A Hospitaller and the Jews: Brother Joseph de Chauncy and English Jewry in the 12705^ ZEFIRA ENTIN ROKEAH

Among themany entries touching on matters of Jewish interest in thememoranda a rolls of the English exchequer in the late-13th century1 is pair of entries dating fromDecember 1273. They record orders issued by the treasurer, Brother Joseph were to de Chauncy,2 and sent to various sheriffs.The sheriffs have itproclaimed that all Jews resident in their shires were to come to, and remain in, the principal (or possibly, the archa) town of each shire fromDecember 1273 until the following as Easter (1 April 1274). The reasons for their forced migration and residence, are not for the penalties with which any Jews who did not obey were threatened, to given in the memoranda roll.3 It is likely, however, that the treasurer wished facilitate the collection of the 'great tallage' of one-third of the Jews' movable goods, which Roth indicates had been imposed by 'the Council of Regency during the new king's [Edward Fs] absence, with the severe methods that had become recognized as normal',4 by forcing the Jews to remain within easy reach of the - collectors acting on the principle that a flock may be more efficientlyfleeced if gathered together before the shearers arrive.The texts of these consecutive entries read roughly as follows:

(King's Remembrancer's Memoranda Roll, E 159/48,m. 4 [1273-4]):5 The sheriffof andHuntingdonshire has been ordered, as soon as he shall Cambridgeshire - - in see these letters, to have it proclaimed franchises notwithstanding every city, borough, are to come to and vill/town where any Jews abide in his bailiwick, that all the Jews Cambridge and remain thereuntil the comingEaster [1April 1274].No Jew ofCambridge or of the vills [towns] outside of Cambridge is to leave Cambridge within this period, unless he wish to forfeithis life or members, as well as all his movable and immovable property. Should any Jew flee or absent himself from Cambridge after this proclamation, the sheriffis to seize him and detain him in the king's prison. He is also to take into the as the king's hand all of that Jew's goods and chattels, movable and immovable, being etc. receive further orders about the king's forfeit, and is to safeguard them until [he prisoner and the disposition of his property].Witnessed by brotherJoseph [de Chauncy] on 9 December [1273]. Similar orders have been sent to the sheriffsof Kent, Hampshire, Somerset [and] Dorset, Nottinghamshire [and]Derbyshire, Essex [and]Hertfordshire,6 Surrey and Sussex, Warwickshire and Leicestershire, Yorkshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire,Norfolk and

* Paper presented to the Society on 7 December 1995.

189

Jewish Historical Society of England is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Jewish Historical Studies ® www.jstor.org Zefira Entin Rokeah

Suffolk, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire [and] Buckinghamshire, Worcestershire, Cornwall,7 Devonshire, Lincolnshire, and Gloucestershire.8

Let us consider the background of these orders. Henry Ill's son, the Lord Edward, had set forth on crusade in 1270, with his father's blessing, and with a systematically organized fighting force, the funds forwhich had been raised, inter alia, from English Christians and English Jews for the purpose.9 When Henry died on 16 November 1272 Edward was in Sicily on his way back to England. It - - took him nearly twomore years until August 1274 to reach England, passing through Rome, Orvieto, Savoy, Burgundy, Paris and Gascony, and dealing with the excommunication of the murderers of his cousin, Henry of Almain, slain at Viterbo; with the homage due from him to King Philip III of France; and with a serious rebellion in Gascony. Apparently news he received from England before his return, both written and oral, kept him fromworrying about the state of affairs at home and allowed him tomake his dispositions on the Continent in an unhur? ried fashion.10 Before he left for the crusade Edward had appointed agents to look after his children and his interests at home.11 Among their other activities, these agents sentmoney toAcre forEdward's use during the crusade.12 The royal - - finances were in a 'wretched' even 'pathetic' state in these last years ofHenry Ill's reign, and Edward and his advisers found money for his crusade only with great difficulty,finding themselves obliged to resort to various moneylenders when it became clear that the income of the crusading and other taxes was insufficient to cover costs.13 It was in these circumstances that steps were taken to collect tallages imposed on the Jews in the late 1260s and early 1270s, and their arrears.14 The details of these tallages are beyond our scope here; various attempts have been made to clarify their timing and amounts, but much spadework remains to be done. What is clear is that there were ceaseless efforts in the early 1270s to extract as much money as possible from an increasingly impoverished Jewish community. Such efforts included the 'great tallage' referred to above, which the exchequer's personnel optimistically hoped would yield 25,000 marks (?16,666 13s 4d) for the hard-pressed king. It seems that their hopes were not realized.15 A table of income from various Jewish tallages of the 1270s compiled recently by Robin Mundill indicates that payments recorded in the Jewish receipt rolls between 1272 and 1275 were between ?1200 and ?1500 per annum, and then dropped drastically until after September 1276, when nearly ?1000 was received (possibly indicating a new tallage imposed in that year). If the years 1274 and 1275 are seen as the main years for the payment of the 'great tallage', only a - - disappointing ?3000 or so some 4500 marks of the anticipated 25,000 marks, less than one-fifth,were collected.16 Cecil Roth commented that this tallage's 'arrears were so great that, on 1 November 1274, itwas found necessary to appoint a special commission to exact them', and that Jews 'unable to pay were banished, in conformitywith the old idea that Jews were tolerated in England only if they could be of merit to the

190 A Hospitaller and the Jews

Crown'.17 The patent rolls show that Jews were granted licences to sell their houses and rents in February 1274, so that theymight then be able to pay their tallage.18 H. G. Richardson, in his The English Jewry underAngevin Kings, says that the order for this Callage of extraordinary severity, unknown since 1241' seems to be absent from the records, until the February 1274 entries in the patent rolls which mention the tallage.19No specific orders for the imposition of this 'great tallage' of one-third of the Jews' movable property are known to exist today. However, the ambiguous orders in the memoranda roll of 1273-4, which we noted at the outset, seem to be part of the missing materials about this tallage, although they do not specify the size of the tallage imposed nor, indeed, even mention a tallage at all. There is no imaginable justification for the sheriffsbeing told to round up all the Jews in December 1273 if not to provide for a more efficientmulcting of the Jews. One might think that this related to anti-usury activity, but the anti-usury legislation of 1275 was still two years in the future. Similarly, one might suggest that this action was related to alleged coinage viola? tions, but the trials of English Jews on charges of money-clipping and other coinage violations were five years in the future, in 1278-9.20 It seems that only the levying of money from the community can explain this action. We indicated above why so much money had to be raised: we mentioned Edward's crusade of 1270, which may have cost as much as ?100,000, to which must be added his father's chronic inability to reconcile his income with his expenditure. - - Let us consider the orders themselves including the explicit threats in them and their issuer, Brother Joseph de Chauncy, the treasurer of King Edward I. It was quite usual in 13th-century England for the imposition of a tallage on the Jews to be preceded by an examination or 'scrutiny' of the contents of the archae.21This enabled the king's officials to know what resources the Jews had, at least potentially, and facilitated the assessment of any proposed tallage. In the time of Henry III, Jews were sometimes imprisoned in order to force them to agree to pay their shares of the tallages by certain dates; on other occasions those failing to pay on time were imprisoned in order to 'encourage' them to pay.22 However, threats of torture or of the loss of life or of body parts such as eyes, limbs, or teeth, seem to have been employed in the time of Henry's father,King John, rather than in that of Henry himself.23 Apparently there is a return to early-13th-century threats in these December 1273 orders for the enforced resid? ence, one might even say house arrest, of the Jews in the principal (or archd) towns of England. It is tempting to try to explain this threatened reversion to the harshness of the reign of King John by guessing at the character of theman who sent the orders, Brother Joseph de Chauncy, who was prior of theHospital of St John of Jerusalem in England, and royal treasurer, from early October 1273 until mid-June 1280.24 I have deliberately used the term 'guessing', since so very little is known about the life of Joseph de Chauncy. This is a case which illustrates the comment of - Agnes Sandys, that the ordinary public records of England voluminous and

