MY lecture this evening commences with the history of the Jews in
this country, during the reign of King John――the reign of one who
has acquired an unenviable notoriety in the political history of this
country――one who is well known as a disobedient son, an unnatural
brother, and a savage monarch――one who disregarded the rights of all
men――one, in short, who trampled under foot all laws, both Divine and
human.
What could the Jews expect from such a character? The natural effect
of the cruelties to which they had been subjected during the last reign,
under Richard Cœur de-Lion――who, though generous, was yet rash and
romantic, which was the cause of their very great sufferings――I say,
the natural effect would have been to deter them from attempting to
accumulate any more wealth in this country; and it was to be apprehended
that on the accession of such an unprincipled man to the throne, and the
semi-barbarian state of the then people of England, who were continually
quarrelling with each other, and were ready at all times to plunge the
sword or the lance into the breasts of each other: the Jews, under such
circumstances, instead of resorting to England, as holding out to them
inducements for the acquirement of riches, might have been expected to
have quitted this island altogether. It was well put into the mouth of
a Jewish maiden of that age, “Such is no safe abode for the children of
Israel. Ephraim is an heartless dove――Issachar an over-laboured drudge,
which stoops between two burdens. Not in a land of war and blood,
surrounded by hostile neighbours, and distracted by internal factions,
can Israel hope to rest during her wanderings.” It was to be apprehended
that they would have betaken themselves to Spain, where their brethren
were just then highly honoured, and enjoyed great favour at the Spanish
courts.¹ But John was an artful man as well as a wicked one.
¹ See Appendix A.
The law which his brother Richard enacted, relative to the Exchequer
of the Jews, permitted the king to exercise unlimited power over the
properties of the Jews. This circumstance afforded him great facilities
for obtaining supplies to a large amount, upon any emergency. John
wanted money continually in consequence of his incessant disagreements
with his people. He saw it necessary, therefore, to devise some measure
which would have the effect of allaying the fears of the Jews; and
therefore began his reign with pretended kindness towards them, holding
out to their view the expectation of greater security in future.
Accordingly, King John, in the first year of his reign, to show the
Jews that they would not be molested by reason of any antipathies which
he entertained towards them on account of their creed, granted them
permission to nominate a person to the office of chief Rabbi of England,
and confirmed the appointment by the following charter:――“The king to
all his faithful, both to all the Jews and English, greeting. Be it
known, that we have granted, and by our present charter confirmed, to
Jacob the Jew, of London, Presbyter of the Jews, the jurisdiction of all
the Jews throughout all England. To be had and to be held by him during
his life-time, freely and quietly, honourably and entirely, so that no
one may presume to molest or trouble him in any way. We wish, therefore,
and firmly command, that the same Jacob, Presbyter of the Jews of all
England, may live secure, shielded, and peaceably defended. And if any
one shall presume to impeach him on that account, that without delay
you cause amends to be made (our interference to be procured for our
protection), as also for our Dominican Jews, whom we keep in our special
service. We also prohibit any plea to be entered in, concerning any
thing that belongs to him, unless before us, or before our chief justice,
as it is appointed by our brother Richard.”¹
¹ See Appendix B.
Highly flattering as this appointment must have been to the Jews, the
king complimented them still more by granting Jacob, who was their first
chief Rabbi, a charter of safe conduct through his dominions, honouring
him in the record with the highest terms of love and respect, and
commanding all his subjects to regard his person with the same reverence
and affection as they were bound by their allegiance to pay to the king
himself.
As this was the first time that the Jewish nation was so honourably
mentioned, and so carefully protected, it may not be unacceptable to
hear the whole charter. The original is a mixture of Latin, Saxon, and
French.
“John by the grace of God, &c. To all his faithful subjects, to whom
these letters shall come, as well beyond as on this side the sea. You
are commanded and enjoined, that through whatever village or place, our
well beloved and intimate Jacob the Presbyter of the Jews may pass, that
you allow him and everything belonging to him to pass safely and freely,
and that you make him comfortable; and that you do not suffer any injury,
trouble, or violence, to be offered to him any more than to ourselves;
and if any one should presume to injure him in any wise, that you cause
redress to be made without delay.”¹
¹ See Appendix C.
