiters for which they had been frequently reproved and condemned. Aaron of York's payments to the crown for the next five years can be traced in English sources, and he was to have paid fifty marks to the tallage of 1255. He never paid however, because Earl Richard "granted exemption this time from tallage because of his poverty.""

62




Matthew describes how Henry III, in an attempt to seize as much money as possible, sent justiciaries throughout the kingdom to discover how much the Jews possessed in actual assets and in debts. With the royal accountants was a most base and merciless Jew [y-udwum

nequissimum et immisericordimtt], in order that he might accuse all the otners, even by transgressing the truth. This wretch rebuked all Christians who took pity on the Jews, and swore that the Jews could give twice as much to the King as they had done, although he was lying in his teeth. In order to injure them all the more, he daily revealed their secrets to the Christian agents of the King. [V, 117]

Another aspect of Matthew's attitude towards the Jews is found in the way he describes Henry's rapacious and uncontrollable appetite for

money. Matthew reports how Henry in 1252, while attempting to support the Pope's appeal for financial aid for a crusade turned to his subjects:

The Lord King, however, so that he might comply with the Pope's desire and suasion, wrested away from the Jews whatever those miserable beings [ipsi miseri] seemed to possess. He not only scraped and skinned them, but gutted them as well. Thirstier than a man with dropsy, he eagerly milked from Christians and Jews talents, gold and valuables, so that it seemed Crassus had risen from the dead. [V, 274]

What is of note is that Matthew freely admits the king was so hard

pressed he turned to both Jews and Christians. The same observation is told most movingly by Matthew when he describes the Jews petition to leave England in 1254. The King, between Easter and the Rogation days, could not rest and "vented his fury against the wretched rabble of the Jews to such a degree that they hated their lives." [V, 441] Earl Richard called them to a meeting, and demanded money from them for the king, "under penalty of imprisonment and ignominious death." [V, 441] Then Elias of London, the high priest of the Jews, petitioned the king most

poignantly:

My lords and masters, we see plainly that the king purposes to blot us out from under heaven. In the name of God, we ask his

permission and safe conduct for us to depart from his kingdom, that we may seek a place of abode elsewhere, under some prince who has bowels of compassion and will properly observe truth and

good faith. Let us depart hence never to return, leaving behind our houses and household goods. How can he love us wretched Jews

[nos misettos Jidaeos] or spare us who destroys his natural English

63



STEPHEN D. BENIN

subjects? He has papal merchants or rather his own (I will not call them usurers), who amass endless heaps of money; let the king depend upon them and gape after his emoluments by them; they it is who have destroyed and impoverished us. [V, 441 ]

Thus, according to Matthew, the Jews by 1254, were so oppressed by royal taxation, that they beseeched the King to suffer them to leave his realm. Again, we see-in Matthew's version-Elias blame the King for his

inequities against Christians [suos Slngßcos...na±uraks], as well as having Elias admit that royal and papal usurers have impoverished the Jews. Of course, this is exactly what happened, as foreign 'bankers' especially Italians replaced the Jews as royal money lenders in the course of the thirteenth century.

Elias, after concluding his appeal-'The King conceals his

knowledge of this, and demands of us what we have not the power to give to give him, though he should pluck out our eyes, or skin us, and afterwards cut our throats." [V, 441 ]-fell senseless as if in a fit. The

magistrates refused to allow the Jews to leave, saying: "Whither would you fly, wretched beings? The French king hates you and persecutes you, and has condemned you to eternal banishment; do you wish in avoiding Charybdis to be dashed on Scylla?" Matthew finishes his account of this

episode, by noting: "And thus the small remnant of their small substance, which if left would only afford them a meagre subsistence, was extorted from them by force."[V, 441] Later in the same year, Henry again sent money to Innocent IV in order to help him resist Conrad. He sent whatever he could wrest from his treasury, borrow from his brother, and as Matthew puts it, scrape away [aßradere] from the Jews. [V, 458]

A year later, Henry III urgently demanded, upon pain of hanging in case of nonpayment, eight thousand marks from the "oft-impoverished Jews." Matthew presents the context, and voices the Jews' response as follows:

Seeing that nothing but ruin and destruction were impending, the Jews unanimously replied to this demand as follows: "Your

majesty, we see that you spare neither Christians nor Jews, but make it your business on diverse pretexts to impoverish everyone; no hope remains to breathe freely; the pope's usurers have

supplanted us; therefore, permit us to depart from your realm under safe conduct, and we shall seek another abode of some kind or other." [V, 487]

64




Again, Matthew has the Jews request permission to leave England and reproach the King for despoiling Christians as well as Jews. He repeats the charge that the Jewish economic function has been taken over by papal usurers, meaning Italian "bankers". Henry, in Matthew's account, laments his enormous debts; he is "a mutilated and diminished

king," "crushed into pieces." [V, 488] Henry shrieks: "It is necessary for me to live on money obtained anywhere, from anybody, in any way." [V, 488] Likening Henry to a second Titus or Vespasian, Matthew records Henry's sale of the Jews to his brother Earl Richard. Matthew remarks about the sale, it was done "that the earl might disembowel those whom the King had skinned" [ut quos reejtoruwemt, comes einsceraret V, 488]. Yet, Richard spared the Jews out of consideration for the diminution of their

power and their ignominious poverty. [V, 488]

It is however in Matthew's beliefs about the Jews that we catch our best insight into Matthew's mind and perhaps the mentalite of the thirteenth century. Matthew, as we shall see, emphasizes, inter alia, how one Jew, or an apostate, turned against other Jews. This is a motif

repeated in several ritual murder charges, including William of Norwich and Hugh of Lincoln.7 We shall return to this aspect of Matthew's work.

In order to expose their wickedness to the maximum audience, Matthew describes the actions of a moderately rich Jew, nomine non fide Aßrafiam, who was a friend of Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Abraham, we are told, took an image of the Madonna and child, placed it in his privy, and

perpetrated a most filthy and unmentionable act upon it day and night, and caused his wife, Floria, to do the same. After several days Floria, because of her sex [ratione sesqis], took mercy upon the image and washed it. When Abraham discovered this, he killed his wife. He was arrested, tried and imprisoned in the Tower of London. In order to gain his release, he promised to prove that all English Jews were traitors. Other Jews accused Abraham of money-clipping and other heinous crimes. They offered the earl a thousand marks not to protect him and wanted Abraham put to death. Yet Richard of Cornwall refused to abandon him, spoke on his behalf, and with Richard's aid, Abraham

bought his freedom for 700 marks. [V, 114-115]

This tale is rather remarkable. Abraham was, in Matthew's fanciful

description, a friend of Richard, Earl of Cornwall the brother of Henry III. Since it was Richard who financed the reform of coinage in 1247/48, and in return for his efforts Took over responsibility for the mint in exchange for one-half of the profits, he might indeed have known wealthy people, but the question of Richard helping a Jew, who had committed blasphemy of the worst sort, not to mention murder, is beyond belief.

65



STEPHEN D. BENIN

Yet it is the stereotypes and unbelievable attitudes towards Jews which Matthew accentuates. In the case of William of Norwich, the first ritual murder case in Europe which centers about the crucifixion motif, we are told by Matthew that the Jews circumcised a Christian boy and renamed him Jurnin. The child, who was to be crucified after the manner of Christ, was discovered by his father and freed. All the Jews were

imprisoned and asked for royal protection. The bishop, William de Rele, "a wise and circumspect prelate," argued that a case involving circumcision and an insult to religion could not be tried in the royal courts. Four Jews were found guilty, and "were first dragged at the tails of horses, and afterwards hung on a gibbet, where they breathed forth the wretched remains of life." [ IV, 30-31]

Perhaps the most famous case of ritual murder in England was that of Little Hugh of Lincoln in 1255. In Matthew's account, we read that Jews

kidnapped a Christian youth, fed him on milk, and requested Jews

throughout England to come to Lincoln to reenact Christ's trial and crucifixion. Matthew's account reeks with gory details, and never once does he question any part of his story. Further, he relishes in describing how all Jews in England agreed to Hugh's murder, and how God visited them with retribution according to their deserts. It was a Jew, Copin or