191 Zefira Entin Rokeah

- packed with information though they be are 'often bafflingly uncommunicative and almost lacking in human interest'.25They, likemodern telephone directories, may provide much precise factual detail, but like them they reveal almost nothing of the personalities of those appearing in them. There are numerous references to Brother Joseph in the memoranda rolls and other government records of the 1270s, but almost nothing of his personality is revealed other than the fact that he made small loans from time to time to various individuals, most of whom paid him back. (I should note here that clerks working in the exchequer frequently - - made loans not always small ones and did quite well out of the practice.26) Joseph de Chauncy seems to have been a member of a family of that name, members of which held lands in Yorkshire and in Lincolnshire.27 If he followed the usual pattern of theHospitallers, he was probably a younger son of the knightly or noble family involved, and aware of the fact that he could carve out a more successful career within thismilitary Order than any he might otherwise anticip? ate. He would have entered a house of the Order in the land of his birth and, once he had reached the age of twenty,would have been sent out to the Convent in Acre, which was the main house of the Order of St John of Jerusalem in the East. There he would have performed military and/or caravan service in addition to his religious duties in the Convent. After several years of such service he might become a commander in his native land, or, if he remained in the East, after - - fifteen years of service in the Order at least ten of them at the Convent he might become one of the five capitular bailiffs of the Convent or a prior in his native land.28 Such being the usual course of events we can only assume that Brother Joseph had been born by 1213 at the latest, had joined theHospitallers - inEngland before 1233 inwhat seems to be the period of the greatest expansion - of the English Order29 and was sent out to Acre by 1233 or I23& at the latest in order to complete his fifteen years of service to the Order before he was appointed treasurer (and thus a capitular bailiff) in or by 1248. He held the office of (international) treasurer of theOrder for some twenty-five years, until about 1271, before he was sent to England by the Order to be its grand prior there, in 1273.30 Various documents in the monumental cartulary of the Order, edited by Delaville LeRoulx, refer to Brother Joseph's activities in Acre during the 1250s and 1260s.31 Relatively few of them, however, which name brothers of theAcre Convent as witnesses in these years, mention Brother Joseph, for some unknown reason. We do glimpse Brother Joseph as a person in a letter he sent in 1252 to the English Dominican, Walter of St Martin, who apparently asked to be informed of developments in the Holy Land after he had left it. In this letter,Brother Joseph reports toWalter about the peace concluded between Louis IX of France and the sultan of Egypt, and notes that the Turcomans had devastated the territories of Crac des Chevaliers and ofTripoli.32 This was a time of unsuccessful military endeavours by the Christians in theHoly Land: Jerusalem had fallen in 1244, and thousands of Christians had been killed, while many of

192 A Hospitaller and the Jews

the Templars and Hospitallers fell at the battle of Gaza shortly thereafter. The downhill slide of the Christian kingdom continued: the Hospitaller fortress at Ashkelon was lost in 1247; there was a crushing defeat in 1250 atMansurah in Egypt which few knights survived; in 1266 theTemplars' supposedly impregnable fortress of Safed was lost; in 1268 Jaffa, Beaufort and Antioch fell; the great fortress of Crac des Chevaliers was surrendered by theHospitallers in 1271; the Hospitaller fortress ofMargat (Marqab) surrendered in 1285 and Tripoli in 1289. The final disaster for the Hospitallers and the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the loss of Acre in 1291.33 Itmay be thatBrother Joseph did not live until this disaster of 1291, or that he did not survive it by many years. It is clear from the 1252 letterwritten by Brother Joseph, and from other letters he sent to Edward I following his return to Acre after 1280, that he was deeply concerned about the Christian cause in the Holy Land.34 He could not have avoided being aware of the series of disasters that befell the Christian kingdom - in themid-13th century not least because theHospitallers, Templars and other Christian lords preferred jockeying for position to working together for their common cause. From the vantage point of his long service in the Holy Land, Brother Joseph saw hundreds of his fellow Hospitallers and thousands of Chris? tians slaughtered, and the proud fortresses of the crusader realm fall one by one until almost nothing was left. In one poignant letter of the early 1280s Brother Joseph told Edward I 'that never in our remembrance was theHoly Land in such poor estate as it is at this day', because of drought, disease, the paynim (payenine, 'pagans') and the lack of provisions from abroad. He added that 'theHoly Land . was never so easy of conquest as now, with able generals and store of food. ,'.35 The Holy Land, however, would not have been easy to hold after such a conquest, because of itswrecked fortresses.36 But the pleas of Brother Joseph, and those of the grand-master of theHospital, formen and materiel to facilitate the reconquest of the Holy Land were never responded to by Edward or anyone else, nor did Edward himself ever return to the East despite his hope of doing so and his repeated crusading vow. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Lord Edward's crusade of 1270 had been crucial for future developments. Itwas during this crusade that Edward met men of similar mind. Edward seems to have met one of them in connection with the loans he received while in Acre, at least some of which were guaranteed by the - Hospital whose long-term treasurer inAcre was Brother Joseph de Chauncy.37 (Further evidence of theirmeeting there is provided by PRO C 62/51, rot. 4, an issue roll of 1274-5, which records that ?233 6s 8d of a loan made to theLord Edward inAcre by Brother Joseph was to be repaid.) Another fellow crusader of Edward's was Payn of Chaworth, an intimate of both Henry III and Edward I; he was associated with Brother Joseph in assessing the tallage of 1274 on the Jews.38 A third such crusader in the Holy Land in 1270 was the archdeacon of Liege, Tedaldo Visconti, the future Pope Gregory X (elected 1271, died 1276), all

193 Zefira Entin Rokeah

ofwhose effortswere directed to furthering the crusading cause. Itwas Gregory X who finally persuaded the English clergy to grant a tenth for crusading expenses, - and who called the second Council of Lyons in 1274 whose main goals were promoting the crusading cause (unsuccessfully), and bringing about a 'short-lived union of the churches' of East and West.39 It is probable, ifnot certain, that Edward would have given Brother Joseph, as a crusader with a similar cast of mind to his own, oral or written orders about how he was to act on taking up office as royal treasurer of England (which he did on 2 October 127340); the two are known to have corresponded when apart, and it is very likely that any additional directions Edward wished to pass on to him would have reached Brother Joseph in the form of letters or oral messages entrusted to the various churchmen and laymen known to have acted as 'informal bearers of news'.41 That the two had at least one more meeting near the beginning of the reign is clear: Stephen de Pencestre, the keeper of Dover Castle, shows in his expenses for 1272-4 that ?9 18s 4d was spent 'for the passage of Brother Joseph de Cancy, king's treasurer, in coming from the king, then overseas, to England, as well as for the passage of Robert Burnell, who had travelled to the king and returned from seeing him'.42 Brother Joseph was certainly acting on - Edward's behalf as early as May of 1273 when he seems to have been on his way to England from the Holy Land. He was lentmore than ?1000 by Luke de Lucca, the Italian merchant so deeply involved in Edward's financial affairs, at theMay fair of St Ayoul held in the town of Provins (now in the department of Seine-et-Marne), so that he might 'expedite the king's business' there. (Fairs served then for the receipt and payment of money owed, as well as for trading in - goods.) He also seems to have been about Edward's business at another place - 'Myli' or 'Mily' in the records possibly Myli inGreece, through which he may have passed on his way to England in 1273. However, itmay equally have been while he was abroad in 1274; the issue roll records an order of 5 November 1275 for the repayment of ?576 us 5d that Brother Joseph had lent in order to 'expedite our [the king's] difficult business' atMyli (ad ardua negocia nostra inde expedienda). Pope Gregory X failed to persuade Edward I to attend the Council of Lyons in 1274 in person, but many Englishmen did appear there.43 InMarch - 1274 the prior of the order of St John of Jerusalem in England Brother Joseph - de Chauncy was granted letters of protection until the end of September 1274 as he was going overseas.44 It seems reasonable to suppose that he was on his way to Lyons for the well-attended Church council that ran from 7 May to 17 - - July 1274. Brother Joseph if he did indeed attend it left early, for we find him acknowledging the receipt of 8000 marks of the papal tenth on 18 July 1274.45 He may have fitted in a brief visit to Edward I, still on his travels in France, on his way to or from the council, in order to report to him about the actions he had taken since entering office; the expenditure reported by Stephen de Pencestre may have been made in this context.