In furtherance of the same purpose of conciliation, the king, also, in
the second year of his reign, granted two other important charters; the
one extended to the Jews of Normandy, as well as to those of England,
the other was confined to England alone. By these charters it was,
amongst other things, granted to the Jews, that they might live freely
and honourably within the king’s dominions, and hold lands and have all
their privileges and customs, as quietly and honourably as they had,
in the time of Henry I.; that if a Jew died, the king would not disturb
his possessions, provided he left behind him an heir who could answer
his debts and forfeitures; that they should be at liberty to go where
they would, with all their chattels and effects, without restraint or
hindrance. Certain regulations were also prescribed for the adjustment
of any differences which might arise between the Jews themselves, or
with Christians; as between themselves, all disputes were to be settled
according to their _own_ laws; if any Christian had a plaint against
a Jew, it was not to be tried in the ordinary manner, but by a jury of
Jews, and before particular judges, as will be seen by the following
literal translation of the same great charter of the Jews.
“John by the grace of God, &c. Be it known that we have granted to
all the Jews of England and Normandy to have a residence freely and
honourably in our land, and they are to hold all things of us, which
they held of King Henry, our great-grandfather; and all those things
which they now lawfully hold in land, bonds, and mortgages, and their
chattels. That they may have all the liberties and customs which they
had in the time of the said Henry, the grandfather of our father, in a
better and more quiet and more honourable manner. And if complaint shall
arise between a Christian and a Jew, let him who shall have appealed
against the other, produce witnesses to substantiate his plaint, viz.,
a lawful Christian and a lawful Jew. And if a Jew shall have a writ
concerning his plaint, his own writ shall be his witness. And if a
Christian shall have a plaint against a Jew, the plaint shall be tried
by the Jew’s peers. And when a Jew dies, his body shall not be detained
above the ground; and let his heirs have his money and his debts, so
that he be not disturbed thence, that is to say, if he have an heir that
would be responsible for him, and do justice as touching his debts and
forfeitures. And let it be lawful for Jews to buy every thing offered
to them and to receive them, except such things as belong to the Church,
and crimson cloth. If a Jew be summoned by any one without a witness,
let him be free from such a summons by his single oath taken upon his
book; and if he be summoned concerning things which belong to the crown,
let him likewise be free by his single oath taken on his roll. If a
difference arise between a Christian and a Jew about the lending of
money, the Jew should prove the capital, and the Christian the interest;
that a Jew may lawfully and quietly sell a mortgage made to him, when he
is certain that he held it a whole year and a day; that the Jew should
not be entered into any plea, except before us, or before the keepers
of our castles, in whose bailiwicks the Jews resided. That the Jews,
wherever they are, may go whither they please, with their chattels, as
if they were our own chattels, nor may any man detain or hinder them.
And we ordain that they should be free throughout England and Normandy,
of all customs, tolls, and modiations of wines, just as much as our own
chattels are. And we command and order you to keep, defend, and protect
them; and we prohibit any one from impleading them in opposition to this
charter touching the things mentioned above, under pain of forfeiture,
as the charter of our father, King Henry the Second, did reasonably
command.”¹
¹ See Appendix D.
And as a particular encouragement to the English Jews, he granted,
moreover, by another charter, dated the same day, that all differences
among themselves, which did not concern the pleas of the crown, should
be heard and determined by their Rabbies, according to their own law: a
privilege which must have been of great importance to them, as the Jews
consider it strictly unlawful to go to judgment before Gentiles.
In return for these charters, the Jews paid the sum of 4,000 marks.
The Jews, encouraged by such extraordinary marks of respect and
kindness, fancied once more that they had found in England a home; and
great numbers began to come over from the Continent. The royal favour,
however, tended to excite the envy of their Gentile neighbours, who
began to accuse them again of various crimes, as crucifying children,
and falsifying the coin, &c.