Jopin, who confessed that this was a ritual murder.[V, 516-19] And it is Matthew's account which would gain immortality in Chaucer's Canterßuiy Taksy Of those Jews arrested and not hung, we learn that on May 15, 1256, thirty-five of the Jews who had been imprisoned in the Tower of London for the death of Hugh of Lincoln were released. Matthew, in referring to Copin, then comments: "But these Jews, I say, were found guilty on their trial by jury, from the statement made by the Jew who was hung at Lincoln in the first place." [V, 552]

What is of interest in Matthew's account of Hugh of Lincoln is the knowledge or fabrication of the crucifixion motif. It is already present in Matthew's narrative concerning the body of a dead child found in London in 1244. According to Matthew, an inscription was found on the body "written regularly in Hebrew." When the assembled crowd could not read the inscription, but knowing that the letters were Hebrew, they sent for a converted Jew to decipher it. Matthew states:

They (the crowd) also thought, and not without reason, that the Jews had, as a taunt and insult to Jesus Christ, either crucified this little boy-a circumstance stated to have happened often"or had tortured him in various ways previous to crucifying him, and, as he had died under their tortures, thinking him not worthy of a cross, had thrown his body where it was found. [IV, 377]

66




The converts could not decipher the inscription, but did discover enough to ascertain the names of the child's parents. They also managed, to interpret words to the effect that the child had been sold to the Jews, but "by whom, or for what purpose, they could not find out." [IV, 377] Some Jews, according to Matthew, fled London, and others asserted that the Lord performed miracles on behalf of the child. Matthew then concludes his fable:

And because it was discovered that Jews had formerly perpetrated such crimes, and that the holy crucified bodies had been

ceremoniously received in the church, and miracles had broken forth, although the stigmata of the five wounds in the hands and feet and side did not appear on the said little body, nevertheless the canons of St. Paul's seized it and solemnly buried it near the

high altar. [IV, 377-78]

What are we to make of Matthew? As a teller of tales and the source of lies about Jews he was perhaps unsurpassed by any of his

contemporaries. How, as a monk of St. Alban's who never left England save on one brief trip to Norway [V, 42], did he arrive at his ignominious ideas about Anglo-Jewry? Did he truly believe that Jews "often" crucified Christian children? Perhaps we shall never know, and it is not an answer to suggest that he simply represented his time. We can merely identify Matthew as the most important thirteenth-century link in the chain of authors who circulated irrational beliefs, as well as scandalous and lethal lies aimed at Jews. This alone is sufficient to merit our attention.

67



STEPHEN D. BENIN

1. The edition cited is Chronica Blajora, 7 volumes, ed. H. R. Luard (Rolls Series: London, 1872-80). References are to volume number and page. For Matthew in general see Richard Vaughan, Matthew Paris

(London/New York, 1958). (Hereafter, Vaughan, MP)

2. Beryl Smalley, !}historians in the Middle !Ages{ London, 1974), 161.

3. Vaughan, MP, 143.

4. Gavin I Langmuir, "The Knight's Tale of Young Hugh of Lincoln,"

Speculum 47 (1972), 464. (Hereafter, Langmuir, Hugh). See also, Joseph Jacobs, "Little St. Hugh of Lincoln," Jezvish Ideals and Other 1Essaus (New York, 1896), 192-224; Francis Hill, 1MedievalLincoln (Cambridge, 1948).

5. J. J. Saunders, "Matthew Paris and the Mongols," Essays in Medieval

:'History (Presented to 1Bertie *Wilkinson, edd. T. A. Sandquist and M.R. Powicke (Toronto, 1969), 116-132.

6. Calendar of Patent Bolls, Patent Boll 1247-58, 441-2.

7. See 7'he Life and Miracles of St. William of Mgnoich, ed. and trans. A. Jessop and M. R. James (Cambridge, 1896), 94, and see Gavin I. Langmuir, "Thomas of Monmouth: Detector of Ritual Murder," Speculum 59 (1984), 820-846; and Langmuir, Hugh, 459-82.

8. F. M. Powicke, The thirteenth Century 1216-1307 (Oxford, 1953), 104 05.

9. Langmuir, Hugh, 459-61.

68



division b, volume ii: the history of the jewish people / חטיבה ב, כרך שני: תולדות...

Documents