194 A Hospitaller and the Jews

We cannot know who was directly responsible for the various anti-Jewishmeas? - ures taken in England in the 1270s the king himself, his clerks, or his closest associates (ranging from his mother, Eleanor of Provence, and his wife, Eleanor of Castile, to fellow crusaders such as Otto de Grandison, and long-term intimates such as Robert Burnell). We cannot assign specific responsibility to this or that person for the anti-Jewish measures of 1269-71 that forbade fee-rents and the sale of Jewish debts to Christians without royal permission; for the 'great tallage' of 1274; for the Statute of Jewry of 1275 that forbade Jewish usury; or for the viciously anti-Jewish coinage trials of 1278-9 that resulted in the execution of at least 269 Jews (and only 29 Christians) on trumped-up charges of coin-clipping - and counterfeiting of which only a few of those hanged may have been guilty. There is no evidence of Brother Joseph's direct involvement in these anti-Jewish measures, other than what we have noted above; only an assumption that, as one of the inner, royal circle holding opinions similar to Edward's own about the need to purify Christian society, he was probably their enthusiastic supporter. Brother - Joseph was not in England for the last,most drastic step of all the expulsion of - 1290 but he was certainly that expulsion's supporter in spirit, a spirit reflected in the harsh measures with which English Jews were threatened in the twomemor? anda roll entries with which we began this study. One last glimpse of Brother Joseph is provided for us on the eve of his return to the Holy Land. Early in 1280 he impleaded a London wine-broker who had brought about the cancellation of an order for two kegs of wine for Brother Joseph's benefit. The broker had insulted Brother Joseph's servant, saying that . . . 'neither he nor his master with the long beard should drink any of thatwine'.46 Brother Joseph and the wine-broker were reconciled in the end, but we do not know whether Joseph ever drank his wine, shown in themargins of the exchequer of pleas roll as flowing from two kegs tipped onto their sides into a large goblet.47

NOTES

i I have prepared a collection of such entries Jerusalem, 1258-1277 (Chichester 1994); and in the memoranda rolls of 1266-93, the other relevant material. The Crown Copyright twenty-seven regnal years before and just after materials in the Public Record Office, London the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, (hereafter, PRO), referred to or quoted in this under the auspices of the Israel Academy of paper are presented by kind permission of the Sciences and Humanities. May I express my Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. thanks to the Academy for sponsoring this Abbreviations used in the notes for PRO project. Thanks are also due to the staff of the records include the following: Public Record Office (Chancery Lane) and toMs C 47 Chancery miscellanea Pamela Willis, curator of the library at St John's C 62 Liberate/issue rolls of the chancery Gate, Clerkenwell, London, who allowed me to E 101 Exchequer, accounts various consult H. W. Fincham's manuscript 'Notes on E 159 King's Remembrancer's memo the Grand Priors of the Order of the Hospital of randa rolls St John of Jerusalem in England', dating from E352 Chancellor's rolls 1902 and thereafter; Cecil Humphery-Smith, E368 Lord Treasurer's RememR Hugh Revel:Master of theHospital ofSt John of brancer's memoranda rolls

195 Zefira Entin Rokeah

E 372 Pipe rolls case letter q with a long descender. The same E 401 Receipt rolls of the exchequer elongated q sign appears alongside the second E 403 Liberate/issue rolls of the entry of the pair. The manuscript of E 159, which exchequer has many such marginal markings, also has many H, M, P, T Hilary term, Michaelmas term, erasures, insertions and cases of inexact mar Easter term, and Trinity term, gination, which suggest that the scribe(s) involved respectively may have been inexperienced. SC Ancient correspondence 6 The manuscript has Herefordshire instead of - 2 Brother Joseph de Chauncy (Cancy/ the correct Hertfordshire. Certain counties such - Kauncy), prior of theHospital of St John of Jeru? as Essex and Hertfordshire were customarily salem in England, was the treasurer of England paired under one sheriff. from 1273 to 1280; see Handbook ofBritish Chro? 7 An effaced letter precedes both Worcester? nology (3rd ed. 1986) 104. See also ns 24 and 30 shire and Cornwall in the manuscript. below. 8 Why centres of Jewish settlement such as 3 The archae were the official chests inwhich Oxford and London are omitted from this list is documents recording debts to the Jews were kept unclear; itmay be due to a clerical oversight. It in various towns and cities. The two entries we was normal practice to record only one writ in will consider appear in the king's remembrancer's full of many similar ones, and then to list the memoranda roll, E 159/48; they seem to be other shires to which the latter had been sent. absent from the parallel lord treasurer's remem? The Calendar of theClose Rolls (hereafter, CCloseR) - brancer's memoranda roll, E 368/47. Both rolls 1273, 62-3, has two lists apparently dating from - cover the period fromM 1273 to T 1274. Paul December of 1273 of sheriffs, mayors and the Brand has suggested (in a private communication heads of various religious houses, to be sent writs used here by permission) that the towns referred in connection with the collection of (an unspeci? tomay have been those where there was an archa, fied and possibly Jewish) tallage in twenty-two rather than the principal towns of the various cities. The cities listed there (which include shires. See Appendix I for the Latin text of these Oxford and London) correspond almost exactly entries. with the cities in which archae of the Jews are 4 Cecil Roth, A History of theJews in England known to have existed in this period; see H. G. (3rd ed. Oxford 1964) 68. Henry III died on 16 Richardson (see n. 4) 14-19, and the map of J. November 1272; his son Edward I returned to Hillaby, 'Hereford Gold: Irish, Welsh and . . . England from his crusading ventures only in English Land Part I', Trans of theWoolhope August 1274. On the 'severe methods' used in Naturalists' Field Club XLIV (1984) III: 360. It is 13th-century England to extort money from tempting to think that these close roll lists may unwilling Jews, such as imprisonment, hanging, indeed relate to the Jewish tallage imposed in the threat of expulsion, torture and the loss of or just after December 1273, although another teeth or eyes, see Salo W. Baron, A Social and imposition may have been meant. In any case, Religious History of the Jews, X (New York, payment was ordered for the assessing of the tall? London, Philadelphia 1965) 94-5, 345 n. 48; XII age; see Appendix II. (1967) 232-3, 356-7 n. 44. Such methods seem 9 The Jewish community had fined with to have been in use in England in the earlier part Henry III inMay 1269 for ?1000, in order to be - of the 13th century. In the last years of Henry free of tallage for the next three years unless Ill's reign, however, imprisonment rather than a tallage proved necessary for Henry's proposed torture seems to have been a preferred sanction crusade; see Close Rolls 1269, 53-4, and E 159/ against Jews who did not pay what they had prom? 43, rot. i2r (1268-9). A tallage seems to have ised on time or who were reluctant to bind them? been imposed three years later, as references selves to pay by a reasonable date; see Roth, His? were made to the 'present tallage' in June-July tory (see above) 67; H. G. Richardson, The English 1272; Henry III granted Edward ?1000 of its Jewry under Angevin Kings (London i960) 214. proceeds, to be raised from a dozen Jews (see 5 The margin of the first entry has 9 dots Close Rolls 1272, 493, 498-9). Edward's crusade arranged in three rows of three dots each, in loz? has received detailed attention recently from enge form. Paul Brand suggests that the nine dots Simon Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade, 'were of a significantly later date than the entry 1216-130J (Oxford 1988) chap. 4, pp. 113-54. (perhaps of 16th- or 17th-century date) and may Lloyd indicates (144) that 'the precise cost of indicate a later antiquarian interest in the entry'. Edward's crusade cannot be computed, but itwas The first entry also has a sign similar to a lower clearly considerable and placed a severe strain