In the fourth year of this reign, a Jew, of Bedford, Bonefand by name,
was indicted for a crime of a very incredible nature; which alleged
crime, however, could not be proved, and the Jew was, therefore,
honourably acquitted.¹
¹ See Appendix E.
In the fifth year of this reign, the Jews were subjected to many ill
treatments and indignities from the citizens of London; but the king
still continued to show a desire of affording the Jews protection. They
petitioned him to interfere his authority, and obtain them security from
a recurrence of like grievances: whereupon he immediately wrote a sharp
letter to the mayor and barons of London, in which he told them that,
“as they knew the Jews were under his special protection, he wondered
that any ill had been suffered to come upon them;” and after committing
the Jews to their guard and protection, concluded with saying, that if
any fresh injuries should be allowed to befall them, he should require
their blood at the hands of the citizens.¹
¹ See Appendix F.
These measures of conciliation had the desired effect: the Jews, placing
reliance in the protection thus offered them by the king, again applied
themselves, with full confidence, to the acquirement of property; and
before ten years of this reign had passed away, their increasing wealth
rendered them capable of affording a rich harvest to the crown. When the
fickle tyrant found that this was the case, he did not any longer keep
the mask of kindness on his face: he began to throw aside the disguise
he had assumed, and by every means which lay in his power endeavoured
to reap the advantages which his policy had placed within his grasp. It
evidently appears that the reason he lavished so many privileges upon
them, was for the diabolical purpose of alluring them into his power,
that he might plunder and oppress them at pleasure. It was aptly said by
a French historian, that the Jews were used like sponges――allowed for a
time to suck up a large amount of wealth, which was wrung out into the
coffers of the crown.
In the year 1210, he laid a tallage upon the Jews, of 66,000 marks, and
enforced payment by imprisonment, and by the infliction of various modes
of bodily torture. He commanded all the Jews of both sexes throughout
England to be imprisoned, till they would make a discovery of their
wealth, which he appointed officers to receive in every county, and
return to his exchequer. The generality of them had one eye put out. One
Jew of Bristol, who hesitated to pay the sum at which he was assessed
(no less than 10,300 marks of silver) is stated to have been condemned
to the cruelty of having one of his teeth torn from his head each
day, until he had discharged his quota. For seven days he submitted
to the torture: on the eighth day, having lost all his teeth but one,
he produced the amount demanded of him. Both these facts are briefly
noticed in the chronological table of Valentine’s Hebrew and English
Almanack.
The many wars King John was engaged in about that time, pressed him very
hard for money. He not only waged war against France, Ireland, and Wales,
but also against his own barons. Money was indispensable, and the poor
Jews were the sufferers.
The next year a further tallage was levied, in respect of which one
Jew alone paid 5,500 marks. In the sixteenth year of his reign, John
imposed another heavy tax, and compelled its payment by imprisonment and
other measures of violence. Some of the Jews of Southampton were rather
backward in their payments; they were ordered to be imprisoned and sent
to the castle at Bristol.
Besides the sums which were thus raised upon the Jews by means of
taxes affecting their whole community, the king derived considerable
advantages from appropriating the property of individuals amongst them.
Was he desirous of making a handsome wedding-gift to any one? he did so
by sending the favoured party a full receipt of all the debts owed to
the poor Jew, as was the case with a certain Robert.¹ In some instances
he would seize upon their houses, and grant them away to other persons,
as was the case with Isaac of Norwich, who had a house in London,
which the king without ceremony presented to the Earl of Ferrars.² But
the mode which he more generally adopted to turn their acquisitions
to account, was to enter into agreements and compromises with their
debtors――either releasing in full the sum which was due, or discharging
the interest payable upon the amount.
¹ See Appendix G.
² See Appendix H.