196 A Hospitaller and the Jews

upon royal finances for some years'. (See his p. York', Trans JHSE XXVI (1979) 49 n. 16, that 145 and n. 151, and p. 146 n. 153, for biblio? the 'lists of Jewish tallages imposed by Henry III . . . graphy about the financing of the crusade.) printed by Roth, History of theJews, p. 273, Michael Prestwich says that 'the total cost [of and P. Elman, 'The Economic Causes of the Edward's 1270 crusade] may well have Expulsion of the Jews in 1290', Economic History . . ? . . approached ?100,000 .' (his Edward I [London Review, ist series, vii (1937) 153-4; still await 1988] 79-81 gives details of the sums involved., detailed correlation with the original tallage including some loans Edward incurred after accounts in PRO, E. 101/249 an^ E.401 passim'. reaching Acre). In addition to funds from the Roth based his list on Elman, and on Hilary Jenk English 'twentieth of 1269-70, the fifteenth of inson, 'The Records of Exchequer Receipts from . . . 1275, the clerical biennial tenth of 1273, and the English Jewry', Trans JHSE Mill (1918) 32 moneys from the Holy Land subs.dy' (Lloyd, 7, which lists income from the Jewry into the 145), Edward borrowed about ?17,500 from the 1290s. (Jenkinson's list in 'Medieval Sources for . . French king, Louis IX, in 1269, as w ;11as smaller Anglo-Jewish History .' Trans JHSE XVIII sums from the Hospital of St John )f Jerusalem (1958) 291-3 gives current PRO call numbers in Acre and Paris, from the Temp e, and from for these records, but is otherwise similar to his merchants of Narbonne, Pisa and Venice. He earlier one.) Dr Robin Mundill examined these borrowed much larger sums from a variety of Ital? records recently, in his 1987 dissertation ian merchants. English Jews owed 6000 marks (University of St Andrews), 'The Jews of England granted at their expense to Edward by Henry III 1272-1290', 56-78, 101-4 (notes), along the for the crusade, some 4000 marks of which had lines suggested by Dobson; see n. 15 below. For been paid by the Jews by mid-1271 (the balance the earlier period, see Robert C. Stacey's Politics, of 2000 marks was advanced by Richard of Policy, and Finance under Henry III, 1216-1245 Cornwall who was to recoup this amount from the (Oxford 1987); his 'Royal Taxation and the Jewry); see Calendar of thePatent Rolls (hereafter, Social Structure ofMedieval Anglo-Jewry: The CPR) 1271, 545-6; CPR 1272, 671; Prestwich Tallages of 1239-1242', Hebrew Union College 72, 80-1; Lloyd 144-5. Annual LVI (1985) 175-249, esp. 176 and its 10 For Edward's return journey, see ns 3, 4, 5; and his '1240-1260: A Watershed in Prestwich (see n. 9) 82-5. E 403/1230, m. 2 (P Anglo-Jewish Relations?' Historical Research LXI, 1273) notes the payment ordered of 35 marks for no. 145 (June 1988) 135-50. Its pp. 136-7 pre? the expenses of the clerk sent to Lines, Yorks, sent an emended list of tallages imposed on Durham, Carlisle, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, English Jews between 1186 and 1260 (without in order to 'promulgate' the papal sentence indicating the evidence used in its compilation). imposed on Guy de Montfort. The order is dated Paul Brand has promised a revised list of tallages 2 August 1273. for the 1260S-90S in his introduction to the 11 Edward's uncle, Richard of Cornwall, was JHSE's expected sixth volume of the Calendar of appointed guardian of the children; he was to act thePlea Rolls of theExchequer of theJews (hereafter, together with Walter Giffard (the archbishop of CalJExch). In the interim, see Appendix II below York), Philip Basset, Roger Mortimer and Robert for some of the manuscript records related to Burnell to watch over Edward's interests in Eng? Jewish tallages of the early 1270s. land and Ireland during the crusade. F. M. Pow 15 See Richardson, The English Jewry (see n. icke indicates that these men were the 'most 4) 215 and n. 6. Mundill (see n. 14) 59 and 70 . . . powerful element in council and parliament' in has noted that 'Between "tallage assessed" the last years of Henry III; see his King Henry III and "tallage collected" there is a whole range of and theLord Edward (Oxford 1950 [1947]) II: 583 intricate dealings, mystery, and unanswered n. 1, 586. Giffard, Mortimer and Burnell acted questions'. Tallage payments were not always as Edward's 'caretaker government' after Henry specified as being such, appeared in a variety of III died, and were instrumental in the smooth records, and were hidden on occasion in lump transition from one reign to the next (ibid., 586, payments or in transfers of debt bonds from Jews 589, 593) to the Crown. Powicke, King Henry III (see n. 11) 12 See Prestwich (see n. 9) 80. I: 311 and n. 1 comments on the difficulty of 13 The adjectives are those of Simon Lloyd, compiling 'an exact total of the exactions' from .... English Society (see n. 9) 147 and n. 163. See n. the Jews 'The difficulty is to separate the 9 for the crusade's financing. various payments from each other. Thus the 14 R. B. Dobson noted in 1979, in 'The "great tallage" of 1245 was spread over several Decline and Expulsion of theMedieval Jews of years, and is sometimes referred to in terms of

197 Zefira Entin Rokeah

indicates that the 'amounts recorded' in the the payment due in a particular year or half-year. and rolls 'were not A "tallage of 10,000 marks" may simply be the Jewish receipt (E 401/1568-1571) total of the collected' The ward? annual payment of the great tallage of 60,000, the tallage (69). and must not be counted over again [when one robeaccount of Philip de Wylughby [Willoughby] for November October compiles a list of Jewish tallages imposed].' (For 4 1272-18 1274 reports on the of of a fromMaster Robert Stacey's careful work the tallages of receipt ?66 13s 4d 'gift' Menahem son ofMaster the 1240s and 1250s, see now the studies noted Elias of London (Elijah as well as of od received from above in n. 14.) Mundill suggests that the pay? Moses), ?468 5s Fuleburn of 'the last ments received at the New Temple in 1274 Brother Stephen de Jewish to this seems to be in addition to the (recorded in PRO E 101/249/16), amounting tallage'; a of the rolls and ?1434 6s 7d, were of Jewish tallage preceding roughly ?5300 Jewish receipt the various accounts noted Mundill the so-called 'great tallage' (62-3), and that exchequer by for Tower account for latter, the most fully documented of (late) 13th (above) 1272-8. (The December adds a further century tallages, is recorded in a variety of lists 1276-April 1278 ?1590 mark assessed on the and memoranda (Mundill 64 and n. 46 on 102 paid, of the 3000 tallage in the fifth of the 3, referring to Jewish receipt rolls, E 401/1568 English Jewry year reign, 1276 It should be remembered that other 1571; and to exchequer accounts, various, E 101/ 7.) many pay? ments recorded in and 249/18-22). He notes (75) that between 1272 general Jewish receipt rolls of the also be related to and 1278 'the Jews of England had paid at least period may tallage of even this fact is not noted ?5301 -8s-8 i/2d into Edward's coffers' (out payments due, though in the relevant entries. the ?18,000 asked for). Powicke is right in saying one Mundill n. table that it is difficult to distinguish arrears of 16 See (see 14) 7: 'Tallage received under Edward tallage from payments towards another. Some payments ist', facing p. to of E m. notes thatMaster Thomas receipts of the 1270s clearly belong tallages 77. 403/1235, 2, of the was to be Henry Ill's reign; see, for example, the payments Bek', keeper king's wardrobe, mark a total of marks for the of the specifically designated as being for the 5000 paid 294 expenses E household that the were tallage (imposed c. 1272) in the M 1273 roll, king's provided money or mm. out of from the 401/68, mm. 3, 11, 12, 13; E 401/70, 4, paid money 'coming Jewry'. (The mm- 11 two orders date from October 7, 11 (P 1273); E 4OI/7T> 4> 8, (P 1274); 24 1274.) 12 n. 68. and E 401/73, mm. 4, (M 1274). E 401/74, 17 Roth, History (see 4) CPR For the forced m. 4, has one entry, underlined for cancellation 18 See 1274, 42-3. 'never to ordered in Nov? and marked 'because [it is] of tallage'. (This may abjuration, return', ember for those who failed to see herald a proposed, but apparendy abandoned, 1274 Jews pay, its change in practice: recording entries about Jewish 62-3. n. tallage only on the Jewish receipt rolls.) E 401/ 19 (Above, 4) 214-15. mar 20 Paul Brand comments that 'I think it 75, m. 4 (P 1275), has a Lincolnshire entry likely to which that are to connect the order with the ginated 'Jewish tallage', but fails specify you right a but also of the context tallage is meant. E 401/76 recto, three "great tallage" part (and an if less for columned roll of particulars (M 1275), has pay? alternative, plausible, explanation the lies in a tradition of con? ments specifically noted as being 'of tallage', by order) pre-existing trols over residence in These two (named) Jews ofWiltshire, but without speci? Jewish England. go back to at least .. . .' He notes the clause fying which tallage is intended. E 401/77 (M 1239 inLiber de that each 1275), m. 6, has a Lincolnshire entrymarginated Antiquis Legibus 237-8 stating same son of was to with his for 'Jewish tallage' about the Jew, Leo Jew remain, together family, m. but - thewhole in the he was onMichaelmas Benjamin, who appears in E 401/75, 4, year place - unless he received like it fails to specify which tallage is meant. (29 September) special royal are no to do otherwise. Dr Brand thinks Thereafter, until M 1276 at least, there authorization such notations that payments were made in con? that the 1253 provision (Close Rolls, 1251-3, 312 that were not to be received in town nection with (Jewish) tallage. 13) Jews any those where were wont to I think that the 1274 New Temple payments, other than Jews dwell, still have and at least some of those assigned by scholars unless by special royal licence, might to the been in and that 'it alone to other, later tallages, should be assigned force, might provide sent his reason for the order'. This would 'great tallage' imposed after de Chauncy good 1273 more if 1 had not been orders in December of 1273. Mundill himself seem likely April specified of forced residence in notes that orders were issued in 1278 for the as the end of the period If aim of the orders were to collection of arrears of the great tallage of 1274, these orders. the

198 A Hospitaller and the Jews

force Jews to return to the approved places of Joseph de Chauncy in the Dictionary ofNational residence, most of which were in the archa towns Biography; there will be one in the forthcoming in any case, there would not be much point to New DNB. allowing them to leave in April (unless one posits Paul Brand suggests that one should not 'take an intention to collect further sums from Jews overseriously what sounds more like an empty, if wishing to live outside the usual places). But this rather unpleasant, threat. There is certainly no could be done with ease by the sheriffs without evidence of any such unpleasantness actually there being any need to corral Jews who lived being carried into effect in 1273-74.' The Jews inside these recognized places of residence of England in the 1270s, however, might not have together with those who did not. been as sure of this as we can be today, looking 21 For the customary scrutiny, see Mundill back at the extant records. (see n. 14) 59 and 101-2 n. 20, and Stacey, 25 See 'The Financial and Administrative 'Royal Taxation' (see n. 14) 182 and n. 35. Some Importance of the London Temple in the Thir? later (1270s) scrutiny records are printed in Cal teenth Century', Essays inMedieval History pre? JExch IV: 13fr. See Appendix II below for other sented to Thomas Frederick Tout, eds A. G. Little relevant records. and F. M. Powicke (Manchester 1925) 148. 22 For example, Lumbard and Isaac of Bris? There may be a reflection of Brother Joseph's tol, ordered to be imprisoned in 1238 until they attitude towards regalian and ecclesiastical rights paid their shares of tallage and provided security and privileges in an entry in a 1274 memoranda that theywould not flee the kingdom; see Michael roll, which stresses that among the things that Adler, Jews ofMedieval England (London 1939) adorn the royal dignity is the king's right of long 211. See also Stacey, 'Royal Taxation' (see n. standing to collect money owed him from both 14) 179-80 for the suggestion that the 'punitive' secular and ecclesiastic individuals (or their tallage of one-third imposed on the Jews in 1239, executors). However, at the end of this long writ which may have been 'provoked by some real or sent to an official of the archbishopric of Canter? imagined criminal charge of which the entire bury, in Brother Joseph's name, it is noted that Jewish community was held to be guilty, and for he and the barons of the exchequer do not intend which theywere therefore liable to forfeit all their to infringe, violate, diminish or otherwise disturb property to the king', was seen as a 'relief or the liberty of the Church nor to oppose canon redemption of Jewish 'bonds and possessions law (E 159/49, rot. 4r). Paul Brand indicates that from royal confiscation by paying the king a com? these phrases 'sound like commonplaces of later munal relief amounting to a third of their value' thirteenth-century government, and [are] much as well as queen's gold (an additional 10 per cent more likely to be the work of a competent clerk of the fine). For the imprisonment of Jews in or at most one of the barons of the exchequer 1240 for nonpayment of the Third, see ibid. 183? than of Chauncy himself. This is probably so, - 4; for the imprisonment of Jewish 'hostages' for, but I think that this writ sent in his name and - apparently, the appropriate implementation of most probably at his direction does indicate that 'the earliest administrative stages' of a new tax in both royal and ecclesiastical interests were dear 1241, see ibid. 193. to Chauncy's heart. 23 See n. 4 above. See also Vivian D. Lipman, 26 See Richard H. Bowers, 'From Rolls to The Jews ofMedieval Norwich (London 1967) 104, Riches: King's Clerks and Moneylending in for the coercive imprisonment of, and extreme 13th-century England', Speculum 58 (1983) 60 extortion of money from, Isaac (son of Jurnet) of 71, which notes the rapid increase 'in number Norwich, as well as the hanging of his contem? and importance' of king's clerks in the 13th cen? porary, Isaac of Canterbury, in connection with tury, most of them in minor orders, and the ... the Bristol tallage of 1210. Adler, Jews ofMedieval 'extraordinary profits inmoney and in titles to England (see n. 22) 201-3 casts doubt on the story lands encumbered with debt' that moneylending of the 'violent dentistry' attributed to King John brought them in an age of very limited 'sources in this connection. Torture may also have been of credit'. His table (65) shows the great growth used in order to force a detailed 'confession' from in the number of recognizances of debt to royal a Jew about the well-known alleged ritual murder clerks in the late 1270s and 1280s. See also his p. of 1255 in Lincoln. 67 formoneylending 'on a grand scale' by Robert 24 For the dates, see J. Delaville LeRoulx, Les Burnell, Edward I's chancellor and dear friend. Hospitallers en Terre Sainte et ? Chypre (1100 For typical loans made by Brother Joseph de ijio) (Paris 1904) 427; CCloseR 1273, 32; CPR Chauncy, see, e.g., E 159/49, rot. 25d (P 1275; 1280, 381-2. There is no entry for Brother 30 marks owed); E 159/52, rot. nd (M 1278;

199 Zefira Entin Rokeah

m. noted that 20 marks owed); E 159/53, rot. i6r (P 1280; ?25 (see E 159/54, 28a!). It should be owed); there are many more such debts in the the latter writ is dated after Brother Joseph had rolls. left the office of treasurer. 27 See [William B. Sanders,] 'A Crusader's 28 [Colonel Edwin J. King,] The Rule, Statutes Letter from "The Holy Land". [1281.]' (London: and Customs of the Hospitallers iogg-ijio de Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society, V, 1896) 5-6; (London 1981 [1934]) 147-9- Joseph . . . a at see also Liber Feodorum: The Book of Fees Chauncy was not, apparently, student Oxford to am (Nendeln, Liechtenstein 1971 [London 1931] III or Cambridge before going the East; I to (Index): 138, s. v. Chauncy. See I. J. Sanders, indebted Professor Amnon Linder of Jerusa? seems English Baronies (Oxford i960) 78-9, for the des? lem for this information. It he acquired to act as cent of the Skirpenbeck barony. Joseph, a fairly the expertise which enabled him the treasurer within unusual name in 13th-century English records, Order's long-term, competent does not seem to have been one of the usual de the Order itself. of of Chauncy family names. The saints' days con? Helena Chew, 'The Priory St John Jerus? in A nected with the Virgin Mary's husband and with alem, ClerkenwelP, Victoria County History: Joseph of Arimathaea seem to have been History of the County ofMiddlesex, eds J. S. observed only many years after Brother Joseph's Cockburn, H. P. F. King and K. G. T. McDon? notes was birth, so that it is unlikely that he was born on a nell, I (1969): 194, that 'The principle St Joseph's day. Humphery-Smith, Hugh Revel early asserted that priors and commanders should in (see n. 1) 61-5, suggests that Revel was himself normally be natives of the country which their were but adds n. that of English origin, and that the Hugh de Chauncy houses situated', (194 23) a of Northamptonshire in Edward I's service in 'As late as 1235 German, Thierry de Nussa, 1277 may have been Revel's nephew. Humphery was appointed prior'. Chew also notes (195) that seem to Smith also indicates (56) that Brother Joseph de 'In general, the English knights have the rather Chauncy came from the same district as Revel been recruited from country gentry, and that Revel was, in trying to 'reorder the dis? than from the aristocracy'. Car? cipline and financial support of the order, greatly 29 See Michael Gervers, The Hospitaller . . aided by his kinsman, Joseph de Chauncy .', tulary! in theBritish Library (CottonMS Nero E VI) on but he gives no reference concerning either point. (Toronto 1981) 3; he suggests, the basis of Sir Henry Chauncy's The Historical Antiquities the Essex Hospitaller cartulary, that the Order's ... was about 1200 of Hertfordshire I (Bishops Stortford and growth in England greatest from much London 1826 [1700]): in, suggests that the 50, somewhat less in 1250-1300, and less or so. family name derived from 'Chauncy near Amiens after 1300 Gervers indicates (4-5) that the in France, [and] came into England with William order rarely worked its lands in Essex, 'so few . . so . . the Conqueror .' and his followers; the eldest were itsmembers and scattered the lands .'. son of Chauncy de Chauncy 'purchas'd the He adds that little documentary evidence for the - Mannor of Scirpenbeck in the County of York, English Order has survived in part because of . . of Odo Balistarius, a great Norman .'. No one the burning of the Clerkenwell priory in the Peas? named Joseph appears in the family tree he pro? ants' Revolt of 1381 (n. 1). a . . . n. vides (120). E 368/52, rot. i9d, has writ of 30 LeRoulx, Les Hospitallers (see 24) Easter term 1279 telling the sheriff of Lin? 412; his Cartulaire Generale de VOrdre des Hos? colnshire to distrain William de Cauncy, son and pitallers de S. Jean de Jerusalem (noo-ijio) (Paris no. heir to Philip de Cauncy, and have him on the 1897, x899) IE 673-5, 2482 (7 August 1248), no. octave of the Nativity of St John (1 July 1279) to and III: 259-60, 3433 (20 October 1271) last documents to pay the king the relief he owed for the lands and includes the first and referring as treasurer tenements he held in chief of the king by barony. Brother Joseph of the Order. He or (The order was based on the pipe roll of 1263-4.) may, of course, have acted before after these n. William was granted respite until 30 September dates. Humphery-Smith, Hugh Revel (see 1) 1279. The writ was issued by the treasurer, 102-3 n- 44 Quotes Porter's 1858 History of the to in Brother Joseph de Chauncy; it may reflect Knights ofMalta (II: 314) the effect that, forMatthew Brother Joseph's desire to help a relative. A less 1237, 'a body of three hundred [sic, see Chronica Rolls sympathetic writ issued on 9 December 1280 said Paris's 'thirty', triginta; majora, that since William de Chauncy (apparently Phil? Series, III: 406] Knights headed by the Prior, ...... ip's father) owed the king various debts at his Theodoric de Nussa, left Clerkenwell death, his lands and tenements were to be seized accompanied by a considerable body of armed and their income answered for at the exchequer stipendaries' and nobles for the Holy Land in