It would appear, that the right which the king thus assumed of treating
the debts due to the Jews as his own, although it brought considerable
advantage to the crown, was found, in some instances, to be grievous
in its effects to the people in general; it placed all persons who were
under engagements to the Jews, in the same situation as the debtors to
the king, and thereby subjected them to liabilities much more extensive
than those to which, in common cases, they would have been exposed. When,
therefore, the barons forced from King John the great charter of liberty,
they included in it two several clauses, which had for their object
the regulation of the claims in respect to these debts, and the twelfth
clause of Magna Charta declares――“If any one have borrowed anything of
the Jews, more or less, and dies before the debt be satisfied, there
shall be no interest paid for that debt, so long as the heir is under
age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we
will take only the chattel mentioned in the charter or instrument.” The
thirteenth clause further declares, that “If any one shall be indebted
to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower, and pay nothing for the
debt; and if the deceased leave children under age, they shall have
necessaries provided for them, according to the tenement of the deceased,
and out of the residue the debts shall be paid, saving, however, the
service of the Lord.”¹
¹ See Appendix I.
The barons, who had assembled with the view of compelling the king to
grant this charter, collected part of their forces in London; and whilst
they remained there, imitated the king’s conduct, and broke into the
residences of the Jews, and pillaged them of whatever valuables they
could find; and then, pulling down the houses, carried the stones of
which they were built, and used them for the purpose of repairing the
walls of the city. About two hundred and sixty years ago, when Ludgate
was rebuilt and enlarged, a very large stone was discovered, with the
following Hebrew inscription――מצב ר׳ משה בן הרב ר׳ יצחק ח׳ ו׳――“The tombstone of
Rabbi Moses, the son of the Rabbi Isaac the wise and learned.”¹
¹ The absurd criticism of Dr. Tovey on the above epitaph
has been already refuted by Dr. Jost. See _Geschichte der
Israeliten_, vol. vii., p. 405.
There were some, however, in this reign who were interested in the
spiritual welfare of the poor persecuted Jews. The king himself was
indeed an infidel,¹ and cared for no religion, and loved no God but the
god of money, and therefore cared for nothing but the treasure of the
Jews. There was, however, a prior, Richard by name, of Bermondsey, who,
A.D. 1213, built a house for the reception of Christian Jews, and called
the building “The Hospital of Converts.” The prior did it in honour to
St. Thomas.²
¹ See Appendix K.
² It appears that there was an institution of that kind much
earlier in the city of Oxford. See Wood’s History of the
University of Oxford.
The last act of King John towards the Jews was to employ them in
a barbarous deed, to execute which he could not compel any of his
Christian subjects. Having taken prisoners a great part of the Scotch
army at Berwick, who assisted the barons, he determined to inflict such
a variety of cruel and inhuman tortures upon them, that he could find
none except the Jews whose obedience he was able to command. The Jews in
the neighbourhood were, therefore, reluctantly obliged to become their
executioners. It is not to be supposed that the Jews lamented much his
decease, since even a modern Jew can yet exclaim, at the mention of his
name, “Thank God that there was only one King John!”
When Henry the Third succeeded to the throne, he was only nine years
old; and owing to the impious and arbitrary conduct of the late king,
the country was in a state of general turbulence and discontent. It was
therefore fortunate for the Jews, in common with the nation at large,
that the administration of affairs, in the early years of this reign,
fell successively into the hands of men of distinguished ability and
virtue. The Earl of Pembroke, whilst by his talents and vigour he
reduced the disaffected to respect the power of the crown, reconciled
all ranks of men to his authority, by the equity and impartiality of
his measures. As soon as he entered on his exalted office, as guardian
to the youthful king, he adopted measures for the special relief and
protection of the poor persecuted Jews. Many individuals amongst them
were exonerated from burdens which had been previously imposed upon them;
and numbers were immediately liberated from imprisonments, to which,
upon various pretences, they had under the late king been condemned.