200 A Hospitaller and the Jews

order to fill the 'diminished ranks' of theHospital E 159/50, rot. id (M 1275); and in the barely there. It is not impossible that Brother Joseph legible SC 1/13/42. . . . was one of the party. Edwin J. King suggested in 39 See Lloyd, English Society (see n. 9) The Knights Hospitallers in theHoly Land (London 146, and Mayer (see n. 33) 270-1. 1931) 277, 284, that Chauncy 'returned again to 40 See CCloseR 1273, 32. . . . the East' in 1280 'to resume his old office [of 41 See Lloyd, English Society (see n. 9) 36, treasurer] in the Convent', but offers no evidence 251 once that, he had arrived in Acre (by September 42 For the ?9 18s 4d, see E 352/67, rot. 3r; 1281), he did indeed resume that office. Before E 372/118, rot. i8r (both of 1273/4); and the Brother Joseph left England he had the 'prior's allocate order of 1274-5 in C 62/51, m. nr. See .. . chapel' built at Clerkenwell; see Helena Chew Lloyd, English Society (see n. 9) 37 and n. (see n. 28) 198. I3?> 233 and n. 150. See also Councils and Synods 31 See, for example, Cart. Generale (see n. 30) with Other Documents Relating to the English II: 749-50, no. 2661 (1253, naming him as de Church, II: 1205-1307, eds. F. M. Powicke and Cauci)\ 772-3, no. 2714 (1255); 886-8, no. 2949 C. R. Cheney (Oxford 1964), pt. II: 811-14, for (1260); III: 60-1, no. 3047 (1263 X 1269); 195 instructions to those attending the council. The 6, no. 3334 (1269). Hospital's grand master, Hugh Revel, may have 32 Cart. Generale (see n. 30) II: 726-7, no. attended the Council of Lyons in 1274; see 2605; M. Paris, Chron. maj. (see n. 30) VI: 205. Humphery-Smith, Hugh Revel (see n. 1) 56. ... Lloyd, English Society (see n. 9) 27 and n. However, L. Carolus-Barre, 'Essai de reconstitu 83; 249 (his Appendix I), shows thatWalter also tion d'une liste nominative des peres du IP con received two letters from the master of the Hos? cile de Lyon', 1274: Annee charniere: mutations et pital in 1251. Lloyd suggests that he may have continuities (Paris: CNRS 1977) 393, 403-4, 413 been involved in promoting the crusade in Eng? 416, who names 217 churchmen known to have - land, and may have received such letters in this attended the council of 1274 out of the 1024 - connection. possibly as many as 1224 'mitred' men 33 King, Knights Hospitallers (see n. 30) 232 (including abbots) who attended it, includes nei? 4; King, TheRule (see n. 28) 9; E[dwin]J. King, ther Revel's nor Chauncy's name; both are The Knights of St. John in the British Empire among the 800-1000 not specifically named in (London 1934) 28-38; Jonathan Riley-Smith, the records. (Carolus-Barre does note the pres? The Knights ofSt. John inJerusalem and Cyprus c. ence of the Acre Hospitaller, Master/Brother 1050-1310 (London and New York etc. 1967) William [?de Courcelles], who may have repres? 91. See also Hans E. Mayer, The Crusades (trans. ented Revel at the Council; see his 411 n. 216.) JohnGillingham) (Oxford 1972 [Stuttgart1965]) E 403/1233, m. ir includes payments to eleven 254-5, 266, 269-70, 273-4. named men going to the Council of Lyons from 34 For letters sent by de Chauncy and others England; Joseph de Chauncy is not among them. to English correspondents about the crusades, For Provins and 'Myli' respectively, see E 403/ ... see Lloyd, English Society (see n. 9) Appendix 23, m. ir, C 62/49, m. 3r, and CPR 1276, 132; I, 248-52. On the eve of his departure from Eng? and E 403/1238, m. ir, and C 62/51, m. 3r. land, Brother Joseph delivered four sets of letters Brother Joseph de Chauncy paid merchants of (of the king of France, the king of England, and Acre 2000 marks (?1,333 6s 8d) at Provins on the master of the Temple) at the wardrobe (see behalf of Edward I. C 47/3/21/49, of 2 June 1280). 43 See CPR 1274, 44. 35 See Cart. Generale (see n. 30) III: 424-8, 44 CPR 1274, 54. esp. 427, no. 3782; Sanders, 'Crusader's Letter' 45 An order for ?10 to be paid for horses, n. (see 27) 13. etc., taken for the king's use overseas, dated 23 - 36 See King, Knights Hospitallers (see n. 30) November 1273 i.e. before the return of Edward - 284. I to England refers to Robert Burnell, Brother 37 For the cost of the crusade, and loans Josep', and Master Ralph de Frenyngham, as related to it, see n. 9 above. We have noted a having been present when Edward I ordered that loan made by Brother Joseph to Edward I inAcre. payment to be made (C 62/50, m. 8r; 1273-4). .. . 38 See Lloyd, English Society (see n. 9) 46 H. Jenkinson and B. Formoy, eds. Select 120, 269. See also the references to the tallage Cases in the Exchequer of Pleas (London 1932; assessed on the Jews by Brother Joseph de Seiden SocietyXLVIII) 103. Chauncy and Payn de Cadurciis (Chaworth) in 47 In October 1277 and January 1278 various thememoranda rolls: E 368/48, rot. 3r (M 1274); sums (?11; ?6 1os 4zd) were repaid to Joseph de