Writs and letters patent were issued, directed to the principal
burgesses of each of the towns where the Jews resided, viz., London,
Lincoln, York, Hereford, Worcester, Stamford, Bristol, Northampton,
Southampton, Winchester, Gloucester, Warwick, and Oxford, in all which
places great numbers of the Jews resided, commanding that they should
be held secure from any injuries, either to their persons or to their
properties; and particularly that they should be guarded against any
violence from the hands of the crusaders. In addition to these measures,
a confirmation of the charter they had obtained in the beginning of
the late reign was granted, by the terms of which it will be remembered
that most important privileges were granted them, and their estates
and persons were shielded from violence. At the same time with this
confirmation of their former charter, the Jews were further exempted
from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts; and, to secure them
a more strict administration of justice, the judges who in the late
reign had presided over their affairs in the exchequer, and who had
shown themselves unworthy of their trust, were removed from their
office, and persons of character appointed in their place. Hubert de
Burgh, who, upon the death of the Earl of Pembroke succeeded him in the
chief direction of the government, was little inferior to him in the
wisdom and probity of his conduct. During the fifteen years that these
ministers continued in power, no instances are recorded of any acts
of violence having been offered to Jews; but we are, on the contrary,
informed that many unlooked for privileges were lavished upon them. In
conjunction with these measures, the sheriffs of the different places,
where the Jews resided, were directed to require that the Jews should
distinguish themselves by wearing, on all occasions, a particular mark
upon their clothes. The mark was to be attached to their upper garment,
and was to consist of two white tablets of linen or parchment, and
to be affixed to their breasts. Some historians wish to persuade us,
that although this order bore the appearance of being of a nature at
once degrading and oppressive, it had nevertheless been dictated by no
unkindly intention. And it has been remarked, that by making the Jews
thus plainly known from other persons, any one who offended against the
directions given for their protection, would be deprived of the excuse
they might otherwise have made, of being ignorant of their persons. This
certainly sounds plausible; but a critical reader of history will at
once discover that such a reason is a mere gloss. The real reason for
the enactment of that strange order seems to be, that the Jews should
be discernible in the eyes of the king, in order that when he wanted
money he should know where to find it without great search; for we are
informed by Dr. Tovey, that “the next year [of Henry’s reign], the king
being informed of his council that great profit would arise from the
Jews if they were kindly dealt with, sent forth the following writs
to the respective sheriffs and officers, commanding them to elect
twenty-four burgesses out of every town where the Jews resided in any
number, to watch carefully over them that they received no injury, and
particularly guard them against the insults of Jerusalem Pilgrims.” So
that, to my mind, it appears that the government after all watched more
jealously their purses than their persons!
However, the protection which was thus extended to them again inspired
them with confidence: those who had survived the oppressions of the last
reign began afresh to accumulate wealth; and numbers of their nation
were induced to come over from the Continent, and settle in this country.
The new comers were at first treated with violence by the wardens of
the cinque ports where they landed. They were thrown into prison, and
pillaged of their effects. For though the policy of the government
towards the Jews had changed, the hatred and cupidity of the people in
general remained unabated. When, however, information was given at court
of the circumstance, relief was quickly afforded. Writs were issued to
the officers of the different ports, commanding that such Jews as had
been imprisoned should be set at liberty, and be allowed to live freely
and without restraint, upon consenting to enter their names upon the
Rolls of the Justices of the Jews, _and not to depart the country again
without permission!¹_
¹ See Appendix L.
The clergy, it would seem, took umbrage at the privileges which the
Jews enjoyed, and resolved to attempt, by an exercise of ecclesiastical
authority, to overbear the effects of the protection which had been
afforded by the measures of government. Stephen Langton, Archbishop
of Canterbury, in conjunction with Hugo de Velles, Bishop of Lincoln,
published a general prohibition, by which all persons were forbidden
to buy anything of the Jews, or to sell them any victuals or other
necessaries, or to have any communication with them; declaring, at the
same time, that they were persons, who, by the laws of the Church, were
excommunicated for their infidelity and usury. Indeed the ecclesiastics
had more cause to be jealous of them then than at any subsequent periods.
The Jews were then a more accomplished and enlightened race, than
centuries of feudal oppression had made them four or five hundred years
later. Benjamin of Tudela, the great Jewish traveller of the preceding
century, informs us, that every association of Jews in the more
important cities of Europe, had its college, or seminary, for training
men learned in their law: whilst on the other hand, Christians were
then groping in the darkness of superstition and ignorance. The laity,
and even the priesthood, were then, in point of enlightenment, as
far inferior to their descendants four hundred years later, as the
Jews were superior to theirs. In England, the balance of learning and
accomplishments decidedly preponderated in favour of the Jews, as I have
shown in the lecture before last.¹ There was a difference, too, in the
relative holds of the two religions upon the minds of their votaries.
Both rested upon one common basis――the Old Testament. The faith which
spiritualises the types and forms of that sacred volume was then
comparatively new in the island; many of its inhabitants had been pagans
only two or three centuries before, and were yet wavering in their faith.
On the other hand, the Jews were stronger in faith then than they are
now. The Jews were then a proselytising race: now they no more seek to
make converts than the Society of Friends. All which tended to excite
emulation on the part of the Church.²
¹ See p. 109.
² See Knight’s London.
Stephen Langton issued, therefore, the following edict respecting the
Jews, at his provincial synod:――
“That the Jews do not keep Christian servants: and let the servants be
compelled by ecclesiastical censure to observe this, and the Jews by
canonical punishment, or by some extraordinary penalty contrived by the
diocesans. Let them not be permitted to build any more synagogues, but
be looked upon as debtors to the churches of the parishes wherein they
reside, as to tithes and offerings.
“To prevent likewise the mixture of Jewish men and women with Christians
of each sex, we charge by authority of the general council, that the
Jews of both sexes wear a linen cloth, two inches broad and four fingers
long, of a different colour from their own clothes, on their upper
garment, before their breast; and that they be compelled to do this by
ecclesiastical censure. _And let them not presume to enter into any
church._”
Alas, how little solicitous was the Christian Church in the middle ages
to bring the Jews to a knowledge of the truth! The above edict virtually
acknowledges the friendly disposition which pervaded the breasts of the
Jewish people towards their Christian neighbours; nay more, it virtually
maintains that the Jews desired to visit Christian places of worship,
but were forced back by Christian bishops.
The Jews appealed to the crown for protection, and obtained relief.
Directions were sent to the sheriffs of the different counties and
cities, to prevent the prohibitions being enforced; and orders were
given to imprison all persons who, by reason of the commands of the
Church, refused to sell provisions to the Jews.¹ This edict of the
Church was published in the seventh year of this reign.
¹ See Appendix M.
In the annals of the succeeding seven years, no mention is made of
the Jews, and we may therefore conclude that during that period they
were permitted to live free from persecution. They experienced marks
of liberality even from some of the clergy. We know an instance in
the conduct of the prior of Dunstable, who granted several of them
permission to reside within his jurisdiction, and to enjoy all the
privileges in common with the Gentiles, for the annual payment of
two silver spoons, each of which was to weigh twelve pennyweights.¹
Unfortunately for them, as well as for the nation in general, the
conduct of public affairs assumed a different aspect; it was after
that time taken out of the hands of Hubert de Burgh, who till then
had continued in power, and was placed under the control of men whose
principles and motives were entirely opposite to those of that minister.
From henceforth the Jews, in place of the security they had previously
enjoyed, were subjected to continued violence and arbitrary exaction.
¹ See Appendix N.
The English subjects began to murmur that too much favour had been shown
to the Jews, and consequently charged the king with indifference towards
the Christian religion. The king therefore, wishing to convince them
that he was zealous for Christianity, and thereby quiet the turbulent
minds of his subjects, determined to seize upon the whole effects of any
Jewish convert to Christianity.¹ It is a pleasing consideration, however,
that in spite of such a cruel and anti-Christian conduct, there were
some Jews of some celebrity in this country who hazarded every thing for
the sake of truth. We have an instance in a Jew of Canterbury, Augustin
by name, who about that time embraced Christianity. And the monkish
historians relate as an act of great kindness on the part of Henry, that
he was _actually_ graciously pleased to give him his house again to live
in, notwithstanding that he was converted.²
¹ A most impious custom practised by a great many Christian
monarchs of that period, who justified their infamous conduct
by a reference to Jesus’ command to the young ruler.
² See Appendix O.
The change of feeling on the part of the government towards them, was
first manifested in the fourteenth year of this reign. In this year they
were compelled to give up a third part of their moveables to the crown.