201 Zefira Entin Rokeah

Chauncy for his expenses in moving the chaplain and nuncio) and Brother John de - exchequer's rolls and tallies, and the personnel Der(e)lington' in return for the 2000 marks the of the chamber (as well as paying the removals Hospitallers had borrowed from them in order to between see men), Westminster and Shropshire; expedite 'urgent business' of the king (dated 9 E 403/1240, m. ir; C 62/53, m. ir. June 1276). A m. liberate roll of 1280 (E 403/1243, 2r) E 352/65, m. 4od (1271-2) includes a special orders the to payment of ?65 16s 8d Brother entry, for the inclusion of which brother Joseph de sum was Joseph Chauncy. This included supposed to pay 6s 8d (see E 372/119, m. 1os to to ?52 od be paid the master of the Hos? 38r [1274-5], London-Middlesex account). It in Acre to cover arrears pital the of money he records that Richard de Thany had quitclaimed had on a tower spent building there at Edward and granted in perpetuity to Brother Joseph and Fs It 20 to request. also included marks be repaid the brothers of theHospital the 5 marks of yearly thatmaster in Acre for his loan tomaster Arnaldo rent from 'Parva Fetlinge' that he and his Lupy when the latter was in Acre on Edward's ancestors had been accustomed to receive each service. was Apparently Brother Joseph to make year from the treasurer of the Hospital at the payment on his return to the East, as the Clerkenwell. order . . . for payment is dated 8 June 1280. For addi? Sir Henry Chauncy, Historical Antiquities tional notices of see n. Brother Joseph, these rolls (see 27) 436, notes that Joseph de Chauncy, of 1275-6: C 62/52, m. 6r; and E 403/1239, prior of the Hospital, with the brothers' assent, m. ir, and C 62/52, m. 6r, which include: 1) granted in 1280 a messuage, a croft and three permission from Edward I to Brother Joseph to acres of land in Standon to the vicar of Standon, 2000 to go overseas; 2) marks be paid to Joseph, the grantee paying the Hospital 6s 8d for this. the and prior, the brothers of the Hospital for (No source is supplied by Sir Henry.) payment to master Raymond de Nogeriis (papal

Appendix I E 159/48, rot. 4r

Cantfebrigia] [et]Huntfedonia]p[roJ R[ege] Mandatum est eidem q[uo]d statim visis litt[er]is aliqua lib[er]tate no[n] obstante p[ro]clamar[i] fac[iat] in singul[is] Ciuit[ atibus] burg[is] et villfis] vbi aliqui Judei sint manentes in balli[u]a sua q[uo]d om[n]es et singuli Judei illi veniant ad villam Cantebr[igiam] ibimoraturi usque ad Pascha p[ro]ximo futur[um]. Et q[uo]d nullus Judeus de villa p[re]d[ic]ta neq[ue] de vill[is] forincecis a p[re]d[ic]ta villa Cant[ebrigia] recedat infra p[re]d[ic]t[u]m tempus sup[er] forisfacturam vite et membro[rum] et omniu[m] Cat[allorum] suo[rum] mobiliu[m] et immobiliu[m]. Et si aliquis Judeus post p[re]d[ic]tam p[ro]clamac[i]o[n]em fug[er]it uel se absentau [er] it a p[re]d[ic]ta villa Cantebr[igia]; tune ip[su]m capiat et in p[ri]sona Regfis] detineat et omnia bona et Cat[alla] sua mobilia et im[m]obilia in manu[m] R[egis] cap[iat] tan q[u]a[m] Cat [alia] R[egis] forisfacta et ea saluo custodfiat]; donee etc [Rex aliter inde preeeperit]. T[este] f[rat]re Joseph etc. ix. die Decfembris]. Eodem modo mand[atum] vic[ecomitibus] Kane', Suht', Sum[er]s', Dors', Notingh', Derbi, Essex', Heref', Surr' et Sussex', Warr' et Leye', Ebor', Salop' et Staff, Norff' et Suff, Norht', Bed', Buk', Wygorn',1 Cornub',2 Deuon'. Line' et3 Glouc'.4

202 A Hospitaller and the Jews

NOTES

1 A letter has been erased before Wygorn '. 4 About 4 cms is left blank before the next 2 A letter has been erased before Cornub'. entry, rather than the usual 7-1 omm. 3 et is interlined.

Appendix II Records about early 1270s tallages

6000 mark tallage of 1271-2?

E 401/68, m. or (M 1273) records two payments towards the 6000 mark tallage, as does E 401/70, m. 7r (P 1273). (Cf. Elman [see n. 14] 154, re the 6500 mark tallage ofMichaelmas 1271, based on CPR, 1266-72, 671; Foedera, I: 489.)

^000 mark tallage of 1272? E 401/68, mm. 3r, nr, i2r, i3r (M 1273) refers to the 5000 mark tallage four times, as does E 401/70, mm. 4r, nr; E 401/71, mm. 4r, 8r, and nr (P 1274), refers to this tallage six times, E 401/73, mm. 4r, i2r (M 1274) does so twice. (Cf. Elman's 5000 mark tallage, based on E 401/1567; CalJExch, III: 296.)

/ooo mark tallage of 1273? E 403/1230, m. id, and C 62/49, m. 4r (P 1273) include 5 marks to be paid for the expenses of Adam deWinton', sent 'recently' to examine the archae of Bristol, Exeter, Hereford, Worcester, Warwick and Gloucester, and to enroll the debts contained therein; the payment order, signed by the chancellor W[alter] de Merton', is dated 22 May 1273. m. 2r E 401/1231, m. ir; E 403/1232, m. ir; C 62/49, (1272-4) direct the payment of 50 marks for their expenses in office as justices of the Jews toHamon Hauteyn and Robert de Ludham, as well as for their scrutiny of the 'chests and coffers' (cistarum et cojfrorum)of our (the king's) Jews in England; the payment order is dated 3 August 1273. (^n C 62/49, dated 2 August, over an erasure.) remem? E 143/1/3, piece 4r (among the extents and inquisitions of the king's brancer, a class of documents towhich Kay Lacey drew my attention). This lists twentydebts to be brought by the Jewish and Christian chirographers ofHereford to the justices of the Jews on 6 October 1273. This order, of 2 August 1273, refers to the scrutiny of all the chattels in all the archae in the kingdom, ordered 'a short time ago' (dudum) by the (king's) council. It adds that the council later directed that there be a puramentum (clearing or liquidation of these debts), whereby some debts were given to the king, others taken into the king's hand, and yet others acquitted. (Cf. Elman, based on CalJExch II: 13, 19-21, etc. and on F. Devon, Issues of . . . theExchequer [London 1837] 81.)

203 Zefira Entin Rokeah

The great tallage of 1275/4? C 62/52, m. 8r (1275-6) notes thatJohn de Akle/Akele, son of Reginald de Acle (sic),was to receive credit in the account of Reginald's custody of the bishopric of Hereford for 22marks that Reginald had spent on carrying the tallage of the Jews of Gloucester from those parts to the New Temple, London, in year 2 (Edward I; 1273-4), unless he or his father had already received credit for this. (The order is of 7May [1276].) E 352/70, rot. 2r (1276-7): The wardrobe account of Philip de Wylughby for 4 November 1272-18 October 1274 reports the receipt of ?66 13s 4d of a 'gift' fromMaster Elias of London, as well as ?468 5 s od received from Brother Stephen de Fuleburn of 'the last Jewish tallage'. E 101/350/20, m. ir ('3rd roll of accounts'; receipts after 18 October 1273 by Master Thomas Bek', keeper of thewardrobe) notes the receipt of ?80 of 'money of the Jewry, by the hand of J. de Reda' (on 25 April 1274); of a further?14 of 'money of the Jewry' from the same J. (on 28 May 1274); and of ?93 6s 8d from Master Elias, Jew, of his tallage. E 352/68, rot. ir (1274-5), in the account for 1273-4 ofMaster Thomas Bek', keeper of the wardrobe, records the receipt of ?94 'of the tallage of the Jews at theNew Temple London, fromGarin [Warin/ Warren], treasurer of that place', and also the receipt of ?93 6s 8d fromMaster Elias, Jew of London, of his tallage. The two entries refer, obviously, to the same receipts (total, ?187 6s 8d) of this tallage. E 403/1235, m. 2r, and C 62/50, m. 2r (M 1274) note thatMaster Thomas Bek', keeper of the king's wardrobe, was to be paid a total of 294 marks for the expenses of the king's household, provided that themoney were paid out ofmoney 'coming in from the Jewry'. (The two orders involvedwere issued on 24 December 1274.) The same rolls and rotulets direct the payment of money to Brother Stephen de Fulburn, to cover the following expenses, among others: ?2 to a clerk who visited Colchester twice in order to assess the Jewish tallage there; 30s to a clerk who went toNorwich for the same tallage; 9s 3d to another clerk going to Sudbury for that purpose; and ?2 for a clerk going to Cambridge for the same reason. They also mention ?11 2s 9d for: three clerks staying in London about the said business (of the tallage) from 29 December 1273 to 3 August 1274, i.e., for thirty-oneweeks, at 3d each per day (total: ?8 2s 9d), and for three other clerks involved in the same at various times, the sum of ?3 (i.e., 20s each). They also authorized the expenditure of 4 marks for four robes for four clerks. (The order is dated 17 October 1274.) Another order there directs the payment of ?21 18s 4d to the chaplain, Nicholas de Hereford, 'of the arrears of our last tallage of the Jews'; he had paid ?10 to William de Middelton', keeper of the rolls of the Jewry, of his fee for 1272-3, granted to sustain him in that office; he had also paid the sum of ?5 13s 4d to six royal clerks going for the 'tallage of our Jews' to Bedford, Lincoln, Stamford,