Immediately after the imposition of this tax, the Jews in London were
subjected to another unexpected act of injustice and oppression. By
permission of the king, they had lately completed a synagogue, upon a
scale of great magnificence, which surpassed all the Christian churches
in architectural taste. No objection whatever was made to the work in
its progress; but as soon as it was finished, the king sent directions
to have it seized, and forthwith granted it to the brothers of St.
Anthony of Vienna, to be by them converted into a church. Dr. Jost, a
modern German Jewish historian, who has been often referred to during
these series of lectures, observes, “A folly into which all Jews at all
times suffered themselves to be misled by propitious circumstances; not
considering that this desire of vain self-exaltation stimulated jealousy,
and had the inevitable effect of bringing them down very low.”¹
¹ “_Eine Thorheit, zu welcher die meisten Juden zu allen
Zeiten sich durch gunstige Umstande verleiten liessen, nicht
bedenkend, dass dieses auf Eitelkeit beruhende Sich-Erheben
den Neid erwecken und zu ihrem tiefem Sinken Anlass geben
musse._”――Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. vii., p. 140.
About this time an Armenian bishop arrived in this country with letters
from the pope, in order to see some curious relics; and among other
things which he stated――for the truth of which I cannot vouch――he
related the extraordinary circumstance about the Wandering Jew; and as
at this time the old man is very much talked of, and you see in many
windows in large characters THE WANDERING JEW, I will just give you the
description the prelate gave of him, as it is recorded by Matthew Paris,
a contemporary monkish historian. He tells us seriously that “several
persons examined him about this wonderful Jew, and that the prelate
gave them his word that he was then living in Armenia; and an officer
of his retinue who came along with him, informed the examiners more
particularly, that this Jew had formerly been porter to Pontius Pilate,
and was called Cataphilus; and that standing by when our Saviour was
dragged out of the Judgment hall, he smote him upon the back: at which
Jesus being offended, turned about and said to him, ‘The Son of Man
will go, but thou shalt stay till he come again.’ That afterwards he was
converted to the Christian faith, baptized, and called Joseph, living to
be an hundred years old. But then growing sick and impotent, he fell one
day into a swoon; upon coming out of which he found himself young again,
and as vigorous as a man of thirty the age he was of when Christ was
crucified. The same officer assured them that his master was intimately
acquainted with this strange person, and dined with him not long before
he came into England; that he himself had seen him several times; that
he was a man of great seriousness and gravity, never laughing when
any questions were put to him concerning ancient history, such as the
resurrection of the dead bodies that came out of their sepulchres at the
time of the crucifixion, the apostles’ creed, and other circumstances
relating to those holy persons; that he was very fearful of Christ’s
coming to judge the world, for then he said he was to die; and that
he trembled whenever he called to mind the grievous crime of smiting
the Son of God, yet hoped for salvation, because it was a sin of
ignorance.”¹ A most fit person for examining old relics.
¹ A different account of a Wandering Jew was announced about
five centuries later, which I shall notice in the second
series.
From this time scarce a year was allowed to pass without taxes to a
grievous amount being exacted. In the seventeenth year of this reign,
the king manifested great zeal for the Christian religion, by taxing the
Jews again to the amount of 18,000 marks of silver.
These taxes were enforced by imprisonment, by seizing the property
and possessions of the Jews, and by taking from them their wives
and children; and punctuality of payment was secured by obliging the
richest of their community to become sureties for the rest, under
similar penalties. In addition to these tallages, extending to the
whole community of the Jews, the title which the crown claimed to their
property was continually enforced against individuals; and on every
succession of property they were constrained to pay fines, often most
exorbitant in amount, to the king, for permission to take possession of
it.
However, the king was seized with a charitable fit this year, and
erected an institution for Jewish converts. The reason of that fit was,
to deliver his father’s soul from the flames of purgatory. Conscious,
as it were, that his father, by his cruel conduct towards the Jews,
deserved a larger share of punishment than any king before him: Henry
thought perhaps doing something for Jews would quench the purgatorial
fire a little. Most important was and is the existence of such an
institution or institutions, since the Jew who was convinced of the
truth of Christianity, experienced at the same time the loss of all
things besides.