204 A Hospitaller and the Jews

York, Warwick, Worcester, Gloucester, Hereford, Bristol and Oxford, in theweek beforeChristmas of 1273, and an additional ?4 for the said clerks' expenses in this connection. (This order, too, is dated 17 October 1274.) SC 1/13/42. This writ, sent by Edward I to Stephen [de Fuleburn], bishop of Waterford, William de Midelton', and Brother Luke de Hemington', informs them that the king wishes all business (negocia) connected with the tallage recently assessed by Joseph de Kaunci and Payn de Cadurciis (Chaworth) to be completed only before the justices of the Jews. They are to deliver all rolls, writs, and tallies they have without delay to those justices. E 403/1236, m. 2r (P 1275); also in C 62/51, m. 7r, directs that?4 19s od be paid toWilliam de Dereby and Nicholas de Kyngeston', sergeants in the Jewry, for their services in connection with the Jewish tallage assessed by Brother Joseph de Chauncy and Payn de Cadurciis (Chaworth), between 29 September 1274 and 23 May 1275. (The order is dated 28 May 1275.) C 62/51, m. 4r (1274-5) directs that the former sheriff of Oxfordshire Berkshire, Gilbert de Kyrkeby, was to be allowed credit in his account for 2 marks he spent on the carriage of money from the tallage last assessed on the Jews ofOxford from the town ofOxford to theNew Temple, London, for delivery to the king's treasurer there. (The order is of 23 October [1274].)

4000 mark tallage of 1274? (See Elman; based on CalJExch II: 126, and III: 66-8.)

Third of movables: 12,500 marks? of 1274-6 E 401/75, m. 4r (P 1275) records the payment, under a Lincoln rubric, from (i.e., for) Leo son of Benjamin, of 40s of the debt of Peter son of Geoffrey; the money was paid in by Andrew Arkerel, 'of Jewish tallage'. Calendar ofFine Rolls 1272-1307, 43: Brother Luke de Hemington and William de Middelton, 'deputed to levy a tallage assessed of late on the Jews of England', are to take security from [the Jew] Vives de Clare for the payment of his fine of ten besants on the quindene of Easter [28 April 1275], and of ?20 of the arrears of the 'tallage, last assessed upon him' (half of it due on the quindene of Easter next, half on the quindene ofMidsummer [8 July 1275] thereafter). They are to grant him this respite, as well as peace concerning 'his body and chattels on that account'. E 401/76 recto, centre column (M 1275) records the following payments 'of tallage' by Jews: fromMoses Babelard, 2 id; fromMoses son of Bella de Wilton, 8s 1 id and also ?6 13s 4d. E 401/77, m. 6r (M 1275) notes, under a Lincoln rubric, 40s from Leo son of Benjamin, of the debt of Peter son of Geoffrey; the money was paid in by Andrew Asketel (sic; cf. E 401/75), 'of tallage'.

205 Zefira Entin Rokeah

(Cf. Elman, based on 'KRE' [E ioi?]/24o/i8; E 9/33, m. 3d; E 401/1568, 1569, 1570, 1571, 1573.)

/500 mark tallage ofMichaelmas, 1276? C 62/52, m. 4r (1275-6): pay Philip de Wileghby 10 marks for his expenses in making a scrutiny of the London archa with Ralph de Broghton, and for Philip's scrutiny of writings at Thornton' Abbey about Holdernesse lands. This entry, dated 3 August 1276, is deleted by cross-hatching, as the payment order was returned and payment made by Luke de Lucca. (CPR 1276, 168, has an entry of 13 November 1276 authorizing Luke de Luka and his associates to pay Philip de Wileby 10 marks for his expenses concerning the London archa scrutiny and the examination of writings inThorneton Abbey inHoldernesse.) E 403/1238, m. ir (P 1276) notes in an order of 25 June 1276 thatRalph de Brouhton' was to be paid 6 marks for his expenses in examining the London archa. C 62/52, m. 4r (1275-6) says that the sheriffs of London were to be credited for 5 marks they gave Ralph de Brougthon' for his expenses related to some business (negocia) about the Jewry; the order is dated 8 August 1276. C 62/ 53, m. 4r (1276-7) says that the sheriffs of London were to be credited in their account for 100s (i.e., 20s more than 6 marks) that they gave Ralph de Broghton', sent recently tomake a scrutiny of the London Jews' archa', thiswas to cover his expenses inmaking the scrutiny as well as in dealing with various matters about which the king had previously given him orders. The order is dated on 25 May (apparently 1277). C 62/52, m. 4r (1275-6) says that the sheriff of Oxon-Berks was to receive credit for 100s he had paid to Robert de Ludham for his andWilliam Gereberd's expenses in connection with making a scrutiny of the archae of Winchester, Oxford, Wilton and Devizes; the entry is dated 1 September (1276). C 62/53, m. 6r (1276-7) notes that the sheriffof Norfolk should receive credit for 10marks he gave to Robert de Ludeham, justice of the Jews, for his expenses in making a scrutiny of the London archa and a liquidation of the debts (puramentum debitorum) of the said (London) Jews in that archa. The order is dated 9 February 1277. C 62/53, m. 7r (1276-7) records that the sheriff ofWiltshire should receive credit for 100s paid toWilliam Gereberd' who was assigned recently to open the archae of various (Jewish) communities and make a full scrutiny of them, for his expenses in this connection and for the time he was the king's inquisitor in Hampshire and Wiltshire. The order is dated 4 February (1277). C 62/53, m. 3r directs that Bartholomew de Castello, keeper of the mints of London and Canterbury, was to receive credit, interalia, for 5 marks that he had givenWilliam de Middelton, keeper of the rolls inBanco (court of common pleas), for his expenses in assessing tallage on the Jews of the realm as the king had ordered him to do. (The order is of 2 June 1277.) The same roll directs (m. ir)

206 A Hospitaller and the Jews

thatHugh de Digneneton' was to receive credit in his account of the collection of the chevage of the king's Jewry for?10 worth of expenses incurred in connec? tion with the collection of the said chevage, unless he had received credit for it earlier. (The order is of 16 October 1277.) C 62/54, m. 2r (1277-8) says thatHugh de Digneneton' was to receive credit for the ?40 he paid on 31 January (1278) of the chevage of the Jews to the keeper of the wardrobe, Thomas Bek'; the entry is dated 1 February 1278. E 352/72, rot. i8d (1278-9), in thewardrobe account for 1277-8 rendered by Master Thomas Bek', also records the receipt of ?40 of the 'chevage of the Jews' fromHugh de Dyngyeneton'. (Cf. Elman, based on CCIR 1272-9, 264, 265, 308, 317; E 9/26, rot. 4r; E 401/1572.)

Tallage of 5 Edward 7, 1276-7 E 352/70 (1276-7), in the account of Giles de Audenard of operations at the - Tower of London, December 1276 17 April 1278: the community of the Jews of London paid ?46 3s 4d of a fine of ?50 so as not to be impleaded before the justices last in eyre at theTower (1276); ?1590 16s 5d was received of the tallage of 3000 marks assessed on the entire community of the Jews of England in year 5 [Edward I; 1276-7]. Calendar of theFine Rolls 1272-1307, 66-7: records the ?10 fine of the Jews of London, and the ?40 fine of all the Jews, both of them in connection with the eyre held at the Tower (1276). (Dated [21/2/1276]; 2/3/1276, respectively.) Calendar of the Fine Rolls 1272-1307, 72: The sheriff of Oxford is to take security from Isaac Palet [sic, for 'Polet'/'Pulet'], Jew of Oxford, to pay (on 13 October 1276) ?26, his share of the tallage of ?1000 'assessed last on the Jews'; the sheriff is also to relax the distraint imposed upon him for this. (Dated 15 September 1276.)

207